Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-13-86 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR IMEETI NG ,.IANUARY 13, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Also present: Larry Webb, Warren Roche, Meltssa Holmes, Tom Smith, Stan Hoffman, Bob Kallenbaugh, Terry Austin, Don Lamm, Ed Knight, Laura Pickup, Donna Orr, The Irvine Company team and approximately 230 citizens. 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 9, 1985. 2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 23, 1985. McCarthy moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLZC HEARINGS 3. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 80-17 Applicant: Bill Taylor on behalf of Taylor's Restaurant Location: 1542 E1Camino Real Request: To expand an existing game room by 320 square feet. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm, at the applicant's request, recommended the Commission table this item for a period not more than 6 months. White moved, McCarthy seconded to table this item for a period of six months. Motion carried 5-0. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes January 13, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 84-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Karen Cripps 15411 Red Hill Avenue, Unit D Approval of a 1750 square foot expansion and extension of previously allowed hours of operation for the California Sunshine Gymnastics School Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Commissioner White questioned the parking requirement. Laura Pickup responded there are six spaces for loading and unloading and four spaces as permanent parking for the instructors. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Amendment #1 to Use Permit 84-7 by the adoption of Resolution 2292. Motion carried 5-0. 5. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY Ao B. C. D. DRAFT EIR 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: Location: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca 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. Request: Presentation: 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. Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Ed Knight, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the plan and explained the process for approval. Larry Webb, Project Manager, presented the concept of the plan through a slide presentation and introduced the various consultants involved. Warren Roche, Urban Plan and Mellssa Holmes, Edaw, reviewed the more specific land use proposals, some of the components of the plan and how the regulations and policies within the plan will apply to the implementation process when the development process occurs after the plan is adopted. Minutes January 13, 1986 page three Roche further explained that there are 12 sectors in the plan, each with a maximum allowable number of units. If a sector is developed with less than the number, the number can be included in another area. An area can be developed with more than the allowed number with the approval of the Director of Community Development. At no time can the overall 7950 amount be exceeded. Tom Smith, MBA, summarized the process involved in preparation of the EIR. The key issues were: 1) traffic and circulation; 2) land use; 3) public service and utilities (schools and parks); 4) drainage; 5) topography. Stan Hoffman, explained the plan is fiscally balanced and highlighted the process. Bob Kallenbau~h, RBF, explained the wastewater system; disposal system; water distribution system; analyzed electrical, telephone and gas system; and commented on the flood control aspects of the plan (Peters Canyon Wash and E1Modena Channel). Terry Austin, Austin Foust Associates, reviewed issues that had been raised in the past. He explained the East Tustln circulation system is designed so as not to rely on regional facilities; it is self sufficient. On the other hand, it does have the ability to tie into the other systems when the need should occur. The system is adequate not only for East Tustin but for other traffic that may occur in the system. Monlca Florian, The Irvine Company, introduced Company team members. She presented an overview of the role the Company has played in the formulation of the plan. Chairman Wetl called for a 10 minute recess at 9:10 p.m. The hearing recovened at 9:30 p.m. and Chairman Well opened the hearing for public testimony. The following people spoke: Charles Rob¥, Racquethlll Homeowners, requested answers in writing to the issues he raised and presented the Commission with a typed report and petition containing 234 signatures of county residents requesting deletion of Racquet Hill as a through commuter/collector road to the East Tustin project. (The typed report is on file in the Tustin Community Development Department.) Mtchele Brooks, Racquethlll Homeowners, requested answers in writing to the issues she raised and thoroughly reviewed the typed report presented by Charles Roby addressing negative impacts on Racquet Hill, cited law precluding the specific plan from being adopted for the following reasons: 1) Racquet Hill is not a through street on the O.C. Master Plan of Arterial Highways; 2) The data upon which circulation plans were made assumes routes for the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the Bottleneck which have not been adopted; 3) The data base for traffic planning selectively includes and deletes the land use data for the unincorporated area of Irvtne directly east of East Tustin; 4) There is no provision for the increase in width of Racquet Hill/Skyline to meet standards for a "commuter/collector" road. Howard Hay, Racquethtll Homeowners, requested deletion of Racquet Hill as a connector for the following reasons: 1) increase traffic on Skyline; 2) dangerous intersection; 3) Racquet Hill would be subject to more traffic; 4) children use the streets and intersections as walkways and bikeways; 5) Irvine Company concept of culdesac community would be lost; 6) opportunity for two culdesac communities. Minutes January 13, 1986 page four Tom Tracey, Racquet Hill Homeowners, requested answers in writing and expressed concern in