Loading...
04-24-1996 Council MinutesAPPROVS]) BY ~~lI~ CI~Y COUNCIL UN MA~ 14, 199b. ORANGE, CALIFORNIA April 24, 1996 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on April 24, 1996 at 4:30 P.M. in an Adjourned Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 4:30 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING 1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 1.2 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT - Barrera Councilman Barrera entered the meeting at 4:45 p.m.)1.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 1.4 PRESENTA TIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS - None 1.5 PROCLAMATIONS - None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council agenda of an adjourned regular meeting of April 24, 1996 at Orange Civic Center, Main Library,Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board and summarized on Cablevision of Orange; all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of said adjourned regular meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the Office of the City Clerk.MOTION - Murp~y SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT - Barrera Moved to approve Item 2.1. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ - None 4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None PAGEl CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7.REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER Tape 90 7.1 Report on the County of Orange's Bankruptcy Plan of Adjustment and consideration by the Council to vote in favor or opposition to the Plan. (C2500.F)Continued from April 23, 1996 Council Meeting)MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Coontz Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Barrera Moved to approve all classes of claims covered by the Joint Agreement and authorized the City Manager to vote as appropriate on claims not covered by the Joint Agreement.8. LEGAL AFFAIRS - None 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS Tape 224 9.1 APPEAL NO. 431, URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES, COMPANY, C/O GEORGE MffiLSTEN, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 6-96, PROJECT APPLICANT: THE MILLS CORPORATION (A4000.0 APP-431) Time set for a public hearing on petition by Urban Retail Properties Company to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to approve Major Site Plan Review 6-96, and to certifY Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 1497- 96 as satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), thereby allowing the demolition and re-construction of The City Shopping Center. The City Shopping Center is located west of The City Drive, just north of the 55 Freeway.The Manager of Current Planning presented an overview of the project. The project applicant has requested Major Site Plan Review approval of the proposed redevelopment of The City Shopping Center complex. The City Shopping Center complex contains a large number of buildings on site.He presented a brief orientation of the subject site by referring to an aerial map. The City Shopping Mall is approximately 640,000 sq. ft. and was built in 1970. The site comprises 86 acres and currently contains the following land uses and/or structures: an adjoining low-rise financial center at the south end of the mall; a twenty story First Interstate Bank building, and seven out parcels along the easterly side of the property, which includes the EI Torito and TGI Fridays Restaurants. There are two vacant parcels along The City Drive. The Firestone building is just south of Metropolitan Drive which is comprised of two parcels. Located on the west side are three small buildings including the Century Cinema complex. The existing mid-rise office buildings outside the westerly border include TRW, the Tishman Tower and the Doubletree Hotel, which are not included in the site area. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The proposed development is to demolish some of the structures and reconstruct the maIlcomplex. The structures to be demolished include the The City Shopping Mall, the adjoiningfinancialcenterandFirestonetirebuilding, which total approximately 812 square feet. Thesestructureswouldbereplacedwithanewhigh-end value-oriented mallincludingseveralrestaurantsanda30-screen movie complex, totaling approximately 771,000 squarefeet, which is approximately 41,000 square feet less than currently exists. The difference inspacewillbeutilizedfor parking and landscaping.The reconstruction of The City Shopping Center would be in four phases. PhaseIwouldincludethedemolitionofthesouthwestportionofthecenter, immediately north oftheFirstInterstateBankTower, which could commence as early as the next month or two and isscheduledtobecompletedbythisfall. The second phase would include removal of the remainingportionsofthemaIlandthelow-rise financial center and is anticipated to take 4 to 6monthstocomplete. The third phase would include demolition of outbuildings, and the fourth phasewouldconsistofanyotherremaining clean-up of the site.The applicant proposes to retain primary access to the center fromTheCityDrive. The two existing entry drives would be supplemented by a third signalizedentryattheexistingintersectionofJusticeWayandTheCityDrive. On-site circulation wouldconsistofa circular access road around the center.The proposed project meets all applicable developmentstandardsincludingtheCity's parking requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the projectattheirmeetingofMarch18th,and upon receiving all public input, the PlanningCommissionapprovedMajorSitePlanReview6-96 and certified the Mitigated Negative DeclarationasmeetingalltherequirementsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct. ThePlanningCommission's decision included adoption of 54 conditions of which 25 are mitigation measures.MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING:Dwayne Mears, 1300 Dove Street, NewportBeach, representing the Planning Center, referred to material presented to the Council, as well as comments and responses to the Initial Study.Note: Refer to The City Center Mills - Major SitePlanReview6-96 