Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-27-86 MINUTES TUSTIM PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR )IEETING JANUARY 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Wetl, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Also Present: Don Lamm, Ed Knight, the consultant team, Suzanne Atkins, Donna Orr and approximately 200 citizens PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLXC (~)NCERNS: None. CONSENT ~ALEMDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 13, 1986. 2. Approve Final Tract 8451 by the adoQtion of Resolution No. 2293. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC ItEARXNGS 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: Locatt on: Motion carried 5-0. An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued): Request: To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use {which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm, after presenting the staff report, introduced the following letters received for the record: Foothills Community Association dated January 22, 1986 Tustin Chamber of Commerce dated January 24, 1986 Elinor and Roger Tompkins dated January 24, 1986 Janet Hart dated January 25, 1986 County of Orange dated January 27, 1986 Petition opposed to La Colina as a connector with approximately 46 signatures. Ed Knt~ht, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the present status of the project. Larry Webb, consultant, explained the density transfer through a slide presentation. Montca Flortan, The Irvtne Company, made herself and the other team members available for questions. She commented they envision approximately 7 church sites and will sell sites at a reduced value of about 75% of the market rate. They have negotiated an agreement with TUSD to ensure the provision of school facilities. Don Lamm recommended that the Planning Commission delete Racquet Hill as a connector in the specific plan. Commissioner White clarified that assessment districts will burden the land being developed and not any other tax payer outside that area. He further clarified that if a default occurs it will be dealt with by the value of the land burdened and not any other tax base. Ed Knight responded that is correct. White further questioned if elevations and other details of the specific products in a project area will be reviewed by the Commission or in some other manner. Ed Knight responded they will be reviewed by the Commission; non discretionary review by design review. The discretionary review would be through the CUP process. Chairman Wetl opened the public hearing: Netl Harkleroad, 2252 Lichen Lane, questioned if property taxes would be increased to pay some or all of the costs of East Tusttn, namely public facilities such as schools and IRWD services. He further explained in detail how the fiscal impact reports are inadequate; revenue sources are not in dispute but the amount of sales, property billed and sold and new people are speculative; and, asked that action on the specific plan and EIR be delayed until the financial aspects can be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page three Stan Hoffman, consultant, addressed some of Mr. Harkleroad's concerns with specific revenue sums and explained that assumptions in the report were arrived at by group decision with either the city staff or The Irvine Company. He agreed that the report does not show capital costs, however, the city has researched assessment districts and other forms of capital facility financing. Larry Webb, consultant, added that this is not a static projection; the project will be evaluated periodically. Commissioner White asked that they expound on the phasing plan of fiscal impact with each sector or map that is submitted. How is that requirement incorporated specifically into this approval? Stan Hoffman responded that a development agreement will deal more with performance standards. Don Lamm explained that the development agreement will lay out a system to look at the long term fiscal impacts on a short term basis. The development agreement has always been a requirement of the project. It had been published to be considered tonight unfortunately it is not in its final form. The developer cannot proceed until the agreement is received and approved by the City Council. Staff Hoffman, responding to Commissioner White's concern, explained that they did not take into account any increase of taxes in other parts of the city; East Tustin was examined in it's own entirety. Harkleroad, further expressed his concern over the possibility of losing 1/3 million dollars by the loss of revenue sharing; the city will then be in worse shape with a potential red ink position in East Tustin. If revenue sharing wasn't included in the fiscal report, it should be, especially with major improvements on Browning, Red Hill, etc., outside of the East Tustin area. Marshal Krupp, 1891 Beverly Glen Drive, pleased with the recommendation that Racquet Hill not be included as a connector. He expressed concern with the lack of current traffic counts in the EIR to assume what the new counts would be, there is no justification for the increase in traffic counts and there is no discussion of the impact in the county area. He wondered who will pay for the needed improvements in the county area to accommodate the new traffic generated by the East Tustin area. The EIR discusses mitigation measures for the impact on schools; temporary facilities, double sessions, busing, etc. But, the EIR does not define what the impacts of those mitigation measures are on the residents of the area presently using the system. In addressing density, he related the tax rates applied to the properties in the area to the number of units; the more units allowed in the area the lower the rate applied to one particular unit. So, if there is a multitude of capital projects the more units out there means the less rates the Irvine Company has to impose on the new buyers of properties. If the buyers want the amenities that go along with a new area such as East Tustin, they should pay for those no matter how many units are there. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page four Although capital assessment districts using a Mello Roos Facilities Act cannot be voted out by the owners of properties that would be buying property in that area, operation and maintenance assessments can be voted out by a 2/3 vote. Meaning that, if the Irvine Company agrees to an assessment district for operation and maintenance both for capital and operation and maintenance, and the assessment district is applied on their property as a whole, those assessments will be passed on to new buyers of property. Although those new buyers of properties may not have the ability to vote out a capital assessment cost imposed upon their property, they may by a 2/3 vote determine that their property taxes are too high, i.e., the assessments are too high and therefore by a 2/3 vote may vote out those assessments. Therefore, he recommends that the Commission try to restrain in the development agreement the ability for any 2/3rds body of property owners to vote out the O&M if you don't want it to fall back to the city as a cost in the future. His final comment was that any agreement between the school district and the Irvine Company should be a three party agreement holding the city just as liable as the Irvine Company. Jeffrey Oderman, attorney representing residents in the Lemon Heights area, addressed four concerns: 1) Density and compatibility of the residential adjacent to existing property; the specific plan fails to implement the goal of compatibility in two respects a) the existing residential development is mostly on 1/2 acre minimum lots, the adjacent development can be on lots as small as 5,000 sq. ft. (8 units per acre) and if clustered as permitted can be on lots as small as 3,000 sq. ft. (12-14 units per acre). 2) Traffic impacts: a) location of the future extension of Jamboree Road jogs to the left and comes within 600 ft. of existing residences, b) east west connectors from the project through north Tustin area. By eliminating Racquet Hill you solve only 1/4 of the problem because there are three connectors left which will be forced to accept the spill over from what would have dumped onto Racquet Hill. The EIR admits that these connectors, "do not serve any vital circulation needs as far as East Tustin is concerned". 3) School impacts: TUSD and the Company agreement; the EIR is totally inadequate on the issue of schools in terms of informing the Commission and public on the impacts and in terms of committing prevention of impacts. The MOU should be reviewed and publicly aired and analyzed by way of the EIR process so that inadequacies can be dealt with. 4) Overall density and intensity of use of the project: the development calls for about 1,000 more dwelling units than permitted under the city's general plan. Low density residential has the most positive fiscal affect; high density has the worst revenue impact. Yet, the specific plan cuts the lowest density in half and the high density is increased to over 6,000 units. The rationale for the project is contradictory to the proposal. He implored the Commission to take their time and thoroughly review all the information submitted on the plan. Requested the Commission defer action; it is premature to act tonight because the project itself is so vaguely defined it is hard to determine what the impacts are. Secondly, he requested they revise the densities on the western border of the project adjoining existing residential development to make the project compatible. There is not one location in the EIR where there is a comparison of proposed and existing. Requested they not permit any clustering at the boundary. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page five Bill Tucker, 2012 La Colina, FCA, he's attended several information meetings involving the East Tustin plan. Throughout all the meetings, it was made clear that there was no need to use La Colina as anything more than a connector. With this 12th hour request to amend the plan to make La Colina a secondary road, it contradicts what has been intended. One of the ways to mitigate impacts on existing north Tusttn areas is to keep the east west connectors at a commuter level. Janet Sanders, 10962 Lake Court Rd., submitted a petition signed by 249 residents of the Lemon Height, Lower Lake, Skyline area opposed to making Lower Lake a through street. Judy Malue~, 10962 Bent Tree Rd., opposed to making Lower Lake a through street which would create traffic on streets that are inadequate to handle the impact. John Owen, 9726 Willow Glen, commented the proposed improvements provide much needed relief to the existing congestion, provide a regional park and golf course. These land uses are critical regional amenities which will be used by the county and Tusttn residents. His concern is with transfer of density and wants to ensure compatible densities are preserved. He supports the plan with implementation of careful review processes in connection with transfer of densities. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill, Racquet Hill Homeowners Association, pleased with staff's support to delete Racquet Hill as a connector. If the Commission endorses staff recommendation for deletion, they will support the plan. Gerald Feldman, 13191Wtckshtre Lane, Bellewick Community Association, after meeting with The Irvine Company, they support the plan. John Butler, 17431 Parker Drive, supported the plan and expressed confidence in The Irvine Company's effort to do the best job for the community. William Durktn, 1451 Sycamore, requested the Commission take into account the community's cultural arts needs. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres Association, questioned the traffic volumes going north into East Orange. Terry Austin, consultant, estimates approximately 25~ of East Tusttn residents traveling into Orange and 25[ from Orange traveling into Tusttn. The estimated volume on that portion of North Myford Road is about 20,000 vehicles per day. Larry Sutherland, TUSD, explained that at a special meeting on January 27th the TUSD approved an agreement with The Irvine Company regarding the provision of school facilities in East Tustin. Both parties agree that a condition be included in the specific plan to require that final residential maps shall not be approved by the city until such time as TUSD and the Company have entered into the necessary agreements to enable the school district to obtain financing. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page st x Commissioner Wetl questioned if the Commission can condition the approval process of the agreement. Mr. Lamm responded that the city can place a condition stating that no development can occur or a subdivision map cannot be finalized or recorded without the approval of the school district on the financing for public schools, or it could be included in the development agreement. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if this agreement would have any affect on the children presently in the district. Mr. Sutherland responded that facilities will be maintained for current students and no hours would be changed. The specifics are not in the agreement; it states that as the planning process proceeds such matters will be resolved. Mr. McCarthy questioned if this would be through a public process. Mr. Sutherland said, "either or both". Commissioner White clarified the concept of the agreement is to deal on a map by map basis. He further clarified that the district's intent would be that those facilities would be provided in accordance with the district's ability to secure alternative funding whether private, state or federal. Sutherland responded that flexibility is the goal. Tom Tracey, 2232 Racquet Hill, member of the finance committee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, focused on the lack of church site availability due to cost and, lack of security now and during construction of the land. A 25% discount, as the Company tonight proposed, is inadequate for a non profit organization and he challenged the Company to produce evidence regarding purchase and existence of church sites in Irvine. He further stated there would not be a Catholic Church among the Company's newly proposed seven in East Tustin because of the cost of land. Stephen Johnson, 420 W. Main St., recommended the Commission not make a decision until the public review period expires on January 31st and wondered who will bear the capital improvement costs. He further discussed bonding procedures and negative financial impacts. He suggested the new TUSD and Company agreement concerning school facilities be incorporated into the EIR. He further informed that an offer to enter into a development agreement at sometime in the future is not a contract itself; unless it ts Incorporated into the plan, It has no btndlng affect. Stan Hoffman explained the fiscal analysis will become a part of the development agreement. Regarding capital improvement costs, he explained that the city has been undertaking with the Company a series of studies to look at the burden that would be placed on the land owners through various techniques such as Mello Roos or special assessments. Stephen Johnson continued by pointing out that the city is at the height of its bargaining power to ensure Improvements are made by the developer. If conditions are not incorporated tnto the EIR and Spectftc Plan In wrttlng, the ctty wtll lose thts bargaining power. Don Lamm explained at the specific plan level we are not detailing how capital costs will be funded. Under subdivision laws the city has the power to condition/exact improvements at the cost of the developer which could include the widening of Irvine Blvd., Browning Avenue, the Jamboree Road extension, the widening of Myford, all the internal local sewers that go within the residential development, all the regional Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page seven sewer and water delivery systems (IRWD). Regional improvements will be funded by an assessment district on the land. The first assessment district will fund nearly $50,000,000 in costs for the E1 Modena channel, E1 Camino Real new road, traffic signals and 60% of the interchange at Jamboree and I-5. Overall, the residents of East Tustin will pay for every single expense involved for every single improvement done. Stephen Johnson, questioned the impact of Government Code Section 65915 on this plan should (he developer request 25% more units be permitted for affordable housing. Don Lamm, the developer is forsaking that right to the increase via the development agreement that sets the cap of 7950 units. Stephen Johnson, asked to submit that to the attorney for an opinion because it doesn't appear to be something that can be waived by the city as a requirement of development. He further emphasized that these types of conditions should be set out in writing. Bill Ordwa¥, 2042 Inwood, requested the Commission not make a decision until the public input period expires on January 31st. The neighborhood continuity is challenged by the future road. The EIR has not adequately addressed the impacts on existing neighborhoods. He strongly encouraged the Commission not rush into a project of this magnitude. Further, he would like to see the city stay with the original density established in the General Plan; no benefit to the city to increase the density. Density has a direct relationship to traffic. Ida Dickenson, 1429 Bryan Ave., Tustin Gold Key Association, concerned with the Company's ability to build a density far in excess of what presently exists and the impacts on the existing residents. She further expressed concern with the number of apartment and low income developments in Tustin. Less traffic with less building. Don Lamm explained gross vs. net acres (density). The density transfer issue is nothing mere than a mechanism whereby each sector has a fixed number of units, but if for some reason that sector cannot be built in that fashion the Company