Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 14, 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS FOR ITEM #5 AGENDA REVISIONS TO "PUBLIC CONCERNS", "CONSENT CALENDAR", WRITTEN MATERIALS", AND "ADA" SECTIONS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: ited lie Fninutes^ person for 4ems not ttae_agen4aj At-ttais- ' F8qaFd4;g-aR�L4eM&-A9t On the agenda and within the subject mattewju6sdWAien of-the fission{140 ac4ion-caa-be4aker-wri-af#- agendas items unless ea aay-reatt4af please�'ilf-out+dne t�f�s-lasa'^' ^'���"�eauer� +-n_so that-Yo�+�ce�r+ar�s-vaithin- tae recording-of-4he meAtRg-carrbe-attab+uted4Q-yei+—Gor�or4-4Df this-forRll-a h^^ °^• IJ; .a^^•' At this time, any member of the public may address the Planning Commission on matters which are not on this evening's agenda provided the matter is within the subject matter iurisdiction of the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. There will be no o ^•ate-discussion of these-itecr+s-p4e(tG the time of tth&voting-Gn--the motion unles6 members+af the ommissit staff, OF P61191 G F8qUBSt speGWW,teras tube-disctfssed aradlor removed#fea}�#e C©anent Galeada�#aF separateastien-Persons wishing to speak regarding Consent Calendar matters should file a"Request to Speak"form with the Recording Secretary. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JUNE 26, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS The report provides a summary of projects and activities since the last summary of projects report was presented at the April 24, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status or projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. - Formatted Table NEWS RITTEN MATERIALS— Materials that are distributed to a mamority of the Planning Commigsion { Formatted:Font: 11 pt 1 ss than 72 hours priorto the Regular Meeting are available for public inspection at the following Formatted:Normal Agenda-Planning Commission August 14,2018-Page 1 of 4 I tions: in the Community Develo meat Department during regular business hours and followin business hours after 5:30 .m. in the Council Chamber on the day of the meeting. Formatted:Font: 11 pt,Condensed by 0.15 - - ---------- pt MERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ADA - In compliance with the ADA those requiring Formatted:Font: 11 pt ccommodations for this meeting should notify the Community Development Department 72 hours (Formatted:Font: 11 pt rior to the meeting at(714)573-3106 t Formatted:Nome Formatted:Font: 11 pt,Condensed by 0.15 pt PUBLIC HEARING: 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)2017-09 & DESIGN REVIEW (DR)2017-008 PROPERTY OWNER: Song Am, Inc. 1501 Nissan Road Tustin, CA 92780 APPLICANT: Sungwun Son Song Am, Inc. 1501 Nisson Road Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1501 Nisson Road REQUEST: CUP 2017-09 and DR 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) self-vacuum stations, sales kiosk and trash and vacuum enclosures, and exterior modification to the existing building. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1/Class 2) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4371 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-09 and Design Review(DR) 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) low-profile self-vacuum stations, add sales kiosk, trash and vacuum enclosures and exterior modifications to the existing building. Presented by: Elaine Dove, Senior Planner 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) 2018-00007 AND DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2018- 00011 PROPERTY OWNER: Tustin Heights SC LP Agenda-Planning Commission August 14,2016-Page 2 of 4 621 B South Melrose Avenue Vista,CA 92081 APPLICANT: Michael Zislis Rock&Brews 321 12''Street,#200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION: 1222 Irvine Boulevard REQUEST: CUP to authorize Type 47 Alcohol Beverage License for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and fagade upgrade to an existing restaurant building within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1 and Class 2) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4370 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2018-00007 and Design Review (DR) 2018-00011 to authorize a Type 47 alcohol beverage license for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and facade upgrade to an existing restaurant located within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center at 1222 Irvine Boulevard. Presented by: Erica H. Demkowicz,Senior Planner 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-0001 AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT AREA APPLICANT: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 LOCATION: 36 acres along a portion of Red Hill Avenue generally bounded by Bryan Avenue to the north and Walnut Avenue to the south bisected by Interstate 5 (1-5), extending one (1) parcel east and west of the Red Hill Avenue right-of-way. REQUEST: To establish new development standards and regulations for a portion of Red Hill Avenue through the approval of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13)that would Agenda—Planning Commission August 14,2018—Page 3 of 4 allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage and introduce new integrated mixed-use land uses within the project area. Zone Change (ZC 2017-001)would amend the City of Tustin zoning map and change the existing zoning designation from Retail Commercial(C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG)and Professional (PR)to SPA 3. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-01 would amend the City of Tustin General Plan land use map and include minor text amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed specific plan. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR SCH 2017041031) and statement of overriding considerations and findings of fact have been prepared in accordance with Article 7 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4367, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2017041031, making required environmental findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4368, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2017-01 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan SPA 3; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4369, recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 2017-00001 to amend the City of Tustin Zoning Map changing the Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), and Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) zoning designations to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP- 13)and adopt Ordinance No. 1498-Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan(SP-13). Presented by: Erica H. Demkowicz,Senior Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: None. STAFF CONCERNS: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 28, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Agenda—Planning Commission August 14,2018—Page 4 of 4 Ate " 3QO entertnial-VVay,�sE. G—aG#er,*a; ieQ no business hours! dance with the Americans se-GGntast-the ise ci#-the it3rQerk-at ion pears thins-meeting: Agenda-Planning Commission August 14,2018-Page 5 of 4 ITEM #3 ADDED LANGUAGE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SECTION 3.5 Resolution No. 4371 Page 8 2.12 No outdoor storage or vending is allowed unless expressly approved by the Community Development Department. *** 2.13 Exterior elevations shall be repainted with approved colors subject to final inspection. *** 2.14 Prior to final inspection, the existing mural on the car wash building shall be removed unless applicant obtains approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to TCC Section 9404b4. *** 2.15 All identification signs shall comply with the Tustin City Code and shall be compatible with the building design. Sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of sign permit. All signage must have a valid sign permit, if applicable. PLAN SUBMITTAL (5) 3.1 Prior to issuance of permit, a photometric study shall be prepared to demonstrate that all lighting is directed so as to confine direct rays to the premises, and shall be approved by the Community Development Department. (5) 3.2 Applicant shall submit engineering calculations and plans for the trash and vacuum enclosures and sales kiosk. An engineer or architect stamp is required. (5) 3.3 Prior to issuance of a permit, applicant shall submit specifications, brochures, and visual renditions of proposed vacuum canisters for approval by the Community Development Department. (5) 3.4 Plans shall reflect conditions of approval including removal of the self-vacuum cleaner canopy and the installation of low profile vacuums. (5) 3.5 Landscape plans shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All landscaping shown on plans shall be installed and permanently_ maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition by the property owner and shall include screening of any proposed detector check valve water systems and electrical transformers. In addition to shrubs and ground cover, vines shall be planted in the planter area adjacent to the trash and vacuum equipment enclosures. All vine planting shall include support ties to establish the vines on the walls. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection of the project. ITEM #5 Opposition Letter from Lee & Associates Dated August 9, 2018 LEE & ASSOCIATES& COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES August 9,2018 Via E-mail Mayor Al Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Members of the City Council Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail: CityCouncil tustinca.orQ E-mail: cityclerk cr,tustinea.00rr Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner City of Tustin RECEIVED 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 AUG,1 0O'a E-mail: edemkowiczAtustinca.org COMMIfNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Mayor Murray, Chairman Smith, Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms.Demkowicz, Lee&Associates represents Richter Farms Trust, the owner of Red Hill Village shopping center (99 Cent center) located at 14511-14601 Red Hill Avenue. We appreciate the city's desire to improve the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. However, we are opposed to the plan as currently drafted and believe it will result in the exact opposite of the intended objective. Some of our reasons are listed below: Forced Obsolescence and Blight: Paragraph 4.6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Parcels states in part; "When land uses intensify or change(including re-tenanting of existing commercial spaces), existing structures or sites are modified by more than 50% of their existing square footage, additional square footage,or new development is proposed, conformance with the regulations and design outlined in the Specific Plan will be required". This provision would force a landowner to comply with the new guidelines whenever they re- tenant a commercial space. A change in tenancy occurs on a regular basis. If not allowed to re-tenant, a shopping center owner would be forced to leave a space vacant,perhaps board up to avoid vandalism and crime. Nearly every new tenant requires more than 50% of the space to be renovated with new tenant improvements. Frequently a highly desired national quality tenant will require upgrades to the fagade which would not be allowed under the RHASP. This forced obsolescence would occur of the next few decades before the buildings and existing long-term leases expire wherein the value of the shopping centers would be the land value only and permit the development as proposed in RHASP. This would also force out all of the "Mom and Pop" convenience store merchants who rely upon existing centers to provide reasonable rental rates. Customers, many of whom have enjoyed decades of convenience to their favorite stores and restaurants, would be forced to shop elsewhere. The shopping centers currently