CORRESPONDANCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 3 of 6 2004 data compiled the International Council of Shopping Centers. This would include money spent on lunches and dinners, casual shopping and other miscellaneous spending, including gas purchases, but not services such as dry cleaners or health club memberships. See, "The Case for Commercial Real Estate: Office Building A Strong Economic Future for Pasadena, 'Ittp://ww2.citvofpasadena net/trans/TAC°/`20REPORTS/060409/ITEM 4A 060409 TAC.PDF.ndf (Last visited, November 15, 2019). Given that the Pasadena Chamber prepared these estimates in 2009, it is highly likely that the figures would be considerably higher for an office building that is 35% larger than the 250,000 square foot office building evaluated by the Pasadena Chamber. Brown Act Violations The Project has been revised such that a portion of the site will be bifurcated and made subject to a long-term cross -parking and use agreement with the Discovery Cube of Orange County. Neither the staff report nor the proposed final EIR provide a meaningful analysis of the impact of pedestrian flow across Main Street during the museum's operational hours and the project notices have not been revised to reflect that a portion of the Discovery Cube's operations (parking) will be incorporated into the Project. Put simply, museum parking is significantly different than residential parking and the interrelationship of the two sites is not adequately noticed nor explained. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Brown Act. Because the parking lot constitutes an accessory use of a different primary user (the Discovery Cube), the act in designating parking for the museum onsite should be specifically noticed and analyzed. Re- configuring access to Park Santiago should also be separately noticed. Pedestrian ingress and egress across Main Street attributable to parking should also be carefully analyzed. Development Agreement/Violations of City Code & Charter/Brown Act. The Developer's removal of certain concessions from the Development Agreement given the Planning Commission and neighborhood's refusal to get on board with the development program (e.g., withdrawing a commitment to install neighborhood monuments) strikes me as petty. It is also clear to me that staff could have/should have negotiated a far better deal. For example: the term of the Development Agreement is four (4) years with two optional one (1) year extensions. See Development Agreement Section 2.4.1. The cost for exercising an extension is $50,000. It is unclear if the $50,000 is a one-time payment for two years or if it were contemplated that the developer would pay $50,000 per each one-year extension. The staff report also indicates this sum was intended to make the City whole for lost revenue. This is inaccurate. The Development Agreement indicates that the funds are only intended to recover a portion of the City's loss. The financial projections for the Project (which are themselves entirely questionable) purportedly indicate that the City stands to gain in excess of $464,000 per year following construction. It is therefore unclear why the Development Agreement only requires a $50,000 extension payment for two years.