Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 2ND READING/ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1433-APPROVE DA 2013-002MEETING DATE: TO: Agenda Item 10 AGENDA REPORT Reviewed City Manager Finance Director N/A MAY 21, 2013 JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER ERICA RABE, CITY CLERK SERVICES SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1433, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2013-002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TO FACILIATE THE DEVELOPMENT, CONVEYANCE, AND LAND EXCHANGE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN uF�ILMRIE 11 The project consists of an agreement between the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD or District) and the City of Tustin (City) called the Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property between the City of Tustin and South Orange County Community College District. The Exchange Agreement delineates the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of approximately 89 acres of land within Planning Area 1 of Tustin Legacy. RECOMMENDATION: Have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1433 (roll call vote). FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2013, the City Council had first reading by title only and introduction of the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 1433 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2013-002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT, CONVEYANCE, AND LAND EXCHANGE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Agenda Report — Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1433 Page 2 On May 13, 2013, the City received comments from the City of Irvine. Attached is a letter dated May 16, 2013, responding to the City of Irvine's comments. Community Development Department May 16, 2013 Eric M. Tolles, S.E. Director of Community Development One Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Sent via USPS and email to etolles(aD-ci.irvine.ca.us 1-1 USTIN I-FH� BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2013-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 2013-001, and Development Agreement 2013-002 Responses to Comments Dear Mr. Tolles: Thank you for your follow up letter dated May 13, 2013 regarding the subject project. On May 7, 2013, the City of Tustin provided responses to City of Irvine comments dated April 24, 2013. In our telephone conversation and your most recent letter, you asked for additional clarification on traffic related items and requested a meeting to discuss the comments and questions. In response, we have attached the Responses to Comments addressing each bullet item raised. We hope the responses are satisfactory. If you have any further questions or if you would like to meet to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3031 or via email at ebinsack(a►-tustinca.org. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachment: Responses to City of Irvine comments in a letter dated May 13, 2013 cc: Dr. Debra Fitzsimons, SOCCCD Vice Chancellor of Business Services Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager Jeremy Krout, Principal — RGP Planning and Development Services Justina Willkom, Assistant Director— Planning Matt West, Redevelopment Project Manager Ken Nishikawa, Tustin Legacy Development Services Manager 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 0 www,tustinca.org General Plan Amendment 2013-001, Specific Plan Amendment 2013-001, Development Agreement 2013-002, and Agreement for Exchange of Real Property between City of Tustin and South Orange County Community College District RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Addendum/Initial Study SCH No. 1994071005 / 94071005 May 16, 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments Comment Letter B: City of Irvine 1 May 1'' 2011 M% EI zabeth Bi- sack Director of Commun 4 Devic oprreni City of Tustin 300 Centorma+ %^/ay Tustin CA 92780 Subject: General Plan Amend•nent 2013-001. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 2013-001 and Development Agreement 2013-002 Dear Ms BivsaLk The City of Irv.ne has been made aware that the Tustin City Cou,ic•l will be holdino a Speclal City . oure I hiseting this evering to discuss the above -noted project We uncerstand that th s is an Imponant lamlert to the deve oprnent of the Tustin Legacy pro.ect and educational uses in our co•nmunities. We do however. have specific comments still remaining rega,ding the analysis of the ncreased traffic Average Daily rrics (ADT s to sups -ort i^creased development tntens4v for the project. Jn April 24 2013 the City provided comments oefore it was considered by the I ustin P!annin6 Commission, and in that tetter the City reRuested a meeting wrh Tustin planning stat' to discuss our concerns (Attachment 1) On May 7, 1013 the City received -he City of Tustui's responses tc our lever of Apnl 24 2:,13, however. vie have not had the opportunity to meet and still have outsland ng concerns Our remaining conce-ns are as tollows The traffin s1u'iy area used to ans yze ,he adcrtional 10 000 AC -T Mps tu(fiuui Tustin Legacy ircludes o ly s x intersect ons mr-wdiately adtacert to the pro..ert to conclude that an add tional 10,000 ADT capacity is available These add•tional trips, however, will come and go from a nur^ber of dirertio ris ncluding the SR -55 to the west. brine to the south and elsewhere T -is is not considered or analyzed when making increased capacity conclusions For examp a were impacts identified in the interim and build -out scenaiioa along Sarranca Parkway Alton Parkway or Wer =toad? The 10,000 ADT increase proposed in Tust n could Impact these streets and interse:,t ons that were rot it c•uded in the study area 2 • Based on the ptaje�--t descrptio •, t appears that 3,750 ADT of the total additional 10 000 ADT tieing proposed as part of the Amcndmont wil' be retained by the C ty of T,rstin and allocated to an unknown Iocahon w -thin the Soeci is Plan at May 16, 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments Ms Elizabeth BinsacF Ady 13 20' 3 'dga 2 of 2 Some future date 'he City o' Irvine is concerned That the -floating' adcitonal 4DT (equivalent to approximate y 300 000 SF office or 68,700 S= cornmerc al 2 "etail, could rrpact Irvine ocationts or potentially have an effect on prevtousty cont. identified-mprovements along Byer Road w th n the City of Sarna Ana for which :he City of Irvin- is respons ble for contnbuting is fair -share Thi proposed