FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 December 18, 2003 Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Mola confirmed that the project will be condominiums. A discussion ensued among Commissioner Propst, Alternate Commissioner S. Beverburg and Mr. Mola regarding the planned emergency-only t1Se of the roof-top helipad and options for future usage, and the complex function of noise generated aloft with a slant range to the site, and higher noise generated on the ground level freeway adjacent to the site affecting the residents, depending on elevation. Mr. Vince Fregoso, City of Santa Ana senior planner, replied to C011l.missioner Propst that the project has not been to the City's Planning Commission yet, with a fonnal recommendation to the Council some months away, so he cannot speculate on their views about the project or on overriding the ALUC. Mr. Ernie Vasquez, Project Architect, described his liaison with the Planning Conunission and City COW1cil, and their enthusiasm for such a mixed-use high-rise project representing quality housing for Santa Ana, He related his finn's research in other west coast cities, noting that this trend is occurring in Orange County such as in lrvine at the Fluor complex. He said that the cost ofland locally is a factor, and assured the members that the project site is further from the approach corridor than several existing buildings. He encouraged an exhibit to show all buildings in the context of the flight path, and assured the members that the City, the ALUC and the developer can work together to a solution, Commissioner Webb moved the staff recommendation for a finding of Consistency with conditions, while noting the lack of binding reasons, including noise, to deny the project. Alternate Conunissioner S. Beverburg reviewed the complex noise environment, repeating his desire to see some level of sowld attenuation. Chainnan Bresnahan, hearing no second, replied to Commissioner Webb by describing his lingering concerns including the precedent-setting nature of the project, the claim that such building heights were entitled in the 1980s with ALUC approval, proximity to the approach corridor, the true aspects of the noise issue, and past experience with projects affecting JW A despite FAA's expertise. He noted that the issue is not high-rise development per S0, but rather its location in a sensitive area. He stated his desire for continued deliberations at the next meeting with additional infonnation, such as was offered by the architect regarding the general vicinity, to ensure an infonned ALUC decision. A discussion ensued among Commissioners, staff, the City, and the project proponent, regarding the specific issues on which the members desire more infonnation, including actual noise environment, helipad requirements, relationship to aircraft traffic and navaids) views of the FAA and ALP A, and statutory time pennitted for a continuance. On the motion and second of Commissioners Campbell and Propst, this item was continued to the next scheduled meeting of January 15, 2004, pending presentation of additional information by staff. ONGOING BUSINESS: 2. A~ministrative Status ReDort: Executive Officer Golding reminded the members that the ALUC roster with phone numbers is confidential and not meant to be given out. She noted that it may be necessary to schedule the January meeting at 4:30 p.m., of which she will notify the Members bye-mail. She concluded by noting the l../9'd 2,(78'0[-..1 7 5~Cs~162 3sn mIen IdOddIti WdST:T S002'22'd~W