Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-ATTACHMENT GAttachment G September 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Questions/Requests, Public Comments & City Responses Specific questions/requests from the Commission included the following: 1. Building Height/Density/Distribution of Units: What does a five (5) story structure look like adjacent to existing residential? Provide a cross-section that shows a proposed 5 -story building next to existing residential. How will the 500 units be distributed within the Specific Plan area? Are they concentrated in one area or distributed throughout? The Plan indicates 395 units north of the 1-5 and 105 units south of the 1-5, but how was it analyzed? Response: In evaluating the overall density of the project area, staff looked at three (3) different land use scenarios for the project area; high, medium and low intensity. The 500 additional units (395 units north of 1-5 and 105 units south of I- 5) and 325,000 square feet of additional square footage within the Specific Plan area represents the medium intensity scenario and was the scenario that was felt to be most appropriate for the area. This scenario also provided thresholds for analysis in the Program EIR. The development buildout and distribution of unit assumptions used in developing the different scenarios are estimates based on several factors in addition to a balance of subjective and objective reasoning that resulted in the conclusion on threshold assumptions. This reasoning included factors such as: • The identification of parcels with likely potential for revitalization; • Land area for a single residential unit based on unit size, open space per unit, parking land area and a maximum height of 3 stories; • Land area for commercial uses with an assumed parking ratio, open space percentage and height; • Amount of vacant land and probability of development; • Amount of existing commercial development that currently exists in the area and absorption of new development over time; • Consideration of the Kosmont Retail Study, a study prepared to evaluate growth potential in the Specific Plan area; and • Height limitations in the plan and parcels that will most likely be commercial and single -story with surface parking. Attached are several images of three (3) to five (5) story structures, some of which are adjacent to one (1) and two (2) story residential and commercial buildings (Attachment A). Although this type of development pattern would be allowed by the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, it is unknown at this time where specific development may occur. The maximum allowable building height for all mixed use projects within the Specific Plan area is 4 stories in height; up to 5 stories may be allowed subject to specific criteria and additional setbacks (50-68 feet approximately). The maximum allowable building height for commercial projects is 50 feet. The existing Red Hill Avenue corridor is predominately older commercial uses with antiquated site planning and a variety of building heights, which include combination of one, two and three story buildings. Without the adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, commercial properties could still develop or redevelop with new buildings and/or structures within the 35 -50 -foot height limitation depending on the existing zoning designation. While future buildings through the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would be limited to 4-5 stories in height, it is not dissimilar to the City's existing maximum allowable building height in the C-2 zone of 50 feet. 2. Parking: Is enough parking being required for mixed use in the Specific Plan and how will it work? Show areas of demand and capacity (and time of use) through an exhibit. Response: The parking requirement of 2.25 spaces per residential unit in the RHASP is consistent with other Specific Plans within the City (i.e. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan). For non-residential or commercial uses, the parking ratios provided in the TCC would prevail based on each individual use. For future development projects, an alternative or shared parking arrangement is also allowed and encouraged in the Specific Plan for a mixed-use development or development that utilizes non-traditional hours. A parking study is required for all non-residential uses and mixed-use developments requesting shared parking, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the RHASP requires the developer/applicant to develop and enforce a parking management plan to ensure that the number of spaces provided will satisfy parking demand. Measures to ensure that adequate parking will be provided include: • Valet Parking • Other off-site parking • Restrictions on hours or operation • Easement or other joint -use parking agreement to share parking 3. Traffic: Describe existing traffic along Red Hill Avenue and what is the percentage increase with the implementation of the Plan. Provide an exhibit to show current traffic volumes (average daily traffic) on streets and what is forecasted for the future, so the overall increase is understood. Response: The Final Program EIR for the Specific Plan analyzed nine (9) intersections within the Specific Plan area including the northbound and southbound ramps of the 1-5 at Red Hill Avenue. All of the intersections studied would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during both peak hours, with the exception of the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps. The addition of Project traffic from the Specific Plan would cause this intersection to worsen during the evening peak hour based on the City's ICU methodology. The Project's impact using the ICU methodology would be considered a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 is proposed to address this intersection and is included in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan of the Final Program EIR. Please refer to Attachment CA. for additional text and explanation. As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, there will be increases in traffic due to additional development in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The 500 additional residential units would result in an average increase of approximately 3% to the average daily traffic volume of each segment of Red Hill Avenue in the Project area (See Attachment 1). 