Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-28-00CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Present: Staff: MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Chairman Kozak Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, Miller, and Pontious Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, Miller, and Pontious Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney Doug Holland, Deputy City Attomey Christine Shingleton, Assistant City ManagedDirector, Redevelopment Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager (Redevelopment) Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager (Transportation) Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: There were no Public Concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of November 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Jennings seconded, to Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. approve the General Plan Amendment 00-001 a proposal to amend all current Elements of the Tustin General Plan to support the federal disposal action and the community actions needed to implement the Plan within the City of Tustin portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site. APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN PROPERTY OWNER: MCAS TUSTIN BASE PROPERTY - UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NON-BASE PROPERTY- 4.1 ACRE IRVINE COMPANY (15015 HARVARD AVENUE) LOCATION: THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN (TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY) Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Dana Ogdon, Redevelopment Agency Senior Project Manager, presented the report. Chairman Kozak invited members of the public to present testimony, asking that they restrict their comments to General Plan Amendment 00-001. Karina Valenzuela, Student Trustee for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD"), stated there has been a 45 percent increase in enrollment at Santa Ana College and Santiago Canyon College in the past five years; stated the District projects a 10 percent increase in enrollment by 2010; space is a major concern; asked if Santa Ana's largely Hispanic student population is the reason they are being denied what is rightfully theirs while the largely white student population attending South Orange County Community College District are getting the prize; over 53,000 students enrolled at RSCCD during 1999-2000 school year; and, asked, as the representative for those students, that RSCCD be fairly treated for a portion of the acreage that lies between the district boundaries. Fortino Rivera, representing Santa Ana residents, referred to the overcrowding in Santa Ana Unified School District; asked that justice not be distorted and space denied to the students of Santa Ana, the parents of Santa Ana only ask for equal rights for their children; stated this proposal lacks truth and a portion of the land was formerly allocated to SAUSD or RCCCD which has now been taken away; noted that Santa Ana impacts Tustin; therefore, improving Santa Ana also improves Tustin; and, discrimination against the students of Santa Ana denies them their civil rights. Cindy Nelson, representing the City of Santa Ana, commented for the public record: 1) there is a fundamental disagreement with the environmental document in that the traffic study underestimates the impacts of the base development on the City of Santa Ana; the model used in the study assumed that all arterial improvements would be completed by the year 2020 per Santa Ana's Master Plan of Arterial Highways; this assumption is faulty as there are no current funds or anticipated future funds necessary to complete all the improvements by 2020; the EIR should assume worst case which is Santa Ana infrastructure as it is today; Santa Ana cannot fully fund all of arterial projects within timeframe provided; the situation is not unique to most cities who are struggling to keep up with deferred maintenance of their major arterials; the EIR assumes that the transportation corridors will operate as free facilities and reduce traffic on surrounding roadways; recent forecasts from the Transportation Corridor Agency dispute this assumption; a General Plan Amendment of this magnitude requires the Planning Commission and City Council consider an appropriate balance of community needs, economic realities, and impacts on surrounding communities; the EIR does not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would accomplish this; the reuse plan attempts to maximize commercial and residential development for economic purposes rather than providing more community amenities, lower densities of development, and less impact on Tustin's neighboring cities; the EIR fails to determine the feasibility of implementing the recommended mitigation measures; the EIR assumes that an agreement will be reached with the City of Santa Ana and other affected jurisdictions and that future environmental review will be undertaken with subsequent phases of development and that agreements as to appropriate mitigation measures will be negotiated at that time; this approach is contrary to CEQA and eliminates future remedies for the City of Santa Aha if agreement cannot be reached; steps are being taken with the City staff to initiate discussions with Santa Ana to address these concerns; Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 3 given the serious implications of proceeding with these entitlements, the City of Santa Ana would like the item continued until the two cities have had further opportunity to develop a mutually agreed upon mitigation plan; failure to do so will require pursuance by Santa Ana of all appropriate means to assure adequate steps are taken to mitigate the project on the City of Santa Ana. Chairman Kozak verified with Ms. Nelson that her statements were official comments of the City of Santa Ana. Novel James, representing James Golf Development Company, urged that the project move forward with a green area that will help