It all begins September 4, 2014 at the regular meeting of the City of Irvine Planning Commission just before the Agran slate’s “slow growth” messaging really started to hit voters mailboxes.
Item # 5 is 360 Fusion Residential located at the Northwest Corner of McGraw Avenue and Murphy Avenue in Planning Area 36, affectionately known as the Irvine Business Complex and represented by Sapetto Real Estate Solutions.
And Item # 6 is the Milani Residential Project consisting of Conditional Use Permit (00578126-PCPU) with transfer of development rights and Affordable Housing Plan, a Park Plan( 00583913-PPP), Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17666 (00583914-PTT); this is located at the Northwest corner of Von Karman and Martin Street at 18831 Von Karman in the Irvine Business Complex. It’s represented by Starpointe Ventures, you know, Patrick Strader’s company.
The review started smoothly on 360 Fusion project with only few members of public speaking against the project but given opportunity to speak as long as they like, often exceeding the three minute limit. The planning commissioners discussed the project and had no major concerns. The vote was taken and the project, backed by Sapetto who had fundraised for candidates on both major slates, and the motion failed. Commissioners Maryann Gaido and Harvey Liss voted to approve while Lynn Schott, Greg Smith and Anthony Kuo voted no.
Kuo then went into a political tirade regarding to the political mailers on slow growth and said all IBC Residential projects would be held for review till after November 4, 2014 elections.
The review for Milani started shortly after and four members of the public spoke out in opposition of the project – also not constrained by the three minute rule. A request from the applicant was made to continue this item to the November 6, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. It stayed off agenda till November 6, 2014 due to all the controversy. But the real reason was to not to bring attention to a Starpointe Venture represented property till after election. Starpointe was fully onboard with the Irvine Republican slate.
We ask: “Were these projects being judged for their merits or were they being used for political pawns?”
Then September 11, 2014, a request to place on the Planning Commission Agenda, the consideration of Public Hearing date for the 360 Fusion IBC Residential Project earlier than the currently scheduled date of November 6, 2014, while still leaving any review of other IBC Residential Projects till after November 4 Election. It was approved unanimously to place the 360 Fusion IBC Project on the October 16, 2014 Planning Commission agenda Item # 2.
The City Council got involved with 360 Fusion project during a Special Meeting of The Irvine City Council. That’s when development got political. At this meeting, the council majority called for the appointment of special counsel to complete an analysis pertaining to an appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to approve 280 attached Residential units for 360 Fusion, LLC in Planning area 36 (Irvine Business Complex).
Today, the City Council has a regular meeting to consider the Appeal of the planning commission action approving 360 Fusion Residential Project. So what we have is three projects represented by Starpointe Ventures all come up for review at the November 6, 2014 planning commission meeting and moved forward no matter all the controversy on two of the projects, Item # 3 Milani Residential Project and Item #6 Central Park West.
So the question is pretty simple: were these projects being judged on their merits or being used as political pawns for personal, political or financial gain? Because it certainly appears that the Planning Commission was punishing Sapetto’s project due to her fundraising outreach while rewarding Patrick Strader’s firm for their support of Republicans.
Enquiring minds would like to know.
Wait a minute, I thought Mary Ann, Melissa, and Larry were gonna stop all development. Why would they be voting to approve any project? Is it maybe because they are lying to voters to get elected….shocking.
slow growth doesn’t mean no growth. And I know you’re fond of talking about all the development approved by the Agranista’s but you fail to mention this was over a 12 year period. Per year, the growth is far less than what the current council majority approved
Dan
Wouldn’t it be appropriate for Commission Gaido and Commissioner Liss to vote on the merits of the developments. Being the City set guide lines for the project and developer spent thousands of dollars design to meet those guide lines. Didn’t the IBC go through lawsuits from City of Newport Beach, City of Tustin and Allegran over the years regards how the IBC was to be developed?
LOL Dan. So approving more high density housing = slow growth. Got it. BTW, your candidates said it was gonna be a building moratorium. It’s hard to keep up with all the lies from your side.
Allan
Who would benefit most from 360 Fusion being delayed or not built?
Would it be the three projects for the IBC that moved forward last Thursday’s November 6 with two of them under heavy opposition and people even offered money to go away and not attend Planning Commission Meeting. and petitions from area residential projects.
Michael
I’m just pointing out the extreme hypocrisy and outright lies that Dan’s favorite candidates ran on Mike.
Lies! Like Lalloway being endorsed by Irvine Police. Wallin backing Choi and Lalloway. Kang backing Choi. Agran a racist. How are you doing Pinochio?
oh and Allan, who did Anthony Kuo lie to: the veteran’s who fought for a cemetery or the Chinese community to get their votes.
While I am not up to speed on the pros and cons of the 360 Fusion project, it clearly is another high density housing complex being shoved into the already crowded Irvine Industrial Complex. I find it interesting that the alleged “No Growth” Planning Commission members would vote for it and the “Out of Control Growth” Commission members would vote no. I don’t think the positions were for political purposes as much as the general philosophy of both groups.
But then, Larry Agran has been in the developers pocket for years and is responsible for approving the expansion of high density residential development to both the Irvine Industrial Complex and Irvine Spectrum. So why woouldn’t his Planning Commisssion members support the 360 project? So much for slow growth.
With the public concern expressed during the election , I believe the new Council super-majority will take the proactive road, start looking at the traffic and overcrowding issues and put in place mitigation measures. No, development will not be stopped, nor should it be. I do not know the mind of the Council but am guessing some projects like the 360 Fusion could be put on hold pending a full review of the General Plan. Growth in Irvine needs to proceed, but in an orderly fashion with the infastructure in place to accomodate it.
then why was Strader’s project green lighted and Sapetto’s halted?
Haven’t a clue why the Strader projects would be approved, you would have to ask the Planning Commission. I might guess that with past Council majorities policy, there was no justification for denying it?
On the 360 Fusion project, it could have something to do with the number of irate citizens who spoke at the Planning Commission and then followed it up at the City Council. I believe the Council owes those people the opportunity to speak against the construction in their neighborhood. In the end, the project will likely be approved and we will add it to the others resulting in more traffic conjestion and school overcrowding. I continue to suggest, easing up on high density construction is an issue that should be reviewed in conjunction with he General Plan in the near future. That is just my opinion as a uninformed resident and I speak for no one but myself.
If you thought that was lot of people voicing their concerns at this weeks City Council Meeting you should have seen the attendance at the November 6, 2014 planning commission meeting regarding Great Far East’s Milani project and the Central Park West project and how out of control it was. Even one person spoke of being offer money to move and not show up at planning commission meeting being they took control of September 4, 2014 meeting. I also understand they have started petitions regarding those projects.
was this taxpayer money being offered or developer money?
I believed the only money being offered so far had been from the developer. But this also does bring up an interesting twist. Say the developer does offer money to different residents as compensation for there inconvenience would this not be declarable income? Is so could this put the resident living on low income housing subsidy in jeopardy of losing their housing?
Is anyone aware of Tavoularis Project having a business relationship with any of the developers or their representatives in aforementioned article or for that matter any other development projects in The City of Irvine?
What possible role could Kathy Travoilaris have with building developers in Irvine ?
Anthony Kuo, the chair of the Planning Commission, works for her.
Surprise Surprise the Special Council investigation finds no impropriety