Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 GEN PLAN AM 94-001 10-16-95· G'ENDA NO. 18 10-16-95 DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1995- lnter-Com FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ 'GENERAL PLAN AMENDHENT 94-001, .ZONE -CHANGE 94-004, SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (IRVINE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City CoUncil provide'direction to staff- on the preparation of the environmental documentation and public noticing for the project. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an applicant initiated 'project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND The" I~ine-' compan~ :0rigih~ily--pr0p6sed-t6- make -Several 'am-ehdm~nts _to_._.the__Land__Use___Plan__and_._t_ext ..... of_the_East · Tustin .Specific Plan (ETSP) primarily related to three, separate vacant parcels within the ETSP area. The following is a brief chronology of the project: March 27, 1995: The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the original project proposal. June 5, 1995: The City Council provided direction to the applicant.that the original proposed increase in the percentage of apartments from 25% to 28.4% would not be supported. I August 21, 19'95: The applicant submitted a revised project proposal to the City Council. The City Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation on the. revised project proposal pursuant to Government Code Section 65857. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995- Page 2 Septen%ber 11, 1995: The Planning Commission, at the request of The Irvine Company, continued the matter to September ~25, 1995 to conduct' a community workshop, primarily related to the development of the high school site. [] September 25, 1995: .The Planning Commission, at the request of The Irvine Company, conducted a community workshop, primarily related to the development of the former high school site. The Irvine Company presented five alternate land use proposals for the former high school site which are included as Attachment A and can briefly be described as follows: Alternate 1 - A Medium Density Apartment Site on the northern 2/3 of the. site adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. - A Medium-Low Density Site on the southern 1/3 of the site -adjacent -to Heritage Way. - A 3.6 acre linear park along Tustin Ranch ........... Road, ..... ~iterna~'e 2 ....... ~ ..... A-M~d~um Density Apartment Site adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. - A Medium-Low~ Density Site adjacent to Heritage Way and at the northeast corner of Heritage Way and'Tustin Ranch Road. - A 3.6 acre park site at the southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road. Alternate 3 A Medium Density Apart'ment Site adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. A Medium-Low Density Site adjacent to Heritage Way and Tustin Ranch Road. A 3.6 acre park site at the northeast corner of Heritage Way and Tustin Ranch Road. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment· October 16, 1995 Page 3 Alternate 4 A Medium Density Apartment Site adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. A Medium Density "For-Sale" Site adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road @ 16 dwelling units per acre. A Medium-Low Density Site adjacent to Heritage Way. A 3.6 acre park site at the northeast corner of.Heritage Way and Tustin Ranch Road. Alternate 5 A Medium Density Apartment Site adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. A Medium Density "For-Sale" Site adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way @ 16 dwelling units per acre. A 3.6 acre park site at the northeast corner of Heritage Way and Tustin Ranch Road. The planning commisSion and members of the public indicated their preference ·with Alternate 3 with the need to also improve the neighborhood park. The Irvine Company indicated ..... that-their- preferehce~w~s for-'Alternat~ -4'~ ................................................ · · The applicant submitted a modified project proposal consistent with Alternate 4. The Planning Commission rejected Alternate 4 and recommended to the City Council approval of Alternate 3, and also recommended that the 3.6 acre 'park not only be both dedicated, but also improved by The Irvine Company, as well as other conditions of their approval. This item doest.not require a-public.hearing. Therefore, no formal public noticing was provided. The applicant was forwarded a copy of the staff report and agenda for this item. Once the City Council has an opportunity to provide any additional direction to staff, a new public hearing will be noticed and conducted by the City Council to consider final action on the project. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995 Page 4 DISCUSSION A summary of The Irvine Company's "original" proposal, the "revised" proposal dated August 21, 1995, the "modified" proposal dated October 9, 1995 and the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included in Attachment B. A copy of the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council is included in .Attachment C which is consistent with Alternate 3 presented by The Irvine Company, with the additional condition that the 3.6 acre park be both dedicated and improved by The Irvine Company. The Commission qualified the requirement ~for park improvement as a negotiated condition for the City's rezoning of-the property. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan include revisions to the required parking rates in the Estate District, and guest rates in the Medium-Low, Medium, Medium-High and Patio Home land use designations as. originally recommended to the City Council. The Company had indicated in their "revised" proposal dated August 21, 1995, that t'hey no longer support any amendments to the parking standards in the Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning 'commission. Their position is that amendments to the Specific Plan can not be adopted without their agreement pursuant to the East Tustin Development Agreement. The Planning Commission' felt that .......... there'-~ere-~arking'-~'~roble~s .... a~i--existing pro~eCts in East Tustin ~ha~p.~e~ded.~obe__resolved_in_~onj~nctionlwith an~.~gr~eement by-.the-. City to rezone the requested sites. .The Irvine Company's modified proposal, as suggested in Alternative 4, as it relates to the former High School site would: Create one "Medium Density For-Sale" site for an attached or detached product at the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Blvd.; one "Medium Density Apartment" site for apartments away from Tustin Ranch Road; one "Medium-Low Density" site for a detached product along Heritage Way; and a "Neighborhood Park" site at the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way. Permit up to a total of 533 dwelling units on the former high school site a~ an average density of 13.3 dwelling units per acre instead of 12.8 acres originally proposed. Permit up to 400' apartment units on the proposed "Medium Density Apartment" site, all of which would be two stories in height, instead of up to 439 apartment as indicated in the August 21, 1995 revised proposal and the 350 apartments on a "Medium-High" Density Site recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council on June 5, 1995. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995 Page 5 Require a 2-story townhome or single-family detached-product on the "Medium Density For-Sale" site at .no more than 16 dwelling units per acre. - · Provide a 3.6 acre park site instead of the.5 acre proposed to the City Council on June 5, .1995. The Irvine Company has not proposed to increase the size of the park, nor did they make any firm commitment to the Planning Commission to develop or financially contribute to the improvement of the park. They did state to the Planning Commission that they were prepared to discuss this issue with the City Council and perhaps discuss a possible donation toward improvement costs. However, in discussions with Company representatives after the Planning Commission's action, they indicated that they had made no such representations and would not be providing improVements to the park. The Irvine Company still.maintains that by agreeing to a revised cap on the maximum number of residential dwelling units, the maximum' nUmber of acres required for parks in East Tustin can be calculated. Based upon the 8,058 unit cap~-and acreagelldedicated__to_date_fo~ parks, the City would be entitled to 3.6 acres-of additional parkland. This amount faCtors in .18 acres that would be added to the 3.0 acre undeveloped neighborhood park site on ........... Pione~ ROad ~(~djaceh~ '~'- the "S'~i~ion~ X~- f-~'i~)-.~ i~he ...................... addi~iQ~at ~_18 acres~_would.be.used~for~vehicle~pa~ki~g~_ ~The 3.6 acres would be dedicated on the High School site. The Company proposal would require ~he City to .be responsible for the design and construction of the 3.6 acre site. The proposed land use.designations would be arranged as generally depicted in Alternative 4.prepared by The Irvine Company. The Company proposes to have actual acreage devoted to each designation 'more precisely determined at the time a Sector Level subdivision map is proposed. The original development proposal included a Sector Level subdivision map (Tentative Tract Map 15055). However, given the nature of the proposed mOdifications, that Sector Level Map would require significant technical revisions. It is the desire of The Irvine Company to complete the entitle processing of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Chan~e and Amendment to the Development Agreement at this time. A revised Sector Level subdivision map' would be. subsequently processed concurrently with the first builder level development plan for the former high school site. .~'~ . City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995 Page 6 Other significant provisions of the modified development proposal remain unchanged from the August 21, 1995 revised proposal and are highlighted belOw as follows: The Irvine Company would agree to a cap on residential development of 8,058 units in Tustin Ranch. This represents a 12% reduction from the current maximum entitlement of 9,178 units. The Development Agreement would be amended to provide that the maximum number of residential units in Tustin Ranch can not exceed 8,058. As part of any Development Agreement Amendments, The Irvine Company propOses to: Reduce the setback area along Tustin Ranch Road from the 50 feet originally proposed to 35 feet of which 10 feet will.be for right-of-way, leaving an actual landscape setback Of 25 feet. ............ - The .... proposal provides that any further conversion of apartments to condominiums could not result in a reduction of units used to compute the 25 percent cap on ....................... ap~r~n~.~_in other words,~the.apartments.proposed for the High School site would be the last apartment project. [] The revised proposal would not change the originally proposed Medium-Low land use designation for~ Lot 6. However, the Company has proposed to cap the number of units authorized for 'development on this site to 71 units or a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre instead of the 100 units originally proposed. [] The revised Proposal would not change the proposed Medium-High density designation requested for the General Commercial site (Lot 27). The development would be an ownership product and up to 350 attached units would be authorized instead of the original 399 apartment units proposed to the City Council on June 5, 1995. The Company continues at this time to not support any amendments to the parking standards in the Specific Plan to provide additional parking spaces in multi-family and patio home projects, as recommended by the Planning.Commission some months ago. Their position is that amendments'to the Specific Plan can not be adopted without their agreement pursuant to the East Tustin Development Agreement. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995 Page 7 The Irvine Company's modified proposal and the Planning Commission's recommendation differ with respect to the following elements: Land Use Designation Adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road Park Site Parking Standards Irvine PLanning Company Coa~ission Medium Density "For-Sa[e" Product a 16 units/acre max. Dedicate a 3.6 acre park site No changes proposed Medium-Low Density SingLe FamiLy Detached @ 10 units/acre max. Dedicate and Improve a 3.6 acre park site ' Increase Estate parking, and guest rates in ML, M0 NH and Patio Home developments Ail other elements of the. applicant's modified project, proposal and the Planning Commission's recommendation are consistent with each other. '-' 'Prior--to scheduling--the-projet-t---fb~ a new pu--bl%-¢--h%%-r~-n-g, ~t is imperative that the environmental documentation for the project be revised to properly describe the "project" This includes ....... ....... correctty-.-.identifying-and--addressing.-issues~-ret~ated-to---i-tems-such as the actual proposed land use designations, densities, ................... de~-eIop-~ent standardS, and"pf~i~ions--of--t~-D~-~pment Amendments. A clear project description- is also necessary to satisfy the legal obligation to provide the required public notice for the project and to ensure that the public notice is clear about what constitutes the "project". It would be general practice to prepare noticing based upon the Planning Commission direction on a project. Since the Planning Commissions role was to review and report to the City Council on the revised project proposal, staff needs feedback from the City Council as to their support of the Planning Commission's recommendation or desire to pursue The Irvine Company's proposal so that the environmental documentation for the project-and noticing - can be properly completed. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment October 16, 1995 Page 8 C ONC LUS I ON It is being requested that the City Council provide direction to staff on whether they wish the Planning Commission recommendatiOn to be defined as the- project (Alternate 3 as modified) or The Irvine Company modified proposal (Alternate 4) for purposes of completing the environmental documentation and public noticing for the project. Once the environmental documentation and the Development.Agreement language has been revised, a public hearing will be scheduled for City Council consideration. Staff would be available to respond to any direction of the Council· at the meeting. Senior Planner Christine A. Sh~gleton Assistant City Manager Attachments: A - Alternate Land Use Proposals ......................................... B- -- Development-~ 'Proposal COmparison ................................... __c._.._~___P__l_an_n_%_ng C.__.0_._m_m_i_s._s_i__qn__Minute .Qrder ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATE LAND PROPOSALS USE SEP-~s-gs 1~,S8 FROM:FORMA ID~?I~J ,~8 PA~£ 2/2 0 0 0 m 0 z o ~ MYFORD ROAD m _< ATTA ITl Z .~HMENT A C) O --! IT! :]3 Z )> Z MYFORD ROAD ITl r- '--! N ITl O :::o Z Z Z --I ltl ITl CO Z ITl MYFORD ROAD' IT1 Z ITl .J N m Z n-1 Z m MYFORD ROAD o~ - -.~ Z ,,.., ITl ..< ITl Z Z ....< . m Z --4 ITl N 0 Z m z )> m --4 m Z m / / / / MYFORD RoAD ATTACHMENT B DEVELOPIVIENT PROPOSAL COMPARISONS 'TO m~ zm .--IZ o o ii o I'rl Z ""nO m~: Zm ,.-IZ 0 0 0 -~z 0 0 C) i 0 z ATTACHMENT C "PLANNING 'COMMISSION MINUTE ORDER Planning Commission Minutes Minute Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California was held on October 9, 1995. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kasalek, Bone, Lunn, Mitzmah and Vandaveer B UBJECT: GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EABT TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed changes to .......... G~~_l_~_n__Amendment-94~o~lT---Z~ne--Change--94--O0-4--and-~he--Se-c-6~-d Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement.,pursuant to Government Code Section 65857 and recommends to the' City Council approval of the following: ........................................................................................................................................ · General Plan_Amendment-.94-001 A-request to' c'hang'e-~he-Land Use Designations of the'City's General Plan Land Use Map on the following properties: Ao Be Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - To change the Land Use Designation on a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Commercial Business to PC Residential; and Lot 6 of Tract 12870 - To change the Land Use Designation on a 10 acre property from Public & Institutional to PC Residential. · Zone. Chanqe 94-004 - A request to change the Zoning Designations of the City's Zoning Map on the following properties: A· S · Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - To change the Zoning Designation on a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Commercial to PC Residential; and Parcel 2 of Parcel 'Map 88-315 - To change the Zoning Designation on a 40 acre property from PC Community Facility to PC Residential. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A TT A C HMENT C Planning Commission Minute Order GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Second Amendment to ET Development Agreement October 9, 1995 Page 2 · Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan - A request to change the ETSP as follows: a. Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - To change the ETSP Land Use Designation on a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential; S. Lot 6 of Tract 12870 - To redesignate a 10 acre property which is currently designated for an Elementary School to include an underlying Medium-Low Density Residential Land Use Designation; Ce and ............................................... Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 - To change the ETSP Land Use Designation on a 40 acre parcel from High School identified as Alternative 3 shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and generally described as follows: approximately 22.6 acres to be changed to Medium Density Residential; and approximately 17.4 acres to be changed to Medium-Low ~ens~t-y'-Res~denti~-l-wi~'h--a-3.-6~cr~--N~hb~r~b~-Pa~-~ site to be identified at the northeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way with the final site' ~onfiguration--o-f-3ahe.-pa~k.-to-be-subject-to-..final approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council; D. A variety of amendments to the ETSP text and statistical summaries to reflect the above noted changes to provide consistency between the Land Use Map and the text of the Specific Plan document and specifically include: 1) 2) 3) A maximum of 350 attached units on Lot 27 of Tract 13627; A maximum'of 71 single-family detached units on Lot 6 of Tract 12870; and A maximum of 400 apartment units with a maximum total of 533 units on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88- 315. Amendment to the ETSP text shall include changes to Section 3.10.1.C as originally recommended to the City Council related to the amount of required parking in the Estate District, and guest parking rates within the Medium-Low, Medium, Medium-High and "Patio Home designations as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. Planning COmmission Minute Order GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Second Amendment to ET Development Agreement October 9, 1995 Page 3 · Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Aqreement - A request to amend the East Tustin Development Agreement related to the following' ae Lots o16/17 of Tract 13627 - To require the Developer to dedicate approximately .18 acres of land area on Lot 17 to accommodate a parking lot for the future neighborhood par~ on Lot 16; Be Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - Eliminate the requirement for a 250 room hotel including a non-competitive clause between the City limits, Portola Parkway, Culver Drive and Myford Road; and modify the phasing schedule to 'reflect the elimination of the hotel; C. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 - Provide a two-story product type within the Medium Density Land Use Designation; provide a 35 foot landscaped setback along Tustin Ranch Road; and improve and'dediCate to the City a~--~-.-6---acre---n-eighborbo~d--park--~ri-t~--t~ ~t~-a-~ ~r-k- location and design of site improvements subject to approval of the Parks and. Recreation Commission and City _Council ....... ~n-prov-iding--direc%ion-i~-the-~r~equ~rement--for The Irvine Company to both dedicate and improve the park .............................. site~--the--Commission-qualified-~.the--req~ir-e~n~-f~r--p~rk improvement as a negotiated condition for the City's rezoning of the property and also in recognition of certain equalizing issues being examined in conjunction with the refinance of Assessment District bonds for District 85-1 (as opposed to a Quimby~Act obligation); and D~ General Provisions. - Provide condo conversion language related to the 25% apartment limitation; reduce the total allowed number of units within the East Tustin Specific Plan area and Tract 12345 from 9,178 units to 8,058 units. The 8,058 unit.~cap Would not be used in calculating the 25% apartment limitation. Planning Commission Minute Order GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Second Amendment to ET Development Agreement October 9, 1995 Page 4. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to 'recommend to the· City Council approval of the proposed rewisions to General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004 and the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65857, as stated above. Motion carried 3-0, Lunn and Mitzman Abstained. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Barbara Reyes, Recording Secretary of the Tustin Planning Commission do hereby certify the foregoing to be the official action taken by the Planning Commission at the above meeting. Recording Secretary ITl 0 0 .i-- 0 SO Z YFORD ROAD - ~ © ~' EXHIBIT A (ETSP Page 3-47) Co District Estate Residential Off-Street Parking Spaces Covered Crcd'.' t for Requi red Ass i gned Guest/ Spaces/Un i t Urmss i greed P~ rE ': ng ~.:~.;.~:.:.;.;~.~:.....::.:.;;..:....... ..3..' ~ 3. 2 Car Garage 2 per unit i. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 2. Sector 2 2 Medium Lou 2 Medium & Medium High 2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage per unit per unit ~-~ per unit 1 ~$ per unit -. 2. Attached -Studio .......... : ---1-;O .............. --1--Carport----- (11 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 ~_ed_r_o0~n_. ........ 2.5 ._ ~_Carports ......... (1) ................... 3. Multiple Famity ........... ---St-Go, ih 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom (apartments) ............................. i':0 ......... 1 Carport (1) 1.5 I Carport (1) 2.0 2 ~ Carport (1) 2.0 2 Carports (1) 2.5 2 Carports (1) 4. Patio Homes(2) ' 1-3 Bedrooms Bedrooms 2.0 2 Car Garage ~75 .-~ per unit 2.5 2 Car Garage 1 ~-~ per unit (1) Attached single family and radttiple family developments shall provide a minimu~of ~:5 g~5 per unit open unassigned parking spaces for 4 or more duelling units. If a iud car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of ~'75 ~ open unassigned spaces per unit shall apply. "' (2) Required guest parking for Patio H0~e products must be located within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit ~hich the parking space is intended to serve. (3):...:.. .... :..Guest~Unassigned'park!ng maybe provicl~don, pubtic...or, private'.streets ~here .ac~e:..r~gh~';o~L way':~xists;;.except.in'the case of-attachedandmuttipte-famity devetopment~ ~here-guest:parking ~[t not'be.permitted on public streets. ' ............... EXHIBIT B