Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDCCSP PRESENTATION 6.19.18•Introduction –Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director •Introduction of Staff and Consultants Involved in the Planning effort. •Additional Information -Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director •Specific Plan Overview –Laurie Lovret, Environmental Planning Development Solutions, Inc. (EPD). •Overview of Environmental Impact Report –Konnie Dobreva, EPD •Discussion of Public Input/Correspondence •Public Hearing/Public Input •City Council Deliberation/Action Tonight’s Presentation Tustin 1946 •Old Town Tustin is the traditional center of Tustin and the City’s original town site but it became separated from the rest of the City as the City grew. •This separation gives Old Town its strong, unique identity, but it also isolates commercial areas of Old Town (shown in pink at right) from the mainstream of community activity and traffic circulation, which has negatively impacted the area’s economic development and business attraction Isolated Location Old Town was developed with small lots before the establishment of modern parking requirements.Vacant lots and modern development practices (i.e.parking in front of buildings)create impediments to an attractive and walkable downtown streetscape. Sensitive infill design in a historic context would create a more active, pedestrian-friendly, walkable environment that would attract new customers, generate jobs, encourage investment, and increase property values in Old Town Tustin and the surrounding areas. In 2014, the City Council directed staff to prepare the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Project to: –Promote pedestrian-oriented commercial development to invigorate the area and expand walkability. –Draw more patrons to Old Town. –Make Old Town attractive for new investment and development. –Preserve the unique character of Old Town. –Introduce additional mixed-use residential development (and potential customers/patrons) to the area. –Improve Old Town’s market visibility and exposure as a great place to do business. Facts About the DCCSP The boundaries were extended to all commercially-zoned properties in and around Old Town. The Specific Plan will ensure that the Downtown Commercial Core Area has a unique sense of place that unifies the area as a gateway to Old Town. Land Use •Types of allowable commercial uses remain generally the same •Preservation of historic residences encouraged •Introduces option for mixed use and multi-family residential in select areas ➢New residential use requires special discretionary review and approval Residential Use •Maximum of 887 units distributed according to Development Area (DA) •Requires approval through detailed discretionary process •Potential for mixed use or multi-family in designated areas only •Must meet development standards and detailed design criteria •Mixed use must provide first floor commercial use on significant commercial streets Development Area (DA)Units Max Transfer DA -1 45 11 DA -2 92 23 DA -3 200 50 DA -4 150 38 DA -5 0 0 DA -6 400 100 Total 887 222 Discretionary Review •Approval of Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) review process required ➢Detailed Findings must be made that a proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan •Ensure high quality •Require design that is sensitive to historic structures •Promote traditional design in Old Town •Foster pedestrian oriented development •Encourage transition from strip commercial to higher quality development patterns Urban Design Plan, Development Standards & Design Criteria •Provides detailed guidance on appropriate development character for each DA Sketches and Image Collages Insert other sketch Development Areas 1, 2 and 3 Street Improvements •Modifications to streets to better serve all users ➢Pedestrians ➢Bicyclists ➢Drivers Conceptual Street Design •First Street ➢Landscaped median ➢Diagonal Parking ➢Bicycle Lanes ➢Sidewalk improvements •Second & Third Streets ➢One way only ➢Diagonal parking on one side •Main Street ➢Landscaped median ➢Bicycle lanes ➢Sidewalk improvements ➢Added diagonal parking ➢Parklets and enhanced crosswalk ➢New trees and landscaping Insert Main Street plan or graphic simulations Conceptual Bicycle Lane Improvements •Class 1 ➢Separated from vehicle lane •Class 2 ➢Striped ➢Adjacent to vehicle lane •Class 3 ➢“Sharrow” ➢Lane shared with vehicles ➢No stripes Enhancements •Provide amenities and create visual identity ➢Old Town entry sign ➢Parklets along El Camino Real ➢“Living alleys” ➢New street trees in Old Town ➢Benches and other street furniture ➢Monument and wayfinding signage ➢Public art •Draft Program EIR prepared and circulated for 45-day public review period •Program EIR •Project: •Specific Plan •887 Units w/ 25% transfer •300,000 SF Non-residential •MPAH Revisions •GPA to certain Elements •Project Alternatives •Alternative 1: No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zoning Alternative –no residential but assumes build out of General Plan (commercial only –300,000 SF) •Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative -25% reduction (665 dwelling units and 225,000 SF) •Alternative 3: Limited Increase in Development Alternative –50% reduction (444 dwelling units and 150,000 SF) DCCSP PROGRAM EIR 5.1 Aesthetics 5.8 Recreation 5.2 Air Quality 5.9 Transportation and Circulation 5.3 Cultural Resources 5.10 Tribal Cultural Resources 5.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5.11Utilities and Service Systems 5.5 Land Use and Planning 5.12 Energy Resources 5.6 Noise 5.13 Mandatory Findings of Significance 5.7 Population and Housing •Aesthetics •Agriculture & Forest Resources (Scoped out) •Geology and Soils (Scoped out) •Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Scoped out) •Hydrology and Water Quality (Scoped out) •Land Use Planning •Mineral Resources (Scoped out) •Population and Housing •Public Services (Scoped out) •Utilities and Service Systems •Energy DCCSP PROGRAM EIR Findings Less than Significant Impacts •Cultural Resources •Noise •Recreation •Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation •Air Quality (Construction, Operation and Cumulative) •Greenhouse Gas (Construction, Operation and Cumulative) •Transportation and Circulation (Operation and Cumulative -Newport Ave./I-5 northbound) Significant and Unavoidable DCCSP EIR Public Comments Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Agencies A1 City of Irvine March 8, 2018 A2 Native American Heritage Commission March 9, 2018 A3 South Coast Air Quality Management District March 27, 2018 A4 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission March 29, 2018 A5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)April 2, 2018 A6 OC Public Works April 2, 2018 Organizations O1 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –Kizh Nation February 20, 2018 O2 Saddleback Chapel Mortuary March 27, 2018 Residents R1 Collette L. Morse April 2, 2018 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN The City has received correspondence or emails regarding the proposed Plan. Those comments have been provided to the City Council. The following summarizes some of the more commonly held concerns: •Not enough public notice •Not enough parking •First Street should not be narrowed ▪Three public workshops held between 2014 and 2016. 3,500 notices, a press release released and notice was advertised in the Tustin News. Workshop presentations were posted on the City’s website. ▪On August 1, 2016, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) mailed to public agencies and the public that EIR prepared for the Project. The NOP was also advertised in the Orange County Register. ▪On August 16, 2016, Scoping Meeting at City Hall (advertised in the NOP), to describe the DCCSP project and solicit input on the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR . ▪On February 15, 2018, Notice of Availability that EIR was available for review for 45 days. The document was mailed to public agencies and interested parties and the NOA published in the Tustin News and posted on the City website. ▪On March 29, 2018, 1,300 public notices were mailed and posted in 15 locations within the project boundary, at City Hall, and on the City’s website. A half -page public notice was published in the Tustin News that same day. ▪On June 7, 2018, 1,300 public notices were mailed, published, and posted for tonight’s City Council meeting. Why was this considered? •Consensus of Workshop attendees •Provide additional on-street parking. •Slow traffic to attract business patronage, rather than support pass - through traffic. •Introduce other modes of travel such as more foot and bicycle traffic. •Improve business visibility •Santa Ana reduction west of the 55 Freeway •Landscaping/beautification/parklets/complete streets. •Traffic volumes would not substantially change “improve safety, provide operational benefits, and increase the quality of life for all road users.” City of La Jolla Results: The traffic count remained approximately the same (23,000 vehicles per day before, 22,000 after), but walking, bicycling, transit use, on - street parking and retail sales all climbed to much higher levels, the city reports. Retail sales rose 30 percent and noise levels dropped 77 percent. Because traffic moves slower, businesses report higher visibility. Traffic crashes fell by 90 percent. The project has helped revitalize La Jolla Boulevard, acting as a catalyst to several new mixed-use developments. Businesses that feared the loss of customers arriving in cars actually improved their trade. City of Los Angeles: Mar Vista and Playa Del Rey roadways were given road lane reductions to reduce traffic deaths. (Mar Vista’s reduction was from three lanes in each direction to two lanes). Los Angeles reversed Playa Del Rey and is considering reversing Mar Vista’s reduction. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION •On April 24, 2018, the Tustin Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 4363 recommending that the City approve the project. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND BIA REVIEW •Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, of April 10, 2018, a copy of the proposed documents were provided to the Tustin Chamber of Commerce and Building Industry Association of Orange County. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW •The City Attorney has reviewed the documents and approved them to form. RECOMMENDATION That the Tustin City Council conduct a public hearing and then: 1)Adopt Resolution No. 18-24 -Certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; 2)Adopt Resolution No. 18-32 -Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA)-2018- 00001, including text amendments and amendments to certain exhibits/maps; and, 3)Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change (ZC)-2018-00002 including adoption of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP-12), amendment of the Tustin City Code, rescission of the First Street Specific Plan (SP-10) and certain planned communities, and, amendment of the City of Tustin Zoning Map 47 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS Parking District All property owners contribute. In-lieu Fee $24,000 -$47,000/space for new businesses. Annual $60 Fee •Increase the current fee for new businesses. Parking Meters/Pay lots •Ensures turnover. •Produces revenue for future parking lots. 48