pay for other development of the base. Ed Connor, representing the Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), RSCCD, the Riveras, Garcias, and Ms. Valenzuela, referred to a letter presented to the Commissioners at the meeting, which was prepared by his office and sent to staff earlier and an eadier letter on behalf of the above parties which was sent to the Department of the Navy; these letters address potential/actual violations of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; two additional letters have been sent to the City and the Navy Department regarding the environmental objections to the EIS/EIR; agreed with the speaker from the City of Santa Aha that this hearing was noticed to discuss the environmental document; stated his concem that a recommendation will be made to the City Council without passing on the adequacy of the environmental document; asked why the City is going forward with the Public Hearing; the City has undercounted the number of students that will be added to the public school system in Santa Ana (77,000 new jobs projecting 82 to 500 students to the SAUSD); no new school sites are planned for Santa Aha or Rancho Santiago; the City has not set forth proper mitigation measures to deal with overcrowding; suggested taking the 100 acres planned for South Orange County Community College District and share it with all five school districts whose boundaries cover that base; there is no reason to exclude two school districts; stated the only reason for not doing so is ethnic origins; asked why the City is excluding two districts while admitting adding 500 students to those same districts; requested a mitigation measure that would resolve dilemma for everyone. Martin N. Burton, Alvarado, Smith & Sanchez, co-counsel for SAUSD and RSCCD, stated that: the City knows the SAUSD and RSCCD have profound objections to the reuse plan; that it is an aggressive tactic to move forward to force a wholly unacceptable plan upon the City's neighbors and co-goveming agencies; this action is a clear violation of Governor Davis' directive to Tustin to work with Santa Ana when he vetoed legislation that would have expedited development at the Marine Base; the SAUSD and RSCCD share jurisdiction over 160 acres at the Base with the City; the City is excluding SAUSD and RSCCD and ignoring the needs of Santa Ana; 40 percent of SAUSD children attend school in portable classrooms, structures that were not meant to house students permanently--24,000 students, or one and one-half times the entire population of Tustin Unified School District; there is no land left in Santa Ana for schools; the United States Department of Education in 1994 approved SAUSD's application to transfer 75 of the 160 acres to Santa Ana for new classrooms; the reuse plan the City has proposed rejects the Department of Education's own approval and completely shuts out SAUSD and RSCCD; the City provided in the MCAS Tustin Base Reuse Plan ("the Plan") free land to several jurisdictions in wealthier communities which have fewer needs than Santa Ana's; for Irvine Unified, the City has proposed 20 acres for schools; for Tustin Unified, the City has proposed 60 acres; for South Orange County Community College District, 100 acres; the wealthy jurisdictions with lower needs receive 180 acres; the needy jurisdictions, SAUSD and RSCCD, get nothing; Santa Ana children deserve the same educational opportunities as wealthier neighbors; classrooms on this property would fill that need; moving forward with this action is antithetical to the compromising posture that the Tustin City Manager has represented in the newspapers; urged that the Planning Commission not take this action, to put it on hold, and, to grant property to SAUSD and RSCCD. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 4 Peter Hersh, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Irvine, stated that: in subparagraph k, page 5, of Resolution 3739, it states that the Tustin Planning Commission "has received, reviewed and considered the proposed GPA and final EIS/EIR; stated his assumption that the Commission was considering the EIS/EIR and that comments in that regard are appropriate; the City of Irvine has a nine-year history with the Base closure; they have worked with the City regarding the closure and development of the Plan; they worked with the City on the Restoration Advisory Board; the Irvine City Manager voted in 1996 to support the Plan; they worked with City staff and counsel negotiating a Redevelopment Cooperation Agreement benefiting both cities regarding the development of housing along Harvard Avenue; they have written letters in support of Tustin on legislation to facilitate implementation of the Tustin Legacy; they have worked with the City drafting letters to the Departments of Defense and Navy on expediting the transfer process that has been stalled; they are looking forward to working with Tustin to get the Plan developed and the Irvine housing units on line as soon as possible; reiterated comments from the past regarding the EIS/EIR: forwarded three letters to the City, March 2, 1998; August 27, 1999; and January 28, 2000; stated the remaining issues relate to traffic issues. Chairman Kozak interrupted to verify that Mr. Hersh's comments were official comments of the City of Irvine. Mr. Hersh responded affirmatively and stated his desire to summarize the contents of the foregoing letters: he addressed the issues of the traffic study methodology, especially pertaining to the areas of project definition, the socioeconomic data that was used, and the interim year impacts of the build-out of the project; on these issues, the EIR has been revised; in the second revised draft, on August 27, 1999, Irvine sent another letter focusing on the mitigation measures Irvine believed would work for both the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin to define a process for cooperative study addressing phasing, funding, and implementation of roadway improvements and circulation issues; Irvine prepared