for the most part are 100 percent leased. Lee&Associates-Irvine,Inc, A Member of the Lee&Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID#01044791/9838 Research Drive/Irvine,CA 92618 Office: 949.727.1200/Fax: 949.727.1299 August 9,2018 Page 2 Unfair Burden: Paragraph 3.2.1 Minced Use states in part; "Freestanding commercial/office uses will likely continue to be the dominant pattern within the Specific Plan area, as many parcels are too small to accommodate the parking, common open space, and pedestrian-oriented requirements outlined in the Development Regulation and Design Criteria in an integrated mixed-use development." This correctly identifies that all of the smaller"freestanding"commercial properties along this proposed corridor would not be able to comply with R1 ASP set-backs and improvements leaving the entire cost and land dedication burden upon three shopping center owners (Red Hill Village, Stater Brothers Center and Red Hill Plaza). In order,for these three owners to comply, it would require that their properties be reduced to land value wiping out 2/3`d'of the current value equating to tens of millions of dollars in losses. We ask the question: Who is going to pay for all of the overhead utilities going underground for the non-center properties? Will they go underground at the shopping centers, then pop up in the non- center commercial properties? By having only three properties eventually improved along the corridor it would look more like a smile with missing teeth than the pedestrian friendly environment RHASP envisioned. Not My Tustin: Paragraph 1.1 Executive Summary states in part; "The RHASP provides for an additional 500 dwelling units and an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses as a threshold of development-intensity." This increased"intensity"would require as stated in RHASP 4 and 5 story buildings on the three shopping center parcels. I have lived near Foothill High School in North Tustin for over 30 years. On a daily basis we enjoy shopping and dining in Tustin primarily for convenience but also for the quiet charm that Tustin has been famous and envisioned by Columbus Tustin over 150 years ago when he and his partner purchased 1,300 acres from Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. We have enjoyed for the most part single story buildings with our children participating in the Tiller days parade. This proposed increased density would increase traffic,pollution and population. All of which is contrary to what we Tustin residents have grown to enjoy. This RHASP plan may work on vacant land such as the District but not in our existing neighborhoods. Viable Alternative: We welcome the plans to increase street median plantings and partitions such as currently provided in the southern portion of the plan area. Also, nicer bus stop and sidewalk areas could be provided. If a parcel becomes vacant, such as the parcel to the West of Red Hill Plaza, then I would suggest a Mixed Use overlay that could be obtained through the Conditional Use Permit process where each project could be evaluated on its own merits. Then at that time and place, residents and governing agencies could evaluate and potentially allow greater densities than what are currently allowed. Conclusion: Although our above concerns do not address all the issues, we believe the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan as,currently drafted is without economic foundation, putting the primary cost on three owners. The Plan is contrary to the Tustin charm and destined for failure. We hope the city will not adopt this plan. Best regards, Bruce Heathcote L&A & ASSOCIATES' nnw.ronwocxrcTwTe ceonree August 9,2018 Page 3 Principal cc: Richter Farms Trust 4 S LEE ASsOCIATES• f:nMM9:{7nIeI RPAI FRTLTF AFRVIf.FR ITEM #5 Opposition E-mail from Kristen Nesselrod Dated August 10, 2018 Tiscareno, Vera From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:25 PM To: Tiscareno, Vera Cc: Willkom,Justina; Reekstin, Scott Subject: FW: Redhill Plan feedback- Re: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Vera, Please include this e-mail at the dais for Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting. Thanks, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin -Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) $73-3127 edemkowicz@tustinca.or From: Kristen Nesselrod fmailto:krisness@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:10 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Redhill Plan feedback- Re: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Erica, As a resident of Tustin,just off 1st Street near Redhill, I have some big concerns regarding the Redhill Ave Specific Plan. In particular, for the proposed 4-5 story high-density housing. That level of density is much greater than that of the surrounding areas. The neighborhoods nearby area all 1 to 2 story (with the exception I think if the development near the freeway by the corner of El Camino). The smaller streets and older infrastructure are not meant to handle the increase in traffic (especially with the proposed 'T' street diet." A 4-5 story level of density is seen over in the newer developments of The District where new infrastructure is created to manage that level of density. Furthermore, 4-5 story developments would impact the sight lines of the neighbors and change the setting of the surrounding areas. Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any propositions for green spaces or walking paths. Please let it be known that I wish the city to preserve the vanishing character and charm of our neighborhood. I feel a collaborative approach that respects the voices of people who live with the impacts of decisions is the best way to go about this. Maybe the 4-5 story proposition is in "shoot for the moon" style, but 2, maybe 3 stories max would be more appropriate. Please don't sacrifice my/our neighborhood for the benefit of for-profit developers. I Sincerely, Kristen Nesselrod E 1st St Tustin From: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz2tustinca.org> Sent:Thursday,August 9, 2018 10:18 AM To:krisness@hotmail.com Cc:TustinPlanning Subject: FW: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Kristen, Please feel free to e-mail me with any comments or feedback regarding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. My a-mail is edemkowicz@tustinca.org. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin - Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (71.4) 573-3127 edemkowicz@tustinca.org -----Original Message----- From:TustinPlanning Sent:Thursday,August 09, 2018 9:11 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: FW: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Please see below regarding Red Hill SP. -----Original Message----- From: Kristen Nesselrod [mailto:krisness@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 11:33 AM To:TustinPlanning Subject: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hi, Just saw the Facebook post about the public meeting on the proposed Redhill Ave development plan. Can we, if so where, send feedback/comments, if we are unable to attend the meeting? Thank you, Kristen Nesselrod 2 Sent from my Whone. Please forgive typos &strange auto corrections. Thanks. 3 ITEM #5 Comment Letter Dated August 13, 2018 From Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. SAPETTT© REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. August 13, 2018 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin Sent via email RE: Public Hearing of August 14, 2018, Agenda Item 5: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR—Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 Recreation Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We have been discussing with City staff the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 requiring the Park Land Dedication or In-lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft ETR would have required a fee that, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation, would have totaled approximately $3,644,444 per acre or $24,000 per dwelling unit, which is an amount that would make any development project infeasible. According to the staff report released on August 10, 2018 for the Red Hill Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Mitigation Measure has now been revised and indicates that a Park Land Dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population, consistent with the Quimby Act, is required for all projects within the Specific Plan. Further, for projects with density of greater than 25du, the Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit will be determined by the Community Development Director based upon product type. (See Attachment A.) We appreciate staff's willingness to address our concerns, however, this revision does not provide the information needed for a developer to determine with sufficient certainty the feasibility of a project proposed within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the revised Mitigation Measure provides no set fee amount or calculation parameters for projects with densities greater than 25 du per gross acre. We have reviewed the population generation rates developed by a number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend that a per unit fee be provided by the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du per acre at no more than $8,000 per base unit (as defined in the recently approved City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance No. Sapetto Real Estate Solutions,Inc•one Park Plaza,0600 PNIB 313,Irvine,California 92614•(949)252-0841 www.SapettoRealEstate.com RedHill Avenue Specific Plan ElR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13,2018 Page 2 1191), and that the measure should require that fees collected pursuant to the Mitigation Measure be used only for additional park land or improvements to existing parks located in reasonable proximity to specific residential project paying fees, and within the Specific Plan area. Further, we request that the Parkland Mitigation Fee should only be imposed on the basis of"base units" because it is not clear pursuant to the existing Mitigation Measure text whether the City intends to require payment of the fee imposed for bonus units provided to projects receiving a density bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) as an incentive to provide affordable housing units on-site or offsite. California Density Bonus Law encourages development of affordable housing via a package of incentives, including density bonuses and project concessions, that are intended to make development of affordable housing economically feasible. To the extent the City intends to calculate the Parkland Mitigation Fees for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in a manner that allocates a fee to these incentive bonus units provided under state law, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Density Bonus Law and burdensome for projects that would otherwise help the City achieve important affordable housing goals. We believe that in order to encourage the development of much needed housing, (and affordable housing) in the Specific Plan area, which is in need of revitalization, the City should provide incentives to builders. Exclusion of bonus density units from application of the Parkland Mitigation Fee is one of the best ways for the City to assure that developers-attain the full benefit of incentives provided by state law to encourage development of housing. We sincerely appreciate to your consideration of our request. r Respectfully, Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. RedHill Avenue Specific Plan FIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13,2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing Text: Red Hill Avenue Spedfk Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pmgram Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Manitar -� Islgru•tnre,Fate of .,snndardmndldo,res'c1onBMit€ratronn�irz<n.efMMl i ��". - rmplemenmtta.t... 7rmin8 x,.