75B - NEXUS DEVELOPMENT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AA No. 2005-01, CUP Nos. 05-10 through 13 & 15, DA No. 05-02, TTM Nos. 05-02 through 04, EIR No. 04-02, and VA Nos. 05-05, 07, 10 & 12 June 20, 2005 Page 5 8. Amended the Planning Division condition for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2005 -10, 2005 -12, 2005 -13 and 2005 -15 (Lake Towers, retail, restaurant, and Integral project) to require all water features be maintained in the same condition as originally installed. Development Agreement Since the Planning Commission's action on May 23, 2005, several amendments have been made to the development agreement. The amendments are primarily technical in nature and do not affect the deal points identified in the Planning Commission staff report. The revised development agreement is provided within Tab I (Exhibit 9) of the Nexus binder. Airport Land Use Commission The MacArthur Place South development was required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) per Section 21676 (b) of the California Public Utili ties Code due to the proj ect' s proximity to the John Wayne Airport and the proposed height of the buildings (262 feet above grade). On February 17, 2005 the ALUC held a public hearing on the project and found the project inconsistent with the AELUP. The inconsistent determination appeared to be primarily due to the need to obtain a revised determination from the FAA that the project poses no hazard to air navigation as the Cinema Tower was moved approximately 174 feet from its originally proposed location. Such "No Hazard" determinations had previously been issued by the FAA on September 1 and December 27, 2004. However, this move of the Cinema Tower a bit further to the north, and further away from the airport, triggered the technical requirement for a revised FAA determination. This new determination, issued on May 8, 2005, again concluded the project will pose no hazard to air navigation. Given the FAA's most recent clearance, the City requested that the ALUC reconsider its February decision. This reconsideration is scheduled to be heard by the ALUC on June 16, 2005. In the event the ALUC again determines that the project is inconsistent with the AELUP, the City Council may overrule the ALUC determination and approve the project with a 2/3 vote in support of the project and after certain findings of fact are made. However, that overrule process would necessitate a continuance of the project while all the state-mandated procedures are completed. 75B-5