|
i ar u ,i
<br />December 18, 2003
<br />Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr, Mola confirmed that the project will be condoininiums
<br />A discussion ensued among Commissioner Propst, Alternate Commissioner S. Beverburg and Mr. Mola
<br />regarding the planned emergency -only use of the roof -top helipad and options for future usage, and the
<br />complex function of noise generated aloft with a slant range to the site, and higher noise generated on
<br />the ground level freeway adjacent to the site affecting the residents, depending on elevation,
<br />Mr. Vince Fregoso, City of Santa Ana senior planner, replied to COMnlissioner Propst that the project
<br />has not been to the City's Planning Commission yet, with a formal recommendation to the Council
<br />some months away, so he cannot speculate on their views about the project or on Overriding the ALUC,
<br />Mr. Ernie Vasquez, project Architect, described his liaison with the Planning Commission and City
<br />Council, and their enthusiasm for such a mixed -use high -rise project representing quality housing for
<br />Santa Ana. He related his firth's research in other west coast cities, .noting that this trend is occ urring in
<br />Orange County such as in Irvine at the Fluor complex, He said that the cost of land locally is a factor,
<br />and assured the members that the project site is flu-ther from the approach corridor than several existing
<br />buildings. He encouraged an exhibit to show all buildings in the context of the !light path, and assured
<br />the members that the City, the ALUC and the developer can work together to a solution,
<br />Commissioner Webb moved the staff recommendation for a finding of Consisten
<br />while noting the lack of binding reasons, including noise, to deny the project, oy with conditions,
<br />Alternate Commissioner S. Beverburg reviewed the complex noise environment, repeating his desire to
<br />see some level of sound attenuation.
<br />Chairman Bresnahan, hearing no second, replied to Commissioner Webb by describing his lingering
<br />concerns including the precedent - setting nature of the project, the claim that such building heights were
<br />entitled in the 1980s with ALUC approval, proximity to the approach corridor, the true aspects of the
<br />noise issue, and past experience with projects affecting JWA despite FAA's expertise. He noted that
<br />the issue is not high -rise devcloptn,ent per so, but rather its location in a sensitive area, He stated his
<br />desire for continued deliberations at the next meeting with additional information, such as was offered
<br />by the architect regarding the general vicinity, to ensure an informed ALUC decision.
<br />A discussion ensued among Commissioners, staff, the City, and the project proponent, regarding the
<br />specific issues on which the members desire more information, including actual noise environment,
<br />helipad requirements, relationship to aircraft traffic and navaids, views of the FAA and ALFA, and
<br />statutory time permitted for a continuance.
<br />On the motion and second of Commissioners Campbell and Propst, this item was continued to the next
<br />scheduled meeting of Jatauary 15, 2004, pcndiug presentation of additional information continued
<br />staff.
<br />ONGOING BUSINESS:
<br />2. Administrative Status Re ort:
<br />Executive Officer Golding reminded the members that the ALUC roster with phone numbers is
<br />confidential and not Meant to be given out. She noted that it may be necessary to schedule the January
<br />meeting at 4:30 p,m„ of which she will notify the Members by e -mail, She concluded by noting the
<br />G /9 'd Lb8'OH HOISSILJW09 3sin 2Ny-I 1:tfGc�Ifj WdST:T 57tJ,'cc''�CLJ
<br />
|