``� ftaspaostb0dyfor Mordtaring� _,WmpBattcel:`.x MM 4.12-1:For residential projects nol subject io Cityof Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to the issuanceof Community Development Code(Artkle 4,Chapter 3,Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code),priorlo the Building Permits Department—Planning& issuance of building permits,applicants shall dedicate parkland orpay a park Zoning Division fee,on a per unit sis,bareflect€ng the value of land required lorpark purposes.The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land whkch would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for land Dedication: The public interest,convenience.health,welfare,and safety requiresthat three(3)acres ofusable park land per one thousand(1,000)potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required fur dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density ciassiflcation In the following table: D—TRng Units per Average Persons per Parldand Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling unit D—Ring Unit 0-7 3.39 Q102 7.1-15 2.85 .0086 15.1-25 2,24 .0067 25.18,Abore As determined by CDD Ta be calculated to based uponproposed achieve three III aces) product a 1Aoo im.P.Ition Moore Howe Parks 1 2.24 M067 These density ranges,average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedicatlon rate of three(31 acres of parkland per one thousand(1AUOl persons. Recommended text: Delete 4`h row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised table mandating: "Projects proposing a Residential Allocation Reservation of base units that result in a density of 25.1 du per gross acre or more shall pay a Parkland Mitigation Fee of $8,000 per "Base Unit," as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." ITEM #5 Social Media Comments Received As of August 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m. a Summary of Public Comments Increased traffic • Parking already bad along Redhill • Reduced parking is a bad idea • All streets around will be like parking lot Area already too crowded • Density too high • 4-5 stories too high • Impacts to those who live in the area • Only developers will benefit from this • Developers money will speak louder than residents Developers should follow current zoning • Tustin will become Costa Mesa and Irvine • Redhill needs facelift • Development proposed is not compatible with surroundings • Stack of homes without affordable housing • Not a very thought out plans Too big for the area • City and developers will get revenues at the expense of current residents • Not a good idea • Pre-Tustin Legacy, Tustin has so much more character • Rising housing costs • 325,000 sqft of commercial and 1,000 plus people in 4-5 stories is a lot! Tustin fireworks will no longer be provided • Overbuilding and turning Tustin into overpopulated traffic nightmare • Devastating to beautiful community • Overcrowding • Change of Tustin character Overburden of sewer and power grid • Big Lots area definitely needs to be redone • Need to improve cell ad Wi-Fi • Mess up the City by adding more housing, less parking and more traffic • City needs to.provide incentives and accessibility to entice developments Tearing downs buildings and build housing is just wrong S So much development and no place to park • The only positive is that it would clean up the "hotel' • This will only displace long term residents Council only listen to developers not residents 0 City is reacting not planning City of Tustin Facebook Matt K Wright 5 stories and no parking .Crazy E Kimberly Aguirre Is it not crowded enough through there?! A Alexandra Araiza OMG please vote no,parking out here is already a nightmare!!aaa M Sandra Martin Norby Tustin Buzz M Sandra Martin Norby Teri Holstein Luke Lea Lukas Anne Miller Lukas M Anne Miller Lukas OMG This is absolutely INSANE. They don't have enough building at the District? They are totally ruining Tustin. We can't drive on the roads now. It's horrible. Certainly not the bedroom community we moved into 35 years ago. It is sono very sad. UO 21 Gwen Ferguson Please click on"Public Hearing"above for info about a new 500 unit 4-5 stor% housing development proposed on Red Hill near Tustin High. Speak up If�uu're concerned. The hearing is AW-Ulst 14. "1 strongly oppo,e the proposed number o#'stories and high density. Red Hill is already heavily impacted with traf#ic and «ou1d hCCoine a duagmire if this plan i; approved as is. Please don't let developers ruin this area. I suggest a t ) ;tC)I-V nlaN inILI111 hci Uht. � ktich used to be Tustin's policy,and lower density,or a different use." Gwen Fer,usom 48 year reSILICHt ol' 1 ti tin 2! Karen Kohler Absolutely No. This not good for Tustin and especially those who live in that area. The impact is too huge for anything but driving residents out of Tustin. 49. Stuart Jackson Tustin isn't Santa Ana for a very good reason. There's already a planning process for zoning variances on a case-by-case basis. If this is to make the on-again/off-again assisted living project at 13800 Red Hill Ave. let them pay for it for their project instead of opening the door to otlier developers because of it. Karen Kohler Sounds like it's just added housing. No mention of assisted living. Manage Stuart Jackson There were some assisted living units with the senior housing development. Who ever buys the land/project would have those approvals grandfathered in. Next Door r Sandra Norby , Tustin Meadows.5d ago http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate.asp { r Sandra Norby Tustin Meadows-5d ago and this ate. Sandra Norby , Tustin Meadows-5d ago http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate.asp !lin Williams Tustin �,? ac10 nis 5d a' o Sounds like they want to mess up Red Hill also. You talk about a traffic nightmare. 