Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4368RESOLUTION NO. 4368 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [GPA 2017-00001] INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -13). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated the preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction in conjunction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. In conjunction with the RHASP the revision of text and maps within the General Plan is necessary to make all elements internally consistent and consistent with the proposed Plan. B. That General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-00001 shall include amendments to the Land Use Element and other minor text amendments to various related sections as well as related graphic exhibits and maps. C. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 4367. D. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017- 0001. E. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the General Plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that finds the project to be consistent, with adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment. F. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Resolution No. 4368 Page 2 Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. G. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. At the meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2018. H. That the Commission has reviewed and considered FPEIR prior to recommending approval of GPA 2017-00001. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve GPA 2017-00001 authorizing a change to the General Plan Land Use Designations of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP -13) and text amendments as identified and attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 25th day of September, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary zzt7 Resolution No. 4368 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4368 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson (4) Exhibits: A. General Plan Consistency Analysis B. Revised General Plan text, exhibits and maps associated with the RHASP C. Existing and Proposed General Plan Maps £Zt7 Taae agl 10 AlllellA leloos pue olwouooa agl aouequa Minn sasn puel jo uollnlona aq l •AeM-jo-jgSp ollgnd aql ulgllM aoeds 3o asn au} jo uolleoolle gSnoagl llsueal ollgnd pue allgowolne agl jo spaau aql of uolllppe ul 'Is1loholq pue ue a;sopad agl uo paoeld aq 111M s segdwa aaleaao -Sulllas asn—paxiw'Alpualajuelalsapad'paleiSalul ua ul sasn lelluaplsai pue aoljjo'llelai 'leloaawwoo jo xlw Aieluawaldwoo a sapinoid legl ueld asn puel mau a jo xuawgsligelsa agl 42noagl lolalslp Ilelai-leloaawwoo'lueaglA a a}eaaa of sl (dSVHd) ueld al}loadS anuany IIIH pad aql }o uolsln aql -deVI AollOd ash puel aqj uo pasodoid luawdolanap alepoww000e of aige11eAe aq p1nogs saowas pue salll'iloepilgnd Aaessaoau legl ainsu3 :g IeOD AilAlloealwouooa Jo uolleolIIsaanlp pue aseq olwouooa s,All) aql jo uolsuedxa alowoad :L leOD .slolilslp plied ssauisnq pue leloaawwoo'spooyaoggSIau algeg!luapl Alanblun aleaao of pue'alglledwoo Alleuollounj pue Alleinloallyoae gloq sl jeul wawdolanap aansua of ullsnl ul uSisop uegan anoidwi :g 100E) -sall.iadoid pue sasn lelluaplsaa puelepisnpul 'leloJawwoo aaplo azllel!Aa8 :S leoE) -sassaulsnq pue sluaplsaa aol Allunwwoo Sulseald`Alleollaulsee pue Aylleay'ales a ainssy :b IeoE •saoanosaa pue aaloeaego anblun s,All) aql pue sluleilsuoo luawdolanap Bullslxa'sallllloej alignd }o Al!11gel1ene'jaoMjau uollelnoalo s,A3I:) agl'Allunwwoo aql ul sasn puel Sulpunoaans ql!m alglledwoo sl luawdolanap Mau legl ainsu3 :E IeoD -Suluueld anlsuagaadwoa pue punos jo llnsaj aql we suolspap asn puel ainin} legl ainsu3 :z Ieol) -saoi/uas ainlnj apinoad of alenbape Awouooa paljlsaanlp'Aglleaq a SUIUlelulew allgM'saolAaas pue sallllloej Allunwwoo pue ands uado'puel lepisnpul pue lepiawwoa'Sulsnoq aoj spaau ainlnj pue Sullslxa salepoww000e legl walled asn puel paoue1eq-11aM aoj apinoad :T leo9 luawa13 ash puel T :SM01101 se sluawal3 asloN pue hlajes ollgnd'uolleaaoaa/aoedS uado/uolleAjasuoa'uollelnoalz)'gulsnoH'asn pun aql w0 i,1 sleoO ueld Ieaauag luenalaa of ueld o!f!oads slgl.lo dlgsuollelaa agl uo uolssnoslp a sapnloul Molaq lxal aql 'papuawe Se'ueld leaauag ullsn,L agl qllm lualslsuoa aq of puno} uaaq seq (dSdHd) U81 d oi,pDadS anuany 111H pab ayl'ueld leaauag ulisni jo All:) aql jo slsAleue gSnoaogl a SulMollod slsAleud Aouaxslsuo:) veld leaauaE) V llglgx3 General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 Adding residential uses and increasing pedestrian -oriented retail and commercial uses will help create a more dynamic, eclectic, and attractive place for both residents and visitors. A greater variety of activities along the street will be encouraged through the development of either horizontal or vertical mixed -uses that reinforce pedestrian orientation. The increased demand for commercial uses and services will lead to a revitalization of the area's underutilized parcels. open space and community facilities and City services to serve the future residents of the area are also promoted, which in conjunction with the commercial uses will allow the RHASP to preserve a healthy, varied economy sufficient to provide future services. The RHASP and the RHASP EIR evaluated existing public facilities and infrastructure and determined that the existing facilities and services were adequate to serve the development proposed in the RHASP. The developmentstandardsand design criteria of the RHASP provide regulations and criteria to ensure the compatibility of new development with the adjacent character of the nearby existing single-family and multi -family neighborhoods through consideration of adjacent uses, building setbacks and site planning. Development will be directed to reflect the vision and enhance the overall architectural theme of the area. The Community Development Department will enforce these standards through the design review process. The RHASP area includes only the commercially -zoned properties along Red Hill Avenue and does not include any residential or industrially -zoned properties. The RHASP ensures that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning through a master planned approach with design criteria and standards that will guide future development for the area. The RHASP planning effort included community workshops, meetings and public input which promoted public interest in, and understanding of, the General Plan and regulations relating to it, including this Specific Plan. This effort led to the plan presented in the RHASP. Housing Element • Goal 1: Provide an adequatesupply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. • Gopal 3: Increase the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner -occupied housing within the City. • Goal 6: Ensure that new housing is sensitive to the existing natural and built environment. The Specific Plan would promote revitalization of the commercial district by providing a mixed-use land use program, design criteria and a streetscape program to improve jobs/housing balance, aesthetics and promote mobility. As stated in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section, the RHASP allows residential uses in a mixed-use setting which will create more housing opportunities and increase the diversity of housing offered within the City. Depending on the product type, different price 424 General Pian Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 points would be offered which will help meet the diverse socio-economic needs within the community and help ensure that a reasonable balance of rental and owner -occupied housing is maintained within the City. New development and reconstruction of existing uses within the Specific Plan area would be constructed using the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. The Specific Plan would also be in compliance with the Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 7, Section 9704 which establishes standards for water -efficient landscapes. Development standards contained within the RHASP would also ensure that new mixed-use developments will be compatible with the existing adjacent commercial and residential area. 3 Circulation Element • Goal 1: Provide'a system of streets that meets the needs of the current and future Inhabitants and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City consistent with the City's ability to