the decline of real estate values in homes adjacent to the project. He expressed further concern with the plan's insufficient provision for church sites. He pointed out that the city of Irvine makes it virtually impossible for churches to buy land and doesn't want the same thing to happen in Tustin. John Murphy, city of Irvine, went on record stating their city is currently reviewing the draft EIR and it has been agendized for their January 28th City Council meeting. They will send their formal comments on the draft EIR. Alicia Francis, 1792 San Juan, expressed support for the traffic plan and a westerly exit from East Tustin; tired of traffic congestion caused by county residents on Tusttn streets; suggested an overpass on Browning to alleviate traffic on Red Hill. She also wanted provisions made for churches in East Tustin. Carol Schrider, Foothill Communities Association, presented a typed statement (on file in the Tustin Community Development Department) summarized as follows: 1) Inadequate compliance with CEQA guidelines to furnish the public and officials with complete documentation; 2) Inaccurate and inconsistent technical data in the EIR; 3) Insufficient specific detail to be a specific plan, therefore, inappropriate designation as a Program EIR with no subsequent public review; 4) Unsubstantiated maximum densities with excessive latitude to the land developer. Unlike the existing General Plan there is no maximum density for gross project acres as an absolute ceiling; 5) Incomplete input of adequate arterial impact analysis and mitigation; 6) Inadequate or omission of mitigation measures; 7) Absence of an adequate phasing program to assure roads, schools, flood control, etc. progress in pace with development construction; 8) Lack of compliance with the existing Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. She further requested a 90 day extension for the public review process. Janlne Harmon, Foothill Communities Association, addressed the East Tusttn EIR citing, in the Association's opinion, inconsistencies, omissions and other errors. (A copy of the typed material is on file in the Tustin Community Development Department). She highlighted the need for Commission review of each sector site plan; excessive latitude for change to the developer; and requested an extension of time for the public review process. Stephen Johnson, 420 W. Main, concentrated his comments on public facilities; items that would cost the taxpayers money. He felt there is nothing in the report that commits the Irvine Company to a time frame or money to accomplish the public facilities, i.e., new schools, new roads, or new and improved flood control. He expressed fear that the city will have to sell bonds to build the roads and public facilities all of which will rest with the taxpayers. He suggested the plan contain a time schedule and commitment for payment. His further concern was with the density of the development, namely, the 15% latitude which can be granted by the Director of Community Development without further public input. He urged the Commission not listen to the "salesman's" assurances and read the fine print. Cliff Polston, Tustin Boy's and Girl's Club, praised The Irvine Company for the many community contributions they have made especially the financial assistance to the Boy's and Girl's Club; therefore, he supports the project and the Company. Joe Langley, Htllsboro Lane, supported the plan and asked the Commission to consider carefully the points raised by public input. His main concern has been the community's sports needs and he is satisfied the plan will fullfil those needs. Mi nutes January 13, 1986 page fi ye Carole Katz, Summit Ridge Homeowners, requested the public input time be extended and expressed concern with increased traffic on Skyline. Larry Keith, 2292 Pavilion Dr., addressed the proposed density compatibility. He referred to Sector 8 with 8,000 sq. ft. lots abutting homes with 23,000 sq. ft. lots and wondered where the compatibility exists. Don Lamm stated that the questions requesting written answers will be addressed in the EIR and will hopefully be returned on January 27th; copies can be obtained from city staff. He stated staff would make more loan copies of the specific plan and EIR available for public review. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well asked for a motion. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 27, 1986. Chair Well called a recess at 10:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Commission discussion/comments ensued as follows: White: 1) impressed with the quality of the presentations tonight; 2) requested staff outline the development (sector) package; 3) requested staff take a position on the benefits and detriments to the plan of dropping the road links; 4) Wants an explanation at the next hearing how the master plan projects are part of the project and not part of the city tax burden and present how the process, general plan through implementation, attaches the facilities to the project; 5) wants to know how the densities of the plan match the densities of adjacent development; 6) suggested rethinking of the density transfer concept, i.e., who has that authority, when it occurs and what transfer information is available at the time it is done. There should be a very simple mechanism; 7) Wants to establish fiscal requirements for processing the project and also for the arterial function so the project remains profitable for the city; 8) Wants prohibition of outside paging and loudspeaker systems. McCarthy will submit his in wri ting. Puckett expressed concern with the lack of church sites and wants to know what can be done to designate the sites. Baker will submit in writing. Well will submit in writing. White moved, Puckett seconded to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1986. Motion carried 5-0. AIXIINISll~ATIVE I~TTERS Old Business None. New Bustness None. Minutes January 13, 1986 page si x STAFF CONCERNS 6. Oral Report on Council actions of January 6, 1986.. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COI~ISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. CHAIRMAN