0 Jim Williams , Tustin Meadows•5d ,acgo What's up with these proposals. Am i missing something. I know more money because of taxes. Shane Darlington , St Cecilia 4C! ago I put a post about this BS back in June. Catherine Reynolds Tustin Meadows-4d ai jo Wow, I didn't know about the Redhill change too! But it said they don't plan on changing this amount of lanes so I guess the 71 bus will still be able to come down? This is crazy! I didn't know they were going to build more houses but it shouldn't be a surprise. There's already housing being built on 6th. Street too! Karol Williams Tustin Meadows-4d ago But still not enough parking any where. It doesn't take a brain surgeon Penni Foley , Tustin Meadows-5d ago Neighbors, please take notice of the information in the yellow box. Four to five story residences with 500 residential units with shared or reduced parking. I am reminded of a time more than 20 years ago. I was secretary to the Community Development Director. It was a time when Tustin Ranch was building out. I decided to actually read an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). I came across the traffic concerns and the answer to everything was that the issues would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. I asked the Director how you mitigate traffic to disappear. His reply was that you don't, you just add more lights to control the traffic. Jim Williams , Tustin idows-5d ago That was a stupid answer huh. Add more lights. This is all we need four to five story residences. They want it to look like what there building down on Jamboree. More traffic wonderful. Penni Foley , Tustin a idows 4d ago Problem is, that is the solution to the traffic issue. I thought he was joking, but he was serious. Emil GEl�rizl COILIMI .11:a V'J' st,i imt 4d This project is disaster to the area More Traffic , parking problems to all residents around , if one of these 500 units can't find a spot he will park in front of my house , all streets around will be like a parking lots. I can't believe such this project in Tustin . How and what this developer do to get such this project to a level of public hearing , ohh yes money talks Brian Miller , Tustin Meadows 4d ago Hmmmm...the city conveniently edited their attached document to remove more than a page of details containing gems like "...significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Traffic & Transportation." Now they simply linked to a website with those details buried away and harder to find. I can think of one easy way to "avoid" these problems, but I fear the developer's money will speak a lot louder louder than resident's voices. Lorraine Aldis , Silverbrook-Edited 4d ago Please note that all of the Orange grove at Redhill and Walnut is included. What are they planning to build there? Catherine Reynolds , Tustin Meadows-3d ago Oh No!!! What's going to happen to the Orange Grove?! Lorraine Aldis Silverbrook. "_'•:� ; � This map doesn't show including the Orange grove but the one on the City's website does. Neil Sherman , Tustin Nleadows-2d ago How many are going to the hearing to speak their concerns Wendy Jarvis , 17th/Yorba-5d ago Reduced parking is a bad idea. Like people don't have cars??The one thing I notice when driving around Tustin that does not look good is when you have a residential area with car-lined streets. It makes homes less secure as the cars provide cover for people who don't mean well. It makes the street less secure for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. The ONLY party that benefits from this is the developer! Emil Geris , Columbia Wefitmont,5d ago I can't believe V iat the city even considering such this project and accepting it. Change zone planing [%jldinr4 -,n ! 5 story buildings ?1500 units in area planned originally for much less than half will rr, c o i!ipastei in parking . It's very bad project to all residents and will reduce the quality of life in Tu,�tin and all around neighborhoods. The developer should follow the zoning code to that area not c l,anr) it to his only benefits . 0 Emil Geris , Columbia Westmont-5d aqn Reduce parking standards?11 Brian Miller , Tustin Meadows 7� 1 a jo At the bottom of the page., "...significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Traffic&Transportation." So they won't try to mitigate traffic issues? Just copping out by calling it unavoidable? In addition to the developer(s)getting a big pay day on this project, the city would also be raking in a ton of new taxes and fees. So certainly those planning this project stand to benefit by cramming as many warm bodies into this area, at the expense of current residents. Margo Zatyko , Tustin Heights,4d ago This is nuts....what are they thinking. It is all about money. They are getting lots of revenue from The District area and 4 to 5 story building. Also planning on make 1st in Tustin one lane each way and adding slanted parking spaces. The will back traffic up on the Newport when cars are trying to back out. Not to mention more cars on the other streets. TUSTIN BUZZ Did anyone get the letter on the red Hill project that is up for proposal? Are there plans that we can see anywhere as to what they specifically mean? I am in full agreement that redhill needs a face lift but I am not sure with all the new dwellings there will be ample parking. ( Seeing that parking is a problem now). Anyhow, I have questions. W Jennifer Heckenlively They are trying to make the car wash behind taco bell a new drive thru car wash,l think 11 vacuums. E Katie Plowman It's quite a bit more extensive than that. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Katie, the report is on the city of Tustin webpage. E Katie Plowman Thank you... I did not realize it was posted there. MaryAnn Hare The report is not very detailed. n Adrienne Yi On the city website you can find several links to various documents. LV Chuck Rogers The biggest element of the project is to turn the dirt lot (including the former real estate office) across from the big lots into HUNDREDS of apartments. There is NO addressing the already undersized freeway access.Additionally, there is a strong likelyhood of yet another traffic light between San Juan and EI Camino Real. A far lesser, but real concern is the that the development that has been proposed has ZERO consideration for any surrounding architecture (it looks like Irvine puked an apartment cube into vintage Tustin) Frankly I'm gobsmacked that the city has allowed this to go this far. I can't imagine us lowly residents being able to tell the city council what we want will do any good when the big money developers are seemingly the only ones they will listen to. �l. Julie Crowell This Julie Crowell They had a few input meetings last year at the Rec center. My concern was traffic and all the new "stack a homes" with no affordable housing. Stephen Ramm 500 "dwelling units" and 325,000sq ft of commercial space. That's a fairly large project. Hey, at least they determined that they won't "destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature." = I can't believe they think this is a good idea. Chuck Rogers I file this into "City Reacting" as opposed to "City Planning." My wife and I as well as a handful of our neighbors went to some of the meetings seeking community input...we quickly realized that they were only seeking input that was in favor of the proposed development.This is not the district, the only way this won't stick out like a sore thumb is if they bulldoze the surrounding residences...and even then it will be a white elephant. Stephen Ramm Chuck Rogers and I thought Tustin was better than that. Isn't the development next to the 5 bad enough? Chuck Rogers Stephen Ramm Tustin WAS better than that...I don't mind that they went the sterile master-planned route at the District; Pre-District Tustin has so much more character in it's architecture. Stephen Ramm Chuck Rogers exactly ... I'm sure they spend their nights wondering how they can demolish the old houses with yards and build multi-story condos in their place. Karen Kohler It's not a very thought out plan but then again not a very detailed plan. It doesn't take into account for the traffic impact it creates and the rise in housing costs it will create by building 4 story Units nor the impact on residents who live in the area. Its disappointing that the city council is even considering this. Stephen Ramm I agree ... 325,000sq ft of commercial space is a lot and will generate a lot of traffic both from employees and customers. Then add in 1000 plus people living in the new 4-5 story "dwellings". Karen Kohler Stephen Ramm I totally agree that Redhill needs a facelift and that area especially but this proposition is just too large. Chuck Rogers Krys Saldivar(public works manager) once replied to my concern about the street light timing stating the "signal system has been functioning to its potential"...to it's potential! It makes me giggle even still...and they want to add another traffic light a half block from the system of traffic lights that are about 5 car-lengths apart from one another IF Jeff Gallagher They have an upcoming meeting on what they are calling the Redhill Specific Plan. Chuck Rogers This is one of the last meetings...it's been years in the making...only a miracle will stop this now. W. Jeff Gallagher Chuck Rogers, you can thank Jerry Amante and his wrecking crew. Guy Ball You can kiss the Tustin fireworks display goodbye if they build a ton of condos/apts on that property! And good points on the 5 fwy access. I guess all the decision makers (city planner, manager, etc. ?) and regular planners in the city live in other cities. (And do our current council have any input on this process?) M Diane Triantis The current city counsel seems determined to overbuild and turn Tustin into an overpopulated traffic nightmare.They all need to be voted out. The planning commission is just as bad. 0 Kristen Dalen Freeman Such a devastating thing to do to the beautiful community of Tustin. Unbelievable.They just want BIG government. And fill their pockets. r Guy Ball We need to let our "elected" officials know this - as well as the planning people. 1 will be sending out some emails as soon as I really review the online content so I can comment with some facts. In reality, the Redhill area needs help. But overbuilding isn't the way to do it without negatively impacting our city. It was bad enough what they jammed into the District area. Now, they want to super-populate the older part of town. Does anyone remember what happened in Santa Ana during the 80s when they did the same thing? (I'm talking about overcrowding, zero-lot line, minimal parking, and no greenbelts.) While our condos are "prettier," the issues with parking, traffic, and change of city character are the same. We don't need to be LA and can fight this stuff. BUT we all need to voice our opinion early. (Kinda what we did a bit with the stupidity on 4th St. And even that we really didn't win.) Karen Kohler Not to mention the over burden on our sewer systems and power grid. M Jim Williams It's a big joke. a Lori Brown Badilla What are they going to do to the Big Lots area?That definitely needs to be redone. Eir Chuck Rogers I believe that is included in the redevelopment plan; that being said, I suspect the Big Lots center is biding their time, letting the dirt lot developers get the leg work done. If the city approves hundreds of residences on that small dirt lot area, I can't imagine how many they would approve for the lot across the street! In Teri Babb Totally agreed! Plus I know that if someone is having an issue they do not respond to that person's emai. When is next rlection?... lei Lori Brown Badilla While we're on the city budget spending, how do we get them to update cell and WiFi lines. They are so old in the Amaganset Way area that we only get 1.5 strength in power instead of 25 on AT&T Karen Kohler They would have to upgrade to fiber optic as well to improve internet... Lori Brown Badilla That's exactly what I was referring to Karen Kohler Lori Brown Badilla our infrastructure can't handle this including the air quality and greenhouse gases that come along with this. Ugh!!! E Jim Williams Do all of them live here in Tustin. Just curious. Why would you want to bring in more traffic to add to the parking problems we have already in the neighborhoods. 