finance and maintain such a system. • Goal 4: Maximize the efficiency of the circulation system through the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies. • Goal 6: increase the use of non -motorized modes of transportation. • Goal 7: Provide for well: -designed and convenient parking facilities. As referenced in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section, the vision for the RHASP includes the creation of a distinct commercial -retail district that is both pedestrian & bike - friendly while also accommodating automotive and public transit needs. This is accomplished by introducing more residential uses in either a vertical or horizontal mixed use setting, utilizing the public right-of-way with an enhanced streetscape ,plan and encouraging enhancements to commercial uses. The Plan proposes revisions to the Red Hill Avenue roadway to include astriped on -street bike lane along the entire length of the Specific Plan area to promote more multimodal travel opportunities. Enhanced bikeway signage would also be introduced to promote bike usage and provide directions on how to connect to other bikeways or key points in the City. There are existing continuous sidewalks on Red Hili Avenue and cross streets within the Specific Plan. area. The Specific Plan proposes improvements to the public realm in the Specific Plan area with an enhanced streetscape that would balance vehicular and pedestrian needs with a Flexible Amenity Setback adjacent to the public right-of-way with landscape parkways, street trees, landscape median and cohesive street furniture; allowing pedestrians to feel secure; cohesive wayfindingsign:age throughout the Specific Plan area; and safe, improved pedestrian crossings. 425 General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 The development standards within the RHASP include parking regulations to ensure future development within the Specific Plan area provides sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. The development standards also provide provisions for the shared use of parking facilities for future development within the Specific Plan area. 4 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element • Goal 1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use, transportation and energy use planning. • Goal 2: Improve air quality by influencing transportation choices of mode, time of day, or whether to travel to establish a jobs/housing balance. • Goal 3: Reduce particulate emissions to the greatest extent feasible. • Goal 4: Reduce emissions through reduced energy consumption. • Goal 5: Protest water quality and conserve water supply. • Goal 8: Conserve and protect significant topographical features, important watershed areas, resources, and soils. • Goal 10: Reduce solid waste produced within City. • Goal 11: Conserve energy resourcesthrough the use of available energy technology and conservation practices. • Goal 12: Maintain and enhance the City's unique culturally and historically significant building sites or features. • Goal 13: Preserve Tustin's archeological and paleontological resources. • Goal 14: Encourage the development and maintenance of a. balanced system of public and private parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces that serve the needs of existing and future residents in the City of Tustin. • Goal 18: Ensure that recreational goals and policies are pursued and realized in an organized, incremental, and cost-effective manner and consistent with the City of Tustin's financial resources and legal authorities and the appropriate responsibilities of other agencies, the private sector, and individual and group users. 426 General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 The RHASP encourages environmentally -friendly practices that would reduce air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, and water use. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in the RHASP EIR Section 4.2 (Air Quality) regarding operational emission reductions and Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) relative to recycling of wastes and use of recycled materials. individual development projects within the Specific Plan area would comply with water quality regulations. Stormwater runoff generated from individual development projects would be managed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively preclude significant impacts on water quality. A Water Quality Management Plan and/or SWPPP; which includes site-specific best management practices (BMP's) for erosion and sediment control, would be prepared and implemented for projects within the Specific Plan area. As with all development in the City, projects in the Specific Plan area are required to submit grading plans, which would. be accompanied by a soils engineering report, engineering geology report and drainage calculations that would analyze existing topography, soils and any associated potential impacts. Standard conditions (SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2) contained within Section 4.4 (Geology and Soils) of the RHASP EIR also specify the preparation of geological and soils engineering reports. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be constructed in accordance with the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, wafter efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. Development would also be required to comply with Title 24 California Uniform Building Code requirements which include measures related to solar, energy and water efficient building design, appliances and fixtures. The Specific Plan area isnot in an area that is considered sensitive for archaeological resources and there is low likelihood for paleontological resources or other unique geologic features within the Specific Plan area. The records search determined that surface grading or shallow excavations would likely not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources) of the RHASP EIR which requires developers or new projects to retain an archaeologist to respond on an as -needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any applicable archaeological requirements. The RHASP EIR supports the City's policy of providing adequate parkland in compliance with Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331A Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with applicable City requirements and the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.12 (Recreation) of the RHASP EIR which requires projects not subject to parkland dedication requirements to pay a parkland development fee to the City of Tustin. Public Safety Element • Goal 3: Reduce the risk to the community from geologic and seismic hazards. 427 General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit Page 6 of 6 • Goal 4: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from exposure to hazardous materials and wastes. • Goal 5: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from fires and explosions. • Goal 6: Stabilize demand for law enforcement services. Development projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to design all development and associated infrastructure in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. The Code contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. The Specific Plan would also require new developments to adhere to the California Fire and Building Code, which references the use of fire -retardant materials to reduce hazards and severity. The Specific Plan area is in a developed area that is currently served by the Tustin Police Department. The Specific Plan would introduce new residential and commercial uses and increase the population of the City; however, tax -base expansion from development with the Ilan area would generate funding for the police protection services. 6 Noise -Element • Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. Future developments within the Specific Plan would be reviewed to ensure compliance with noise requirements. Section 4.9 (Noise) of the RHASP EiR identifies and addresses the General Plan's noise standards, including Land use compatibility. 428 Exhibit B 429 residential densities, traffic circulation, controlled growth, environmental preservation, and crime prevention (a complete summary of the survey results is available in the Planning Department); o Two public "Open House" sessions held early in the process to solicit input for issues identification and goal formulation; o Opportunities to publicly address decision makers directly regarding issues, concerns, and desires at Planning Commission and Joint City Council/ Planning Commission General Plan Workshops, both prior to preparation and during review of the Preliminary Draft General Plan; and o Public review and comment on the Draft General Plan and its supporting documents during public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. o For the 2001 amendment of the General Plan associated with the reuse of MCAS Tustin, a public "Open House" was held to review the Draft Amendment, followed by public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS As amendments to the General Plan are considered and adopted by the City, a general description of each should be identified and added as an attachment to the Introduction to the Plan._ Amendment of Table 1-2 as an attachment to the Introduction Chapter below will not require an amendment to the General Plan. Table 1-2 below identifies each amendment and the General Plan elements affected. TABLE 1-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Amendment. Name Date of Adoption Affected Elements Amendment Description 2016-00001 Red Hill. Avenue Specific Plan XX XX 1 Laud Use Resolution No. 18 -XX fi MY OF TUSTIN INTRODUCTION GENERAL PLAN 10 JUNE 2018 430 INTRODUCTION TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element is a guide to the allocation of land use in the City and provides a framework or context for the issues and subject areas examined in the other Elements of the General Plan. PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT The purpose of the Land. Use Element is to describe present and planned land use activity, and to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and environmental quality, potential hazards, and social and economic ah jeeRt t fives. The Element . identifies the general distribution and location of residential and non- residential land uses, as well as quantifiable density and building intensity. The Land Use Element constitutes official City policy for the location of various land uses, and provides guidance to ensure orderly growth and development. Goals and. policies included in. the Land Use Element establish a constitutional framework for future land use planning and decision making. The Land Use flan portion of the Element promotes the achievement of these goals by establishing logical, organized land use patterns and standards for future land use. The Plan accomplishes this through the use of descriptive text, tables, charts, and maps. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ELEMENT The Land Use Element includes the. City's goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of Tustin. The Element contains text describing land use goals and ,policies, descriptions of land use types, a. Land Use Policy Map, and a statistical summary of the City's future land use composition, A primary component of this Element is the Land Use Pian Policy Map which graphically identifies future planned land uses within the planning area. The Land Use Element contains anarrative description of the land use designations depicted on the Land Use Plan Policy Map. CM OF TUSTIN GENERALPLAN LAND USE ELEMENT JUNE 2018 431 COMPATIBLE AND:COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT o The intermixing of land uses in some areas without adequate buffering has resulted in land use incompatibilities, such as those related to physical scale,.noise, and traffic. Specific types and examples of incompatible land uses include the following: • obtrusive; industrial uses adjacent to residential development; ■ commercial uses abutting residential development without adequate buffering; ■ high density residential adjacent to lower residential densities without adequate buffering; • noise sensitive uses adjacent to freeways, highways and railroads. o The market trend for mixed-use housing opportunities within a walkable downtown as well as within the Red Hill Avenue coinnnercial area has created a desire for a mix of compatible commercial, office and residential uses. o New development, if not regulated, can interfere with public vistas and views of the surrounding hillsides, public monuments, and other important viewsheds. REVITALIZATION OF OLDER COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND PROPERTIES CITY OF TUSTIN GENERALPLAN o While most of Tustin's housing stock is in good condition, certain neighborhoods, such as the Southwest area of the City, are in need of concentrated rehabilitation and code enforcement efforts. o Tustin contains numerous historically and architecturally significant structures whose maintenance and preservation is important to the heritage of the community. o Some of the City's older residential areas are impacted by adjacent freeways, commercial and industrial land uses. 7 LAND USE ELEMENT Ti AUGUST 2018 432 Policy 11A Integrate existing uses, new development and potential future redevelopment uses. Policy 11.5, Upgrade the edge conditions between industrial/ business park uses and residential development through private development standards and onsite landscaping of industrial/ business park uses. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN_THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The Red Hill Avenue. Specific Plan area is envisioned to be a (jistinctive, vibrant and thriving district with interconnected commercial, office, and residential uses in a mixed-use setting, The area, serves as a Prominent sattway to the City with Interstate 5.northbound and southbound on and off -ramps atRed Hill Avenue allowing for residents, retail commercial custonlers and existing business owners within the area. to have, immediate freeway access. development with infrastructure capacity, and ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses, Policy 12.1: Establish a, streetscape program tising landscaping, signage, street furniture, entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible= CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT 25 WNE.,AUGQ51` 2018 433 Policy 12.4: Coordinate a bits shelter and transit stop finprovement progran't to ensure that all bus stops have the appropriate attteliities, .Policy 12,5: Identify ways: to improve and enhance hnka&es and,,,..-- Formatted: Font: Bole connections between neve development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding, properHes. Policy 12A Develop design criteria that encourage ohhnial building Formatted: Font: soya —� Policy 12.7: Establish a land use program that encourages a mix of u... a Formatted: Pont: sold land uses responsive to market demands and Tustin couununit-v priorities. Policy 12.8: Refine allowable land uses within the area to encourage Formatted: Front: sad the desired deveiopipent'envisioned by the Specific Plan. sh develo wentstan ardsfor future land uses khat Formatted: Font: Bold viina area anti nract,,iKza +lira enroll fnxmti F. -PI Aml Formatted: Font: Bold Policy 1211 Adopt a program level enviroturvental clearance .....- Formatted: Font: Bad documentto utilize in subsegLie nt development.pro lwsals within the RHASP area; Policy 121 Establish a tiered envnonnnental review process, for Formatted:Nnt;Wd discretionary development application review to streamline the approval process, Polis 12.13. Establish develo ruent incentives such as tailored _,.. --f Formatted: Font: Bold development standards or streamlined review processes, to encourage new development that fulfills the vision of the Specific Plan, Policy 1214 identifv local State and Federal grants and other _'-'-- j Formatted: Font: Bold ) funding opportunitres that can provide business assistance and offer Hae City the means to upgrade the area, ,Polis 12,15. Isar rove and enhance pedestrian connectfons and,.—Formattea.Font:Boid facilities, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots, At these, CITY OF TURIN CENERALPLAN LAND USE ELEMENT }U; AUGUST2018 434 locations accessible pedestrianconnectionsfrom-thesidewalktobttildingentrances should be encouraged. ,folicy 12.16, Minimize curbs uts or driveways onto arterial roads aitd ._.-i Formatted: Font: soya collector streets. Policy 12.17; Promote and develo a trans portaLion s stern which.. {Formatted: Font: eoia includes rovisions for public transportation bikes and pedestrians Polis 12,18: Promote the develo pment ani maintenance ofadequate, .,.. Formatted: Font: Hold parking facilities commensurate with parking deniand. nitor 124rking SUVL)IY and utilization to zctenttty Fo"attem vont; uoia Policy 12.20: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan , .. Formatted: Fontsad area nieets futuredetnands, Folic 12.21; Coortiiitate future lands use ylannin with sustainable ,M. 'Formatted: Font; Bow transportation and infrastructure planninn. --r Palic 12.22; Ensure that the form scale s# and deof neve .... CFormatted: Font: add I' development including new construction, renovations, or additions, does not Policy 12.23: init)lentent "four-sided architecture"rnncioles tlYat _. -J F*..atted: Font: aaa p — consider the aesthetic duality of develokiment front all sides whether visible frown the public right-of-way or not. NORTH TUSTIN (UNINCORPORATED AREA) The North Tustin unincorporated area has a low density, semi -rural character, This desirable character is sensitive and vulnerable, GOAL 1312: Maintain the semi -rural and low-density character of North Tustin. Policy 131?.1: Ensure that any infill development in North. Tustin is compatible and complimentary to the existing North Tustin community. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEWNT GENERAL"N 27 A4\W-AUGUST 2018 435 Policy 1342:2: Review and consider the .possible development and adoption of pre -zoning designation for the North Tustin. unincorporated area as part of any annexation proposal. Policy 131.3: Identify the North Tustin Specific Plan Area and entire North Tustin unincorporated area as a Special Management Area, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF TUSTIN LEGACY (FORMER MCAS TUSTIN) GOAL 1443: Continue to implement the Specific:Plan/Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed use, master planned development and that includes the following, qualities seeking to create results that are very special and worthy of the site's present and historical importance. Policy 1443.1: Promote new uses and design which will peacefully coexist with surrounding residences and businesses in. Tustin and adjacent cities, mirumizing.impacts on noise, air quality, traffic, and other environmental features wherever possible. Policy 1443.2: Encourage a development pattern that offers a connectedness between buildings and uses, and has a strong sense of place through architectural style and creative landscape design. Policy 1413.3: Encourage a mixture of uses that enable people living or working on the site to choose to. meet a significant part of their daily needs within the site. Policy 1413.4: Implement the balanced reuse plan that responds to community needs but which does not drain City resources. Wherever possible, tax revenues generated by uses on the site should offset the costs of public services. Policy 1413.5: Promote high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, open space design, circulation patterns, and landscape patterns distinct from surrounding areas, Policy 1443.6: 'Encourage the distinguished history of the Base to be preserved in one or more locations on site. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERALPLAN 28 t �, IKUS' 2018 436 Policy 141-3.7: Promote uses and institutions which will accommodate and attract 21st Century jobs and technologies. Policy 1413.8: Encourage uses that benefit broader community's needs and which are balanced with development that is compatible with the Tustin community, Policy 1414.9: Ensure that land and water are clean and safe to use and that other environmental considerations are taken into account during design. Policy 1413.10: Promote a successful transition from military to civilian use that reasonably satisfies the public interests at local, countywide, regional, state and federal levels consistent with the need for any reuse plan to be. fiscally sound and to foster economic development Policy 1413.11: Strategically place development in a manner responsive to requirements for hazardous material cleanup, circulation and infrastructure capacity, and market absorption. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies described in the Land Use Element are related to and support subjects included within other General Plan elements. In turn, many goals and policies from the other elements directly or indirectly support the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. These supporting goals and policies are identified in Table LU -1. CITY OF TUSCEN GENERAL:PLAN 29 LAND USE ELEMENT {9+N- AUGUST 2018 437 TABLE LU -1 LAND USE RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT CITY OF TUSCIN GENERALPLAN 30 LAND USE ELEMENT }>t= &,61 tGU317 2018 438 RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT Land Use Issue Land Housing Circulation Conservation/ Public NOS Growth Area U$e Open Space Safety Management Balanced 1.9, 3.1 1.10, 5;2, 212, 8,11; 1,1, 2.5 26, Development 5;6 14IZ 2.7, 28, 4.1 14.13,15:2 - Compatible/ 1.11,41A, 13,1.4,.73, 1:6, 3.3, 1.2, I,9, Complementary 4:5, 5:1, 7.4, 8.1; 8.5; 3.9, 4.5, 2,3, 24, Development 6,2, 8.7, 8;9, 7.1, 7.2 2.5, 2.T, 6,12 8.10, 8;12, 8,13, 2.8 8,16,14,7,14.8, 14,4,17,3,18.5 Revitalization of 1.2, 1,3, 121 911 Older 5,1, Develo 'meet 5,3 5.3 Improved City- 1.18 1.2, 1.9, 1.2,1.5, 5.3, 5,2 6.5 2,6 wide Urban 1,14, 6.8 7.1, Design 8.6,11:1,11 12.3,14.1 17.2 Economic 2,5 Expansion/ Diversification Public Pacilities/ 1,16, 6.9 2,10; 5,6,14.5, 3;2, 5,3 3.1, 3.2 Services 14.6,16,10, Coordination 18.4 ' East Tustin 7.6, 8;15, 8;17, Character 14,14,14.15, 15,1 Old Town/ First Street Character Pacific Center East Character Reil ill Avenue xvri �r 'lan NorthTustin (Unincorporated Area Tustin Legacq 16.8 (Former MCAS Tustin) Character CITY OF TUSCIN GENERALPLAN 30 LAND USE ELEMENT }>t= &,61 tGU317 2018 438 8 Q ON I 0 1 a 4r Attachment F 461 i 462 C co COV CL U SLt 'C7 U 'a FE O M ` +,- a) ca C 4 Q m AMac � O. CC U. -OtE C. 10 JR, - c .o c -C3 cuNM � � .� V F .ta � � C C a) ro E •,- � � U ,� •v s C c } r b •p toO NrQ C L p ° C t6 im E90 jfA XM TM 0 'C i .a) p dj D 'O O 4- ° ° C S h Q) (0 'C Q c .0 00 °oau._ ,.,..o°o �cu,d 0 � :3 0. U) fY =H otaEto�°o CD Com, 4.a�cNr, roo�+-"-0 -�-�> o 4>6 L Cc ° Cca° tri c ; om ° o >10 mos-cuo#..Lux t. ai a ra ��f]C 0.0 r 44 Co F,,pht y, . ///V���+ 0 Tal lz U ° d .0 C (y N C. ,Q V (O O w' Lco Ili Q; 4-• � n Qx7 C � Q. d: U. U?• _j;0. ;G7 w ,C: 3�' 'M C✓i W tt 462 463 tx�N ILI '^ :3 m 0 m Im CO -a �, •— a 3a� o �a:k2 r�. � c , 06 n d 0 4° -o � nr r3 •� 4+j � k� c" �y C vi N 07 tCi p1'C3 '0 A.,� ° Q cuC o. `° co nC �? c • CLoL ai • [. CL: �- 4 �...:: F: 0. it 463 n d •� 4+j � k� �-i N 07 463 Attachment G 464 LEE & ASSOCIATES® cOMMERCIAt.'RF-AL 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:.Ci!yCouncil@tustinea.org Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: edemkowiczAtustinca.org Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan E-mail: cityclerk : tustinca.org . RECEIVED AUG"' 15,101 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: 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 pian 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 & Associotes • Irvine. Inc. A Member of the Lee & Associates Group of Companies ' 465 Corporate ID# 01044791 / 9838 Research Ddve / Irvine, CA 92618 Office: 949.727.1200 / Fax: 949.727.1299 August 9, 2018 Page 2 Unfair Burden: Paragraph 3.2.1 Mixed Use states in part; "Freestanding commercial/office uses will likely continue to be the dominant pattern within the Speck 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 RHASP 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"' 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 peace, 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 LEE ASsOCIATES• � 466 QOMM DIAL AEA. ESTATE SERVICES August 9, 2018 Page 3 Principal cc: Richter Farms Trust 0 �LF ASSOCIATES• 467 COMMEMML REAL ESTATE SEM6ii U",rnnuwicc, crica From: Kristen Nesselrod <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 "1St 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 managd 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 anypropositions 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. Sincerely, Kristen Nesselrod E 1st St Tustin From: Demkowicz, Erica <EDenJkowicz@tustinca.ore> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 201810:18 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.ore. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Sensor Planner City of Tustin - Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way 468 a 111,4) a/a -al 41 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, 201811:33 AM To: TustinPlanning t Subject: Can we email comments If we can't attend planning meeting? 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 Sent from my iPhone. Please forgive typos & strange auto corrections. Thanks. 0 2 469 6 SAPETTO REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. RECravea AUG 1.4_ 2018 August 13, 2018 COMMUNM D9VELOPMENT BY., 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 o'r In -lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft EIR would have regdired 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 254u, 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, #600 PMB 313, Irvine, California 92614 - (949) 252.0841 www.SapettoRealFstate.com 470 RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August.13, 2018 Page 2 1491), 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. Respectfully, t. Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. 471 f , 1. RedHfll Avenue Specific Plan E1R Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing `ext: Ped M A"aw sp-m. Plan MhigWim Monhork,g ar:d aepordna Program Table l -s: Mitfgatlon Menkodri Requtrements ' t.,,::. lir. �,Lt:• '�:: '':'„ -lv ;� y .� e''h •`•+ � .;�,: L, ... r .� � ,:. ra t,• .. •.�.�,.';'`••.�R' v.,• ...., _..h,'.,�d 1;.... � w, s: i .... ,... •r�tniJtet:' i i a ., �. :." ;..+% y •.,�.. , �,* c,; - �• (MesPwri7D17ej. tory r,!r`'I:;, :.� f� ; Came. 116. SriadatdCe,'nfjd.M1hka1b..�te+aw'e.iMtMi.. !' ,.P.endflon ,_ ,,,r...fSlsiatWii •tiUnt fl ''� RirvomNtlltY Po%MonitodngS:! ifGvmpRi:iiej MM 442-t for residential projects net'fubiett to City of Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to ehalik"nee of Cominomy Development Cale(Amide,9,Chapter3,$taion9331aftheTustinCityCedej,pitortooe gulWligParmits Deparbnent— Planning & iswance of building permits, appticants shall dedirxeporkland orpay s park Zoning Division fee, on a per Unit basis. reOedtrig the vakie of land required'for par ' purposes. -The amount el such fee shad be bosed'upoo the fairmaret value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedkatiors, according tO the following standbfds and formula. Standards and formula for Land Dedlcatloo: Interest, coetdee, health, welfare, and safety requires that The public mnc threw (3) acres of usable par land pet one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to foal park arid recreational purposes, the mlotmum amount of land ttwt would Abe otherwba be recored for ' dedication shMl fx wmputed bymuhiplytng the number of proposed dwelNhg units by the Parkland Acrei per Dwelling Unit In accordance with the appropriate density dasshkattan In the followleg ubte; Dv"Mrg units per 'Average Penonsper Parkland Auesper cross Acre Owehing Unit .. Dwelling Unit - e-7 3.39 .0102 7.1.15 z,as ,0086 ' 15.1.25 . a .0067 25.1 & Above As detem,kw;d by GOD To be cahulated (P bated upon Proposed addevo three (3I acres/ produatype 1,000 0000ladon Mobile Home Parks r 2.21 .0067 These density ranges, average. persons per rkvel" unit and/or parkland svesge per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a garland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one tAausaMi 11,000) Porsorss. Recommended text: Delete 4 I row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised tab 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 Vnit," as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." 472 August 14, 2018 Mayor Al Murray Honorable Members of the City Council Chairman Ryder Smith Honorable Members of the Planning Commission Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan I personally commend you for attempting to encourage the development and enhancement of the Red Hill Avenue corridor. I'm sure we all agree that Red Hill Avenue,from Edinger Avenue to north of First Street has fallen into complete disrepair and is an embarrassment to the City and her residents. How the City let it decay to such a state is not is riot the purpose of this letter. It is how are we, the residents, businesses, landowners, and the City are going to remedy the situation. Asa 30 year resident of Tustin, a graduate of Cal Poly with a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban and Region,Planriing, and,a 28 year career in land development as a civil engineering designer, I have to once again voice my concern over the proposed development within -this specific plan. First left me say that I am not opposed to mixed land use. What I am opposed to is the high density of development proposed, within it. If all the land within the study area was devoted to residential development, It would result in a land use density of 13.97 units per acre. That seems reasonable, but when the plan allows for concentrating 500 dwelling units plus 325,000 square feet, of non-residential uses on to 36 acres of land, you are looking a very intensive land use. Keep in mind the plan allow for 395 dwelling units plus other mixed uses on the land north of I=5. And It would allows the transfer of some if not all of the'remaining 105 dwelling units allocated for the land south of 1-5 to be transferred to the to -the land on the north side. This is a tremendous Increase in density. According'to the EIR that would result in an increase of 1,520 additional residents Section 4.1 page 9 "The.Specific Plan would not change allowable building heights in the Specific Plan area such that it would degrade the quality or character of the area. "The current zoning'and Generai Plan land Use designation for high density limits building to 35 feet. The specific plan proposes building heights of 40 feet to a maximum of 50 feet. The building heights of 4 to 5 stories does not reflect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Visualize 4 and 5 story buildings along Red Hill as you travel either north or south from the 1-5 freeway. Then at San Juan'Street to the north and Mitchell Avenue to the south there would a visual jolt as you go from 4 and 5 story buildings to 1 and 2 story buildings. That is a change in the character of the area. In fact'the General Plan Goal 1, Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density, quality ofTustin's existing single- family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family development -to meet regional housing 473 needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development, accessibility, transportation and �) public facilities." When residents purchased their homes, they envisiondd that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. Now with the proposed specific plan, those neighborhoods will be impacted with 40 to 50 foot tall buildings. How would you feel if you, your family, you children, or grandchildren's home would be impacted by this plan? Parking The requirement for 2.25 spaces for each residential unit is not adequate. The plan anticipates 1,520 new residents with 500 dwelling units. That results in 3 people per unit. The plan does not suggest how many'bedrooms would be in each unit or who would be living in these units. it could be multiple adults sharing an 2 or 3 bedroom unit with each person having their own vehicle. The parking from the multi -family housing along Red Hill Avenue Is currently spilling in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Thus detracting from those neighborhoods, and reducing the amount of parking for the residents. Also vehicles are left -parked there for days. The residents adjacent to Pine Tree Park are already impacted by the heavy use of the park on the weekends. In addition, the employees and guests of The Groves, an assisted living and memory care facility on Bryan, park their vehicles in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Shared parking does not solve the problem of inadequate parking standards. Will one parking stall for everyA,b00 square feet of non-residential development really be adequate? The 325,000 square feet of proposed non-residential development will only require 325 parking stalls. Could this be another parking disaster like The District? Air Quality Section 4.2 page 11 "Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the Specific Plan would exceed population forecasts, on which the AQMP is based. Further, implementation, of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from future development (i.e., new development in the Specific Plan area) would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds (refer to discussion under Threshold 4.2-2). Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable." With this in mind, please consider the students that will be walking to the various schools adjacent to Red Hill Avenue. Increasing the pollution these students will be exposed to is not something we should subject them to. Have airborne pollutants been tested for at the congested Intersections— ie Red Hill and the 1-5, Red Hill and EI Camino affecting students walking to school? �l 474 With regards to the cumulative impacts The Specific Plan Project would result in operational air quality impacts because emissions would exceed the SCAQMD-adopted operational threshold for NOx (nitric oxide). Mitigation Measures MM4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2 are really just suggestive efforts to change public behavior but cannot guarantee the desired results of lower pollutant emissions. Mass transit and car pooling have not been successful in the past and itis not a problem the'City is capable of solving. It's a regional problem based upon the OCTA not having schedules that reflect users needs and residents unwilling to give up their personal vehicles. Please read Section 4.2.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation -- Section 4.2 page 20 "Specific Pian -Related Operational Emissions. Despite implementation of MMs 4.2-1 through 4.2-3, the Specific Plan's mitigated operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX resulting in a significant unavoidable impact." "Additionally, operational activities would create a significant and unavoidable impact due to exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. Implementation of MM 4.2-1 through MPA 4.2-4 would reduce impacts; however, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain." Section 4.2 page 21 "The Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable." Green House Gases (GHG) Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) strategies, Implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections for the area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. Section 4.5 page 16 The mitigation Is based upon events that do not exist today. Future legislative actions? Future local mass transit? Have you,tried to get from point A to point B with OCTA? 4.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation "Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG Reduction Programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact." Water Quality Section 4.7 page 13 Ground Water—The EIR states that the increased need of 106,262 gallons of water per day for the proposed specific plan versus the current general plan is not significant. However they don't seem to account for future extended drought conditions. Tustin currently purchases 24% of its water, what will happen as the demand for water increases in Southern California due to development? Who will bear the cost? Conservation can do only so much. 475 Land Use and Planning Section 4.8 page 5 Even though the City feels there would be no adverse impact, it will have a significant impact on the adjacent existing surround single family residences due to increased residential density within the specific plan area. Please understand I am not anti -development and I am not against change. Change is inevitable. I am very concerned about my community. Preserving.the hometown atmosphere, the sense of place. I am concerned about what life will be for future generations. Please postpone approval of Resolution No. 4367, 4368, and 4369 until you have fully read and digested the EIR and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Think about the long term consequences of approving the plan and its impact on the residents, students, and schools that will be affected by this development plan. There are some really good ideas and concepts contained within it, but some concepts don't really mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods. I personally ask each one of you to consider how you would feel if you lived near this project area. Would you want this type of development? What would you change to make it better? I understand that there are developers that are twisting your arm to make these changes. They do not // have a real stake in our community. They will build it, sell it off, and move on to the next property. What you decide will be here for decades, maybe longer. What do you want your legacy to be? Thank.you for taking the time. to consider what I have say. If you would like to meet with me personally, please call me at 714.544.7176 Sincerely, Charlie Laumann 476 Demkowicz, Erica From: TustinPlanning Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:39 PM To: L Kahrs Cc: Demkowicz, Erica; Reekstin, Scott Subject: RE: Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Leane, The City is in receipt of your e-mail and.it will be added to the public record. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin - Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573.3127 edemkowicz@tustlnm,or9 From: L Kahrs [mailto:lkahrs223@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:42 AM To: TustlnPlanning Subject: Red -Hill Spedfic Plan Dear All: I attended my first Planning Commission meeting last night, August 14, 2018 and found it fascinating. I have been a resident of Tustin Meadows for over 20 years. Thank you for all of the work you do and the difficult decisions you must make on a regular basis. I did not speak at the meeting, I just wanted to obseive the, proceedings. - I understand lbat the conunissioners are still interested in getting resident input on the Red Hill Specific Plan. I hope this is the correct email address to use to send comments. My first comment is regarding parking. Yes it is bad - right now it is bad. I don't like the piecemeal 'solution' of requiring permitting in any of the neighborhoods. Permitting just pushes the problem over a block or two. Residents have already shown that they won't need/want fewer cars because of parking problems. The parking issues have already spilled over into Tustin Meadows as people leave their cars here for days and get rides to their apartment buildings nearby. Everyone seems to agree that Tustin currently does an inadequate job of requiring,enough parking spaces in any of the local shopping centers either. If anything parking space 1 478 requirements should be increased, not decreased. Its no wonder that many people prefer to shop online and order take-out delivery rather than battle traffic and parking problems. How will any mixed-use businesses find customers if there is nowhere to park? Please reexamine the mixed use properties in Old Town Tustin. It took years to get those sold and even now many of the lower level businesses sit empty or unused. I was really dismayed at the dismissive attitude of the experts Tustin hired to come up with a plan. There won't be any new parks in an already open space deficient area. They agreed that traffic will be worse, pollution will be worse, noise will be worse., What will bebetter? It might be prettier??? I don't like that trade-off at all. There was no discussion regarding if any of this will be affordable housing either. One of the charms of Tustin is that it is more integrated then many of the surrounding communities. We need to at least try to keep Tustin affordable. Thank you so much to Dr. Moore who spent some time researching plans by Caltrans to expand the 5 freeway through this area. Our hired 'experts'didn't address that issue at all. The expansion will clearly cause more issues with traffic flows on Red Hill and parking on Nisson. Please consider the bigger picture of these plans. The shopping center owners also made great points against the Specific Plan. Unless the city plans to take control of the properties entirely, or somehow subsidize them for their lost rents during transition/construction how could this possibly be implemented? Are these owners in a financial position to implement these plans even if they wanted to? I sort of doubt it or they most likely would have made improvements to their properties already to try to attract higher rents. Thank you for your kind attention, Leane Kahrs 479 Demkowicz, Erica From Victoria Kim <victoriahkim@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:14 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red hill specific plan Hi Erica Thank you for your presentation of the Red Hill Specific Plan at Planning Commission in August. I am new to Tustin and I've heard of the proposal for Red Hill. My only concern is the traffic congestion- a few people had mentioned parking at the meeting but what about the traffic, especially to 1-5 south? It is the only entrance to that highway in that area; Newport doesn't have one. The cars taking the freeway already back up and there is only one lane going unto the freeway. I saw that there is a traffic study done - with the increased density I'm afraid that there will be an increase of the number of cars and thus congestion on that road. Thank you, Victoria 480 August 28, 2018 Mayor Al Murray Honorable Members of the City Council Chairman Austin Lumbard Honorable Members of the Planning Commission Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan RECEIVED AUG %8 ZO coN1MUNM DEVELJPN60 Thank you for letting me speak at the Planning Commission Meeting on August 10 and I look forward to the next meeting on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. I am actually in favor of mixed land use within the Plan's boundaries. However there are some things that would need to change before I could fully support the Plan. • Restrict developments or projects to 3 stories or 30 feet in height. o Developments higher than that do not reflect the nature of the surrounding land uses. o Even with stepped setbacks taller developments would create a canyon like feel. ■ No one has developed a virtual 3-D model showing the visual impact to a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver traveling along Red Hill Avenue. • The only exhibits shown are the possible street widths with bicycle or pedestrian paths without the adjacent 5 story buildings. • In addition, all the photographs appear to be taken with a wide angle lens which distorts the perspective by making the space look larger. The photographs should have been taken with a 50 mm lens (considered to be what the human eye sees) and at the appropriate height of a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver of a standard vehicle. o Taller developments could funnel Santa Ana winds down Red Hill Avenue. o Residents who purchased their homes that border the Plan area envisioned that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. • The overall residential density needs to be reduced in the plan to the R2 and R3 of the surrounding properties especially when combined with 325,00o square feet of commercial uses. o The increased density will affect the lifestyle of current residences and business by increasing traffic on an already congested Red Hill Avenue. o Do not allow the transfer of 105 residential units allocated for the land south of 1-5 to be transferred to the to the land on the north side. This is a tremendous increase in density. o The General Plan Goal 1, Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density quality of Tustin's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family 481 I - S development to meet regional housing needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development, accessibility, transportation and public facilities." • Increase the amount of required to at least 3.25 spaces for each residential unit o The plan anticipates 1,520 new residents with 500 dwelling units. That results in 3 people per unit. The plan does not suggest how many bedrooms would be in each unit or who would be living In these units. It could be multiple adults sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit with each person having their own vehicle. o The residents from the existing multi -family housing along Red Hill Avenue are currently using the streets of surrounding single family neighborhoods. This detracts from those neighborhoods and reduces amount of parking for the residents. Since the vehicles are left parked there for days, it becomes an open invitation for crime. The residents adjacent to Pine Tree Park are already impacted by the heavy use of the park on the weekends. In addition, the employees and guests of The Groves, an assisted living and memory care facility on Bryan, park their vehicles in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. • Eliminate the shared parking and increase the required parking for the commercial uses. o One parking stall for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential development is not. adequate. o Restaurant and dining uses generate more customers per square foot than retail commercial uses. The City cannot or will not review the ratio of various uses within a proposed project or development now or in the future, to make sure there is adequate parking within any given development or project. • In order to protect the students who walk to and attend the various school adjacent to the Plan area, airborne pollutants need to be tested for at the congested intersections of Red Hill Avenue and EI Camino as well as at Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road. o The EIR Section 4.2 page 11 stated "Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the Specific Pian would exceed population forecasts, on which the AQMP is based. Further, Implementation of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from future development (i.e., new development in the Specific Plan area) would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds (refer to discussion under Threshold 4.2-2). Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable." Re-evaluate how much growth and developmental density do we really need. On August 15, 2018 as reported in the Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/agency-says-lake- 482 I - I mead -could -drop -below -critical -threshold -1534374220. The Bureau of Reclamation, the agency that manages water and power in the west stated there is a 52% probability that water levels will fall below a threshold of 1,075 feet by 2020. This could trigger a federal water shortage declaration for the Colorado River. The Colorado River has been in a long term decline, the driest 19 year period in recorded history. Such a declaration could seriously impact Southern California o In the EIR Section 4.7 page 13 Ground Water—The EIR states that the increased need of 106,262 gallons of water per day for the proposed specific plan versus the current general plan is not significant. However they don't seem to account for future extended drought conditions. Tustin currently purchases 24% of its water, what will happen as the demand for water increases in Southern California due to development? Who will bear the cost? Conservation can do only so much. o The City could work with other agencies to promote a desalination plant for orange County. Conservation and the Toilet to Tap programs can only do so much. At what cost is the desire for every increasing density and growth are you will to put on future generations for your decisions today. I am not anti -development and i am not against change. Change is inevitable. However, I am very concerned about my community. We need to preserve our hometown atmosphere, its the sense of place. I am also very concerned about what life will be for Tustin's future generations. Please consider the changes 1 have proposed to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Think about the long term consequences of approving the plan and its impact on the residents, students, and schools that will be affected by this development plan, There are some really good ideas and concepts contained within it, but some concepts don't really mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods. I personally ask each one of you to consider how you would feel if you lived near this project area. Would you want this type of development? What would you change to make it better? Developers and absentee landowners do not have a real stake in our community. They will build it, sell it off, and move on to the next property. What you decide will be here for decades, maybe longer. What do you want your legacy to be? Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have say. If you would like to meet with me personally, please call me at 714.544.7176 Sin�cerel CTarfiiea*man—n4a-"��� 483 r O� City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Planning Commissioners, RECEIVED AUG % 8 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT fay. I live adjacent to the Red Hill Specific Plan area. I am writing to urge you to•make the two modifications, set out below, to the current version of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. First, the height of buildings on the north side of the freeway need to be limited to three stories, just as those on the south side are. The area north of the freeway, along Red Hill, is a community of single family residences, lower density apartments, a park, and a school. The addition of a commercial/residential mix along the north side of the freeway would be fine, but the visual impact of huge, looming five story buildings would be jarring and not fit well with the rest of the area. Second, high density housing will provide too much automobile traffic in the area. The corner of Red Hill and EI Camino is already, according to the Tustin Police, one of the worst intersections for accidents. In addition, the auto pollution (emissions+ brake dust) create microparticles that are unhealthy to children's lungs—and Tustin High is right next door. Apartments are fine, but please make them low density to conform to other apartment concentrations in the area and limit traffic. If Caltrans widens the freeway, there's already going to be more air pollution (electric cars are only slowly catching on). Finally, I have some suggestions: Please make the sidewalks wide enough for multiple people to walk side by side and two wheelchairs to pass, and also mandate bike lanes. The sidewalks in the older part of Tustin are generally too narrow, as are the bike lanes down Bryan. Pedestrian -bike conflict on the sidewalks happens all the time and accidents have happened. And the trees for the Plan area—please no more magnolia trees or messy carrot wood trees[ Magnolias consume too much water, they have surface roots the heave sidewalks, invade sewer systems, and crack slabs. Magnolias are found throughout parks and public places in the Deep South where it rains a lot, but they just don't work here. They shed leaves year-round, making a mess on sidewalks here. (The leaves when dry are very slick. They form layers and slide against each other, making a walking hazard for elderly people). Chinese Pistache (which are planted near the Specific Plan area, on Lear Lane) consume less water than magnolias, and don't heave sidewalks with surface roots. They have miniscule scarce flowers in summer, the leaves turn a beautiful gold in October and they shed leaves only for about 6 weeks in November and December. They leaf out again in the spring to shade the area. These trees would save the city maintenance money and look a lot better than the scrawny drought -starved magnolias currently planted along Bryan Ave. Next, a company called Carbon Cure makes concrete that is injected with carbon dioxide, making it stronger and longer -lasting that conventional concrete for city infrastructure. That would save the city money in the long run too. And could we require solar power and backup batteries for all buildings? 484 It would be great If the city was In the forefront of progress for a change instead of dragged kicking and screaming from the past Into the present Anyway, thank you for the opportunity t6-volce my concerns. Sincerely, 01 Beverley Laumann 1292 Lear Lane Tustin, California 92780 485 Attachment H .:. RHASP Social Media Comments Matrix issue Summarized Comment Number of Mentions Traffic • Increase in traffic 26 • No traffic mitigation Parking Decrease in street parking availability 19 • Current lack of parking with no solution to the issue • Parking reduction would be bad. • 5 stories of development with insufficient parking Density Area is overcrowded 7` +� Density increase will become too high City Council seems determined to overbuild and overpopulate • Increase of cars City Staff not interested crconcerned about increased, density levels Water Use • Will water restrictions In the City change? 5 • Huge increase In water use Affordable Housing • Increase in housing costs 5 • Lack of affordable housing No New Housing • Already.enough people in'Tustin 4 New housing is not needed; Orange Grove . Loss'ofthe Nisson`orange:grove to development 3` Development • Development needs to happen to force beautification to 3 - - the area on developers - - • New development is needed to bring down housing costs Power Grid 0 Infrastructure not capable of handling the increased use Z Safety • increase in street parking, provides cover for people who 2 don't mean well Sewer.System • Increased burden on sewers stem 1 Develop ParkingArea • Make a ;parking lot. to park overnight without a fee 1 Air Quality . Details hard to find In linked website 1 • Increase in Greenhouse gases Property Values • Property values would increase 1 Resident Population . Already enough people inTustin 1 Quality of Life • Reduction in quality of life because of RHASP 1 Architecture • Lack of new.architecture style blending in with the bid 1 •; Lack of attractive architecture since Initiation of construction at Legacy until present day Deteriorating Red Hill . Continuing: deterioration will result In mare crime 1 Attractiveness • Attractive elevations and landscaping plans 1 Amenities • Amenities are significant 1 Disclaimer: Comments included in this matrix represent a summary of concerns expressed and not all individual comments ore listed. Some of the comments appear verbatim while others were summarized to convey their accuracy and intended meaning. 487 G v G IJ 1�.+ O Ilk r'll-M J �-- c: r u 4 (f r s U. C7 Q n � o 3 fD q � A A a c � 6z r- O u = 4 W 489 I Attachment 490 4LV%OAF& 0 Exhibit I Average Daily Traffic, (ADT) 491 Exhibit I-- cont'd. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Table 4.13-7, below, illustrates the different roadway segments along`Red Hill Avenue and the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) plus projected additional trips generated by the development potential of the Specific Plan (i.e. "Project), The Project is defined as 500. additional residential units and 3251,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the Specific Pian area. Based on the street segments shown below, the number of additional ADT generated by the, Project with build -out of the.Specif`rc Plan, ranges between '2,300 — 8,800 ADT per day. As` a percentage, this Is.an;increase "of 8% to 340/6 over nogproject conditions. The bulk of the.increase in traffic is due to the additional commercial square footage that would be allowed within the area. There is 290,445 square feet of existing non-residential development. within the Specific Plan area and with the proposed 325,000 square feet of additional no'n-reslderitialdevelopment under the=Plan, the total development estimate is 621,446 square feet. However, the existing General Plan estimated maximum buildout based on existing land use designations for the ;Specific Plan area Is 913,724 square "feet of non-residential development and no dwelling units. in comparison with the maximum estimated buildout under the General Plan, the Specific, Plan .would result in the reduction of '292,27.8 fewer square feet of potential non-residential development but with an addition of 500 residential units. With -this reduction in potential non-residential development, it passible that the full implementation of the Specific Plan would result in fewer, ADT than the full implementation of the existing General Plan maximum buildout In the area. if the focus is only on the residential units that would be added with the proposed Specific Plan, the 500 additional residential units would result in an average increase of approximately 3 percent to the existing ADT4.olume of each segment of Red Hill Avenue. All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service:and the addition of Project traffic would notcause a significant impact at any traffic study area Intersection. 492 Table 4.13.7. Roadway Segments - Existing Plus.Project r - ` Eatisting - 1 daily LOS D Capacit, Ex4tingl, Project Project or .Se6menv� mom _ Abl ' 'Trak, ilolumeet er?, Red Hill Bryan Avenue to San Juan Street 50,600 21,800 2,500 124,300 Yes Avenue San Juan Street to El Camino Real 50,600 25,900 8,800 134,700 Yes Nisson Road to Mitchell Avenue 500600 29;200 6,300 1,35,500 Yes Mitchell Avenue to Walnut Avenue $0,600 26,700 4,S00 31,200 Yes Walnut Avenue to Sycamore' Avenue 50,600 27,700 2,300 130,000 Yes LOS = level of Service; ADT = Average Daily Traffic Bold and shaded values Indicate a deficient level o(Service, based on City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Guidelines, source; Kimley-fiorn, 2018,. 493