Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 9-25-18 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 7.03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mason Present ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason and Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —AUGUST 28, 2018 August 28, 2018, Planning RECOMMENDATION: Commission Minutes. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the August 28, 2018, Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Mason seconded by Thompson to approve the Minutes of the August 28, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN Resolution Nos. (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN 4367, 4368, and AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-00001 AND FINAL 4369, as listed PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT on Page 9. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission- 1. ommission:1. Adopt Resolution No. 4367, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH 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 2017-00001 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13); and Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 1 of 10 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4369, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1498 approving 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). Binsack Elizabeth Binsack provided to the Commission a brief summary of the RHASP Update since the August 14, 2018 Public Hearing which included: details of the RHASP to include mixed-use and stand-alone commercial with the intention of revitalization to the area; the potential development of 500 residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional commercial space; there were eighteen (18) public speakers opposed to the RHASP, and three (3) public speakers in support of the RHASP; areas of concern were identified at that hearing and there were additional questions raised by the Commission; as a result of that hearing, the Commission requested a continuance; and between the August 14, 2018 Public Hearing and the present meeting, staff also met with business owners as well as some concerned residents and summarized their concerns in the agenda report. Demkowicz Presentation given. Nishikawa Ken Nishikawa's comments generally included: provided the Commission with an explanation of what the RHASP would do for the area (i.e. traffic versus absent the RHASP); referred them to Table 4.13-7 of the agenda report regarding Roadway Segments — Existing Plus Project; the number of residential and non-residential units would cause an increase in traffic (and build out) if the RHASP is approved, but not an increase over what the General Plan would currently allow with increased non-residential development; difference between average and peak daily traffic; Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour capacity at intersections along Red Hill Avenue will not worsen; average daily traffic range from approximately 50-70 percent (capacity taken up by cars) is considered up to LOS C; currently, at full build out the street is at 60-70 percent capacity; peak hour traffic is the main concern, but all intersections have been analyzed and none have gone above the LOS D; both on/off-ramps at Red Hill Avenue signals are controlled by Cal Trans which the City offered to take over control of those signals but Cal Trans refused; widen 1-5 Cal Trans proposal — staff has been involved in monthly meetings with Cal Trans — Cal Trans has no-alternative and a project alternative; one (1) alternative would be to move the wall on Nisson Road, take away parking on Red Hill and Browning only — estimated price eighty-five-million dollars; Cal Trans currently going through environmental review process; and staff is still involved to ensure Tustin has the least affected outcome. Binsack Binsack stated that Table 4.13-7 references the City of Irvine traffic guidelines as the City uses the Irvine Traffic Model. Thompson Thompson spoke on Red Hill Avenue and noted that today the west side of Red Hill Avenue was backed up all the way to San Juan Street. He added that in order to mitigate the traffic issue, something has to change (i.e. pedestrian flow, Cal Trans timing, second turn lanes, etc.). Thompson asked how staff Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 2 of 10 would fix the traffic signal issue with Cal Trans and if staff could do anything else to address the issue. He also stated that if traffic increases, Red Hill Avenue would be "exacerbated". Therefore, he also referred to staff with regards to the interchange. Nishikawa Per Thompson's concerns, Ken Nishikawa stated that Red Hill Avenue only has three (3) lanes in each direction, but the mitigation of the problems seen presently are not going to be a function to the RHASP. It would take a regional effort that would extend to Newport Avenue which would be difficult to do (in terms of Thompson's examples). Nishikawa also mentioned the City's attempt to making Red Hill Avenue more of a "green" street (i.e. pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly roadway) but that Tustin gets a lot of flow through traffic from surrounding cities. He also added, if the RHASP does not get