0 Christine Syvertson And to use the 5 freeway it's so packed in the morning IF Jeff Gallagher City Council is required to live in the city. The folks that actually run the city?....not so much. Jim Williams Thanks for the info. Sounds like their trying to mess up the the city. I can see doing somethings, but not to the extreme to adding more housing and less parking spaces and more traffic. if Jeff Gallagher Jim Williams, unfortunately, the city has an obligation to develop more housing and especially affordable housing (whatever that means).The Redhill Specific Plan, like the two other "specific plans" are just wish lists for the city. They require investment from developers and it is the city's job to provide incentives and accessibility so they will be more inclined to develop the property. Housing development is required by the State. Business development is just commonsense. Keep sales tax up and (theoretically) keep property and other taxes low. The bottom line is,the property will be developed if the developer thinks they can make money. Residential real estate is usually pretty reliable income. It's up to the affected residents in the surrounding community to help shape that. I live in Old Town. And, while I am often at odds with city staff on their vision for the "specific plan" for us, I think they are doing a pretty good job....but it takes proper oversight by the residents to make it that way. You can't stop progress but you can shape it. 5 Jim Williams Thank you for the info. �•I , Julie Crowell developers get away with not building affordable housing if they pay a fine that then goes into a money pool that isn't regulated. IF Jeff Gallagher Julie Crowell Something like that... �k Julie Crowell ♦ F+1ar9 1 mrw r.rxnr wrrr ar��� rrw� rrti'r.�.�IrwYw s 4 A I Julie Crowell ' '91 t - ,rc Stephen Ramm Have you seen this? It's from the "Final Draft Volume 2". Notice that the house with the orchard behind it is also outlined in red. Any idea what they're going to put there? More apartments? http://www.tustinca.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx... Julie Crowell Stephen Ramm holy crapl I Wonder if they sold. How sad. Stephen Ramm Julie Crowell I know ... I couldn't believe it when I saw it outlined. I always thought it was sad that Red Hill is basically right on the front doorstep but tearing it all down to put up apartments or whatever is just wrong. "�%•'is Julie Crowell Please please please we have to fight this. Coming from Costa Mesa, it is now a 4-5 story town with way too much traffic and no affordable housing. We were pushed out because rent was so high. So much development and no places to park. They built so much that with the problems it created, some dwellings still are empty. There's no demand. Just rich developers flipping the lots. We can't let that happen to Tustin. Julie Crowell August 14th at 7pm city council chambers. Karen Kohler The only positive is that it would clean up the "hotel" area on EI Camino. Other than that, I see no benefit. �.I Julie Crowell Uh, no. Have you driven by the new dwellings in Costa Mesa? Julie Crowell That's what was promised by council. It would "clean up" the city. It's only displacing long term residents from the community. Super sad. Julie Crowell Sorry. Didn't mean to laugh, it's just not what happens. Those are two different issues and need to be addressed as such, Karen Kohler Julie Crowell I live in this specific area. I am completely opposed to this. Look at what the District looks like...ugh ... Julie Crowell Karen Kohler totally. M Karen Kohler Julie Crowell I guess we will all have to show up on the 14th. Julie Crowell Costa Mesa has these 4-5 stories EVERYWHERE and the drug addicts still there. They just also built a new library and it won't clean up that problem either, Julie Crowell Karen Kohler yes!! ITEM ##5 RHASP Errata list RHASP ERRATA LIST PAGE TEXT OR FIGURE CHANGE RHAS Section 4.6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and P Parcels 4-29 When land uses intensify or change (including re- When land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, tenanting of existing commercial spaces), existing additional square footage or new development is structures or sites are modified by more than 50% of proposed, conformance with the regulations and design their existing square footage, additional square footage, criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required. or new development is proposed, conformance with the regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required. MMRP Recreation: MM 4.12.-1 MM For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin 4.12-1 For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a fee, permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land based upon the fair market value of the amount of land determined at the time of project approval, which would which would otherwise be required for dedication, otherwise be required for dedication, according to the according to the following standards and formula. following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1 ,000) potential population be per one thousand (1 ,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would otherwise be The minimum amount of land that would otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre DJielling Unit Dwelling Unit Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 0.7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2.85 .0036 7.1-15 2.85 .0086 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three(3)acres/ based upon proposed achieve three(3)acres/ product type 1,000 population product type 1.000 population Mobile Home Parks 1 2.24 .0067 Mobile Home Parks 1 2.24 .0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres pf parkland per one thousand 1,000 ersons. acres pf parkland per one thousand 1,000persons.