an Irvine Business Complex Plan in 1991; the City of Tustin took an active position addressing concerns; going from 15,000 trips from the military to 200,000 trips requires a revisit to the traffic and circulation system in this area involving the jurisdictions mentioned; Irvine proposed draft language to incorporate as a mitigation measure which has not been incorporated in the final EIR; a letter on January 28, 2000, reiterated the need for cooperative study and addressed the issue relative to Traffic Mitigation Measure No. 9 relating to roadway improvements on the Base assuring the City of Irvine and other jurisdictions be involved in the traffic study preparation process to insure that the roadways identified in the plan are funded and implemented before development proceeds again; the first comment letter dealt with the traffic phasing, funding, and implementation on a macro basis; the comment of January 28, 2000, dealt with micro level traffic studies for the Plan itself; in discussions with the City staff these issues have not been addressed; although he stated that their paramount issues have been addressed, the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin should come to terms on mitigation measures before final action is taken on the EIS/EIR; based on Resolution No. 3739, the Tustin Planning Commission is considering the final EIS/EIR; for these reasons, the comments of the City of Irvine seemed appropriate. Craig Furniss, a resident of the local community and Senior Vice President of Lowe Enterprises Commercial Group, a commercial developer selected as one of the final four for the commercial section of the Tustin Legacy project, spoke in support of adoption of the General Plan Amendment; stated his excitement about the possibilities the Base provides for local community and business; this is an important first step in putting the Base back into use; it will be good for the City and good for the community. Robert L. Elliott, an Irvine resident, expressed his concem regarding the negative impact the development of the Base will bring, adding more roads, more traffic, more traffic signals, more buildings, and more people; the construction will create a mess affecting the residents of Irvine; Jamboree Road is already gridlocked during moming/evening rush Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 5 hours; adding roads does not always solve problems; he urged that planning and development of the Base proceed with caution, giving consideration to present and future residents. Laura C. Curran, Tustin resident and educator, stated her unfamiliarity with technical facets of the proposal; asked that the Commission consider joint planning and building with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Tustin Unified School District; she taught overseas for many years where several districts would come together, providing different focal points benefiting the students; Santa Ana has an innovative spirit, such as bringing the Orange County Center for Performing Arts to the center of Santa Ana, making it accessible to students in Santa Ana as well as Tustin; fundamental schools such as MacArthur Intermediate are popular with students; the recently opened second Spanish language immersion school in Santa Ana shows that the SAUSD has innovative programs which are attractive to their students across the population; she is involved with work at Century High School and can attest that Santa Ana has demonstrated commitment to their students; she encouraged a dialogue between the City of Tustin and RSCCD and SAUSD versus a contradictory approach; and, asked why not build facilities that are attractive for everyone. David Melvold, President of North Irvine Villages Association representing approximately 19,000 residents, expressed concern regarding adequacy/assurance of funding and implementation of the proposed mitigation measures of this project; lack of confidence that studies are adequate and fully detailed regarding the impact of the roadway system to North Irvine; his residents are stuck between two major projects--Tustin Ranch, Lower Peters Canyon, and the Base on one side with the development proposed on the east side of Jeffrey including the El Toro Marine Base; he is concerned that yards and greenbelts will be torn up to make asphalt for these developments; he urged that Tustin and the City of Irvine get together and reciprocate each other regarding El Toro and other development on both sides of North Irvine; the traffic on Irvine Boulevard in the evening is so slow that walking is faster; Jamboree is like New York City in the morning and evening; he expressed concern regarding Irvine Boulevard, Culver Drive, the I-5 offramps, Walnut, Harvard; he would like to see energetic effort by the cities of Irvine and Tustin to provide a realistic solution and a development that does not make it impossible for existing residents. Roger McCullough, a resident of the Peppertree tract in Tustin, stated the tract will be impacted by the traffic noise created by the Base; it will become impossible to open windows during the summer due to noise and fumes; asked the Commission to look at the mitigating circumstances concerning noise and buffer the citizens even more; the Commission should consider prohibition of trucks using roads; acknowledged that Tustin Legacy is important to the City's future but current residents should be protected. Berklee Maughan, a Tustin resident, read from the staff report "this General Plan has been found to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the community," then asked if it is in the best interest to adopt a plan that exceeds AQMD daily standards for hazardous pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by as much as 3,100 percent; to adopt a plan that calls for an increase in local traffic by 215,000 additional vehicle trips per day; to adopt a plan that calls for roadway improvements that require massive funds, the source of which is unidentified; the fundamental problem with this process