Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPLEMENTAL ITEM #1 MINUTES 6-13-17 Item #1 Revisions to Page 13 ftheJerre 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes And Thompson's Comments (Verbati Mr. Johnson further commented that he understood staff' has met the legal requirements, as well as going above and beyond, but he feels the City should be following the same procedural standards as private developers would, as far as notification. 8.43 p.m. Kozak closed the Public Comment section. Thompson Thompson thanked the two 2 residents for speaking. In general, he cornmented on the following: the feedback received and how it fits into theeln; traffic being a key issue and a part of the history of the specific Plan; he w "Itn n CAQn1l Itinn r%f Wh:it thin-imcffic-Im =fQ :;:mp and he stated it was interestin to see that today's comments from the city of Irvine were simply "clarification", there's no lawsuit pending; agreed with the comments the two residents stated previously regarding traffic; e) embellished ons_-the mobility and connectivity of the area and referred to the south coast Plaza as a model and the bridges that connect from the strut; discussed regional planning and potential_a pathways that could occur in the future between the area and the (Metrolink as well as& John Wayne Airport., &and used Tustin Ranch won Road) as an example of such connectivit AF .-A �� Im,llaf �� referred to the Katherine Spur bike trail as a "bad example" that wasn't mapped,; ,, 11 i In aA I � i Irp �e �- t - e er discussed water conservation and provided the e a _ I that when communities grow, the dernand for water actually fells: even though there are more units.. so he suggested staff collaborate with Irvine Ranch Water r District, and when the city is proposing these water features in the community, }1� ,4,::g,_I k have a recycled component to them. Mason Eason suggested an opportunity for the public to provide input into the Specific Plan. she stated that when the developers cone in to propose to the communities, the public will have an opportunity to provide input as we build out over time. Mason included that addressing the needs of the community and that it is meaningful for Tustin over the lore term and there will be opportunities for amendments. she referred to SFA section 5.2.4 "commitment to take input from the public„ and to make sure the community is heard and is vocal. Kozak Kozak's cornments generally included. he sees the document as a programmatic master plan for the purpose of identifying the types of development, uses, to reposition the available, developable land that is currently available on the Tustin Legacy, and reposition that land and the developments that would be entitled so that they meet market demand, is a complete community, and is reflective of Tustin through 2035; he appreciates the comments from the two 2 residents that spoke; the mixed-use concept is something that is aimed at the current and future homebuyers of the millennial generation; the reduction of the non- residential/commercial uses will be balanced out through the individual. Minutes— Fri.-inninc ,orrm-iissicm Junes 13, 0-17 — (:, 1'1 of � THOMPSON (VERBATIM): Thompson stated: we have had a lot- of information provided to us, with this being the second opportunity to review this material. Commended the two ) residents for speaking. one of his key questions of staff from earlier was"what's the feedback that we are receiving and how does that fit into the big picture? "I'm going to be a little long-winded but I'm going to try and hone in on just a few po i nts." ' He again mentioned the reed to understand what is left in front of "us" and was thankful to staff for providing clarity. "The traffic is a key issue and is something that is part of the history of this project. When the project was first proposed, which met approval in 2001, prior to that the City of Irvine had sued the Cityto come to a resolution on ghat those traffic impacts are." He found it very(interesting the comments received from C01 this time, it is just related to clarifications. There is no lawsuit pending saying"you're doing something different that is going to impact u ". "That is something worth receiving applause for that we might forget." He also stated, "I Mill agree though with the comments provided by the public on the traffic and even though we have Appendix E of the analysis, I life the example you used (he motioned to the public), but we have the District with one -lane in and one lane out and we know that has caused back-up and how do we fix that. The one thing l would share commonality with is we saw on the presentation there is an overlay of the different features and you have to do those filters (what do the trails look like,what do the streets look like,what do the waterlines look like and we kind of flip the pages to kind of understand how all of those layers work together. But then we need to bring them all together because do the trails, do the walkways, do the shuttles tie to the different places and it would look very complicated, but what l would like to say is maybe there is something that, as far as condition, this is a programmatic level (very high altitude of things) how do we ensure, not ensure but establish ars understanding in the gears to come that each time we look at a new neighborhood of development, we want to know that those trails serve a purpose of connecting homes to the offices,.to the retail, and back and forth and I think that is very important. And the example I used before at our prior meetings is, look at South Coast Plaza. You've got this incredible retail center. you've got offices and residential around it.and then you've got these incredible bridges that just cross the street. And it encourages you when you're in the hotel, which I've staged in, or have gone to the offices, which l have, during lunch you want to go across the street and it gets you off the road and that has been such a successful model, when ULI when l go and travel,we went to Seattle Bellevue Collection, followed P's model. It's even.more successful than SCP, if you can imagine. So i wart us to stead that success and ingrain that in what vire do and x don't know if it's just beefing up our conditions that we place capon ourselves, but something that really embellishes'the connectivity of mobility, besides your car, and land use and it may be as simple ars that because we are so high level it is hard to draw a picture right now and we can't do than until we get further ire the process. So that was my ONE comment. His second comment: "we have to be very careful the way we say this is, we talk about a lot of regional planning. We've got J A that s. south of this development, Metrolink to the north, while it is not the prerogative of this project to figure out how than ties together, we want to have the acknowledgement of a pathway than could occur in the future. And I would use the example of TRR. It was established in the o's before we even knew the MCAS base was going to turnover and before development could r even take place. Because it was a line on a map, and it stayed that way, when TRR carne along, it was orderly that we could just bring that right into the Legacy and it was an important part of our circulation pattern. And I use it all the time for travel and I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But somebody, decades before us, thought about it and put it on a map. Now, I'll use a bed example: the Katherine Spur—the bike trail that goes through the Tustin Meadows. It was a rail spur that someone thought would be great for a bike trail, but the problem was, nobody put it an the map. And so it has never been able to make its way forward because of that. I'm going to suggest that maybe the linear park have the addition of a dotted line that"s a future potential connection that could serve something other than getting in your car and driving to the airport. And I think that would be something that would be a statement for increased mobility because I arra concerned as we Beard from our fobs here tonight and even in some of the statements here that traffic could be something that is going to haunt us and we want to do everything we can, besides analyzing, that say we are going to put certain thresholds in place to continue to be aware and deep mobility 1. we are too focused on our cars as a solution hence,we get traffic. The last comment is really to the folks that wrote in that aren't here tonight that talked about water. I think the plan that we have here has got a lot of innovation to it, often times, we all ask ourselves "gait a minute —why are we adding more water demand system and it is logical (more houses means more water). However, what happens is those homes are so efficient that they are also breeding more efficiency within the community and it has been understood, analyzed, confirmed that when communities grow, with water conservation in mind, their demand for water actually falls even though thea are more units on the ground. Call it magic, I don't Knout what it is, but it works. what I would like to suggest, with our planning, and our collaboration with IRWD that when we are proposing these water features in the community, which I think are a great idea because surreys show that people lure water but that these water features have -a recycled component to thorn so that there is some conservation that's programmed in it. I WD is one of the most advanced water agencies in O.C. they have the brain power to do it, we have a great plan here that the City has been working on and I think that if we put that in the forefront about the water conservation aspects, and maybe there already has been addressing of it, but I think we can also address this concern for more water where by actually doing more development we can actually reduce our water needs by creating more recycled uses and opportunities for recycling. Those are kind of my extent of overview,feedback and comments.