may ask to move some of these units around. The overall 7950 cap cannot be exceeded. Regarding low income housing, the City Council will have to address this issue. The Company has the right to build single family detached homes, town homes and condominiums; CUPs (public hearings) would be required for all apartments. To accommodate the traffic volume on Bryan Avenue, the City Engineer is proposing to restripe it from its present two lanes to four lanes to increase the flow. Doris Allen, 2232 Salt Air Dr., concerned with Sector 8 and Future Road; the six lane highway 600 feet from her property. Would like the road moved closer to Irvine Blvd. Two schools less than a mile from her home seems excessive. Also concerned with night lights in the park near her home. Chairman Wetl recessed at 10:15 p.m. Reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Jim Scott, (no address given), Challenged the Commission to represent the people of Tustin, not themselves and special interests. The majority of people are not in favor of this project. He questioned who is paying for the project. Bren should pay for the schools, roads, etc. up front in writing, no speculation, no theory, no possibilities for later action; too high density; overload of existing system (roads, schools); quality of life will be adversely affected; 25~ low income housing above what is proposed. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page et ght Jeffrey McElderry, 10351 Mira Vista Dr., introduced a letter from the Tustin Chamber of Commerce dated January 24, 1986 (on file in the Tustin Community Development Department)," .approving the concept of the East Tustin Specific Plan, reserving the right to address each section as it progresses..." He personally is in favor of the project. Judy Almqutst, 2281 Pavlllton Dr., Committee for Compatibility, addressed the issue of four connector roads; specifically, the impacts of traffic. Foothill is a most unlikely commuter due to winding, curving, narrow nature of the road. Secondly, pollution or air quality is not addressed adequately in the EIR. Tom Smith, consultant, explained air quality looked at the total emissions from the project (7,950 units). They monitored existing intersections with high traffic volumes. The figures are all projections because there is nothing in the project to monitor. Judy Almqutst, the roads studied are two to four lanes, Future Road is going to be six lanes and that specifically should be addressed in the EIR. The Commission directed Tom Smith pursue including an analysis of air pollution/air quality caused by Future Road in the EIR. Commissioner White pointed out that they are not certifying the EIR tonight. This is a preliminary hearing and the testimony will be referred to the City Council to take action on the EIR. Jantne Harmon, 12232 Ranchwood Road, FCA, urged Commissioner White not lose the opportunity to study the EIR by making specific recommendations to the City Council and adequately honor the responsibility as a Commissioner to take advantage of additional comments raised this evening. Mrs. Harmon addressed the following issues: 1) Need for additional fire stations if connectors are put through. 2) Sector 3, Designations of Land Use, page 3-13, should be neighborhood park, and pointed out the EIR is short a specific number of acres for parks. Requested clarification of what the park ordinance mandates for the number of dwelling units indicated as the cap. If each sector map goes before the Director, you ultimately take the responsibility of sanctioning the parks or fees and that is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. In summary, she is concerned with the Commission forfeiting their review of sector maps relating to parks. She requested the workings of park approval be spelled out in the EIR. 3) Wondered if the 1.4% tax base based on assessment district includes an assessment for the schools and if the TUSD and Company agreement would become a three way joint party agreement. Referred to Sutherland's recommendation to be included in the EIR that sector map approval not be given before a financial package is set up. 4) Questioned if La Colina should be a two lane or four lane; county recommended a four lane, she wondered if the public will know before action is taken on the EIR. 5) Why was consideration given to a higher volume on Racquet Hill and that same consideration was not given to Foothill or Lower Lake at a lower volume. Questioned if the amendment should be honored to dead end those streets and change the Master Plan of Highways. How will the city circulation be consistent with the county map. She asked decisions be delayed until County information is received. 6) Referring to Page 2-21, asked if the knoll could be restricted to not allow development on the ridgeline. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page nt ne Don Lamm explained that OCFD spaces its stations geographically to serve its area. Depending upon the phasing in this area, OCFD does plan to build more stations. The phasing of when these stations come on line is unknown. OCFD has addressed in the EIR that they can serve East Tustin with the present station at Cowan and Newport. In order to utilize that one station, a connection is needed. So, until the County builds its East Orange or Northwest Irvine station an interim or permanent station would have to come on line. He did not recall a third station being proposed but he offered to research the issue. Don Lamm clarified the city of Tusttn implements state law allowing the city to require or take from the developer three acres of park land per 1,000 population; at the time a subdivision map is processed through the city. This Plan anticipates that the overall acreage (66 acres) would be required based on the total population. What is included in the Plan are only the designations for public park land; a community park and a neighborhood park. It does not show on the Plan private neighborhood parks. Under the parkland ordinance East Tustin may have up to 25% of its parklands built out as private neighborhood which includes community associations, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. There is a variation that allows for this 25% figure. The park sites symbolically indicated on the Plan may be expanded or reduced in size. It is quite flexible because it will actually occur at the subdivision map level. Staff intends to get every single acre of the 3/1000 possible. Don Lamm explained that parks are taken by the city when developers submit subdivision maps. A subdivision map outlines an entire sector and a basic generalized plan for that sector. Don Lamm is designated to review the generalized plan in conjunction with this Plan, but the subdivision map and actual plan go to the Commission. The Commission and ultimately the Council are the bodies who are empowered to require park acres or fees in lieu of those acres or a little of both. The city's parkland dedication ordinance is very precise, has exact formulas and procedures. Also a recreation element of the general plan has all the policies on precisely what sizes of parks, what should be included in the parks, and how to get them. The Commntty Services Director ultimately makes the recommendations to the City Council. The Council says exactly the final size, shape, location and how it will be improved. Don Lamm clarified Section 2.14 in the EIR. The Company must submit the conceptual site plan which will outline the location of a school, park, streets, etc., and also submit the overall subdivision map. The way this Section reads it sounds like the Director of Community Development is responsible for approving both of them. That is not the case. This position is responsible for approving the conceptual site plan for that area and sending it on to the Commission with the subdivision map. City staff cannot approve at any time subdivision maps; it requires a public hearing. He will have this section clarified. Don Lamm explained the present assessment on the property is approximately 1.4~. 1~ Prop 13 - .4~ to retire the debt service on the IRWD bonds on the property. Staff is trying to keep the property tax level under 2~ with the capital assessment districts placed against the property. If there is an assessment district or a Mello Roos Community Facilities District, which is an assessment on property to build schools, it could go above 2~. Stan Hoffman explained that the IRWD tax is only on land value. assessments do apply to the total value. The other Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page ten Referring to the school district agreement, Don Lamm stated the agreement is between the school district and the Company. The two bodies are asking for the City Council to implement this agreement through the development agreement. So, the city will probably not be a signature to the agreement but will be a consenting party if the Council approves it. As far as a financing package, no, this agreement does nothing more than give the district authority of yes or no over projects in the future until there is a way of financing them. Under subdivision law, the city is only involved in the school process when subdivision maps come through. In the agreement between the district and the company, Don referred to the statement, "... the two agree that until such time the district and the company have entered necessary agreements that the city shall not allow a final subdivision map to be approved or recorded." City staff concurs with this and would recommend that this be included as part of the package that goes on to the Council. The Council has the jurisdiction to do as they choose. They do not have to follow this unless they actually implement it into the Plan. The Commission could recommend to the Council that this agreement be a condition of the project. Don Lamm explained the confusion over either a two lane or a four lane arterial on La Colina. There is some confusion between what the county wants and what the city is intending. Either way, the county has indicated there is supposed to be a connection. The actual right-of-way width and number of lanes is unclear. The county's input will be in response to the EIR. It is the city's impression the county intends that connection to be made. If the county says no, staff will advise the Council the county objects. Don Lamm explained the city felt Racquet Hill is the third of the least necessary in the upper area. It is not in the county Master Plan of Arterial Highways for connection. The city sees it as a lesser of a vital link across the hills as that of Lower Lake and Foothill. Lower Lake and Foothill are shown on the master plan as connections into the area. If ultimately the Council objects to connecting any of these roads, another conflict with the county master plan arises. FCA has requested that the county amend its master plan to delete these connections. That particular move would take up to one year. If and when the county does so, and it is after East Tusttn is acted upon and East Tustin does indicate connections, the county will haye to request to sever those connections. The city would then have to amend the plan to do so. Don Lamm explained that the knoll is half a community park site and the other half is the residential development facing the golf course. The issue is adequately covered in the specific plan. It is a dual zone. The knoll is predominately in the CP (community park) zone; the southwesterly face is the medium high (condo/apartment) zone. Staff feels it adequately addresses the protection of the knoll for what it is intended for. The ridgeline development policies are part of the sector plans. As each sector is proposed, if it has a ridgeline in it, a plan has to be submitted that says how this ridgeline will be treated. In this particular case, it would be within sector 7. At that point in time a treatment of this knoll would be submitted. Staff does not concur with total abolition on this knoll because it is unknown if it will be partially used for private development or for a community center. The knoll is split for public and private use. To totally preclude its use may totally preclude development of a public building on the park site. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page eleven Janine Harmon admonished the Commission on why public testimony is being taken at this point if each and every tract map is going to have to be bird-dogged due to the indefinites in the guidelines of the specific plan and EIR. Janine Harmon continued as follows: 7) The EIR specifically needs to pin down capitalization or funding or responsible agents for things such as flood control and wants to know why has that not been done for one of the channels. Urged the Commission to delay decision on approval of the plan until figures are available on who will be responsible. 8) Asked for justification in the EIR and Zone Change for the increase in density from 6950 to 7950. 9) Eastern Transportation Corridor is considered as a proposed possible alignment through Peters Canyon along Myford. Why in the circulation plans a traffic volume on Myford is considered and yet in the ETC alignment the noise studies are not considered. She encouraged the Commission to wait for the county's comments on this alignment and then further study the noise impact in conjunction with Jamboree. Questioned if the Noise map in the EIR is a noise summary for all hours, for all impacts with the exception of the Corridor. Does that take into account the Browning Corridor and the traffic of the roads and the John Wayne Airport flight pattern (CNEL 60-65)? Isn't it the responsibility of this Noise study to address both the helicopter, the air traffic and the noise within the Jamboree area even if the transportation corridor isn't considered? Don Lamm explained that the draft EIR did not include consideration of the financing of capital costs for channel improvement. A new law that took effect January 1, 1986 now requires that be covered. In the final EIR, the environmental consultants will address where the commitments will come from for the flood control improvements and the other tnfrastrucutre improvements in the East Tusttn area. The information is not available for the Commission's review tonight. Regarding justification for the increase in density of 1,000 units, Don Lamm stated it is not required by law to be in the EIR. It was a policy decision of the Steering Committee and there is no reason to justify. Unless the Steering Committee decides to issue a policy statement, it is doubtful a justificatin would come forward. At the Council level, the two Council members who sat on the Steering Committee may wish to give their personal opinions but, it is not required ~y law. Don Lan~n explained that Terry Austin, the traffic consultant, has estimated the Eastern Transportation corridor will be outside the boundary area, east of Myford Road. It is unknown if the consultants could come up with a noise analysis not knowing exactly where the road would be. Tom Smith explained that the exhibit in the EIR takes into account only traffic noise from the arterial network within the specific plan boundary. Environmental documentation that will accompany the Eastern Transportation Corridor will analyze the noise impacts of that facility and will make recommendations regarding the types of mitigation measures that are specific wherever noise standards are exceeded including the East Tustin Specific Plan. His opinion is that the Eastern Transportation Corridor EIR is the appropriate vehicle to do that level of analysis. To do it at this point in time for this project would basically get the city involved in determining impacts that are within the purview of the county and other regional transportation agencies. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page twelve Dolores Nlven, 2112 Salt Air Dr., opposed to opening the connector roads; build a new fire station. Nell Narkleroad, 10562 Mira Vista, NTMAC, submitted a letter dated January 27, 1986. Issues highlighted: opposed to connections on La Colina, Racquet Hill, Foothill or Lower Lake Roads; public services appear to be inadequate for the projected population; additional fire station needed; if the school district were forced to proceed to additional bonded indebtedness which would result in tax bill additions there is no distinguishing way it could now act to have those bond issues only addressed to the East Tustin area. The bond issues would be spread throughout the area including the city of Tusttn tax payers as well as the county tax payers within the district. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Commission dtscussin ensued: Baker questioned when the figures on the financing of the channel improvement be available. He further questioned how the Commission feels about the letter request from the EMA to continue consideration of the plan. Don Lamm responded the figures are available now; borne by the assessment district. Puckett is in favor of the plan and wants to proceed recommending it to the Council. McCarthy commented that there have been two meetings on the EIR; people have come in to speak with a lot of thought. Since the County hasn't answered on the EIR or specific plan the hearing should be continued to review the comments still not received. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commission discussed ensued regarding the correct procedure for the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. White recommended the comments and answers from tonights meeting be answered; gather the balance of the comments on the EIR; and, lastly the staff should reduce the concerns to a check list of issues to help format the discussion. AI)NINISll~ATIVE II. AlTERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Oral Report on Council actions of January 20, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1996 page thirteen COMlqZSSZON CONCERNS None. ADJOUR~qENT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Dt)N'NA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY KATHY WE~L, CHAIRMAN