is the City staff has not considered or analyzed any alternative proposal that would result in lower density, less traffic congestion, and more acceptable impacts to our air quality which is already acknowledged to be the worst in the nation; for City staff to conclude that monumental problems in the plan are unavoidable begs the question: Why not just change the plan?; the City of Tustin as the legally designated local redevelopment agency has the absolute authority to change the plan in any way it desires to correct the problems to a substantial degree; a plan resulting in lower density would also please the Federal government and make it easier for the City to obtain the no-cost transfer of the Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 6 Base property that it seeks; he shared his agreement with the City of Santa Ana and the City of Irvine that the City has not made timely responses to written concerns (referred to a letter he wrote to which he did not receive an answer for ten months); suddenly hearings are scheduled; the EIR/EIS is an integral part of the concern; the General Plan Agreement is not ready to go to the Council; the project needs work on mitigating traffic congestion, air pollution, and identifying sources to fund these mitigation measures; the City of Santa Ana has no funds or plans for expanding Warner to six lanes; unless measures are taken to identify the funding sources, the air pollution and traffic will be much worse than stated; the City is trying to get cooperation from other cities through agreements in the future after certification of the EIR by the Council; stated his hope that the Planning Commission was listening to comments being presented to them and that the General Plan Agreement will not be recommended for adoption by the City Council but continued to a later date in order to work out some of the problems. Chairman Kozak stated he had made notes and asked staff if it would be appropriate to highlight some of the issues and have staff summarize and provide input for the Commission before further discussion among the Commissioners. Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the Chairman should close the Public Hearing, share concerns, and adjoum for a recess to allow staff to prepare their responses. Mr. Holland also stated that the EIPJEIS was provided as an informational document to be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission, but no formal action is to be taken by the Commission because the EIR/EIS is strictly a legislative action being referred to the City Council for action. At that time, the Council will take formal action in regard to the EIR/EIS. Chairman Kozak stated he would share his comments. Christine Shingleton stated it was necessary to close the Public Hearing and pose any questions for staff before the recess. Chairman Kozak suggested it would be appropriate to take a recess. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, stated it was appropriate, since all speakers has been heard, to close the Public Hearing at which time the Commission could share questions and issues to be considered by staff, stating also that staff planned to painstakingly address issues brought forward at this Hearing. Chairman Kozak closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Miller remarked that it was very interesting listening to the comments of the various speakers; stated his concern regarding the change in the amount of land provided for Santa Ana Unified School District and asked for more information; he asked what is being done regarding traffic congestion and air pollution; he asked how density and development of the property was decided. Chairman Kozak summarized his concerns as follows: school districts, traffic modeling from City of Irvine and the City of Tustin, shared jurisdiction of the property with respect to representatives from SAUSD and RSCCD, the City's actions being contrary to CEQA, the City of Irvine's statements regarding Resolution 3739 and EIR consideration, joint planning efforts, and funding mitigation measures. Recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 7 Doug Holland reiterated that the Planning Commission is sometimes asked to approve and certify environmental documents presented to the Commission before taking action; on all the items brought to the Commission, a decision is made which can be appealed to the City Council; if no appeal is made, the Planning Commission decision is final; the Planning Commission is obligated to certify the Commission has reviewed any environmental documentation before taking action to approve or disapprove a project; tonight's action is strictly a recommendation to the City Council; the Planning Commission is not required under CEQA to take any formal action on the environmental documentation; the Planning Commission is only obligated to consider the documentation, along with all other comments and testimony provided at tonight's meeting, as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Christine Shingleton stated staff would address various issues by category and began with the school issue: Tustin is sensitive to the overcrowding issue raised by SAUSD; approximately 120 acres at the southwest portion of the Base is located within SAUSD; no housing is proposed to be built on that portion of MCAS-Tustin; it is proposed for commercial industrial development; the nearest housing occurring within the SAUSD and RSCCD would be over a mile and a half radius away, separated by the SR 55 freeway and large industrial tracts on both sides of the freeway; other school districts cited on the record proposed to receive property, not as part of the General Plan Agreement but as part of the recommended disposal action by the Navy (not an action before the Planning Commission this evening), are recommended for receipt of property based upon direct impacts on those school districts where school enrollment will increase due to housing actually being developed on the Base; the school generation factor tied