FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALUC Minutes Page 4 March 18, 2004 Amendments as specified in PUC Section 21 676(b)] be referred to the Commission for appropriate reviews and Determination of Consistency or Inconsistency, with the clarification that this Commission action is intended now to apply to projects that are proposed to exceed the heights of the JW AFAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces (generally east of Fairview Road and south of McFadden Avenue as shown on the attached "Santa Ana Special Area Referral Map"), within the Height Restriction Zone as depicted in the JWA AELUP. 2. City of Santa Ana - Request for Reconsideration of Geneva Commons Project (JW A AELUP) previously considered on December 18, 2003 and January 15,2004: Chairman Bresnahan explained that this item was agendized on the basis that new information would be presented to the Commission. He noted that the written material provided doesn't include significant new information to warrant a formal reconsideration of the project, previously reviewed in December and January and acted upon then. He suggested that the ALUC receive verbal input from the public, the City and the applicant to ascertain the basis for a motion to reconsider, and if so, to proceed with the question of reconsideration. Mr. Hans Van Ligten of Rutan and Tucker, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Mola and Geneva Commons LLC, addressed the Commission. He referred the members to his letter of February 25, 2004 and to additional materials provided at the request of ALUC staff. He explained that the primary issue new to the Commission regards the Development Agreement between First American Title and the City of Santa Ana, wherein density and permissible development criteria translates into the physical nature of the site and an altitude that apparently conflicts with the condition imposed by the ALUC. He added that the ALUC meeting minutes show a clear record that staff's recommendation for Consistency was correct, which it still is, and that the proponents cannot understand the statutory or other basis for the conditional approval from the record. Mr. Van Ligten noted that bodies such as ALUC are bound by the rules and laws relating to such proceedings, and the standard requires the finding of consistency or inconsistency based on the adopted plan. He stressed that there is ample evidence in the record that the project is consistent, and repeated their request for a reconsideration based on the record. He concluded that the ALUC leaves them no other remedy, because of the position taken that it was difficult to see that the position was not really true, with the ALUC occupying a separate important role in determining consistency/inconsistency in the first instance. He repeated that the record is clear, staff's recommendation is correct in both instances, and the project is fully consistent with the adopted plan. Chairman Bresnahan recalled previous deliberations, asking about the source in the documents that there was previous entitlement to build to 20-25 stories on that particular parcel. Mr. Van Ligten explained that the development agreement provides a square footage entitlement, and the only way to obtain that permitted density on the site is by developing vertically. Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Van Ligten stated that the Development Agreement vests the rights of the property owner and his successors and assigns with the options for determining the configuration, such as one 25-story building rather than two l2-story towers. He added his point that the ALue has jurisdiction provided by law to review a referral from Santa Ana for consistency with the AELUP, noting that they don't disagree with the FAA's recommendation or conclusions. He stated that the only issue is having gone to ALUC for consistency or inconsistency as measured by the adopted plan, not by an ad hoc standard that exists over the plan, the staff reports being clear that the adopted standard is different than the height opposed by the ALUC. 75C-178