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96 on file in the City Clerk's office.Mr. Mears indicated that when they firstbeganworkingontheproject, an Environmental Impact Report was being prepared. At that timetheprojectinvolvedasignificantexpansionovertheexistinguse. The total square footage would have been1.5 million square feet. Earlier this year,the Mills Corporation changed direction and withdrew the1.5 million square foot project. In its place, a new project was submitted to replace the existing center.The project was looked at in terms ofenvironmentalimpactsandtrafficanalysis. The first task was to determine if the project wouldgenerateadditionaltripscomparedtotheexistingcenter.The function of the Initial Study is to review all CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mr. Foust said the parking requirements are consistent with the City code, and are adequate for the project. Additionally, the City of Orange, in their General Plan, used a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane per hour, however, it was recently changed to correspond with the Orange County Congestion Management Plan of 1700 vehicles per lane per hour. He stated his firm used the 1700 vehicles per lane per hour figure upon consulting with staff, which is an approximate 6% difference from the General Plan guidelines, which would change the entire baseline. The existing conditions and the levels of service would drop 6%. By adding that 6% to the existing traffic and to the existing traffic plus project, the difference would be the same. Jim Arnone, 633 W. Fifth Street, Ste. 4000, Los Angeles, attorney for the Law Firm of Latham & Watkins and representing Urban Retail Properties, referred to his recent submittal to Council and summarized comments which had been made before the Planning Commission. He spoke relative to reports from environmental consultants Jones and Stokes, and traffic consultants, Korve Engineering. He indicated that both firms were asked to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and both found serious shortcomings in the document that made it fail to comply with the requirements ofCEQA. He said new information had not been analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and although he had not yet reviewed those comments, they were not submitted and properly found by the Planning Commission, and should have been included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, if they are significant and important to the analysis. He commented on the inconsistent or erroneous baselines and their usage; referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, stating it sometimes uses the baseline of assuming an operating mall and sometimes uses the baseline of assuming a largely vacant mall; and said that environmental documents must look at the actual conditions. He said the baselines, under their current land use entitlements, would mean that the applicant would be reoccupying the mall as it currently exists, however, that is not what is being proposed. The proposal is to demolish the mall and rebuild a new mall, a very different project, which would require discretionary approval of the City. He spoke relative to the baseline response from the applicant that a categorical exemption to CEQA could apply. He indicated that this point is not in the MND and although he had not yet analyzed the particular exemption, it is safe to assume that if an exemption to CEQA applied, all this work would not have been prepared. He asked Council what they felt would be the effects of their decision if they decided to approve the project. He added that by looking at the mall as though it is fully operational, the effects are underestimated and understated. He said that the City's obligation is to comply with CEQA and the City has chosen to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration approach. Mr. Arnone addressed the air quality study and bulldozer emissions, reporting that under the AQMD threshold for nox emissions, there is a 100 lb. per day emission limit which is the standard threshold for significance. Under the MND, the project is to have total nox emissions of 99.63 Ibs. per day, which is 0.37 lbs. per day under the threshold. He indicated the applicant states the bulldozer will not emit nox, which he feels is a clear error, and that other optimistic assumptions are included in the MND which are not supportable, and would not comply with CEQA. He further commented that construction equipment needed for the project defies reason, in that only one bulldozer would be required, and would be used for seven hours a day, to demolish and rebuild the entire project. He said another assumption is that there would only be one dump truck Page 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) working seven hours a day to demolish and haul away debris, importing 170,000 cubic yards of fill dirt. He stated that experts estimated that 170,000 cubic yards offill dirt would represent approximately 10,000 truck trips. He commented that certain impacted intersections were not analyzed in the MND, indicating the normal process would be to consider the most impacted intersections, which also was not done in theMND. Mr. Arnone further reported that the MND states there is a significant impact or a potential significant impact to soil or groundwater, because of existing contamination conditions of the property; while ignoring to state that it will be mitigated, and referred to the Sundstrom case. He indicated that the MND states the project will increase noise levels and relies on the fact that the City of Orange does not have a noise ordinance, and therefore, there would not be a concern for noise. He said CEQA requires an analysis of environmental impacts, whether or not there is an existing noise ordinance. Mr. Arnone reported that when the Mills Project was originally proposed, the City's Fire Department responded in writing that the project would impact its level of service and that the service issue should be considered in the EIR. He commented that a vacant mall or largely vacant mall is proposed to be replaced with a new retail facility. This