to that impact analysis is state-of-the-art in terms of the projections indicating direct impacts; the City carefully considered the studies provided by SAUSD; hired technical experts in socio- economic demography and school issues to project a potential range of impacts--using much of the methodology provided by SAUSD; as part of that analysis, the City's technical experts concluded that development within the SAUSD portion of the site will not create direct impacts on SAUSD; under the comprehensive legislative scheme adopted by Senate Bill 50, there is opportunity for development fees that could be realized by the SAUSD, and cities throughout the state are obligated to resolve existing over-crowding problems and to require imposition of those fees adopted by local school districts; the City has made a number of offers to SAUSD; beyond the development-fee issue and what the City is restricted to offer by Senate Bill 50, the City has publicly made an offer to provide ten acres at the Base to serve as an elementary school; any indirect impacts on school enrollment are largely expected at this level based on methodology developed by the FEIS/FEIR experts; the South Orange Community College District has also offered publicly to support attendance by an additional 1,000 SAUSD high school students in an advanced technology center in the 100-acre learning village at the MCAS-Tustin site; in good faith the City is continuing negotiations on school issues; a week ago the City felt close to a transactional agreement with SAUSD and RSCCD; for the record, the City is continuing in good faith to move toward resolution of this issue; as it affects the documents this evening, the City has met all obligations under the law; for purposes of clearing up any misconception regarding representations that SAUSD and RSCCD have a valid, approved conveyance from the Federal Department of Education: before the current Base closure legislative scheme adopted in 1994 was in place, there was a screening process under which public agencies could go directly to the Federal government to ask for decisions on former military bases without going through local redevelopment authority; that process became null and void with adoption in 1994 of the Base Closure Redevelopment Homeless Assistance Act; under provisions of that Act, all new requests and old requests had to come back through the local redevelopment/reuse authority for approval; at that time the Base Closure Task Force and Tustin City Council did not recommend property for SAUSD or RSCCD because of the issues that related to direct versus indirect impact; all of the adjacent jurisdictions unanimously supported the decisions of the Base Closure Task Force, including the City of Santa Ana and the City of Irvine. Planning Commission Minutes November28,2000 Page 8 Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer, stated as follows: Traffic Study Methodology: There is not an issue with Irvine with the traffic study methodology at this point. We have been able to work out the methodologies with Irvine and have a letter of acceptance from them dated the first part of 1999 or the latter part of 1998. The traffic study for the final EIS/EIR was prepared using regionally accepted methodology consistent with the Orange County subarea modeling guidelines manual and the congestion management program and County growth management plan guidelines as appropriate for a project of this size with regional influence. This approach insures the equitable treatment of all affected jurisdictions and allows an objective analysis based upon accepted methodology in the entire traffic study area. We all know traffic volumes throughout the region and the study area are projected to increase in the future. These are projected by demographic data as well as County traffic modeling. However, the future condition also includes various improvements to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, new land-use patterns and more travel-mode choices for commuters. The traffic model used for this project provides the latest traffic distribution patterns throughout the region. At some locations within the FEIS/EIR, traffic will increase while at other locations there is a decrease in traffic. This is based upon land-use generators and travel-distribution patterns. Traffic volumes vary throughout the region also based upon the new capacity that this project will add. Traffic Corridors as Free Facilities: Transportation corridors were analyzed as toll facilities in the 2005 scenario. They were analyzed as toll facilities and free facilities in the 2020 scenario. They were analyzed as totally free facilities in the post-2020 analysis scenario which was provided for informational purposes only. EIR Traffic Study Underestimates the Traffic Impacts in Various Jurisdictions: We feel that the accepted and consistent methodology the traffic study was based on does not provide for any underestimation of any traffic impacts within the study area. To date, we have not seen any substantial information from other jurisdictions or from any other entities that would provide us information to question our methodology on this study. Mitigation Measures and Cooperative Studies: The FEIS/EIR commits the City, and requires any development approved on the base, to pay their fair share of traffic improvements. These are triggered by traffic thresholds within the FEIS/FEIR. We are not deferring mitigation. We are committing to a fair share of mitigation. We are committed to working with our neighboring jurisdictions, such as Santa Aha and Irvine, on implementing traffic improvements within their jurisdictions where this project is obligated to pay either all or their fair share of their traffic improvements. Warner Avenue Widening Issue: Warner Avenue is included on the list of committed improvements. That list of committed improvements was based upon "probable future impacts" or improvements that are identified in documents, such as a capital improvement program, a special funding program, or conditions of approval on a specific project, in any approved EIR's, and also neighboring jurisdictions' general plans. Warner Avenue is shown on the City of Santa Ana's General Plan as a long- range improvement to be improved to six lanes. That was considered in our study. However, the City is sensitive to the issue that Santa Ana may not have funds or have plans to improve Warner Avenue, and we are committed to working with Santa Ana to explore alternative methods of funding for those, such as OCTA, Measure M programs, competitive programs, and the joint-powers authority program we have with the City of Santa Ana at this time. Chairman Kozak asked if the Commission had questions for Ms. Shingleton or Mr. Anderson. There were no questions. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 9 Christine Shingleton continued the presentation and referred to these specific questions raised concerning the reasonable range of alternatives and the density issue: she stated that the planning process began as early as 1992; during this planning process representatives present at the meeting tonight had an opportunity to participate in identifying the alternatives that would be evaluated; the alternatives before the Commission were adopted with the support of the City of Santa Aha and the City of Irvine who voted on record at the Base Closure Task Force meetings to support the range of alternatives; in response to the initial draft EIR/EIS produced in 1998, there was a decision made to reduce the preferred project identified in the original draft EIR by over a million square feet of floor area; that decision modified alternative 1 (the preferred project) to mitigate and reduce in density the preferred project by over ten percent and was approved by those communities sitting on the Task Force; looking at comparable projects around the City, the draft EIS/EIR, final EIS/EIR provides documented responses to those issues that were raised and clearly identifies the density of this project as significantly less dense than Tustin Ranch, Peters Canyon and adjacent projects within the City of Irvine; response to the density issues with data is substantiated in the documents; the densities proposed in the Plan balance the needs to generate adequate market-driven uses to offset necessary infrastructure improvements that would be permitted, not just to serve the impacts of this development but to meet regional needs including requirements imposed by regional agencies such as the extension of regional arterial roadways not controlled by the City and not driven by project impacts. Commissioner Jennings asked for clarification regarding the 77,000 new jobs, bringing 82- 500 students to the SAUSD, figures mentioned by one of the speakers, and whether that means people will move into the SAUSD to take jobs on the Base. Christine Shingleton responded that the 77,000 figure cited was initially part of the analysis completed concerning direct/indirect jobs and multiplier impacts which would result from development on the Base; approximately 23,000 direct jobs will be generated from development of the project; another approximately 15,000 direct or indirect jobs due to a "multiplier effect" on top of that, and an additonal 38,000 short-term, temporary construction jobs during the construction period; socio-economic demography experts, in the FEIS/FEIR, projected (based upon the employment impact of the project) what could be indirect impacts from commercial industrial development; the FEIS/FEIR assumes there would be some indirect student generation. Commission Jennings then asked if the impact would be spread through many school districts in the area. Christine Shingleton responded that there will be direct and indirect impacts on the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and Irvine Unified School District (IUSC); earlier comments addressed the direct impacts of development of housing these two Districts will experience; regionally accepted figures are used in extrapolating the number of Santa Ana households that could indirectly be expected from the types of industries that are projected to occur on the Base based on a radius around the Base. Chairman Kozak asked if the preferred alternative is a reduced density from one considered previously. Christine Shingleton responded affirmatively, referencing her earlier statement regarding the one-million-square-foot reduction. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, addressed the following issues: Wedged between development of El Toro airport and MCAS Tustin: in the EIR/EIS for MCAS Tustin, the impact of the development of El Toro as a 38-million passenger airport was considered; the Board of Supervisors have approved an El Toro reuse plan for that Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 10 worst-case scenario; mitigation measures were developed by the City for the Base development project to pay its fair share; the same cannot be said for the environmental documentation which has been done on El Toro. Pollution concerns: the area's natural geographic features and the numbers of cars being driven result in some of the worst air pollution in the country; if nothing were developed at the Base, this pollution would continue; the alternative proposed is the least harmful environmentally, yet provides the funds needed from commercial development to pay for the infrastructuro the new roads, new sewers, new water systems that are needed; nothing at the Base is useable; benefits will include additional open space that cannot be used now, a large County regional park, a public golf course, and green space; if only one house is built in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, it is impacting on the pollution problem; the Plan is designed to reuse the property in a way that provides housing for Iow- and moderate-income people, provides housing for the homeless, provides for a regional park, addresses circulation issues, while attempting to control air emissions; the Planning