Transportation Commission Approves Great Park Traffic Study, Setting Stage for Thursday Planning Commission Action on FivePoint Condos
At a Tuesday afternoon special meeting, the Irvine Transportation Commission voted unanimously to approve a traffic study finding that FivePoint’s proposed construction of 773 condominiums in the Great Park Neighborhoods would not generate sufficient traffic to require street improvements at intersections and arterial roadway segments.
The approval sets the stage for Planning Commission consideration of construction of a total of 2,008 condos at its meeting on Thursday, July 1, at 5:30 p.m.
The Transportation Commission’s approval was limited to two of the three tracts to be considered by the Planning Commission:
District 1S — The first tract in question, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19122, consists of about 27 acres bounded by Carmine and existing residential units to the north, Ridge Valley to the west, Hornet to the south, and Bosque to the east. FivePoint proposes development of up to 373 residential condos and a retail/multi-use development on the land. Access to the tract is via Ridge Valley, Great Park Boulevard, Beacon and Bosque–all existing public streets.
District 6 — The second tract, VTTM 19121, consisting of about 69 acres, is bounded by the Great Park to the north, the Great Park Wildlife Corridor to the south, future “O” Street to the east, and future Marine Way to the West. FivePoint proposes development of up to 400 condos and a private park on the land. Additionally, there would be a water quality basin owned and maintained by Irvine Ranch Water District. Access to the tract is via Chinon, Treble, Merit and Lynx—all existing public streets. Future public streets providing access would include “O” Street and “A” Street.
Development of District 5-South and Development of District 6-North — Not reviewed by the Transportation Commission but will be up for approval on Thursday, (VTTM 19130) — which proposes to subdivide approximately 193 gross-acres into 58 numbered lots and three lettered lots for residential condominiums, private park, and landscape purposes. The project site is generally bounded by Astor to the north, Chinon and Treble to the west, “O” Street to the south, and the Orange County Great Park Wildlife Corridor to the east.
The matter generated public comment via Zoom by five speakers. Two residents of Great Park Neighborhoods spoke of crowded conditions, heavy traffic and insufficient parking on their residential streets. Two other speakers, including a representative of the Sunrise movement, spoke of the need for more public transit and walkable and bicycle friendly communities.
The fifth and final speaker, FivePoint lobbyist Patrick Strader, stated that the condo units at issue had already been studied and approved. Strader asserted that Commission consideration had not been fast-tracked, noting that matter had been subject to staff analysis since last September. Irvine Watchdog previously reported that the special meeting was necessary to allow Planning Commission approval at the Thursday meeting.
See article: Transportation Commission Calls Tuesday Special Meeting to Expedite FivePoint Approvals – Irvine Watchdog
Irvine Watchdog’s previous article found in the draft minutes of the June 15 meeting a suggestion that the special meeting was hastily called. The draft minutes stated that the Chair “adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m. to a regular Transportation Commission meeting on July 6, 2021, at 5:30 p.m.” When the minutes came up on the consent calendar for the special meeting, Chair Sidney Wu stated that there was no mention of the next meeting at the June 15 meeting, and entertained a motion to strike the quoted language. The motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.
It remains unclear when and why the special meeting was called, but the effect was to shorten the public notice required under the Irvine Sunshine Ordinance from 12 days to five, as well as to facilitate earlier Planning Commission approvals than would have been possible otherwise.
The agenda and instructions for public participation at Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting are here.
6 Comments
rgurien
June 30, 2021 at 8:22 amDo I understand correctly that the commission removed minutes from a previous meeting in order to justify calling this “special meeting” within a 72-hour window? I mean, leaving the information in the minutes would have just made this look like a mistake in planning. Now it looks like CYA.
This oversight is just awful. Our city needs to be placed in receivership.
Branda Lin
June 30, 2021 at 8:54 amThe Transportation Commission and Planning Commission require a lot of technical understanding and it’s up to each commissioner to either seek to learn and ask questions or just fill a seat. I think we need to stop letting Councilmembers appoint Commissioners and move to at-large selection process instead, from members of our community who have a passion for and expertise in, in this case, transit-oriented development or planning.
Lobbyist Patrick Strader often states there’s “confusion in the community” and shows up and makes some statement to clarify the “confusion”. But if the staff had been analyzing this since September, why wasn’t it placed on the regular Transportation Commission agenda? Why call a special meeting?
Why do you think the Great Park Board meetings are now right before City Council meetings on the same day? They used to be held the day before the City Council meetings, giving the public some time to weigh in. Not anymore. They expedite their plans and whether intended or not, bypass the public’s chance to know about the item and weigh in.
Doug Elliott
June 30, 2021 at 9:29 amBranda, good points. Who do you think should appoint commissioners? Another change I think is needed is to give them fixed terms like most other cities do. That would give them more independence. As it is now, they serve at the pleasure of the Councilmember who appointed them, and can be replaced anytime they go in a different direction.
Doug Elliott
June 30, 2021 at 9:43 amRobin, the special meeting was called and noticed more than 72 hours in advance, but it’s not clear exactly when. The notice requirements get a little complicated because of differences between the Brown Act and the Irvine Sunshine Ordinance. The Brown Act only requires 72 hours notice for regular meetings and 24 hours for special meetings. The Sunshine Act requires 12 days for regular meetings and five for special meetings. So the agenda for this meeting only had to be posted by last Thursday to be legal. In my opinion, the Sunshine Ordinance needs to be strengthened to specify criteria that must be satisfied for calling a special meeting. Also, there should be a requirement that when the agenda for a meeting is posted on the website, the date of posting is displayed.
erandhawa
June 30, 2021 at 1:15 pmBeing a resident within the Great Park we were told about several amenities (great park improvements, golf course etc), as well as additional retail and restaurants that would be built. Instead all we have seen is houses being put up everywhere. This portion of land where the additional housing is being built is border right up on the retail sites that were discussed back in 2019. The property for the longest time actually had signage on the fencing that said food and shopping coming or something referencing that.
When is the City going to have Fivepoints do some of the development outside of just housing that was promised?
Here is a link to the FPx-Project for anyone interested:
https://irvinewatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/FPx-Project-.pdf
irvineresident
June 30, 2021 at 1:59 pmDoes this approval reduce the FivePoint X footprint?
Comments are closed.