Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
GPAC forwards draft Land Use Element after detailed debate over capacity limits, parking and coastal coordination
Summary
The General Plan Advisory Committee reviewed a streamlined draft Land Use Element prepared with consultant Dudek, debated administrative updates to development-capacity tables, housing focus areas, parking management and coastal coordination, and voted to forward the draft to the steering committee with staff tasked to track and address GPAC comments.
The General Plan Advisory Committee met Sept. 16 and voted to forward a draft Land Use Element to the steering committee and then to the planning commission for further review and public outreach.
The draft, prepared with consultant Dudek, trims the existing land use element roughly in half, restructures policies and adds targeted new provisions, consultant Janet Rodriguez said: "We really worked to streamline the new land use element ... the adopted element is about 70 pages of text and we've cut it down to approximately 35 pages." The element bundles policy topics and adds a clearer framework for development capacity limits, Rodriguez said.
Staff presenter Ben described a key procedural change that drew sustained attention: a policy to allow administrative updates to three land‑use tables so staff can track transfers of development rights within statistical areas in real time. "This is really under the premise of transparency, real‑time data," he said, adding that the change would not allow staff to perform general‑plan amendments.
Committee members raised several substantive points during the extended discussion. Paul Watkins urged an explicit placeholder allowing the city to consider possible future annexation of the Santa Ana Country Club if circumstances change; Ben and others said annexation questions would be handled through separate processes. Several members pressed staff to clarify how many prior 2006 policies were carried forward: Jim Moer noted that many older policies lacked explicit notation indicating whether they remained in the draft and asked staff to provide a crosswalk.
Parking and circulation repeatedly surfaced as cross-cutting concerns. Multiple members recommended stronger curbside management and better use of technology to inform visitors of parking availability; staff said the draft supports evaluating pricing and management options and expanding trolley service. "Parking is an integral part of everything," one GPAC member said during public discussion, noting its impact on mixed‑use viability and neighborhood quality of life.
Committee members also queried policies tied to specific areas: the draft recommends a specific plan for the Airport Area, preserves policy language for Randall Preserve (formerly Banning Ranch) while noting that council direction is required to remove existing density allowances, and suggests objective design standards and publicly accessible open‑space easements for larger residential projects.
On process, the GPAC asked staff and the consultant to prepare an itemized list documenting the subcommittee's comments and how each was addressed before the element proceeds to public release; staff agreed to provide that list. Susan (GPAC member) moved to forward the draft, the motion was seconded and carried; staff recorded named opposition from several members and committed to incorporate or respond to the committee's comments before the planning commission review.
The steering committee and planning commission will review the draft as part of an outreach timeline that includes public open‑house events planned for Oct. 21–22, staff said. The draft will remain a living document pending revisions and additional mapping and implementation plan work.
The committee did not adopt any final land‑use map or code changes at the meeting; it approved only the procedural step to advance the draft and requested further technical clarifications, a crosswalk to 2006 policies, and clearer public materials for community review. The steering committee and planning commission will have the opportunity to request further edits before the element is released for public comment.
The GPAC also asked that specific follow‑ups be tracked: whether Randall Preserve density is removed by council direction, how administrative table updates will be footnoted or tracked for public transparency, and whether the commercial‑corridor study findings will be incorporated into the draft prior to finalization.