Commission may recommend something less dense to the City Council, but the Plan, developed over a ten-year period, is at a density that the planners feel is necessary in order to pay for the roads and the parks that are planned; all of the issues raised by Mr. Maughan have been addressed in the report, but staff felt it necessary to provide background; it would be great to propose a project that did not have any impact; unfortunately, there are impacts, but there are also beneficial results to the project; when this project goes forward to the City Council for all of those impacts which cannot be mitigated, staff feels there are offsetting socio-economic and recreation/circulation benefits; these findings are not before the Planning Commission tonight but are some of the things the City Council will be considering. Commissioner Pontious stated that she has been involved in this process since its inception; she was also involved in the Tustin Ranch development; the plan before the Commission involves much lower square footage numbers than envisioned when it began; what we are looking at today is a dynamic document which may change in the future, given economic and other situations; the staff has done an outstanding job as has the community and neighboring jurisdictions; this is a good basis to start from on which the City will be building in the future and continuing to work with neighboring jurisdictions and residents to improve the plan as we move along; there are many valid reasons to move forward with the General Plan Amendment and support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Jennings thanked everyone who attended the Planning Commission and made comments; she stated that the project is complex and detailed; she requested those concerns expressed to the Commission and staff's responses be shared with the City Council; she feels the comments represent a cross-section of the community; she supports the staff recommendation. Chairman Kozak thanked everyone in attendance for taking time to attend the meeting and prepare their comments; he thanked staff for providing responses for clarification and understanding of issues; he clarified that the recommended action does not approve entitlements or zoning matters; those matters will come later through a specific plan hearing and adoption; the Planning Commission is a review and recommending body; adoption of a motion to recommend consideration of the General Plan Amendment to the Council does not preclude any furtherance of negotiations; he referred to Commissioner Jennings' comments regarding the issues and staff responses; he asked that the comments be summarized in the official minutes; he suggested a supplemental memorandum or staff report be articulated and addressed to the Council, in their discretionary approval of the General Plan Amendment and EIR, so that they have the benefit of these issues being explained; he stated his support of the recommended action. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Jennings seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 11 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. The Commissioners requested that staff prepare supplemental information, in conjunction with the City Council staff report, on the testimony received from the public. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: There was no Regular Business. STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at the November 20, 2000 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner: Continued the Tustin Ranch Estates appeal to January 15, 2001. Established the City's preliminary assessment that the Media One franchise should not be renewed; required provision of service logs to assess level of service; gave Media One 60 days to submit a new proposal that addresses the City's cable needs and issues related to Media One's performance. Approved staff recommendation to approve exclusive agreement to negotiate a disposition and development agreement for the Utt Juice property. Stated that there are still no items scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in December. Commissioner Jennings requested further information regarding the Utt Juice proposal. Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, responded that the proposal is basically the same as the one previously recommended for a 22,000 square foot complex of ground-floor retail and setback second-floor office tenants; developer is Metropolitan Development who does joint venture projects with redevelopment agencies throughout the southern California area; goal is to conclude development negotiations within 120- day period timeframe; will be undertaking environmental review on the site; Utt construction could coincide with the water yard construction. Chairman Kozak asked if the Media One proposal includes or precludes other providers. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, responded negatively and indicated any provider may request a non-exclusive franchise to serve that area Chairman Kozak attested to lack of service provided by Media One. COMMISSION CONCERNS: COMMISSIONER JENNINGS No concerns were expressed. COMMISSIONER BELL - Expressed concern regarding the weed growth at Cedar Grove Park and asked that Parks and Recreation be notified. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 12 CHAIRMAN KOZAK - Noticed several nuisance signs for "Employment 911.com" and requested that code enforcement remove these signs. - Asked whether, in view of recent Planning Commission requests at Tustin Lanes and Coco's, the bright yellow paint on the Der Wienersnitzel roof meets City code. Staff responded that these items will be pursued through the appropriate channels. - Indicated the Commission will consider at the December 11"~ meeting whether or not the second meeting in December should be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bell moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December 11, 2000, beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Chairman