approved, 600,000 additional commercial developments could be created under the current General Plan. Binsack Binsack pointed out the impacts at the I-5 freeway and Red Hill Avenue location and the mitigation which generally included: it would not be mitigated mainly because it is not within the City's purview or control or ability to mitigate; the Commission can provide recommendations to the City Council identifying there is a concern and that the Commission would like to see the City Council consider exploring alternatives that may be available apart from the RHASP (i.e. working with OCTA, Cal Trans, Capital Improvement Projects at Red Hill Avenue and/or other south traffic flow improvements, etc.); and to identify it is a mitigation for the RHASP which is not the recommendation that is before the Commission, however, the Commission can modify the recommendation to suggest improvements; and Per Binsack, it would be difficult to propose a mitigation that is not within the City's purview or control. Thompson Thompson referred to the density within the agenda report where it states that currently buildings can be up to 50 feet in height which to him, "sounds like a four (4) story building". He addressed the supplemental item referencing parkland open space area. Thompson wanted to make sure that the City does not build an area lacking parks. He also asked how the RHASP is addressing the need for parks and if staff could ensure the fees go towards adding parks since the RHASP did not identify enough space to serve the park needs. Thompson mentioned a building complex that had burned and when it did, the owner re-built it exactly the way the building complex was. In the event this event occurs within the RHASP, there could be a dilemma that the building would have to be rebuilt and insurance companies would state the building would have to be the way it was before but the TCC states the owner would have to follow the new building requirements, which could be difficult for the landowner and then he asked how that issue would get mitigated. Demkowicz To answer Thompson's question on the building height, Erica Demkowicz stated that it is essentially a four (4) story building (to include the ground floor and commercial space), which is approximately forty-six (46) feet and it is within the height limit for commercial buildings and four (4) stories for mixed- use. However, the mixed-use may be higher as written. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 3 of 10 Binsack In response to Thompson's previous questions, Binsack stated that the reason why it is a recommendation for the parkland fee is because it identifies that the plan area is deficient and that is the recommendation to adopt it as a mitigation measure. The City's current parkland ordinance does not identify that the fee is provided in the area. Given the fact that there is a deficiency within the RHASP, it may be appropriate for the fees collected, to be used in the RHASP area or adjacent to the area so that the residents living in that area can benefit. As to the non-conformity, requirements are city-wide and not unique to the RHASP. The issue of non-conformity may have more to do with respect to arrangement or design versus use. More commercial in nature and consistent with the current zoning as well as what would be envisioned under the RHASP for stand-alone commercial. Per Binsack, what would be envisioned would be in relation to arrangement or design of the RHASP, which there is probably deficiency related to circulation, water quality, disabled access requirements, parking, etc. She added that in the event there was a significant loss, over 50 percent of the replacement value, then the building would have to conform to the standards in place on the date of destruction, which would be determined by the City. Binsack stated there are few requirements related to the location of the building. There are more concerns regarding location and building articulation. Bobak Lois Bobak's comments regarding insurance policies generally included: she noted it is very common with insurance policies that require a replacement value of construction, bringing the building up to current standards; there is no city that would allow a person to re-build a building exactly the way it was because it would not conform with that city's building code; and it is very common that every city has the same basic non-conforming use requirements which are designed to ensure all buildings conform to current zoning and building requirements. Thompson Thompson voiced his concern with the supplemental item received regarding a building owner having to move his building if there was a disaster, which could lead to a financial burden beyond what an insurance company could reimburse. Binsack Per Binsack, the City's standard is not what the letter refers to. She was not sure how to provide more assurances to Thompson's concern to the letter, but explained further, that if a project site is of a substandard design (i.e. it does not provide sufficient two-way access points, it does not provide a fire lane, etc.), excluding the aesthetics, she felt the City should not allow the building to be reconstructed just the way it was. Binsack did not think the City was in the position of requiring a building to be forced to be moved, but the City would be concerned with the arrangement of the site. Mason Mason asked for clarification on the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 500 units and how staff estimated that number and if it was based on developable parcels. She asked if it was spread out throughout the RHASP or did staff designate certain areas for higher density and how the City envisions the 500 units in the RHASP. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 4 of 10 Binsack To answer Mason's questions, Binsack stated that City staff assumed a density average throughout the entire north and south area and made an assumption that the area could accommodate the 500 units. It was not assuming that all of the units would be located on one (1) particular parcel, albeit an individual could request a higher number of units on any particular parcel, but does not mean the City would have to grant that request. Kozak Kozak referred to the supplemental item regarding the social media comments, specifically the affordable housing or lack thereof. He is aware there are efforts to produce/construct/enforce affordable housing, but he also asked how the City can ensure parking is accommodated on the project site. Demkowicz Demkowicz referred Kozak's affordable housing question to Jerry Craig. Relative to the parking, each project would be thoroughly analyzed and the shared parking study would be provided by a licensed traffic engineer to ensure there would be enough parking for each project. If after the study is complete and the project is built and there still is not enough parking, there are other alternatives or options. Staff has built in enough parking, standards, and alternatives to accommodate the different mixed-use and/or stand-alone commercial projects. Craig Per Jerry Craig, developers will have three (3) options: Option 1) 15 percent affordability, 6 percent very low, 3.5 percent low, 4.5 percent moderate; Option 2) 12.5 percent affordability 7.5 percent very low, and 5 percent moderate; Option 3) to provide 5 percent very low or 10 percent low and pay an in lieu fee (against 50 percent of the base) which is likely the choice developers will make. All three (3) of these options, as the ordinance was adopted, allow the developer to take advantage of the density bonus of 20 percent or more units as well as what comes along with that which is reduced parking and a concession. Lumbard Lumbard mentioned the inclusion of the zoning ordinance which, at one time, exempted smaller projects. Craig Craig responded that developers of nineteen (19) units or less still need to comply with the ordinance. They can provide affordable units and pay an in- lieu fee or they can do it off-site. For twenty (20) units or more, the developers can also do it off-site under the "50/50" option. 8:00 p.m. Re-Opened the Public Comments Section. Mr. Losie's concerns generally included: unavoidable impacts and air quality; greenhouse emissions; traffic study does not address issues heading south of Walnut Avenue/Sycamore Avenue and open space; City of Trees, not enclosed buildings; need linear parks; and images are not contact sensitive. David Larson's concerns generally included: parking and 2.25 spaces per unit; multiple families per unit; and there needs to be an analysis of parking with "real world" parking concerns. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 5 of 10 Charlie Lauman's concerns generally included: the graphics in PowerPoint presentation were misleading and inaccurate; need to redirect staff to change the RHASP and parking standards for commercial; and he suggested diagonal cross walks. Adam Wood, BIA, stated that the RHASP is a unique opportunity. He commended staff for their hard work and research on parking density and the other issues raised at the previous hearing were addressed adequately. Jerry Amante, FSP Core Strategies, thanked City staff for meeting with he and his clients to discuss areas of concern. He stated that the Red Hill Corridor needs to be optimized and improvements need to be made. Mr. Amante and his clients are committed to working with staff to make the RHASP work. Beverly Lauman's comments and suggestions generally included: suggested diagonal crosswalks to mitigate pedestrian issues; the need for a year round school program may mitigate the flow of children at any particular time; and parkland in-lieu fees should be adjusted for more parks in the RHASP. Bruce Heathcote, representative for Richter Farms Trust, submitted a letter to the Commission. His concerns generally included: the burden to comply with the RHASP; the non-conforming issue; replacement value versus assessed value, and he remains optimistic but opposed the RHASP as currently written. Mike Abel, Red Hill Plaza owner, concurred with Mr. Amante's comments and the need for revitalization, but voiced his concerns which generally included: remodeling and 50 percent assessed or replacement valuation; remodeling in the event a building burns down (needs to be clarified); and he looks forward to participating with staff on the RHASP. Tom O'Meara, representative for Big Lots, would like to do an entire rehabilitation of the building, since it was constructed in 1965. He also stated if any improvements are more than 50 percent of the assessed value, it triggers all of the criteria which he then would have to design per the RHASP's design criteria which would be higher in cost for him. John Peters, Tustin Gold Key Homeowners Association President, thanked City staff, and his concerns generally included: the number of stories would add too many people and would not enhance the appearance; traffic impacts to Red Hill Avenue; and 500 units is excessive. Michael Hubman, resident, concerns generally included: the proposed site is too small for the proposed RHASP; the high rise buildings would block the sun; the City needs to keep buildings at two (2)stories and set back from the street; and he mentioned the homelessness issue. John Nielsen, consultant representing IAG, stated that the original intent of the RHASP was to create a better/newer corridor and to build residential units. He urged the Commission to move forward with the RHASP. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 6 of 10 Pamela Sapetto, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, supported the plan and the hard work City staff and Kimley-Horn have done for Tustin. She appreciated staff's willingness to work on the parkland fees. Recommended the fees be no higher than 8,000 per base unit as it is consistent with the workforce housing ordinance. Mr. Steve Silverstein, owner of a building between Mitchell and Walnut Avenues, voiced his concern with parking in the area, and the potential increase in traffic and how it would affect his building. 8:29 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Lumbard Lumbard stated that it is the Commission's obligation to take action, whether it means to provide the Commissioners recommendations to the City Council or the potential to continue the item to a future meeting in order to address the public's concerns. Lumbard asked Binsack about the TCC section that was provided to the Commission as a supplemental item. Mason Mason made favorable comments regarding the RHASP. She would like to see business owners step up and provide specific recommendations. Mason also suggested moving the item forward to the City Council with the Commission's recommendations. Binsack In response to Lumbard's question regarding the existing standard in the TCC Section 9273, Binsack stated it is related to legal non-conforming structures and the supplemental item was provided to the Commission for the purpose of clarifying what provisions apply to alterations. Thompson Thompson disclosed he had conversations earlier that day with City staff and John Nielsen. He also had a meeting with Jerry Amante, along with Mr. Abel. Thompson was not prepared to move forward with the project. His suggested revisions included: keep building height at four (4) stories and 50 feet; communicate to the City Council the problem with the intersections at the I-5 freeway and Red Hill Avenue and diagonal striping for cross walk; suggested a tunnel under the freeway; modify school schedule and make a priority now; parkland needs to be priority (referred the Irvine Spectrum's open space area); need more open space in the plan area; need large land owners and re-word it so that it addresses casualty insurance (burn-down); needs to be an adaption of what assessed valuation means if a building is burned down and the owner has to redevelop; parking demographics have changed therefore increase the parking requirements; and he would like text added to the RHASP which states "in the event of a loss, these are the codes that apply and it does not require moving the building". Lumbard Lumbard asked about the assessed valuation issue and why the RHASP refers to the TCC. He also wanted confirmation as to whether or not the RHASP could override the TCC. If the Commission agrees with Thompson's recommendation that the casualty or insurance exception be applied, how would the Commission communicate that to the City Council because it seemed like it would be a modification to the TCC, not the RHASP. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 7 of 10 Binsack Binsack stated that the TCC addresses the non-conforming uses which is uniform in its approach. If it is the Commission's desire to look at the non- conforming structures and uses, from a comprehensive standpoint, they can make a recommendation to the City Council to modify the TCC so that it would be applicable city-wide. The standards for commercial development under C- 1 and C-2 districts are more regulatory than the RHASP standards that are proposed, with the exception of the landscaping requirements. Binsack referred the Commission to the errata that was provided to them for their consideration that would revert back to the TCC which is currently the standard. At one point in time, staff was going to recommend the Commission adopt all of the C-2 standards which would remove the issue. If the Commission/City Council were to adopt the RHASP, it would require a lesser standard (i.e. if one of the centers were destroyed by flood, fire, etc.) to be rebuilt. The standards do not identify a specific setback, but some of the guidelines do. Binsack added that the guidelines identify that the buildings have articulation. Nowhere in the RHASP does it state that if someone proposes modification to change a "shoe store to a clothing store" the building would have to be moved. It refers to the non-conforming section within the RHASP and the TCC, and also Section 4.4.1 identifies the development standards, setbacks, which are current to the TCC. Per Thompson's concern, Binsack stated it would be hard to foresee what "tragedy" could happen to any building. Part of the reason for the assessed valuation, is to assume that a building and/or a site have been maintained over the years. Binsack did not think the City would want to encourage maintenance a dilapidated property. Kozak Kozak thanked everyone for being present. He spoke with staff prior to the meeting and spoke briefly with Jerry Amante. His comments generally included: maximum building height should be four (4) stories for commercial and residential mixed-used; need more open space; reinvest parkland fees to open space; residential dwelling units to the north and south of the I-5 freeway, consideration be given to and guided by the notion of general equity of dispersion of dwelling units; and he directed staff to examine and pursue alternatives, available to the City, to synchronize the four (4) traffic signals at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and the I-5 freeway with Caltrans, OCTA, and other regional agencies, if necessary, to relieve congestion and improve safety (separate from the RHASP). Lumbard Lumbard summarized all comments concerns from his fellow Commissioners as follows: building height should be four (4) stories; I-5 freeway and Red Hill Avenue problem needs to be fixed now, not later; parkland fees and focus on more parks in areas needed; casualty or insurance event that buildings will not be required to be moved from their current location; parking— increase parking requirements; equitable disbursement of dwelling units; and parkland fees cannot be adjusted by the Commission. Binsack Again, Binsack stated that the TCC addresses the non-conforming uses. Most of the businesses in the Red Hill Plaza are conforming, from a zoning code aspect. More than likely the project site does not conform (i.e. related to parking requirements, landscaping, water quality, etc.). If a building were to be lost to a greater than 50 percent of the replacement value, and the owner wants to reconstruct, the City would want to see the drive aisles, fire lanes, Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 8 of 10 water quality management to be brought up to the City's standards. Regardless of whether or not the RHASP is adopted, or not, the City would look at the design of that building and would want it to be compatible with the area today. Binsack Binsack's final comments to the Lumbard's motion included the following, in general: the four (4) story and 50 foot height modification would be an errata to the RHASP; equitable distribution of units east/west and north/south would also be an errata to the RHASP; the parking issue and other concerns would be amendments. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Bobak Bobak suggested that Lumbard restate the motion for clarity purposes so that the record is clear as to what the Commission is doing. *Motion: Per Binsack's previous comments, Lumbard amended his motion as follows: Errata to the RHASP: four(4) stories and an overall maximum building height of 50 feet; require as standard, additional on-site parking and a parking management plan within the RHASP; require as a finding, in allocation of the 500 Residential Allocation Reservation units, the City shall consider an equitable distribution within the RHASP such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units; and the recommendation to the City Council would be as follows: address traffic circulation impacts related to Red Hill Avenue and the 1-5 freeway; parkland fees — that parkland in the area be a priority and fees be focused within or adjacent to the RHASP area; address issues related to non-conforming uses/buildings/sites. It was seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 4-0. 9:09 P.M. Lumbard requested a recess. 9:14 p.m. Meeting reconvened. None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack No concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason On September 14, 2018, Mason spoke at the United Nations "Women and Girls Empowerment 2030". Thompson On September 11, 2018, Thompson attended the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee and Special Needs Advisory Committee meeting. Kozak Kozak also attended the OCTA and Special Needs Advisory Committee on September 11, 2018 and he will be attending the State of the City on October 247 2018. Congratulations to Mason on your United Nations speech! Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 9 of 10 Lumbard Lumbard also attended the OCTA and Special Needs Advisory Committee meeting on September 11, 2018. He also gave a shout out to Chaak restaurant in Old Town Tustin. He also addressed two(2)Third Grade Classes at Heritage Elementary School with regards to electing city council, appointing planning commissioners, and other commissions. 9:18 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 9, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission September 25, 2018—Page 10 of 10