4. Existing Shopping Centers: How is the transition for shopping centers from existing uses to mixed use being defined in the Specific Plan so there is not an adverse financial impact as expressed by some of the large land owners? Response: Initially, the Specific Plan would have required improvements to property upon change in tenancy when more than a 50% modification to a tenant space was being proposed. The City has proposed revised text to the Specific Plan contained within an Errata List (see Attachment F). The revised text states that conformance with the regulations and design criteria outlined in the Specific Plan will be required when land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, additional square footage is added or when new development is proposed. This is consistent with the City's practice and policies related to legal nonconforming structure and uses. City Staff has also met with the respective shopping center owners to discuss the Plan and contemplated redevelopment within the area. In order for the goals and objectives of the Plan to be met changes to the existing shopping centers will need to ultimately take place. 5. Cal -Trans 1-5 Widening: Provide more details about the Cal -Trans 1-5 widening at Red Hill Avenue (if the relocation of the existing retaining wall will take away parking) and explain what Cal -Trans is doing to help the City at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and the 1-5 interchange. Response: The 1-5 widening project is a collaboration between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to relieve congestion by increasing capacity and improving traffic operations on both sides of the segment of 1-5 between SR -55 and 1-405. The City of Tustin, as a stakeholder, has taken part in the process at monthly Project Development Team meetings since the environmental phase of the project study began in 2014. The alternatives include a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and one Build Altemative (Alternative 2) which proposes to add one general purpose lane and improve deficiencies in each direction. Alternative 2 has two design variations (2A and 213) related to the use of Caltrans design standards. Alternative 2A results in the most significant impacts, environmental and monetary, including moving the retaining walls that may affect the street width of Nisson Road between Red Hill Avenue and Browning Avenue. Alternative 2A has an estimated price tag of $960 million versus an estimated cost of $480 million for 2B. Alternative 2B is the same as Alternative 2A except it includes Caltrans non-standard reduced lane and shoulder widths in certain areas (this alternative does not require the relocation of the existing wall). Alternatives 2A and 2B are the same as far as traffic volume and traffic operations. The 1-5 widening project is currently in the environmental review process funded by OC Go (formerly Measure M), a ballot measure approved in 2006 by voters with the promise of bringing relief to freeway mainline congestion. The environmental impacts of the project alternatives were recently presented at public hearings in May 2018. Ramp intersections would be improved only if significantly impacted by the project, and according to the environmental study, the project does not significantly impact the ramp intersections or adjacent intersections in the City of Tustin including Red Hill Avenue. Therefore, the 1-5 widening project is not required to improve the 1-5 on - and off -ramp intersections on Red Hill Avenue. At this time, the exact date for project construction is unknown since there is currently no construction funding, but for analysis purposes it is assumed that the opening year is 2030. 6. Summary of Public Comments: Provide a summary of comments from social media and group comments into major categories and tabulate the number of comments in each category. Quantify the data on a matrix. Response: A matrix is provided for the Commission that categorizes and tabulates the comments received through social media as of September 18, 2018 (Attachment H). The most comments posted were related to traffic, parking and density. Additional Public Comments/Concems: In addition to the Planning Commission comments, members of the public expressed the following concerns during and after the public hearing: 7. School Impacts: With the 500 additional residential units in the Project area there will be additional children living in the area; how will that affect the existing schools within Tustin? Response: As stated in the Program EIR, if full build -out occurs there are approximately 146 students that would be introduced into the attendance area of the Tustin Unified School District with the 500 additional residential units in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. TUSD has indicated that there is adequate capacity to serve these students. Through the issuance of building permits, future development projects within the Plan area will be required to pay developer fees to the school district and payment of the adopted fee would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. 