HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 BLDG PMT ISSUE 01-07-85FROM: COI,I,IUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR'rMENT
REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERJqIT ISSUANCE
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION:
The Plannln9 Commission on September 11, 1984 approved ~se Permit 84-20; a
request by the ~aclftc Bell Telephone Company to construct their corporate
headquarters at the southwest corner of Redhill and Edtnger Avenues in the City
of Tustin. The approved use permit contained a considerable number of
conditions relative to the ttm~n9 for issuance of buildin9 permits ~n relation
to the pend~n9 Santa Fe/Ed~n9er Specific Plan ~7 and formation of an assessment
district for lundin9 of regional circulation improvements. Specifically,
Condition of Approval 2.1 stated, "bultdin~ permits shall not be ~ssued for any
building on the subject property until the Santa Fe/Ediflger Specific Plan #7 has
been adopted by Planning Commission and City Council, unless this project is
waived by City Council due to unforeseen delays in adopting the specific plan."
Furthermore, Condition of Approval 1.12 included a requirement for participation
in a benefit assessment district. The condition stated, "if said benefit
assessment district is established prior to issuance of building permits for
building number one, a bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer shall
be provided the City to guarantee payment of fees."
At this time, Pacific Bell Telephone has submitted the attached request for
issuance of building permits thereby allowing their project to proceed and not
be restrained by further delays in Specific Plan #7 processing. Staff concurs
with Pacific Bell's request since we have worked closely with their architect
and feel the ultimate .project will mere than comply with the proposed specific
plan. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council, pursuant to condition 2.1,
direct staff to issue building permits at such time the structural building
plans have been checked and are suitable for permit issuance.
Concerning condition 1.12 regarding payment of fees (Pacific Bell's fair share
improvements to the regional circulation system), staff supports the concept of
a surety bond being submitted in lieu of immediate fee payment thereby allowing
Pacific Bell to proceed for both buildings number one and two. While the
assessment district criteria and ultimate budget has nearly been completed,
the plan has not been submitted to Council for final adoption. Therefore,
collection of a fee without a supporting ordinance would be improper. As of
this staff report date, a precise surety bond amount had not been determined,
but is estimated to be $2.00 per square foot for gross building floor area.
Therefore, the bond for buildings one and two would be approximately $450,000.
City Council Report
Pacific Bell
page two
RECOI~qE#DATIO#:
That the Council authorize the Pacific Bell Telephone project to proceed since
Specific Plan #7 has yet to be completed, and, further direct staff to accept a
surety bond in an amount necessary to cover estimated assessment district fees
for regional circulation improvements.
DONALD D. LAMM, ~J
Director of Community Development
DDL:do
attachments: Letter from Clyde Hohn, Pacific Bell
Letter from Phillip Schwartze, PBR
Master Schedule
Community Development Department
177 East Colorado Boulevard, Reom 938
Pasadena, California 91105
November 28, 1984
PACIFIC~BELL
DEC 4 ;984
Mr. Don Lamm
Director of Planning
300 Centennial Way
City Hall
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Pacific Bell Project
Dear Mr. Lamm:
As you recall, our approved Conditional Use Permit contained
conditions which establish criteria for our building construc-
tion phasing. Based on our most recent estimate of future
operational requirements it is imperative that we proceed
with our initial phase of construction in order to have
adequate telephone service available in 1986.
Apparently the Specific Plan which is being prepared for our
area is not going to be completely finalized prior to the
time in which we will need to proceed with construction.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council allow
us to immediately submit our final plans for approval, permit
issuance, and subsequent start of construction.
Our initial environmental study clearly indicated the extent
of traffic improvements which would be warranted based on our
estimated development program. These improvements included
certain offsite improvements as well as a transportation
management plan to mitigate our traffic impacts.
The traffic engineering reports from the specific plan suggest
that improvements of a subregional nature may be needed to
facilitate substantial developments in our area. A redevlopment
plan with a realistic plan of implementation could greatly
assist in the financing of the improvements.
Page 2
As previously noted we are prepared to agree to development
conditions related to our equitable share of transportation
improvements in the area. Additionally, we are supportive
of the City's efforts to establish our general area as a
redevelopment project areat an assessment district area or
other plan which could assist in the funding of future
traffic improvements.
Thank you for your interest in our project and your timely
response in our behalf.
Respectfully,
Clyde Hohn
Manager
Pacific Bell
Attachment
RECEIVED
COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT
December 3, 1984
Mr. Don Lam
City Hall
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Pacific Bell Project
Dear Mr~Lamm:
Enclosed are two copies of the most recent Master Schedule for our project.
Each discipline is on an abbreviated timeframe which we feel is necessary
to achieve our opening in the Spring of 1986. Please note that weather,
ordering of materials and future telephone service requirements have
all been given consideration in our planning.
As noted in previous correspondence we are anxious to proceed in our
initial development phase. With the projected growth in the business
phone useage in the Tustin area, Pacific Bell has determined that a major
state of the art switching facility will be part of the proposed "Central"
office complex and as part of the initial construction. If we can have
the facilities available prior to June 1986, we can eliminate the need
to put in additional lines in our Redhill Avenue underground facilities.
Construction of these underground facilities is inconvenient to all concerned.
We are hopeful that our building construction will provide the necessary
site for the newer technology which will preclude any major offsite construction.
We are looking forward to working with you on our project. Please contact
me if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Vice President
PRS:cw
Encl.
PLANNING · ARCHITECTURE. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE · ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE, IRVlNE, CA 92714,(714) 261-8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII