HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 3-27-18 MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 27, 2018
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER.
Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard
All Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith
Chair Pro Tem Kozak
Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson
None. PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Thompson requested Item #3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 13, 2018
Minutes of the
February 13, RECOMMENDATION:
2018 Planning
Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the February
meeting, as 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided.
amended.
Approved the 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 13, 2018
Minutes of the
March 13, 2018 RECOMMENDATION:
Planning
Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the March 13,
meeting, as 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided.
amended.
Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of
the February 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the Minutes of
the March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion
carried 5-0.
Adopted Reso. 3. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
No. 4362.
General Plan Conformity finding for conveyance of the affordable
residential unit located at 370 Flyers Lane.
APPLICANT: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
PROPERTY
OWNER: City of Tustin
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 1 of 17
ENVIRONMENTAL:
General Plan Conformity determinations required by Government
Code Section 65402 are not "Projects" requiring environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4362,
determining that the conveyance of the residential unit located at 370
Flyers Lane managed by the Tustin Housing Authority (Housing
Authority) and owned by the City of Tustin (City) to be sold at market
rate is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan.
Thompson Thompson asked why the unit at 370 Flyers Lane was being removed from
an affordable unit to a market rate unit.
Craig Craig explained with the dissolution of redevelopment, housing funds are
no longer available to administer affordable ownership programs to the
level that the City needs to so the City Council made a decision to sell the
unit to replenish administrative funds managing 280 affordable ownership
units. Staff, along with the City Attorney, has spent a large amount of time
trying to manage the foreclosure process with the affordable units.
Smith Smith asked further for clarification of how much of the net proceeds and
how many years the proceeds would fund.
Craig Per Craig, the net proceeds would be approximately four-hundred-
thousand which would be approximately one year and a half to two years of
funding.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Lumbard to adopt Resolution
No. 4362. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Denied Reso. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 1491, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING (CONTINUED
No. 4358, by FROM THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION
minute order. MEETING)
The Inclusionary Housing Program is proposed to enhance policies
that foster the construction of affordable housing to households of
extremely low, very low, and moderate income levels. The program
will be applicable to those instances where an application has been
submitted to the City to: (1) rezone a property from an industrial or
commercial district to residential district, (2) change a property's
zoning designation from one lower-density residential district to
another higher-density residential district, or (3) to develop residential
uses within the Red Hill Specific Plan Area, the Downtown
Commercial Core Specific Plan Area or any other specific plan area
that has a provision for Residential Allocation Reservations.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 2 of 17
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Ordinance No. 1491 is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"; Cal. Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.). The proposed ordinance will not commit the City to approve
any particular project, or any aspect of any particular project, now or
any time in the future. Any project subject to the proposed ordinance
will require its own review for CEQA compliance. As a result, the
proposed ordinance does not have any reasonably foreseeable
environmental consequences or commit the City to a definite course
of action. Thus, the proposed ordinance is not a "project" subject to
CEQA. (Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §
15378(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15352(a).) Further, to the extent the
proposed ordinance establishes the inclusionary housing fund, the
proposed ordinance is, a government funding mechanism expressly
excluded from CEQA's definition of "project." (CEQA Guidelines §
15378(b)(4).) Even if the proposed ordinance were construed to be a
project, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment
for the foregoing reasons and thus falls within CEQA's "common
sense" exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4358,
recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1491,
adding Chapter 9B to Article 9 of the Tustin City Code relating to
Inclusionary Housing.
Craig Presentation given. Craig provided additional comments regarding the
Incusionary Housing item.
Thompson Thompson's questions generally included: the exemption of Tustin Legacy
as well as how many units have been developed so far and how many of
those units are very-low or low income level whether for rent or for sale and
was the six (6) percent and four and one-half (4.5) percent achieved;
difficult units to develop are the very-low and low with the moderate income
levels being easier. Thompson was trying to understand how the program
compares to the City's goals being established and if the City has achieved
the goals; scaling where someone can add more density to residential (i.e.
large scale projects at the Tustin Legacy and the infill project on the west
side of Tustin High School) and how it is balanced; if zoned R3 today, and
the developer builds a certain number of units, then would the developer
not be included in the inclusionary housing; the context of what the in-lieu
fee does and how it fits within the suite of fees any developer is required to
pay.
Craig Craig's response to Thompson's question generally included: per the
Tustin Legacy units: twenty-one (21) percent of the Tustin Legacy has
approximately 200 units built with over 600 affordable units; in terms of low,
very low, moderate income levels, and ownership versus rental, there are
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 3 of 17
approximately 270 ownership units and approximately 410 rental units with
approximately 150 of the 410 being senior projects. Anton Legacy — 88
very-low income level, 73 low income level, and 64 moderate income level;
Amalfi — 37 moderate level income. In terms of the "total number" and
breakdown of the low, very-low, and moderate income levels, Craig stated
he would have to provide that information to the Commission at a later
date. Per Thompson's density question, Craig stated the following: if within
the residentially zoned density, there is no fee and that it is more cost
effective to do the fee than to provide the housing on-site; if the developer
is increasing the density then there is a fee since there is a significate
increased benefit to the property; it is moving from one density designation
to another where there is a trigger; the park fee varies depending on the
appraised value of the project and assuming the developer is paying the
twelve-thousand-dollar ($12,000) inclusionary fee, which is twenty-six-
thousand ($26,000) of the park fee, depending on the appraised value of
the land and does not include fees for Parks, Orange County Fire Authority,
Water and Sewer, per the City's Building Department, but does include
Transportation Corridor Fee; there is a Transportation Improvement Fee for
southern Tustin Legacy which would not apply; if a developer in Tustin
Legacy, they are also paying the TSIP fee.
Binsack Binsack's response to Thompson's question included: extremely low
should also be added which are typically counted as more institutional
uses, but they are also serving the extremely-low income, except those do
not necessarily calculate per unit for the Tustin Family Campus and Village
of Hope
Lumbard Lumbard asked if the R3 site was within a specific plan area, with
residential allocation/reservation, if the in-lieu fee would apply to that site
because it was unclear within the staff report.
Craig Per Craig, if an R3 site is already zoned, an in-lieu fee would not apply.
Smith Smith then asked if you go from one (1) unit to three (3) units in a R3
property, you are not taking two (2) units away from the residential housing
allocation fund within the Specific Plan.
Craig He confirmed units would not be taken away from the residential housing
allocation fund.
Binsack Binsack added that if a property is residentially zoned, they could go to the
maximum that would be allowed under the residential zoning (i.e. R1 = one
(1) unit, R2 = depends on the number of units allowed divided by the
square footage for the R2, same for the R3). It would only be if somebody
were to request a zone change from an R1 to an R3 or an R2 to an R3.
This would be the difference where the ordinance would apply.
Lumbard Lumbard also referred to the discussion on the Specific Plans that have the
residential allocation component to them (i.e. RHSP and the DCCSP) the
fee would only apply if buying into the residential unit bank concept.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,2018—Page 4 of 17
Binsack Binsack answered that Lumbard's statement was correct.
Mason Mason asked for an explanation on the relationship between density
housing mandate and inclusionary housing and if the proposed ordinance
was aligned with them. She asked if there were upsides to an inclusionary
housing ordinance and what is coming down from the State.
Craig In response to Mason's questions, per the density bonus, it has been
aligned because of the way the City allocated the percentage of units, if it is
provided on-site. Any time a developer provides five (5) percent or more of
very-low income level units on-site, there is qualification for a density
bonus. He stated that staff tried setting the ordinance up in order for
developers to take advantage of the density bonus as well as incentive to
develop. Craig mentioned parking and the density bonus would give the
developer flexibility in the number of parking spaces per unit, which is
provided for by State law.
Kozak Kozak asked about RHNA allocations assigned in each city and when the
next cycle for the RHNA allocation would be. If approved, the inclusionary
housing ordinance would be used as a tool to meet those goals.
Binsack Per Binsack, the City is currently going through the process of working with
OCCOG and SCAG on the next round of projections which should be
received within one (1) year and the next planning period for RHNA would
be 2021, which will be an eight (8) year cycle.
Smith Opened the Public Hearing Section.
Kozak Asked about the RHNA allocations. If approved, the inclusionary housing
ordinance would be in place in order to meet those goals. Kozak further
asked if that would override or complicate the implementation of the
inclusionary housing ordinance.
Binsack Binsack stated that, if approved, the inclusionary housing ordinance would
assist in meeting those goals. Whenever units are added to the City's
housing opportunity, SCAG has typically required that the City provide
additional affordable housing, therefore the City cannot assume to provide
all moderate-level income housing or market rate housing.
Lumbard Lumbard referred to the language in the proposed ordinance (Page 57 of
the Planning Commission packet) specifically the last paragraph referring
to the residential project "to develop residential uses within the RHSP area,
DCCSP area, or any other specific plan area that has a provision for
residential allocation reservations." To Lumbard, it reads that any site within
those specific plan areas qualifies for this inclusionary zoning ordinance,
but he did not read there are no exceptions. He voiced his concern with the
lack of clarity.
Binsack Per Binsack, the properties that are within the RHSP and the DCCSP
areas currently have commercial designations. Currently they would not
have the opportunity to develop within the residential uses, per the current
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 5 of 17
zoning.
Craig Craig added he and the City Attorney's office would work on cleaning up
ordinance to make it clearer.
Smith Smith referred to the Legislative Analysis supplemental item, provided at
the dais and if this was given to City staff.
Craig Per Craig, the Legislative Analysis was provided by the BIA letter. The BIA
pulled certain language from the analysis and staff wanted the
Commissioners to read the full context of what was written.
Thompson Thompson stated he was more focused on the resolution, as opposed to
the ordinance recommended for City Council and referred to Item B (Page
57 of the packet) "is contiguous to property under common ownership and
control with a combined residential capacity of all the applicants property
pursuant to the General Plan designation of zoning at the time of
development for residential development is 20 units or more".
Craig Craig stated that the finding Thompson read should have been removed.
Smith Smith asked staff if the objective then was to clean up the language in the
recommended ordinance before going to the City Council.
Binsack Binsack stated that the finding would be removed if it was the consensus of
the Commission.
7:45 p.m. Public Hearing Section Opened.
Mr. Bill Mclnerny, current Chairman of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce,
spoke in favor of the item. His comments generally included: supports
longtime residents of Tustin and business owners; and thoughtful approach
that raise funds only from projects benefitting from City action, whether re-
zoning or new development;
Mr. Byron De Arakal, VP Communications for the OC Business Council
and Vice Chairman for the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, spoke in
opposition of the item. His concerns generally included: Statewide
housing affordability crisis if not mitigated will stall the economy and erode
the quality of life (1. How do we provide supply? 2. Let the market do it? Do
we incentivize the market to do it?); fundamentally an artificial arbitrary
construct placed on the housing market to mitigate an illusory goal (RHNA);
perpetuates the RHNA allocation; developer will raise the price on market
rate units to cover the loss on the sub-market rate units; and he suggested
double incentives for density bonus.
Mr. Tony Capitelli, Government Affairs Director for the Orange County
Realtors, spoke in opposition of the item. He read from an article regarding
housing costs in the Bay area from 2003-2007 after an inclusionary
ordinance was passed. He added that re-zoning is an incentive, but the
proposed ordinance is not an incentive. Mr. Capitelli applauded staff for
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 6 of 17
considering inclusionary housing solutions and their hard work and
solutions but disagreed with what was being proposed.
Mr. Adam Wood, BIA, was in opposition of the item. His concerns
generally included that the proposal would: chill development; reduce
supply; increase housing costs. he stated staff had a misunderstanding of
the housing futures initiative; he noted a concern with the scope of the
impact; and the need for government and BIA to work together.
Matt Buck, California Apartment Association, re-stated his concerns from
the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting. The deficit of apartment units
is now at one-hundred-thousand short which has increased the home
prices. Mr. Buck stated that the inclusionary housing would slow down the
delivery of housing which creates more of an issue. He encouraged staff to
work with the builders.
Mr. Michael Massie, Senior VP with Jamboree Housing, provided
background information with his industry. He spoke in favor of the item.
Mr. Massie's comments generally included: actively involved with the
development community, members of BIA, work consistently with market-
rate developers; the region is in the midst of a housing crisis; there is a
need for development for more housing; inclusionary housing can create a
tax on development but balance that with the housing crisis; he asked what
the appropriate nexus for need and resource would be; inclusionary
housing is occurring throughout the State; appreciates this is a flexible and
fair measure; and he made favorable comments regarding the City being
responsive to the needs of the community.
Ms. Margie Wakeham, Executive Director of Families Forward, serves
homeless and at risk families in Orange County with the largest clientele
coming from Tustin. Her concerns generally included: lack of affordable
housing in Orange County (i.e. Santa Ana courthouse and riverbed);
concern with exempting the Tustin Legacy; and was not sure how many
units are left to be developed at the Tustin Legacy. Ms. Wakeham
originally was in favor of, but is not in opposition of the item.
Ms. Elizabeth Andrade, Family Solutions Collaborative (FSC) which is
committed to ending homelessness. She commended the Commission on
their leadership in Tustin being commendable for spearheading affordable
housing. With regards to the low and very-low income levels is critical and
that there are opportunities with the City to partner with the eleven (11)
agencies that make up the FSC. Ms. Andraded's final comment was for
the Commission to consider who will benefit from those low and very-low
income units.
Mr. Tyron Jackson, President/Founder of Warm Wishes, provided
background of his life as a homeless person, thanked the City for helping
homeless and those in need. Mr. Jackson asked the Commission to invest
in those in need, including the homeless.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 7 of 17
Mr. Eric Higuchi, resident, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns
generally included: opposite effect of providing affordable housing and the
lack of transparency from the City since City staff did not reach out to him
after the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting.
Mr. John Nielsen, former Mayor/City Council member, served on SCAG for
eight (8) years, spoke in opposition of the item and his concerns generally
included: affordable housing has been based on the Tustin Legacy; it
excludes Tustin Legacy and if a developer wants to do infill projects, they
would be subject to the proposed ordinance; referred to the RHSP being
subject to this inclusionary housing; he asked which sites are available for
inclusionary housing since most areas are commercial use; the ordinance
will not produce enough funds to build affordable housing; not the right
approach; and penalizes developers for wanting to invest in Tustin Legacy
which will make them want to build elsewhere.
Mr. Eric Nelson, Dana Point Planning Commissioner, spoke in opposition
of the item. His concerns with the ordinance generally included: mentioned
SB 35 (new mandate from Sacramento); effects land value; aspires to
utilize market rate housing to fund affordable housing; referred to the City's
data from the General Plan Amendments, specifically the Tustin Legacy;
and he asked staff to reach out to the development community.
8:17 p.m. Public Hearing Section Closed.
Thompson Thompson asked about the density bonus and what kind of track record
does the City have with density bonus and how would it encourage
affordable housing.
Craig Craig explained the density bonus qualification process, along with the
incentives. Villages of Columbus, Anton Legacy and Amalfi Apartments
were density bonus projects. The density bonus at the Villages of
Columbus created affordable housing units.
Binsack Per Binsack, the incentives could be reduced setbacks; alleviation of some
type of fee; various concessions; developers alternative to ask and the
City's consideration to grant, but parking concessions are not negotiable.
Kozak Kozak asked staff to clarify the role of the Tustin Legacy in providing
affordable housing as being part of the solution that the City is using to
develop affordable housing. He also asked about the RAR and how that
works into incentivizing affordable units.
Binsack Binsack referred to the original Specific Plan, prior to the last Specific Plan
adoption, which there were 4,200 units for the overall planning area which
was 23% affordability and included low, very-low, moderate income levels
but did not include Village of Hope or the Tustin Family Campus. While
they do provide very-low income level opportunities, those are counted
more as a bed count versus a unit count, even though they are units. The
addition of the units with the last Specific Plan amendment was
approximately 6,400 rental units, which is approximately fifteen (15)
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 8 of 17
percent. The City is discussing opportunities to work with Jamboree
Housing to do additional units since the City is the land owner and can
actually engage in those negotiations versus a private property owner.
With regards to the RAR, at the Tustin Legacy, that is not the way units are
allocated since the zoning is established. The mixed-use, the low, medium
and high density residential uses are already established with the the
Master Planned Community. Per Binsack, the Specific Plans that were
identified, currently do not have a mixed-use designation and there is no
residential infused in those areas.
Craig Craig added, in terms of going forward and negotiating with Jamboree
Housing, Economic Development staff are working with apartment
developers in looking at density bonuses because of the type of
development the City is looking at. There will be at least five (5) percent
very-low income on those projects because developers want to take
advantage of increased density, as well as parking. Economic
Development is also working with Family Promise on another parcel
geared towards dealing with homeless families. The City Council is very
committed to working with workforce housing, affordable housing,
homeless and although the Tustin Legacy is exempt, there is still a lot of
activity going forward. Again, those land sale proceeds are needed to build
four-hundred-million dollars with of infrastructure that is required. Craig
then commented on the general needs of the City's budget and staff tried to
include flexibility in the ordinance so that the City Council can meet the
needs of all residents, but to also serve those that need affordable housing.
Mason Mason's points of clarification generally included: what would the
affordability periods be if the City moves forward on zoning; she asked if it
would be incumbent upon the City to monitor if an affordable house goes
up for sale; referred to a question from the February 13, 2018 Commission
meeting on obtaining any data from the City of Irvine what they are doing to
make inclusionary housing work; if no inclusionary housing, does density
bonus automatically "trigger" (by the City or the developer); and, if there
have been public discussions with the BIA or others and what is the rush
on the inclusionary housing.
Craig In response to Mason, Craig was not sure how much will be provided
onsite because it is more financially beneficial to pay the in-lieu fee. If
provided onsite, State law currently requires forty-five (45) years for
ownership and fifty-five (55) years for rental. In terms of home ownership,
the City's challenge is if an affordable unit goes into foreclosure. The in-
lieu fee is going to be the option and Craig does not anticipate having any
additional ownership units with the proposed ordinance. In terms of rental
development, it would be up to the developer or management company to
monitor ongoing affordability. City staff conducts annual monitoring but
nothing to the level Mason raised with ownership. With the loss of
redevelopment, there are challenges with City staff monitoring. Craig
stated there was a project in Tustin (The Vintage) 140 units are being built
currently in Old Town, where affordable fees were paid. As for the City of
Irvine and the homeless issue, a council member was quoted as saying,
"we have over 4,000 affordable units and we have another 1,000 coming
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 9 of 17
on-line in the next five (5) years" because they have an inclusionary
housing policy and they keep developing. The City believes that by adding
the value to property, development will occur and if it does not occur, that
commercial developer is just not interested in mixed-use development and
has nothing to do with an inclusionary housing policy. Density bonus only
gets triggered if 1) the property is re-zoned from commercial to residential
and 2) the developer is prepared to provide affordable housing onsite; the
rush on the policy is due to the affordable housing crisis and City staff has
spent a lot of time studying what other cities have done. Craig stated there
were no discussion groups or round tables with the BIA, they looked at
what other cities were doing and took a more conservative approach as to
what the City of Santa Ana and City of Irvine are doing. Direction was to
bring forward an inclusionary housing policy to the City Council and in the
meantime, the housing needs are growing.
Binsack Binsack's recap included: the City Council considered this at its Strategic
Planning Workshop approximately three (3) years ago; it was noticed in the
Tustin Newspaper; City Manager and Mayor did meet with the BIA in
advance of the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting; and as far as
timing, the proposed ordinance presented before the Commission has
been under preparation by the Economic Development Department for two
(2) years; staff has obligations under the Tustin City Code and there are
requirements to make a recommendation to the City Council within ninety
(90) days of the original notification, otherwise staff needs to go return to
the Commission with a revised proposed ordinance. Per Binsack, if the
Commission does nothing, it is considered a positive recommendation.
Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: staff presented a very
comprehensive ordinance and thanked staff for modifying the last
ordinance presented. He noted his serious issues in the "chilling
development" the ordinance would create; he noted the need to have a
program that encourages the right type of development for Tustin. What is
right for the City of Tustin with the goals the City Council has given to the
Commission to consider. He noted he is opposed to the ordinance as
written (too vague); since the Strategic Planning Workshop, held three (3)
years prior, the Commission is now considering two (2) Specific Plans
(RHSP and DCCSP) and a lot has happened; need to consider everything
the City has at their disposal (i.e. density bonus program, options to
negotiate with developers and take same approach the City did with
Vintage to other developers; from a land use policy, Lumbard was not sure
the proposed ordinance would encourage development; affordable housing
is a good goal for the City; Tustin is doing a great job already and is on the
right path; Irvine is a master planned community; unless the City limits
development options to affordable housing units and affordable developers
the proposed ordinance is an added tax to development; and the
Commission mentioned an optional ordinance at the February 13, 2018
Commission meeting.
Smith Smith asked what the number of units would be in the RHSP and the
DCCSP and he added in the proposed in-lieu fees. He asked if the funds
would go into the Housing Authority fund or the General Fund. Smith
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 10 of 17
asked if there is any sense as to how many units would be built with nine-
million dollars (funds from the in-lieu fees) in terms of low-incoming housing
and affordability in the community.
Craig Per Craig, the total number of units in both the RHSP and the DCCSP
areas would be approximately 1,250 (The Vintage was not included since
they already paid their in-lieu fees). Per the recommendation, the in-lieu
fees fund would go to development only. There are separate housing
authority funds specifically with the focus on development. The current
housing funds the City has are used for administrative costs. Per the
transparency, it states in the proposed ordinance that it does give the City
Council the opportunity to use the funds from the in-lieu fees for
administration. Craig stated that in order for a developer to build an
affordable housing project, a developer ends up using tax credit financing
and typically a city has to provide a gap funding of one-hundred-thousand
dollars per unit in order to make that project viable. The City is not trying to
get dollar for dollar, so when the City establishes a twelve-thousand-dollar
fee, the consultants that did the analysis, said that in order to really get
dollar for dollar, the developer is looking more at anywhere from
seventeen-thousand-dollars to twenty-one-thousand-dollars per unit.
Binsack Per Smith's question on the number of units and fees, Binsack stated that
there have not been any notice public hearings before the Planning
Commission or City Council on the RHSP and DCCSP areas and the
number of units could be reduced or not approved at all.
Thompson Thompson further explained to Smith that if he were to calculate the
number of units in the DCCSP and the RHSP areas, it is approximately
1,200 units, removing The Vintage, multiply that times twelve-thousand-
dollars per unit, it is approximately fifteen-million-dollars. He added that if
you divided the fifteen-million-dollars by the one-hundred-thousand-dollars,
it is approximately 150 units. Thompson thanked the public speakers for
voicing their comments and concerns. He also applauded staff for their
hard work on this proposed ordinance. Thompson's comments/concerns
generally included: potential chill on development; exempting Tustin
Legacy - should have the same standard that is being applied; the City is a
policy leader and it is also a developer and because of that it does not
mean we find ways to exempt the City but instead find ways to set the bar;
would not suggest applying the ordinance across the community— see how
it works first; convey to the City Council what is the program and what is
the vision? Another favorable comment to staff is that they have looked at
specific plan areas to find out how to bring in more residential to some of
these areas that do not have residential. Staff should move a little bit
slower but still move in a way that enables the City's success. If the
recommendation is that it goes to the City Council, that we just not
establish a fee program just to have a fee program and administration, but
it should be conveyed with: what is the program and the vision?
Lumbard Lumbard's final comments/concerns: does not know what the RHSP and
the DCCSP are going to ultimately be defined as; does not know what the
fee will be; it is difficult to make a discussion based on specifics when they
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 11 of 17
are all theoretical.
Smith If we look at what the plan was before versus what the plan is now, how
many parcels less are impacted by the change?
Craig It could have been City-Wide so other than Tustin Legacy it could have
applied anywhere as long as there was residential development of twenty
(20) units or more. Right now the focus is on the RHSP and DCCSP and
there is value being added to these properties. In terms of the allocation
units, those are specific to RHSP and DCCSP and as far as up-zoning, that
could be anywhere in the City (i.e. consolidate lots).
Kozak Kozak's observations and comments included: he suggested starting with a
strategic plan that the City Council has adopted through the process with
respect to the direction to develop an inclusionary housing ordinance as a
tool to develop additional affordable housing to meet the housing
affordability crisis in the community; he commended staff on the work put
into this item since the February 13, 2018 meeting whereas they addressed
the concerns the Commission had; he stated that the inclusionary housing
proposal is an initiative to address affordable housing issues in the
community; added that the ordinance proposed is more focused incentive-
based and includes flexibility as there are four (4) different options to meet
the requirements and there are incentives to develop affording other
opportunities and to add value to these properties is incentive to itself; the
inclusionary housing ordinance, as proposed, is a tool that the Commission
needs to equip the City with and if it needs to be tested, then test it; the
Commission needs to move this forward to the City Council; and Kozak
was in favor of forwarding the item to the City Counciil for their
consideration.
Mason Mason's final comments/concerns generally included: favorable comments
to staff's work on the report; troubled the City has to create an ordinance to
make this happen; what was done with The Vintage was unique; Mason
was torn that the City add more administration to attract developers to the
City; if the item moves forward, it has to include the Tustin Legacy;
enormous opportunity with the Specific Plan as well; has not heard what
the BIA and other agencies "alternative ideas" are; she is torn between not
being in support of the item; and take the next four (4) weeks, if within the
ninety days, to invite the developers to come in and put a call out to the
State of California for some innovative programs that attract builders who
are building the mixed-use residential and figure out the forum to have
those discussions or co-create more meaningful solutions for Tustin.
Lumbard Lumbard preferred making recommendations to the City Council for them
to consider from a policy standpoint what they think based on all of the
discussions had.
Smith Smith stated that he felt it would be unlikely that the Commission will
achieve solutions in the next four (4) weeks. Sought out direction from
Michael Daudt if the end result was a 3-2 vote for recommendation to the
City Council. He also wanted confirmation that the Commission's primary
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 12 of 17
function which was to consider the issue, then make recommendations to
the City Council.
Daudt Daudt confirmed Smith's question on the Commission's primary function.
Thompson Thompson's motion was to recommended approval with the following
conditions:
1. That the Tustin Legacy is not exempt.
2. The focus is retained on the Specific Plan Areas.
3. The ordinance be revised removing the 20 units contiguous (Pages
6 and 8 of the ordinance).
4. The Planning Commission Resolution contain the fifteen (15%)
percent and twelve-and-one-half(12.5%) percent goals.
5. Fees are not within the purview of the Planning Commission (only
land use decision making).
6. Remove "H" altogether
Lumbard Lumbard asked staff about a similar recommendation made at the previous
Commission meeting where there were several contingencies attached,
and those went as a report to the City Council. He wanted to know what the
impact would be if approved as recommended, but listing the
Commission's concerns. Or approve the ordinance with Thompson's
modifications. Lumbard added that if three (3) of the Commissions could
decide to agree, then it could be a modified ordinance as a
recommendation, but if not, it would go as a report.
Binsack Per Binsack, the Commission could do either. Staff could get clear
direction from the Commission. Staff would not want to modify the
ordinance in a way that is not reflective of the Commission's
recommendation. As long as the Commission is clear and there is a 3-2
consensus on making a positive recommendation, then staff can make the
modifications and forward it to the City Council. With the prior ordinance
referenced, there was support of the concept of the ordinance but not a
consensus on ordinance changes so staff articulated the Commission's
concerns in the form of the minutes and will ensure they were also included
in the staff report.
Kozak Kozak asked for clarification with Thompson's motion. He understood the
inclusion of the Tustin Legacy and the focus on the Specific Plans, but he
requested clarification on Thompson's third point.
Thompson Per Kozak's request, in the proposed ordinance, it did state specifically, the
fifteen (15%) percent and twelve-and-one-half (12.5%) percent goals, but it
is unclear under Page 59 of the packet where it establishes those specific
goals. Those were also stated in the staff report but Thompson did not see
the statement of that goal in the resolution so for consistency, to include
that in the resolution.
Binsack As a point of clarification, before the Commission voted, and to understand
clearly what the motion is, Binsack stated - as it relates to the Tustin
Legacy, is it the Commission's proposal that Tustin Legacy be included and
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 13 of 17
taken into consideration of all units that have already been constructed
(Master Planned Community) looking backward and going forward in
totality.
Thompson Thompson suggested that paragraph H, Section I in the resolution be
extracted and then in paragraph I name the Tustin Legacy along with the
RHSP, past, current and future.
Lumbard Lumbard asked for further clarification which generally included: the
motion is to not exclude the Tustin Legacy and to also focus on the RHSP
and DCCSP areas— how do you focus on those areas while including other
areas?
Thompson Thompson explained further that he was suggesting to just focus on those
Specific Plan Areas (RHSP, DCCSP, and the Tustin Legacy). The
justification for that is those are the areas where there is presently the plan
to add significant units where there are none today.
Lumbard In Lumbard's opinion, if the Commission is trying to approve Specific Plans,
as a City, to encourage redevelopment areas, that this would probably
have a negative impact. But if the Commission is only focusing on RHSP
and the DCCSP because the City wants redevelopment, that is where
Lumbard was torn.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No.
4358, with modifications to both the resolution and the ordinance as
previously stated. Motion carried 2-3. Commissioners Smith and
Thompson = yays, Commissioners Lumbard, Mason and Smith = noes.
2nd Motion: Lumbard made a motion to deny the ordinance as recommended by staff,
for the various reasons previously posed by the Commission of issues
within the ordinance, seconded by Mason. The Commission could not
agree as what they liked and did not like about the ordinance.
Binsack Per Binsack, fundamentally, if the Commission is going to recommend
against the ordinance, then staff would need to return to the Commission
with a resolution that would include some findings of denial.
Lumbard Lumbard asked to rescind his motion. Motion is null and void.
Mason Mason asked another clarifying question — if the Commission moves the
item forward to the City Council with the concerns in the areas which they
cannot agree, is it up to the City Council to vote yay or nay? If there are
innovative ideas from the BIA they could come forth to the City Council?
Binsack To answer Mason's questions, Binsack stated yes, that the
recommendation to the City Council could be that there is no
recommendation and the ordinance could be forwarded as was presented
to the Commission and the Commission could provide a report of your
findings (concerns) and staff could articulate those concerns in writing.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 14 of 17
Further deliberation took place among the Commission. The definition of
residential projects in the ordinance is inadequate, per Lumbard, based on
the intent it was only for re-zoning from industrial commercial to residential,
up zoning and develop residential uses within the RHSP and the DCCSP,
at which point currently, we do not know what they are since the
Commission has not yet voted on those items. Or other Specific Plan
Areas open-ended that have the residential allocation, which Lumbard did
not know what they are. The lack of clarity perceived in the zoning, as it
exists today and what it might look like in the Specific Plan Areas.
Craig No one, at this time, has a residential allocation reservation.
Lumbard Lumbard's concerns were as follows: the ordinance is deficient in its
language to accomplish the goals that staff has verbally shared with the
Commission; the language has gaps as it relates to the Specific Plan Areas
(existing or non-existing); and the RHSP and DCCSP areas do not
currently exist. He included the concerns he stated previously.
Binsack Per Binsack, if the Commission is going to recommend denial of the
ordinance, staff needs to return to the Commission with a resolution that
articulates the findings in order to go forward to the City Council and the
City Council can consider the Commission's findings as part of its report
and make a determination as to whether or not the City Council wants to
approve or not approve an ordinance. Binsack stated that it seemed like
the Commission wanted to deny the concept of the ordinance wherein staff
might need to return to the Commission and bring a resolution of denial of
the ordinance and include those findings. If the Commission chooses to
approve the ordinance, then staff can articulate the Commission's concerns
to the City Council in the form of an inclusion in the staff report as well as
the minutes, but if the Commission is going to vote to deny the ordinance,
staff would need to identify that the Commission was at a stale mate and
they could not decide whether or not to approve or deny the ordinance, and
present the ordinance and the minutes.
Further deliberation occurred among the Commission.
Binsack Binsack added that if the Commission chooses not to make a
recommendation, the ordinance can go as it is, and staff can identify to the
City Council that the Commission chose not to make a recommendation. If
the Commission wants staff to identify that the Commission was leaning
more towards denial, staff wants to identify an accurate report to the City
Council. If the Commission desires to deny the ordinance, it can do so by
Minute Order, and staff can provide the minutes as well as articulate the
Commission's concerns to the City Council in the staff report. If the
Commission does nothing within the ninety (90) days then the ordinance is
deemed that it is a positive recommendation, even if the Commission does
not take action.
3rd Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith to deny Resolution No.
4358, by minute order. Motion carried 3-2. Planning Commissioner Ayes —
Lumbard, Mason, Smith. Planning Commissioner Noes — Kozak and
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 15 of 17
Thompson.
REGULAR BUSINESS:
5. 2017 LEGISLATIVE HOUSING PACKAGE
Received & In 2017, Governor Brown signed into law fifteen (15) legislative
Ned. housing bills into a "housing package" to address housing supply
and affordability issues throughout the State of California. These
bills provide for new and increased funding for housing, regulatory
reform that streamlines local project approval processes and holds
jurisdictions accountable for the lack of housing construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission receive and file the report.
Motion. Received and filed.
Dove Presentation given.
None. STAFF CONCERNS:
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Mason Mason thanked staff for all of their hard work on the agenda reports. She
attended the California Preservation Foundation training in Long Beach on
March 23, 2018.
Lumbard Lumbard thanked staff for all of their hard work on the agenda reports.
Special thanks to Jerry Craig! Happy Easter!
Thompson Thompson echoed favorable comments to staff. Resuming teaching again
at Cal Poly Pomona the week of March 27, 2018. Thompson will be
attending a ULI program in Detroit, MI. He may be resuming school in the
summer as well.
Kozak Kozak echoed favorable comments to staff on the agenda reports.
3/19: Email policy training.
3/21: DCCSP/RHSP Briefing Discussion.
3/24: Orange County Animal Shelter Grand Opening at the Tustin Legacy.
Happy Easter!
Smith Smith also echoed favorable comments to staff on the agenda reports.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 16 of 17
9.43 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, April 10, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300
Centennial Way.
Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018—Page 17 of 17