issue had not been analyzed relative to public services and the Fire Department's stated objections. He further commented that it is addressed briefly in the MND and he feels it again relies on the baseline argument. He asked a representative of the Mills Project to address the question of what is being counted when talking about the total area figures, stating that the current maIl is an enclosed mall, and the proposed mall is an open air mall. When referring to total square footage of the proposed project, are they referring to usable leasable space? With the existing mall, are they referring to the total enclosed area? Mayor Coontz recognized Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, who asked when the traffic count was taken? Mr. Foust responded that all intersections along The City Drive were counted in January and February of this year. The counts were taken on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursdays on intersections on The City "Drive as far north as State College to Katella, and Katella to the 57 Freeway. Some of the counts came from the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which were obtained from Caltrans. All traffic counts are less than one year old, and weekends, Mondays and Fridays were excluded. The traffic study was initiated approximately two years ago when the project was originally contemplated. Typical traffic patterns were studied, and 25 intersections were identified as having a potential impact on the project. He stated that critical intersections were not avoided, simply due to the fact that they may be problem intersections. The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Neal Giles, 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, Asset Manager for Metropolitan Life PageS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Joe Bann, 100 The City Drive, General Manager of the Doubletree Hotel Wayne Wedin, 761 Kimberly Ave, Placentia Jon Swallow, 57 Exeter, Irvine, representing Grubb & Ellis Company BilI Shubin, 30 Executive Park, Ste. 100, Irvine, representing Lincoln Property Company Elizabeth Link, 1 City Boulevard West, Suite 1700, representing the Mills Corporation, gave an overview of the project. The existing leasable area that exists on the site today is actually smaller than what is being proposed. The theater is one of the taIler buildings on the site, with great freeway visibility. The project will be a typical Mills Project, with higher end value tenants. Entertainment will comprise approximately 35% of the project. She reported that the landscaping will meet the City standards and that no variances are being asked for. Details of the project will be worked out with staff. She further indicated there is a high level of activity and interest in leasing, as some tenants are ready to signs deals now, and indicated they hope to close escrow in May. Ms. Link displayed pictures and described features of the project and the image the Mills Project is looking for. She reported that the tenants will be of a higher retail type, in an outlet fashion, i.e. Nordstrom Rack, Saks, or Neiman Marcus outlets, and that some of the retailers will have entertainment features about them. Dwayne Mears responded to Mr. Arnone's concern relative to missing emissions and the number of pieces of equipment used in the project. He stated very detailed information was obtained from the contractor hired to do the project. The Mills Project looked to the SCAQMD for guidance on air quality studies. He reported a mitigation measure was added that the contractor must satisfY the threshold the SCAQMD has set. He further commented that what matters is how long equipment can work on the site and how much work has to be done by the contractor. He commented that the project has 99.63 lbs emissions and the air district requires a 100 lb. emission limit per day. A tremendous effort was made by the applicant to stay below the threshold, as the applicant was willing to phase the project to minimize impacts on a daily basis. He further reported that it was further determined that noise impact, soil and ground water contaJ:llnation, and public services relative to the Fire Department would not present an impact to the proposed project. Linda Bozung, 550 S. Hope, Los Angeles, representing the Mills Corporation, reported her job was to make sure the MND is up to CEQA standards. She stated the project is being done under a MND, which is pursuant to Section 21064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is an appropriate project for a MND because the initial study determined there may be potential impacts. The MND is appropriate because the project can be revised or impose mitigation measures to the project upon those significant impacts, in order to avoid or reduce the impacts to a level to where they are no longer significant. She further commented that there is no substantial evidence that would indicate that an EIR is required of the project. THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Page 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 24, 1996 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MOTION SECOND AYES Mayor Coontz Spurgeon Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to approve and certifY Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96, with the determination that with imposition of mitigation measures, this project will not have a significant effect on the environment.MOTION SECOND AYES Murphy Spurgeon Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to deny Appeal No. 431 and to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Major Site Plan Review as set forth in Resolution No. PC 14-96.10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS - None 11. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES Murphy Barrera Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater The City Council adjourned at 6:00 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting, April 30, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to consider the 1996/97 Budget.1 Jz / ~~ ~A<.1~/JU/AAt '/~. ..CASSANDRA 1. ATHCART, CMC CITY CLERKJOANNE C. COONTZ MAYOR Page S