8. Water Infrastructure: How will the 500 additional new units impact the existing water system within Tustin? Response: The Program EIR analyzed the existing water supply, sources and ultimate build -out within the City and the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The anticipated growth within the RHASP area falls within the assumptions made for growth in the City through 2040 and sufficient water supply exists to serve the proposed uses and additional 500 units identified in the Specific Plan. In addition, future development within the Specific Plan area would need to comply with the Green Building Code which includes performance standards for plumbing fixtures, construction waste management plans, and reduction in construction waste. Future development would also be required to comply with the City's Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance for new exterior landscaping or rehabilitation of existing landscaped areas. 9. Affordable Housing: Concerns of lack of affordable housing and the provision of affordable units within the Specific Plan. Response: The City has recently adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance that will require future developers within the Project area to provide affordable housing units to address the need for a variety of housing types and diverse socioeconomic needs of all community residents. This Ordinance would apply in conjunction with the Residential Reservation Allocation (RAR) process, which is included in both the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan areas. Unless specifically exempted, all residential projects are required to provide workforce housing units on the same site as the residential project. Depending upon the level of affordability, the project will be required to set aside between 5-15% of the units for affordable housing. 10. Parkland Fees: A request has been provided to consider a required parkland in - lieu fee of $8,000 per unit. Response: The City has clarified the method of calculation for the Parkland fee that is to be paid in -lieu of actual parkland dedication. This method is consistent with the City's parkland dedication and in -lieu fee provision and is based upon 2.24 average persons per dwelling unit, a $2,500,000 land value and a dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. 11. Open Space: — Concern that there won't be any new parks in an already open space deficient area. Response: The Final Program EIR describes and analyzes the availability of and anticipated demand on parks and recreation opportunities proximate to the Specific Plan. There are two (2) existing parks adjacent to the Specific Plan area; Pine Tree Park located at the corner of Red Hill Avenue and Bryan Avenue and Frontier Park located at the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Utt Drive, just west of Red Hill Avenue. The City's General Plan identifies policies in the Open Space/Conservation/Recreation Element and establishes a parkland standard of 3 acres of usable parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, all residential units as part of a new mixed use project within the Specific Plan area will be required to either dedicate the required acreage or pay a parkland dedication fee, if no land is provided. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 contained within Attachment CA. 12. Sidewalks: Sidewalks need to be wide enough for multiple people to walk side by side, wheelchair use and mandate bike lanes. Response: A 4 -foot minimum landscaped parkway (adjacent to the existing curb line) with a 4 -foot minimum sidewalk are requirements within the Specific Plan. Sidewalks and landscaped parkways can both be greater than 4 -feet, if desired for a particular project. Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan requires ample width and design for ADA access along sidewalks and pathways. A Class II on -street bikeway is planned on both sides of Red Hill Avenue within the Plan area. This bikeway will connect with the existing bikeway segment on both sides of Red Hill Avenue between EI Camino Real and Nisson Road. 13. Plant Palette: Do not use Magnolia or Carrotwood trees since they consume too much water and have surface roots that heave sidewalks. Please consider Chinese Pistache as a better option. Response: The proposed plant palette within the Specific Plan includes a total of six (6) types of parkway trees which includes the Brisbane Box, Japanese Zelcova, After Dark Peppermint Willow, Australian Willow, Crape Myrtle and Fruitless Olive. The Chinese Pistache, Native California Sycamore and Honeylocust are trees proposed for the landscape medians. 14. Airborne Pollutants: Concerns about air pollutants that may affect students who, walk to and attend the various schools adjacent to the Plan area. Response: Airborne pollution is a regional concern within the Southern California region. The Final Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan included an analysis of air quality and related pollutants through the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Please refer to Attachment C.S. for a detailed discussion on this topic and Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding this topic.