project represerts an increase of 4.6 percent of ADT above and 3 beyond the current a Ic%vable intensity for the entire Tustin Legacy s to If ail the proposed ntansiiy is located vathin the current project site intensity for the site would increase by ooproxirrately 130 percent We question whether an addendurr is the appropnate level of ennronmPnlal review foi sr ch an increase The project traffic study uses land use assumpt one for the 2010 Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report (E R however a 4 mimber of updates and changes to these assumptions have been made smcP the 2010 IBC Vsion pian approval These changes reflect a reerstribution of it lensities previously, analyzes by the IBG Visto- plan F R to refte-t nr w residential projects in the IBC. It is unclear whether the traffic study has ins uded the west information it these updates ? ne City, therefore still requests the opportun ty to meet with City of Tustin planning staff to address oi,r concerns If you have any questions, please contact me at 949 724 64.51 or via email at,-tallesace.ilvine ca us Tnank you for y[wr rz)nsideration S merely Eric M. Totles, S f_ Director of Communi•y Development cc Tustin C ty Counci' Irvine City Councll Jeffrey C Parker, City Manager, City of Tustin Justina Wilkom Ass stant Director -Planning, City of : ustin Sean Joyce, Clty Manage, City of Irvine Sharon Landers, Assistant City Manager City of Irvine Tim Gehnch, Deputy Director of Community Development City it Iry ne Bar,/ Curtis, Manager of Planning Services, City of Irvine Kerwin Lau- Project Development Admintsiiater, amity of Irvine Enclosures 1 City of Irvin~ letter dated Alml 24, 2013 2 Citv of Tustin :otter dated May 7 20 t 3 May 16, 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments Responses to Comment Letter B Comment 1: The traffic study area as noted was the six intersections surrounding the project site which showed that the ADTs either decreased or did not increase the LOS to the extent of requiring mitigation measures. As shown in Fig. 3-1 of the April 9, 2013 Traffic Study by Stantec, the 2035 projected ADT volumes increased slightly on Red Hill southbound from 31,000 No -Project to 32,000 With Project, decreased slightly on Armstrong southbound from 6,000 No -Project to 5,000 With -Project, and decreased slightly on Warner westbound from 34,000 No - Project to 32,000 With -Project. As shown in Table 3-1, the intersections of Armstrong/Warner and Red Hill/Warner show an LOS increase only in the PM peak hour at Red Hill/Warner which went from an A to a B only because the ICU went up slightly from .60 to .61. The LOS at the other three peak time periods at these two intersections either stayed the same or decreased. These intersections are the closest to the project site and would receive the most project traffic volumes. Traffic disperses as the distance increases from the project site; therefore, intersections located further away from the project would receive less project traffic and as a result would be impacted less than the analyzed intersections. This ultimately led to the conclusion by Stantec that a larger study area was not warranted, because the study would show there are no impacts on the intersections in the larger study area suggested by the City of Irvine. Comment 2: Bell Avenue supports the provision of additional ADTs within the project site. Although additional ADTs are allocated for general projects within the Planning Area at this time, each individual project will be required to provide a traffic analysis to ensure that each respective project will not have any adverse impact to any intersection, and ensure consistency with the Addendum. This analysis is provided for in the Specific Plan FEIS/EIR. In addition, CEQA requires this analysis for all discretionary projects or projects that could have any significant impacts on traffic. Comment 3: Based on the CEQA analysis, the City and District determined that the Project and its implementation are analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 or section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. The Project and its implementation will not have any effects that are not already examined in the previously certified FEIS/EIR, there are no new mitigation measures required and there are no new significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that are identified, nor will any project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of implementing the Project. Therefore, the City and District determined that they would prepare an Initial Study and Addendum to: (1) document the City's and District's evaluation that the Project's (and its implementation's) environmental impacts are already adequately analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; (2) document the City's and District's findings with respect to the Project, its implementation, and the City's and District's environmental determinations related thereto; and, (3) document the City's and District's evaluation and determination that a new, supplemental or May 16, 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments subsequent EIR, ND, or MND or other CEQA document is not warranted for the Project and its implementation. See also response to Comment 4. Comment 4: The traffic study was based on the same version of the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model Version 12 (ITAM 12) recently used for the PA18 Traffic Study submitted to Irvine by the Irvine Company. This is the most recent data available. This new data revised downward the number of ADTs on roadways near the project from the time that the FEIR/EIS was originally certified, and that along with Bell Avenue resulted in unused capacity on the roadway system that could accommodate the additional ADTs. The City of Tustin has not been made aware of any City of Irvine or City of Santa Ana projects that have been approved and/or projects for which there are growth inducing impacts requiring mitigation measures that have impacts on intersections in the City of Tustin. As such, the methodology and data used in the analysis is adequate. _ _ May 16, 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 1433 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2013-002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT, CONVEYANCE, AND LAND EXCHANGE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin ("City") and the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD") propose a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2013-001 by adding a new local street (Bell Avenue) to service adjacent uses; MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2013-001 by incorporating text allowing private for- profit non -educational uses and increase allowable building square footages within the education village (Neighborhood A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and adding a new local street (Bell Avenue); and Development Agreement (DA) 2013-002 to facilitate the development, conveyance, and land exchange within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That the project consists of an agreement between the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD or District) and the City of Tustin (City) which delineates the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of approximately 22 acres of land within the Tustin Legacy (Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property Between the City of Tustin and South Orange County Community College District). The objectives of the project are to rationalize property boundaries to create larger, contiguous land areas for the City and SOCCCD, provide for a broader range of land uses in support of the objectives of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and enhance circulation in the Project area by improving east -west connectivity between the existing Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues. C. That to facilitate the exchange, several entitlements and implementation documents is necessary. This includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to add the Bell Avenue extension to the City's circulation plan and correct preexisting inconsistencies with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to modify the permitted land uses and land use intensities in parts of Neighborhood A and to construct an extension of Bell Avenue as a Secondary Arterial; and, a Development Agreement and Amended Ordinance No. 1433 DA 2013-002 Page 2 Conveyance Agreement between SOCCCD and the City (DA) and associated implementation documents. D. That the proposed Development Agreement will ensure the implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, eliminate uncertainty in planning, provide for the orderly development of the SOCCCD Property, eliminate uncertainty about the validity of the application of the rules and regulations in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to the SOCCCD Property and SOCCCD, allow installation of necessary or desirable improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development and use of the SOCCCD Property, and secure orderly fiscal benefits for public infrastructure and generally serve the public interest within City and the surrounding region. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 23, 2013, by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4223 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1433. F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on May 13, 2013, by the City Council. G. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. H. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. However, because some changes and additions were required to the FEIS/EIR, the City has prepared an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The Planning Commission will consider the Addendum along with the FEIS/EIR prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on the GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001 and DA 2013-002. Ordinance No. 1433 DA 2013-002 Page 3 I. That DA 2013-002 would reduce ambiguity and clarify ministerial project review requirements to avoid duplicative reviews between the City and the Division of the State Architect and simplifying development review procedures. DA 2013-002 includes items such as duration of the Agreement, permitted uses of the project site, intensity of uses of the project site, provision for reservation and/or dedication of land for public purposes, infrastructure construction and payment agreement, phasing, etc. and comply Section 9611 of the Tustin City Code as follows: a. DA 2013-002 is consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan in that the project would further the goals and objectives of the education village by providing a variety of uses in support of education uses envisioned at the project site. b. With the approval of SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 will compatible with the uses authorized in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. c. DA 2013-002 is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in that the project site is designated for educational uses and proposed GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, and DA 2013-002 would facilitate the public convenience, necessity and welfare by providing support and related uses to education campus. d. An environmental analysis has been conducted and determined that there will not be any detrimental effect to the health, safety, and welfare with the implementation of the DA 2013-002. In addition, the proposed development would comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local rules and regulations. e. With the approval of the land exchange agreement and the associated implementation actions, DA 2013-002 will provide for an orderly development with larger and contiguous land areas for the City and the SOCCCD to support the education uses planned in the project area. f. DA 2013-002 will have a positive fiscal impact on the City in that the project is a partnership with the SOCCCD and construction costs for Bell Avenue extension and other implementation actions will be shared as stated in the Land Exchange Agreement and DA 2013- 002. In addition, with the addition of private for-profit uses, the project would generate tax revenues that can be used to provide essential services to the community SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement 2013-002 attached hereto as Exhibit A and subject to final approval of the City Attorney. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 1433 DA 2013-002 Page 4 such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this day of , 2013. ELWYN A. MURRAY Mayor JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1433 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1433 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 13`h day of May, 2013 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2013 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk Published: