Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 RED HILL RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION 2019-00001 y " 14AGENDA REPORT ITEM #3 MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2019 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2019-00001; DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-0016; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-025; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-00002, 20% DENSITY BONUS, VARIANCES FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDING HEIGHT AND A WAIVER OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEES FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING 249 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE APPLICANT: CRAIG SWANSON IRVINE ASSET GROUP, LLC 4000 MACARTHUR BLVD., EAST TOWER, SUITE 600 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE GENERAL PLAN: RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL: PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS. CEQA SECTION 15270 STATES THAT "CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS WHICH A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES." APPLICANT REQUESTS: 1. RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2019- 00001 FOR THE ALLOCATION OF 249 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 2. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-0016 FOR THE DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT OF A NEW MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING 249 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING ELEVEN (11) AFFORDABLE UNITS, 7,000 SQUARE FEET RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ /LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 2 OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL, PARKING STRUCTURE CONTAINING 427 PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-025 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SHARED PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED USES AT THE SITE. 4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-00002 TO COMBINE THE LOTS AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE INTO ONE (1) PARCEL TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 5. A TWENTY (20) PERCENT DENSITY BONUS ALONG WITH AN INCENTIVE FOR A WAIVER OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE, A WAIVER FOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND A WAIVER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE. REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS BASED ON THE SUBMITTAL: 1. A RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) FOR 249 UNITS OF THE 500 UNITS APPROVED FOR THE ENTIRE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (RHASP) 2. A DESIGN REVIEW (DR) APPROVAL FOR BUILDING DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT 3. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR SHARED PARKING BETWEEN THE APARTMENT UNITS AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR 4, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) TO COMBINE THE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO ONE (1) PARCEL 5. A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ALL NEW PROJECTS WITHIN THE RHASP AREA (NOT SUBMITTED) 6. A TWENTY (20) PERCENT DENSITY BONUS 7. A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE FOUR (4) STORY MAXIMUM TO FIVE (5) STORIES ON THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND SIX (6) LEVELS FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND OVER FIFTY (50) FEET(NOT SUBMITTED) 8. A VARIANCE FOR LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (NOT SUBMITTED) 9. REMOVAL OF A MITIGATION MEASURE RELATED TO PARKLAND DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEE FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE RHASP RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 3 10.A DUAL USE OF EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS LANE AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4378, denying Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2019-00001; Design Review(DR) 2017-0016; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-025; Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) 2017-00002, and a Density Bonus request for a mixed use project containing 249 residential units and 7,000 square feet of retail commercial. APPROVAL AUTHORITY In accordance with Section 6.7.2 of the RHASP, the submittal of a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) application is the first, in a sequence of several steps for a residential mixed-use project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). An RAR application forthe allocation of residential units is subject to review and standards outlined in Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards and Chapter 5, Design Criteria of the RHASP. Pursuant to Section 6.6.2, the Community Development Director has the approval authority for the RAR application. Pursuant to Section 6.6.1, the Community Development Director may refer an action to the Planning Commission. The Director intends to deny the RAR application in which the applicant could file for an appeal to the Planning Commission. To save time and efforts, the Director is referring the RAR application to the Planning Commission. The RHASP specifies that all development projects will require DR as required by the Tustin City Code (TCC) along with specific procedures outlined in the Land Use and Development Standards of the RHASP. Applications for Variances (i.e. building height and open space) and/or CUPs (i.e. shared/joint parking) shall be processed in accordance with RHASP Section 6.7.5 and TCC Sections 9292 and 9264, respectively. LLA applications shall be processed in accordance with TCC Section 9322. Section 6.7.1.A10 of the RHASP requires the applicant to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City to ensure the implementation of the development and the RHASP. The purpose of the DA is to address time limits, the expiration of the RAR, entitlement transfer and/or assignment provisions, project's benefits, etc. The DA shall be processed in accordance with TCC Section 9600 et al. Section 9141(b) of the TCC authorizes the City Council to consider a Density Bonus request upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 4 REPORT ORGANIZATION To assist the reader in referencing the details of the proposed project, the report is organized as follows: 1. BACKGROUND — A brief description of Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and the proposed project site background and chronology. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION — A description of the proposed project. 3. DISCUSSION — Residential Allocation Reservation process 4. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION 5. REMAINING PROJECT REQUESTS 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 7. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY BACKGROUND Fled hill Avenue Specific Plan In 2014 and 2015, the City received inquiries and requests to increase density greater than the General Plan allows (25 dwelling units per acre) within the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. At the time, the City Council conducted a public workshop on density and determined that a comprehensive approach and rethinking of the area should be done instead of a piecemeal approach. Following the workshop, the Council directed Staff to consider a Specific Plan for the area. In February 2016, the City of Tustin's City Council initiated the preparation of a specific plan for a portion of the Red Hill Avenue corridor just north and south of the 1-5 freeway with the objective of promoting revitalization within the existing commercial district. Following a two (2) year work effort, which included several public workshops, the RHASP was adopted in November 2018. The vision for the RHASP includes the introduction of residential units and an increase in pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial uses that will help create a more dynamic and attractive environment to visit, shop and live for residents and visitors alike. The inclusion of residential allows for both vertical and horizontal mixed-use options for future development while also providing an economic incentive to some property owners to redevelop and revamp existing older commercial retail properties along Red Hill Avenue. A greater variety of activities along the street is encouraged through the development of mixed uses that reinforce pedestrian scale and orientation. The RHASP Land Use Plan (Attachment C) allows commercial development to continue while allowing for 500 residential units within the Specific Plan area. Residential units must be high quality and integrated into a mixed-use development. The Specific Plan allocates 395 dwelling units to the Specific Plan area north of I-5 and 105 dwellings units to the Specific Pian area south of 1-5. These units remain with the City until such time the City allocates them to a specific project through the RAR process. To receive RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-00251 ILA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 5 approval of the RAR, a project must meet the required Findings specified in Section 6.7.2.B of the RHASP. These findings are discussed further in this report. Project Site Background & Chronology The project site, located at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue, consists of two lots containing approximately 3.38 acres. The lot at 13841 Red Hill Avenue is improved with an existing single-story office building constructed in 1973 and the lot at 13751 Red Hill Avenue is currently vacant. The project is bounded to the north by single-family dwellings and multiple family residential units, a commercial shopping center(Red Hill Plaza)to the east, a carwash and U-Haul parking area across a public alley to the south and a Tustin High School play field to the west. r ly - a '� yP _ �` f � P�Ni��dill I\ •'l " + �" bill fi a 1 Figure 1: 13751 &13841 Red Hill Avenue(Aerial Photo/Location Map) The project site has had an extensive application history beginning in 2008 with the City's approval of a 201-unit assisted living/congregate care facility. Following this approval, there have been approximately thirteen (13) different applications and/or proposals for the same site by the same applicant. A chronological summary of these projects and their details is included in Attachment D. None of the thirteen (13) proposals are consistent with and/or implement the General Plan and RHASP. The proposals have ranged from 135 to 249 units, 40 to 74 dwelling units per acre with zero to 10,000 square feet of non-residential. RAR 2017-0001/QR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REQUESTS The proposed project, which was last submitted in September 2018, includes the demolition of the existing real estate office building at 13841 Red Hill Avenue, combining the lot with the existing vacant lot next door at 13751 Red Hill Avenue through a LLA and construction of a new five-story (45'5" to 66'1") mixed use building with 249 residential apartment units, a provision of five (5) percent very low income housing on-site (11 affordable units), 7,000 square feet of commercial retail space with a six (6) level parking structure to accommodate the project (Figure 2 — Architectural Site Plan). Figure 2:Architectural Site Plan LEGEND: mo,u.yi.cco=r,xrw.s NfiF�LVF'.kI SYIkCf.L CiCAtS.SfUx..} e+LwLnL5 hkFn�F - - Five-story, Six-level parking structure _ 11 1 r fK 1■ 1T. r, - e Lr — 7 .n f r6. _ f_ —17r A�d il- '-"-1 n a " ' I I 1* 'r•Fqc � -.. L - '� "'... — .,� __.,»_ 1 -_ -tee, 1fi -------------------- --- ` ----=---- --------- --------------HITECT ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-1.2 C U The project includes and/or requires the following: 1. A Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) for 249 units of the 500 units approved for the entire Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). 2. A Design Review (DR) approval for building design and site layout. 3. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on the ground floor. 4. A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to combine the two (2) existing lots into one (1) parcel. 5. A Development Agreement (DA) for all new projects within the RHASP area (not submitted). 6. A twenty (20) percent density bonus. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2010 Page 7 7. A Variance to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories and from 50 feet to over 66 feet and a six (6) level parking structure (Variance application was not submitted; however, the applicant has requested this be considered as a Waiver of the Density Bonus application). 8. A Variance for less than the required open space (Variance application was not submitted; however, the applicant has requested this be considered as a Waiver of the Density Bonus application). 9. A waiver of payment of the required parkland dedication in-lieu fees. 10.A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space. The project proposes an overall density of 74 dwelling units/acre. Of the 249 units, the developer proposes 28 studio units, 140 one-bedroom units, and 81 two-bedroom units. Each unit will range from 554 — 1,230 square feet in size and provide private open space within an attached private patio. A six (6) level attached parking structure, located at the rear of the site facing the Tustin High School play field, would provide a total of 427 parking spaces. Based upon a Shared Parking Study, the parking ratio for the project is 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit. The overall building height ranges from 45'-5" to 66'-l", depending on the height of architectural roof elements and the elevation of natural grade, which varies throughout the site (Figure 3 — Conceptual Building Sections). I I SECTION A-A ----------------- SECTION 8-8 e KEY MAF uv RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025!/LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 8 I a 1 _ F � SECTION C-C SECTION D-D - .. f SECTION E-E SECTION F-F I nni `- KEY MAP SECTION G-G i ` d REAR SIDE(SOUTHEAST)ELEVATION Figure 3—Conceptual Building Sections Primary access to and from the site would be taken from Red Hill Avenue and a secondary access (for residents only) would be from the public alleyway adjacent to the southern property line. Emergency vehicle access to the project is shown to be provided from San Juan Avenue. The applicant also proposes amenities to include pool and spa, mail room/leasing office, clubhouse/fitness, dog spa, bike shop, and an open courtyard. An open urban plaza, located between the leasing office and clubhouse, will have public seating. (See Figure 4 — Red Hill Avenue Mixed-Use Project and Attachment E). RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 9 y , All r - ,. r r � � W VIEW FROM CORNER OF SAN JUAN STREET&REO HILL AVENUE LOOKING WEST VIEW FROM REO HILL AVENUE LOOKING NORTH w ALN wl a^ . J aw lixi if �s AERIAL VIEW ALONG REO HILL AVENUE VIEW FROM REO HILL.AVENUE LOOKING WEST A-3.3 w .. arm'. _ ■■ T 14 !v , i RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 10 fIF ! 5 ' t r rt p LEGEND i j+ L MiL'.7 GAJ - - -. ------------- --------------- - ----- I f OPEN SPACE PLAN A-1 .6 Figure 4- Red Hili Avenue 249-Unit Mixed-Use Project RAR 2017-00011DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 /LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 11 The project also includes a density bonus request and the applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan (Attachment F). In summary: • The total of 249 total units consists of 208 base units, five (5) percent Very Low Income household units (11 units) and the provision of 20 percent density bonus (41 units). • Compliance with TCC with respect of dispersion, proportionality, quality of design materials and availability of affordable and market rate units as required by TGC. • Payment of the Workforce Housing Program in-lieu fee. • Reduction in parking by utilizing the Density Bonus provision of the TCC. • One (1) Incentive request for waiver of parkland dedication in-lieu fee. • Two (2) Waivers, one (1 ) for exceeding the maximum building height and one (1) for the reduction of the open space requirements. DISCUSSION Mixed-Use Development Review Process Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area require specific procedures outlined in the RHASP Land Use and Development Standards. For residential mixed-use projects, the first step that must occur, rp iq to the submittal of project entitlements, is the RAR request. This request includes a preliminary review of the proposed project and, if approved by the Community Development Director, allocates a specific number of residential units for the mixed-use project. The applicant may combine the RAR request with an entitlement application, should they choose to do so. In this instance, the applicant noted a desire to submit some but not all required applications. It is the applicant's position that the provisions of the Specific Plan do not apply to this project. The four (4) steps for a new residential mixed-use project are as follows: Step 1: if a residential mixed use project, then a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) request is required. • Preliminary review of architectural plans, parking management plan and project description to begin review process and determine substantial compliance. Step 2: Submit other entitlement approvals (Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel/Tract Map, Development Agreement, etc.) • Application is processed by a planner and reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Step 3: Submit plans to the Building Division for plan check. • Construction drawings are reviewed to ensure compliance with State and City codes. Step 4: Building permits issued by the City to begin construction of the project RAR. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ILLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 12 RAR Process There are a total of 500 dwelling units assigned within the RHASP. Table 4-5 below summarizes this information and the total number of units allocated by planning area. The RHASP also requires that these units be equitably distributed within the Specific Plan area such that no one (1) parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. Planning Amm iMa*num Pam ed Unit Iuorh Areo.: North of 1.5 395 dwelling units South Areri: South of 1-5 105 6�o,elknq units TOTAL 56-,,ellinq units The purpose of the RAR review for a proposed mixed-use project and its associated residential unit count is to determine whether or not the proposal is in compliance with the intent and vision of the Specific Plan. If the required RAR findings can be made by the Community Development Director, then the RAR serves as a preliminary allocation of residential units for the project and the associated conditions of approval set forth time limitations for submittal and approval of the appropriate entitlements. If the RAR findings cannot be made by the Community Development Director, the project must either be modified or the applicant may appeal the Director's decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with TCC appeal procedures. The preliminary RAR allocation of units is not considered final until approval of the requested entitlement(s) and DA in the second phase (by the highest approval body - i.e. ultimately the City Council). Should the application entitlements be denied or not implemented within the time frame identified in the RAR preliminary approval, the preliminary allocation of units approved under the RAR is redeposited back into the Residential Allocation Sank for use by other projects. The Community Development Department monitors the Residential Allocation Bank and tracks all residential units reserved, transferred, approved and constructed under a RAR. Required Findings In order for the allocation to be preliminarily approved, there are four (4) required findings that must be made, These findings are listed below along with Staff analysis. The project proposal requests an allocation of 249 residential units on the 3.38 acre site which results in a density of 74 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project is located in the North Area of Interstate-5 in which 395 units are assigned. The request for 249 out of 500 total units, is 49.8% of the total allocation for the entire Specific Plan and 63% of the North Area. This RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 20-17-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 13 allocation request along with other deficiencies in the project in design, architecture, development standards, building height, massing, open space, park dedication in-lieu fee, connectivity, pedestrian linkages, parking, etc. are contrary to the required findings, vision, and goals of the RHASP as follows: Required Finding I for Approval: The project is substantially consistent with the uses, design criteria, and development regulations of the RHASP. Staff Analysis: Uses • If approved, the proposed use would be constructed on a long time vacant parcel. However, the proposed project is not an integrated mixed-use project as it is predominately residential with 240 residential units and limited commercial retail square footage along Red Hill Avenue. The project contains 7,000 square feet of true retail space at the southwest corner of the site with the remaining Red Hill Avenue building frontage containing amenity areas associated with the project that include a clubhouse/fitness, leasing office and mail lounge. The amenity areas are not retail spaces which would be selling goods or merchandise to residents/consumers. The proposed amenity areas would not generate the same level of pedestrian activity and desired retail presence which the Specific Plan encourages with an integrated mixed-use project. • While the project would include limited commercial (retail), the project does not retain the commercial character of the RHASP corridor. The commercial retail square footage proposed equates to only 20% of the overall building frontage along Red Hill Avenue. The remaining frontage contains leasing office, fitness area, and residential units. • The project provides outdoor seating and courtyard; however, the project does not emphasize or promote pedestrian activity. The building is designed with retail heavy on the south side of the frontage and not providing continuous commercial corridor as envisioned by RHASP. The project is not designed to promote the use of transit, bike and/or ride sharing, or pedestrian connectivity among and between existing neighborhoods and the project. The project does include a bike shop for its residents but not to the general public by accommodating bike racks and/or street furniture and landscaping to interest pedestrian and/or alternative transit activity. The project, as proposed, appears to provide only the minimal requirements of the RHASP for integration of uses within the area and does not meet the overall intent of a goals and objectives of the RHASP. • The proposed project is not complementary to the existing one-, two-, and three-story residential neighborhoods and surrounding land uses. The project exceeds the maximum allowable number of stories and building height under RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 14 the Specific Plan and does not activate the street with retail uses along the Red Hill Avenue frontage. Retail uses only occupy 7,000 square feet or twenty (20%) percent of the building frontage and are limited to a small area of the project. The retail commercial uses are a necessary component of furthering the overall vision of the Red Hill Avenue area as a mixed-use commercial district. •. The project would increase housing units within the area. The project, if approved, would also include five (5%) percent or eleven (11)affordable housing for Very Low Income households and payment of a reduced housing in-lieu fee. While the provisions of housing units and affordable units are the goals of RHASP, the proposed project density, massing, height, parking appears to be excessive and disproportionate for the area. Further, additional affordable units could be obtained through various menu option provisions of Workforce Housing Ordinance (example: development proposal could choose any one of the fallowing options: 15 percent for Very Low, Low, Moderate income households, or 12.5 percent Very Low and Moderate income households, or ten (10%) percent of Low income households). Staff Analysis: Design Criteria • Based on preliminary renderings, the project, as proposed, meets the minimal requirements of the RHASP for architecture, site design and landscaping. However, the proposed building design is not superior or matches the architectural vision for the area. The building reflects a typical design that is reflective along high-density corridors. During the public workshops and hearings, this was a significant concern that was articulated to be avoided within Tustin. The Red Hill Avenue building frontage consists of more solid walls than glazing, which does not contribute to a high-quality architectural design that furthers the goals and objectives of the RHASP. • The proposal is designed with a five-story building and a six-level parking structure at a height of up to 66'1". The building design provides step backs and courtyards along the frontage. This method is intended to soften building height and provide illusion of smaller buildings. However, the site is surrounded with buildings that are one-story residential across San Juan, a two-story apartment immediately behind the existing office building at the corner of San Juan and Red Hill Avenue, a high school field to the rear, a one-story commercial (carwash and U-Haul) across the alley, a one-story commercial shopping center across Red Hill Avenue, and a two-story condominium complex at the opposite corner of the project site. The proposed project as designed would be massive, incompatible and unharmonious with the surrounding structures. Further, the RHASP was approved with the Planning Commission and City Council direction that structures would not exceed 50 feet and four (4) stories. As noted, the applicant stated that these standards should not apply to their project. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-00251 ILLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 15 • The RHASP design criteria emphasizes human scale. The project, as proposed, does not enhance the existing streetscape with inviting landscape areas and expansive pedestrian-oriented/public amenities such as wider sidewalks, plazas or paseos. The proposed retail uses do not maintain a strong physical and visible relationship with the sidewalk experience. Building design, selected materials, paint colors and landscaping for the project does not result in a high-quality architectural project for the area. The project's 3.38 acre lot size and location at one of the defined gateways in the RHASP area creates a unique opportunity to construct a high-quality architectural project that sets a precedent for future projects in the area. • The RHASP design criteria calls for linkages to surrounding neighborhoods and parks. The project, as proposed, provides minimal landscaping along Red Hill Avenue and limited depth from the front property line (4'9") to the proposed building. The proposed building siting and design does not accommodate the pedestrian amenities or connections with the public realm encouraged and desired for the Specific Plan area. Staff Anakusis: Development Regulations/Standards (see Figure 5 for comparative summary) • Building Height: o The project does not meet the required development regulations relative to building height and therefore requires a variance. o The proposed project consists of five (5) stories for the residential portion and six (6) levels for the parking structure with heights ranging from 45'-5" to 66'-1" The height limitation of four (4) stories but in no case exceeds 50 feet incorporated into the RHASP promotes compatibility and maintains a human scale for new development projects with the existing area. o The Planning Commission and City Council specifically directed and adopted standards for buildings to not exceed four (4) stories and 50 feet. The applicant's statement that this standard does not apply to their project contradicts to the specific direction, established standards, goals, and overall vision of the Specific Plan. • Open Space: o The proposed project does not comply with the required amounts of private open space and common open space as stipulated in the RHASP and therefore would require a Variance. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 16 o The project proposes an average amount of private open space per unit of 70 square feet and common open space of 154 square feet per unit without including the OCFA fire lane; both falling short of the requirements of 100 square feet of private open space and 200 square feet of common open space of the RHASP. o The project proposes private and common open space to include private patios, balconies, courtyards, clubhouse, fitness, Wi-Fi lounge, pet spa, bike shop, lobby, parking structure alley and fire lane. The dual use of the OCFA fire lane as an emergency lane and recreational area should not be supported as the area should be primarily utilized for emergency purposes only. In addition, the use of the approximate twelve (12) foot wide and narrow alley located between the parking structure and perimeter wall may not be desirable or usable recreational area for residents. • Parking: o Pursuant to RHASP Section 4.4.4, the parking for residential units in a mixed-use project is 2.25 spaces per unit and non-residential parking based on TCC retail parking standard of one (1) space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The RHASP allows a developer to utilize shared parking for a mixed-use project. While a Shared Parking Study was submitted with the project, in-lieu of the required parking standards stating that a parking ratio of 1.0 spaces per unit would be sufficient and 28 spaces for retail space, the study does not provide sufficient acceptable justification and evidence supporting modifications to the prescribed standards. o The submitted Study includes a recommendation of parking management strategies such as the use of a valet parking, mechanical vehicular lifts, and/or a residential vehicle registration program. These strategies demonstrate methods to reduce the parking demand, but none of the strategies are proposed at this time. Based on insufficient parking, staff believes the lack of parking would create a negative impact on-site as well as to surrounding commercial developments, schools, and residential neighborhoods. o Based upon the City's experience with existing residential communities, staff is concerned and recommends that a minimum of two (2) spaces per unit be provided on-site and a parking management plan be required as part of the project. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-002511 LA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 17 Figure 5—Comparison Chart of RHASP & Proposed Project RHASP Requirements Proposed (Mixed Ilse) Project P_ .:1®r Min. Required St. 100 feet min. 612.75 feet Frontage/Lot Width 5 stories—residential 6L Building Height 4 stories max. and up to 50 feet 6 levels—parking structure (45'-5"—66-1") Front Yard Setback None w/pedestrian Varies along Red Hill frontage accessible amenities (min.4'-9"to max. 20'-3") R Side Yard Setback I (interior) 10 feet min. 14'-6" Side Yard Setback None wlpedestrian accessible 11'-91, (Corner/Street Side) amenities p Rear Yard 10 feet min. Varies from 12'-6"—32'-6' Private Open Space 100 SF/unit(min.) 70 SF/unit(avg.) Common Open Space 200SF/unit (min.) 189 SF/unit w/OCFA Fire Lane 154 SF/unit w/out OCFA Fire Lane " Combined Private & 300 SF/unit(min.) 239 SF/unit(with OCFA Fire Lane) Common Open Space 225 SF/unit(w/out OCFA Fire Ln.) 588 spaces/2.25 per/du, plus 427 spaces @ 1.6 per/du, plus 28 spaces Parking parking for retail at 1/250 SF for commercial per Shared Parking Study 1.67 acres required for Park Fees dedication Waiver requested OR For$4,183,200 in-lieu fee $4.2 million park in lieu fee Required _Finding 2 for Approval: The project implements the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence in architectural design, provision of substantial usable common open space, provision of public art (which may consist of murals, sculpture, decorative fountains or other art deemed acceptable) connectivity to adjacent parks and/or schools if appropriate, and pedestrian connections. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-002511LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 18 Staff Analysis: • The project, as proposed, provides for minimal requirements of the RHASP in terms of architecture and site design. The project does not provide substantial usable common open space (in fact a reduction is requested), any public art or connectivity to parks and/or school. The project also does not promote a pedestrian-oriented environment or sense of place. • The project includes a small retail plaza and urban plaza along Red Hill Avenue. However, the project lacks well-defined, public gathering spaces within the site and the building placement and site design do not prioritize pedestrian usage and the public realm. The two (2) proposed outdoor seating areas are designed in front of two (2) of the four (4) retail tenants. The distance from the front property line to the building is narrow at 4'-9" for two (2) retail spaces, 6'-9" for the third retail tenant space and 20'-3" for the fourth retail tenant. The limited setback adjacent to the retail spaces does not result in high-quality and usable public gathering spaces within the project that will activate the street. • The project includes retail storefronts at the south end and leasing and fitness center at the central area of the site. The project has minimal visual interest with limited use of high-quality architectural details and materials that complements the future public streetscape. The Red Hill Avenue frontage consists of more solid walls than glazing, which does not contribute to a high-quality architectural design that furthers the goals and objectives of the RHASP. Clearly defined ground floor retail spaces with increased floor height and additional amounts of glazing should be incorporated for all proposed retail areas along the Red Hill Avenue frontage. The proposed basic storefront treatment for the innermost retail tenant spaces lacks visibility and identity for a future tenant. The public indicated that they do not want projects along Redhill Avenue to resemble high density corridors seen in adjacent communities. The proposal is highly reflective of those corridors architecture. • The RHASP calls for project design with respect for human scale and surrounding area in terms of massing, height, and design compatibility. While the project incorporates limited commercial retail at the ground floor, the combined use of stone veneers and stucco on the building fagade does not promote an inviting pedestrian scale for the project. The neutral toned color palette and lack of use of color to accent architectural details results in a generic, institutional- looking building. Repetitive building details on the Red Hill Avenue facade results in an architectural design that lacks unique features or attributes that contribute to a sense of place. The building lacks enhanced architectural details or other unique features(i.e. roof decks, green roof, recessed or operable storefronts and windows, strong commercial presence along Red Hill Avenue, etc.). Note: this was a significant concern at the public hearing and workshops for the RHASP. Again, the public indicated that they do not want projects along Red Hill Avenue RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 ILLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 19 to resemble high density corridors seen in adjacent communities. The proposal is highly reflective of those corridors architecture. • While the proposed private courtyard (private use only), urban plaza (public use) and vehicular entry (public & private use) to the project are strategically placed in between buildings, the pedestrian spaces are not well-designed or creatively integrated into the design for public use. The project lacks meaningful massing breaks in the building facade for public usage which results in building blocks that are not pedestrian oriented. • The proposed project is five (5) stories (parking structure is 6-levels) which exceeds the allowable building height and results in additional building mass and height that is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and commercial area. The four(4) stories and up to 50 feet limitation in the RHASP is intended to maintain a pedestrian scale for mixed-use projects. Exceeding the maximum allowable building height results in a variance which staff is unable to support. • While the parking structure contains an artistic treatment to help screen the west elevation, the art would not be readily visible to the public as it faces the Tustin High School play field. The lack of art along Red Hill Avenue does not contribute to and/or help establish a public identity for the area. Pursuant to RHASP Section 5.6.3, public art adds a unique human quality to the outdoor environment and is an increasingly important element of the built environment. Overall, the artistic mural on the parking structure does not satisfy the RHASP public art requirement and it also falls short of providing adequate screening of the parking structure. Required Finding 3 for Approval: The number of units requested is within the threshold established by the Specific Plan's Program EIR. Staff Analysis: A total of 249 residential units are proposed which is within the Specific Plan's total 500 units analyzed in the Program EIR. The Program EIR analyzed 395 residential units for the Specific Plan area located north of Interstate- 5 and 105 residential units for the Specific Plan area located south of Interstate-5. However, the proposal is inconsistent with equitable distribution and disproportionate number of units would be allocated to one (1) site. Required Finding 4 for Approval: In allocation of the 500 Residential Allocation Reservations units, the City shall consider an equitable distribution within the Specific Plan Area such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 20 Staff Analysis: The proposed project is located on the North area, which has a total 19.3 acres assigned with 395 units. One way to measure proportionality on a parcel basis would be to divide the total acreage on each side of the Interstate 5 by the number of residential units allocated to that side. The total acreage north of Interstate 5 is approximately nineteen (19) acres. For the North West quadrant consisting of approximately six (6) acres, a proportional distribution of units would be approximately 120 units. However, all 120 units based on proportional and distribution should not all go to the project site. Furthermore, in reviewing the residential density of any particular project within the RHASP, the Planning Commission should consider consistency with the City's General Plan for two (2) primary reasons. First, pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65860, the City's zoning is required to be consistent with the General Plan. Second, Govt. Code Section 65915(f) of the State Density Bonus Law, provides: "Where the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail." Mixed-use projects proposing densities well in excess of the General Plan's maximum density of 25 units per acre (30 units/acre with a 20% density bonus), may be difficult to justify because of their inconsistency with the General Plan. As to the specific application, it proposes 7,000 square feet of retail at ground level and 249 residential units above the retail on 3.3 acres. The proposed project includes five (5) percent or eleven (11) units for very low-income housing. The application derives the 249 units by starting with 208 units and applying a twenty (20%) percent density bonus for a total of 249 residential units. In addition to the density bonus, the applicant is seeking a limit on the required parking and a concession, in this case a Waiver of park fees and two (2)Waivers on the reduction in the open space requirements and exceeding the building height. There does not appear to be a basis upon which to approve the Project. Initially, there is nothing within the RHASP or City's General Plan that comes close to justifying or supporting the use of 208 units (63 units per acre) as the base from which to calculate the density bonus. The proposed 74 units per acre does not meet the RHASP's equitable distribution requirements and is well over double the density allowed under the General Plan. Required Finding 5 for Approval: The overall project meets the findings for Design Review outlined in Section 6.7.1. Staff Analysis: A detailed analysis with respect to Design Review findings is included in the next Section of this report (See Remaining Project Requests). Based upon the findings and analysis above, Staff is recommending denial of the RAR request, which results in no allocation of residential units and as a result, the project cannot move forward. If the Planning Commission denies the RAR, the project review would end RAR 2017-00011DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 21 at this stage and/or level and no application for the same or substantially similar discretionary permit for the same site shall be filed within one (1) year following an action of a discretionary land use permit (TCC 9293e). Regardless of the above recommendation, the applicant would like Staff to take the application forward and have the Planning Commission and the City Council consider their other respective requests. REMAINING PROJECT REQUESTS The other requests associated with the proposed project are listed and briefly discussed below. Specific findings related to these requests are provided below and in the attached Resolution (Attachment H). • A Design Review (DR) approval for building design and site layout The proposed project would reduce blight by constructing a development on a vacant site. The project will construct and improve the current condition of sidewalks improving public health and access. However, the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not promote the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. In making these findings, the Planning Commission may consider the following: o Pursuant to RHASP Section 5.3, in order to maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the surrounding area, building design should follow sound design principles and evoke a suburban character in form and function. Red Hill Avenue, while primarily an auto-oriented commercial corridor, maintains a surrounding environment that is suburban or quasi- urban in character. The proposed project is designed with more of an urban feel which is reflected in the overall proposed building height, massing and density. As a new project within the RHASP area, the design should look to establish a fapade rhythm and utilize high-quality exterior materials, textures and colors that contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape and serve as a good-example for future development projects in the area. o The project contains limited landscaping along Red Hill Avenue and public amenities such as plazas, courtyards or paseos that connect the project internally or with other surrounding neighborhoods. o The pedestrian amenities are limited in scope and reflect a typical design and layout that is not visually interesting. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 22 o The project is primarily an in-fill residential project that does not improve the visual and functional connections between Red Hill Avenue and adjacent public and institutional uses. o The project lacks elements that help to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements. a The proposed design includes large areas of stucco material, minimal glazing to differentiate between the commercial and residential areas along Red Hill Avenue, minimally recessed or flush mounted windows and fenestrations that result in an overly simplified or value engineered attempt at contemporary Spanish Mediterranean. o The overall lack of meaningful breaks in massing result in a project that is not pedestrian friendly. As a result, the project is not consistent with the overall intended vision of the RHASP. • A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on the ground floor As discussed previously, the parking for residential units in a mixed-use project is 2.25 spaces per unit and non-residential parking based on TCC retail parking standard of one (1) space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The RHASP allows the developer to utilize shared parking for a mixed-use project. While a Shared Parking Study was submitted with the project, in-lieu of the required parking standards stating that a parking ratio of 1 .6 spaces per unit would be sufficient and 28 spaces for retail space, the study does not provide sufficient acceptable justification and evidence supporting modifications to the prescribed standards. The submitted Study includes a recommendation of parking management strategies such as the use of valet parking, mechanical vehicular lifts, and/or a residential vehicle registration program. These strategies demonstrate methods to reduce parking demand, but none of these strategies are proposed at this time. Based upon the City's experience with projects that provide deficient on-site parking, there will be off-site impacts that will have negative impacts on the adjacent commercial developments and residential neighborhoods. Accordingly staff is recommending that a minimum of two (2) spaces per unit and the remainder of the project be sufficiently parked and provided on-site and a parking management plan be required as part of the project. In addition, the applicant has included a request to utilize a density bonus parking provision to support their project. While there is no unit allocation for the project and thereby the project does not qualify for density bonus and all associated incentives, RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ /LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 23 concessions and parking reduction, a Shared Parking Study prepared by E_I_G Engineers, included an analysis using the affordable housing parking ratios for the project's residential component and TCC parking requirements for the retail component. Based upon this methodology and shared parking, 358 parking spaces are required and 427 are being proposed. The report concluded that there is adequate parking with 69 surplus parking spaces. Parking Requirements Based for Affordable Housing Based on Govt. Code Section 65915 Spaces Project Description Site Parkin-Ratio Required Tuxtiss R<al Ilill!'rain! Retail 7,000 tiF d apace.Pi r I IHII)11 2 Affordable Housing;14siis( DU) • Studio I Rcdroom Units 168 1 .Pace.Per Di! Ihti • 7 liedloom l nils 81 '.spaces Per DI_! 162 Parking Requirenient: 358 Proposed Parking;Supply: 427 Parking;5urplus!Deficirno (+."" 1: X63 In determining whether to approve the CUP for the proposed shared parking, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed request will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin. A decision to approve this request may be supported by the following findings: o The Shared Parking Study submitted with the project in-lieu of the required parking standards stating a ratio of 1.6 spaces for every residential unit and 28 retail parking spaces does not provide sufficient acceptable justification and evidence supporting modifications to the prescribed standards. o The submitted Study includes a recommendation of parking management strategies such as the use of a valet parking, mechanical vehicular lifts, and/or a residential vehicle registration program. These strategies demonstrate methods to reduce parking demand, but none of these strategies are proposed at this time. o Based upon the City's experience with projects that provide deficient on-site parking, there will be off-site impacts that will have negative impacts on the adjacent commercial developments, school, and residential neighborhoods" RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 24 o Based upon recent parking analysis concerns expressed with two (2) spaces per unit or more, experience in the City does not support the empirical data presented in the report. A minimum of two (2) spaces per unit and the remainder of the project should be parked, provided on-site and a parking management plan shall be required as part of the project. • A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to combine the two (2) existing lots into one (1) parcel In accordance with TCC Section 9322, a LLA is required for the minor shift or rotation of an existing lot line provided that the adjustment of the lot boundary or lines between four (4) or fewer existing adjacent lots and that a greater number of lots is not created. For the proposed project, the two (2) adjacent lots, will be combined into one (1) parcel to accommodate the building placement and construction and to ensure that no buildings or portions thereof cross lot lines. The proposed LLA is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Manual, and conforms to the City's General Plan as follows: o The project involves two (2) adjoining parcels; o There will be no greater number of parcels resulting from the LLA; o The parcels resulting from the LLA will conform to the Tustin General Plan, and any applicable specific plan, zoning and building ordinances; o Any associated utility or access easements are not impacted; and o All impacted owners, and any other party holding a beneficial interest in the subject properties, are represented and in agreement to the adjusted property lines. • Density bonus o The project proposes eleven (11) affordable residential units five (5%) percent for very low-income housing. The applicant derives the 249 residential units by starting with 208 base units and applying a twenty(20%) percent density bonus for a total of 249 residential units. The Density Bonus is a state mandate and a developer who meets the requirements of the State law is entitled to receive a density bonus and other benefits, such as concessions, as a matter of right. In this instance, there is no basis in which to consider the request for a density bonus since no units are allocated to the project site. Nevertheless, the applicant wishes the Planning Commission and the City Council consider their project and their request for Density Bonus. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 25 • Variances: The applicant has indicated that the Specific Plan does not apply to this project. City staff does not concur and therefore, the following Variances would be required: 1) reduction in open space requirements and dual use of the emergency Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) fire access lane and recreational open space and 2) to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories on the apartment building and six (6) levels for the parking structure and over 50 feet in height (no Variance application was submitted) Open Space: The RHASP specifies minimum amounts of private and common open space that is to be provided for each dwelling unit as part of a residential mixed-use project. The purpose of the individual, private open space and communal open space is to promote livability and recreational areas within the project. As proposed, the project includes less than the minimum required 100 square feet of private open space (balconies, patios, etc.), less than the 200 square feet of common open space (pool, green areas, tot lot, etc.) and less than the minimum required 300 square feet of combined common/private open space per unit. The project proposes open space to include the private courtyard, urban plaza, pool area, private porches, clubhouse/fitness area, Wi-Fi lounge, dog spa, bike shop, lobby, OCFA fire lane, building setback areas, portions of the access lane into the parking garage and portions of the property between the front property line and the proposed building (an average of 70 square feet of private and 154 square feet of common open space per unit). Staff is not in favor of a new development project with less than the required open space as it also impacts both livability and building design/massing. Additionally, the required OCFA emergency access fire lane off of San Juan Avenue is being proposed as a dual use area (with a pickle ball court & a half-court basketball court) and the applicant has calculated the access lane towards the combined common/private open space for the overall project. Building height: Building height and the number of stories was evaluated while the RHASP was going through the public hearing process. The final decision to limit the overall building height/number of stories to four (4) and up to 50 feet was based upon maintaining more of a pedestrian-oriented environment and compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood and commercial uses. The four (4) stories and not to exceed 50 feet limitation also aids in reducing the potential massing of future development projects within the area and maintains a balanced building scale. The request to exceed the number of stories and building overall height for the proposed project is not consistent with the development standards and the goals and objectives of the RHASP. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ ILIA 2017-00002 February 26, 2010 Page 26 If variance requests were submitted, the request would not qualify for approval in that the property does not have special circumstances on the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. That the proposed project would not meet the criteria for granting a variance because of the following reasons: 1. The lot size is 3.38 acres which is larger than any other lots in the immediate neighborhood and would provide applicant with much more ability to comply with the prescribed development standards. 2. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is typical in the neighborhood. 3. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique slopes or hillside applicable to the property. 4. The site consist of a vacant lot and a lot developed with an office building (to be demolished). The project could be redesigned to comply with prescribed development standards. 5. The situation is a self imposed hardship, not a condition particular to the property. A waiver of the required parkland dedication in lieu fees Park fees are required as a Mitigation Measure for all subdivision and non- subdivision projects within the RHASP. Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a combination of both in accordance with the TCC and RHASP. In conjunction with the proposed project, a total of$4,183,200 is required based upon $16,800 per unit established by the RHASP. The applicant is requesting a waiver of all park fees. The waiver of park fees is not supported by staff as additional fees and/or land is required in accordance with the RHASP and are to be invested back into the area, which the Planning Commission and the City Council specifically required due to lack of open space in the area. The applicant has indicated that the City Council has implied that a waiver of park fees could be considered for affordable housing. While TCC Section 9331 d related to Subdivisions authorizes the City Council to waive parkland dedication fees upon submission and approval of agreement for projects designed and guaranteed for low income, senior and handicapped citizen occupants, this provision is not applicable to the project since the project does not include a Subdivision. In addition, the provision of parkland dedication is a Mitigation Measure of the Program EIR approved for the RHASP. Any deviation from the approved EIR would require an addendum, supplemental or potentially a new EIR. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ILA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 27 Development Agreement (not submitted) The RHASP requires a developer to enter into a Development Agreement with the City to ensure public benefits are realized as residential unit allocations, incentives, concessions are provided to developers. The applicant in this case has not submitted a Development Agreement. Public Comments Attachment G includes public comments up to the completion of this staff report. Any other comments received after the completion of the staff report will be provided to the Planning Commission via emails and/or placed on the dais at the meeting date. Comments received generally include: Concerns that their neighborhoods would turn into high density corridors in adjacent communities which should be avoided in Tustin • 4-5 stories are too high • More traffic, less parking m Misinformation of public notice (i.e. parking structure is not 6 stories and project is stair-stepped starting at 3 stories) • Concerns related to active shooting from the parking structure to the school field • Tustin needs affordable housing Environmental Analysis Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves". Staff is recommending disapproval of the project and therefore CEQA Section 15270 applies. CONCLUSION Based upon the information presented in this report, the City respectively disagrees with the applicant as to the number of residential units that should be allocated for the project site and recommends denial. Findings for this recommendation are included in Attachment H - Planning Commission Resolution No. 4378, Erica H. Demko icz, AIC.P Elizabeth A. Binsac Senior Planner Director of Community Development RAR 2017-00011DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-002511LLA 2017-00002 February 26, 2019 Page 28 Attachments: A. Project Location Map B. Land Use Application Fact Sheet C. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project Area Map D. Project Site Chronology Timeline E. Architectural plans F. Affordable Housing Plan G. Public Comments H. Resolution No. 4378 ATTACHMENT A Location Map: 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Project Site > f 300' e ell TT f� `"'�?' �+°tib» % S� ,�•\ °� P, ,, /fir � � \`� °`•, Ij it ATTACHMENT B LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): RAR 2017-00001/DR 2017-00016/CUP 2017-000251 LLA 2017-00002 2. LOCATION: NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT— SW CORNER RED HILL AVENUE & SAN JUAN AVENUE 3. ADDRESS: 13841 & 13751 RED HILL 4 APN(S): 500-141-10 & 500-141-09 5. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: a. 2008 APPROVAL OF 201-UNIT AGE RESTRICTED ASSISTED LIVING.CONCREGATE CARE FACILITY—APPROVAL BY CITY, BUT ENTITLEMENTS EXPIRED b. 2010 APPROVAL OF 2008 PROJECT—APPROVAL BY CITY, BUT ENTITLEMENTS EXPIRED c. 2013 PRELIMINARY PROPOSALA56 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT d. 2013 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL— REVISION #1: 168 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT e. 2013 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL: 174 UNIT APT)MIXED USE PROJECT f. 2013 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL— REVISION #1: 157 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROEJCT g. 2014 FORMAL APPLICATION: 192 APT./MIXED USE PROJECT h. 2014 PROPOSAL: 201 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT i. 2015 RESUBMITTED PROPOSAL: 201 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT WITH MODIFIED COLOR PALETTE j. 2016 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL:135 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT k. 2016 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL— REVISION #1: 135 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT !. 2017 FORMAL SUBMITTAL: 220 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT m. 2018 RESUBMITTED PROPOSAL: 220 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT n. 2018 INFORMAL REVISED PROPOSAL: 247 APT./MIXED USE PROJECT o. SEPT. 2018—FORMAL SUBMITTAL: 249 APT./MIXED USE PROJECT 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: CARWASH/GAS STATION EAST: RED HILL AVENUE PLAZA SHOPPING CTR. WEST. TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: R-3—MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RHASP — RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN EAST: RHASP— RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WEST: PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: HDR— HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RHASP— RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN EAST: RHASP— RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN; WEST: PI— PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: VACANT LAND & EXISTING COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE OFFICE B. PROPOSED: CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL MIXED USE PROJECT; 249 UNITS_, AND 7 000 SF OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL AREA C. GENERAL PLAN: RHASP - RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED GP: SAME D. ZONING: RHASP- RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED ZONING: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 10, LOT AREA: 3.389 ACRES APPROX. 11, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT.: 313,093 SF 12. PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE'.SQ,FT.: 189,666 13. PROPOSED DENSITY: 74 DU/AC 11 PARKING: 427 STALLS PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH JOINT USE; 588 STALLS REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL BASED ON PROJECTED RHASP PARKING STANDARD OF 2.25 SPACES. 28 STALLS PROPOSED - RETAIL 28 STALLS REQUIRED- RETAIL 12. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: NIA ATTACHMENT C -EEL Tm_R Project Boundary ❑per �� Bryan Ave .VA °Q C7°°o °o F-1a°o °0 00 °© Qa ao °o a°°O LLITFEL -San Juan St II IIII ~ � 1-5 ILI i ,flirt�(JT Mitchell Ave - =T ❑❑i '❑❑TEA I C�L�1L11 _ �. _ _6�_❑IIS Wali ut Ave MLLI - - {� =77 0 250 500 ® �� �Feet i fiF1'IfrTfl��i.�.IlTfl � ❑r-� ❑❑ TUSTIN Exhibit 1-2: Specific Plan Area ....a L - '0.I D H ILL,a1'EtilfE ATTACHMENT D (tel UJ ra m C rn O_ O tto ruE A) _ Y 0 , r V" d C — V m m tl 3 c a m >o m o .•� w ;., Ln w a c m 0 u m •� o ®+ m p C-3, T 6 n O T UE N x E Q C. i [yIL N f] � } r E E ?C a m .c a s u p -o `o 7d L a v u ,a O c C m N o m T7 0_ m A] 0 v n a W L C x N oo N 7 O �O m N n �I >E u Q1 r�-I rW0 10 � i lO Ln N V1 m cl u ON a m a m o ven ° Q n c o E O CL x a a • • • . • • • • N Q w N N w N Q N U N d •� N r • r • • • 00 q W M _ • pV m p_ -]III I I 11H ._.... Ln F y r JAY jc PASS FWA Z110 R i T 777 j g..A to c - a ® m m u O C3. N C C r U 61 H C ® o E N } a O E u N to y U OJ O Cl d CL Y ® > 1p? y [o m O C -- O. m v� OLJ N C N tl C u c m u wv m v E m m ° a lam• "u p .� w o m CC. � a m ••# Q a W 01 d CO N d C C C. V W U N N m u N Q U 0 Q LLA C � ri N Ln mai N ae n a Y N LL LZ 0 00 — � m C Ul E Ip 7 r d O E v � I➢ c E c 4p C O G IGRf! � C _ ro Fa GEW ,, no °1 v I � � C 3 E it C m o Cl y� r Y aM y Y C a' c L 3 ag a a—g 7 , rn Y M[{ ro m c m a • K VI W '� LL a7 awLA u m m 0 6 E CF'- p m w w ^fG Q .- 0 O. Y d m O f0 U N W Y N N 4 6 m �' c m Oto � m a c v _c mCL rL m N d m is c a r 3 p ro ro w ° a N u 3 N d d C O 0/ ro vi o oCL u o >_ ro a 0 c �a a '.n C O m CJ I O W '[T y G N d V 0 lfl O n N b 4 r n1 aj u 4 3 o N m O ` v .--I ❑. N In m .-I rR C vl N H N m In m rl H C a .1 rc a aQ' • • • • • Q • • • • • • • • dIdu _ — C N m •rr t : . u CTS E r E o a E E g cm E m n° E X q 4. m o J _ �r { v " y �1 § + U m N c 3' 00v u a o L o z io � 3 I 1P.WSSA 1NA4 w �'2 ti µ �:,••lu �'` a X a _ . a u n `w a u 17 C o v m tw 3 O On W a ro to 4 j t+ N Ol O y 61 Y u � .O ` 0 a n u ` .Y C .O O a . ,q,q55 a m 'P E v a a- 'm^ 'E 4_ f0 C m C 4J ` m N N d L I ti, H v I/1 n N C C W �_ Ol C j„i u V }j w N E v E E O E 12 c on m 0 a 2 o u m 0 v a u m M O a _ o. c n O '.G ra u 3 — m c U C a a m p u Lo N c v c m "0 oar 5' L 'C v G) �y. ` d CL o v of n if y Q d o m a `n m E tl,1 f6 u �i 0 u y? O O ro _a no N O o - O C I m -0 O q Y C1 a -4 Q. I m a p n n Ql d C C O u C a. 00 4 p ry �' c-i vl .. O �p ry oa +m 0 u1 `m i p a- .ho k� , •� f` O C> 41 O NC N C rn ^? Z7 Sri o } mR. t ra OY 7 yam. a) a-1 N l.7 A M N ry n G .--I m w In .--I J m v) n I- ra a In -O vl v O O Z A • u. • • • 0 0 0 • • m Y Y 0 �i - v � EL > -0v v � y rL CL © r -, 'i-i- p E +?+ L N EC C -Ei w Us E m c m m c u Q y c !o a a o y 0 vto o m E .c a m c p a Q Z m mm -0 ry �.... .— N h0 p J CL m m m E Y c - t �., ci a c N N O C ai d E - f0 y Ll N T N Ll 'O G p om w e O m cy Q E E a u 'E m en u '- .: 7 w N c :i c y 47 d p Y 7 r r u U m /0 a a °° E ,� w v p a ai L o a 2 v u E aa " c p ,' a a 'p ' m �- Y u c ar+ tll " N .p to G 0 _0w Q ,,. YC- 0. m O C /7 1 � O 2 cp a O r.. E m W � p o M � r y E a a m p L " E ao a `° .�F m ca m Q E 10 c d a .0 c m 0 m = c u V a p a N L o m a ao —° ^ m ° y Vf C JNi r a�-i Y C rt+ C C, Q. C 6 t' !-' , O UI vai V .r. v c D u m x r h aO 3 c u m m � d a0 f 7 v - r E :t� Y - fO O G w � a oc r c a p a C .3 N — r✓ m C c c c a N A. m c o Q E °c" 3 ; a `o N E c r m Y > n > y o o a cu -a d v o E Y u. � I o c c c M m ¢ °c° -p E E N N p N a p 7 H N u to p p V a n n- a u c 3 _ � 3 o v w v L = w x m' - -D f0 n c m w E lO O x M ruo C n D V Y p p > MH a, 'n c v w p a > -C m E N u� m o h o v E m w MH m m r C. ry u p = N 7 E m E m � r � N � w m ¢ '� a m s a N O O of d • • • • • • Z LL • • • • • • mss,. M � y m N y a E w p�y�y/�■ C t0 C E a E m m g c alai m cu u c C V � <4 a 6 ni d m a C " c Y l3 ski CL iV w p •^ m p C », '�' "• W a ar"' u° c a cp _ E w r� a .r � a a w c o c LP p �I•• C 7 c ai h Ri v p L � O C C > 4�`d C371 !' m p CU O C3 C. u m 3 • = ° a � ri ro E Cl. c m m v a m — ecn roc ai a —° au O a a E £ r v p O °c° a np o u ? .. :E c u m vAi v ai — 3 � Q. a+ 7 V n1 Y al _ae o0 o N 0. F a Go O u c a v a c pp u] Q '"` c Y a s �. c m N 'O aci '�-^ a `I m v > u p .� m L Ci v a a� � L 6 w 7 a p 'ra N C. d ' y u N m = O E 3 00 •� -ao N a E N m > o E o w = Q oo rn — o .d m 7 m .0 O '^ m ry E v cs a r+i vii a 'L rn Fes- cr u N ti rni m .�-i n�i u v — � y a c 3 ° c u y ° m V L � w - '" to ^ m y ° m Q v C = C ET Y CN Lrl) m m a L I -a V W m V i f Cu w aj v Q CL m N c v m a v o o it-T Cf _5 Q Y n w `G' T N a-. w w R m n 'c 7 C � :3W ® Q = cu N 00 (Li -F+ a+ Y v i v V L •- d •L CL i C = C a O U O °tg '5N C r` Y GJ -a 3 v cb v ° u cx .. of v w > w v d m v 0 °w'. bid N ivOL 3 .� c v o ° ° o I r4 a r v pR® E n x000 � � � a o\' j 1O Y c p m N � � �� 1.�r 6 0 N rn n a 2 E a U S t� H v o 3 C •� w d' m �0 w ._ � L w r00 Y a LU N a ee c u U m � c0°a u c ° u iCL,., = CL m ° t C1 N ' N 1 N ° o m -m C r dl ° W •/O m m ki ) �v. i�I 'V CL O p C CL CL 4 C C N V 4 CLOEL Y m Dl E u tY 7 0 p N m p w m ` t+ ° ,a V N �- .. c M'= { C p d N c CL V N Y u ° y � J Q m00 y N o o aci ay 'n c ALI U Q? � m = c Y v Q m s rrr '� S] a a C, - w �. d v io m a 'a o T� air o o Y 4®V o v m s�i m +' r�+A m n a a -tea S r, n vmi .'�.- •w 1w, u N C Q Fr t y I, -- 'u 7i am- cc .MIR m m mN. L( 1V V j O ,an b6 •- c ° N Q -Bc ° wc s Q V^ w v at w N 00 cl CD d °_ C c m �qj ^ u E v m + Q w Ln dE -02 L c E E • V O m Ll X c N N C 'V y N • m +t- mc as +� p6 d 'L .a. 'Y d c i v m c C p � � v m � 4 �Y w u a o m oc 00 -0 N u m ° m o ° o u 3 N 'x m u^, C> a'~ 6 c % w ai U. N m 9 a N E n e n" O a v u .9 n Q �/' U. OC • • • • • • "' VIYa k C H M PLANS AVAILABLE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR A . THE PUBLIC HEAR � NG, OR a} U REQUEST, ' 'T"T"i -A C H I\�E N "T F RECEIVED WASL Tustin Investors V LLC Voluntary Workforce Housing Incentive Plan NOV 21 2018 13751/13841 Redhill Avenue Mixed Use Project November 20, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: Project Description & Affordability Level WASL Tustin Investors V LLC ("WASL") has submitted applications (Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Parking, Lot Line Adjustment, Residential Allocation Reservation, Environmental Review) to develop a 249 unit residential community located at 13751113841 Redhill Avenue (at the intersection with San Juan Street) on a 3.389 acre site in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). As required by the City of Tustin ("City") Voluntary Workforce Housing Incentive Program ("Workforce Housing Program") as outlined in Chapter 9B to Article 9 of the Tustin City Code and consistent with Chapter 1 to Article 9 of the Tustin City Code and Government Code Section 65915, with the provision of a minimum of 5% Very Low Income units, WASL is exercising a 20% density bonus option. The total of 249 residential units consists of 208 "base" residential units, and 41 density bonus residential units. Of the 208 base units, eleven (5.3%) will be affordable to Very Low Income households, as defined in California Health and Safe Code Section 50105.b. This will comply with the provisions of Tustin City Code Section 9112 and Government Code Section 65915 applicable to a 20% Density Bonus and with the requirements of the Workforce Housing Program. The Specific Plan provides for up to an additional 395 residential units and 175,000 s.f. of commercial uses North of 1-5 with total additional development in the Specific Plan area of up to 500 residential units and 325,000 s.f. of commercial uses. WASL is proposing an allocation of 208 residential units (excluding 41 density bonus units) to this project out of the 395 additional residential units provided for in the Specific Plan area North of 1-5. The site owned by WASL is the prime potential residential parcel in the Specific Plan area North of 1-5. Most other parcels in the Specific Plan area North of 1-5 are better suited for commercial uses. We are not aware of any other development applications for residential units in the Specific Plan area. If the 395 unit residential allocation were to be fully used for the Specific Plan area North of 1-5, the Specific Plan includes a provision allowing for the transfer of residential units from area to another as well as the possibility of converting unutilized commercial s.f. to additional residential units. The development assumptions used in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates in support of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report assume development of 160 residential units and 30,000 s.f. of commercial uses for the zone on the West side of Red Hill from San Juan Street to 1-5. 1 WASL is proposing the development of 249 residential units (including density bonus units) and 7,000 s.f. of commercial uses. The site owned by WASL is the prime potential residential parcel in the Specific Plan area North of 1-5; (and the only vacant property), it is very doubtful that there is any potential for residential development on any other parcel on the West side of Red Hill North of 1-5. Based on the existing land uses, it is highly doubtful that the remaining 23,000 s.f. of unutilized commercial uses will be fully utilized on other sites in the zone. The 23,000 s.f, of unutilized commercial uses can convert to up to 148 residential units (using trip count equivalents as used in the Traffic Impact Analysis), well exceeding the 48 residential units necessary to attain the 208 "base units" required for this project. Following is the density bonus computation for the project per Government Code Sec. 65915: Table 1. Density Bonus Computation Gross Acres 3.389 Assumed Allowable Density 61.38 Allowable Units Utilized Before Density Bonus 208 Density Bonus Utilized (20%) 41 =Total j 249 WASL intends to operate the project as a rental community and will meet the affordability requirements as outlined in the Workforce Housing Ordinance and California Health and Safety Code Sec. 50105 and the methodology for setting rental rates as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Sec. 50053. The Very Low income units will be restricted for a period of 55 years. As shown in Table 2 below, the affordable units will be comprised of two studio units, six one bedroom units, and three two bedroom units which are in approximately the same proportions as the overall unit mix for the project. Table 2. Affordable Units by Floor Pian Type Very Low Total Income Unit Unit Type Units Mix Studio 28 2 1 Bedroom 140 6 2 Bedroom 81 3 Total 249 91 The affordable units will comply with Section 9927 of the Tustin City Code which requires the following: 1. Reasonable dispersion throughout the residential project; 2 1 3 1/i ; ; Il RcclliI11 A�en��t tiYcjrlJorcc ]-thin PI t7 �:j��.`:�� ,i 1)v 2 81 2, Proportionality in number of bedrooms and livable area; 3. Comparable in terms of quality of design, materials, finish and appearance; Access to community amenities and recreational facilities equivalent to market rate units. 4. Functionally equivalent parking as offered to market rate units; 5. Constructed and available for occupancy concurrent with the market rate units. While the exact location of each of the affordable units within the community has not yet been determined, the affordable units will be spread throughout the property in order to avoid an undue concentration of affordable units in any given area. The initial locations of the affordable units will be agreed on between WASL and City staff prior to initial occupancies. In order to minimize the negative connotation which can be associated with affordable units, as the initial affordable tenants move out, WASL will be allowed to substitute units of equivalent size in locations satisfactory to City staff. The affordable units shall be rented at an affordable rent calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Very Low Income Households are defined as households whose gross income does not exceed 50% of area median income, adjusted for household size. Table 3 below shows the maximum income levels as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as adjusted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (°HCD") for Very Low Income Households, adjusted for household size. Table 3. Maximum Gross Income for Affordable Households Very Low Income Units Maximum Annual Income - Household Size 2018 1 Person $38,300 2 Person 43,750 3 Person 49,200 4 Person 54,650 5 Person 59,050 Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code limits affordable rent to 30% of total income, as calculated in Table 4 on the following page. That section also requires that the rent for a studio unit assumes a 1-person household, a 1-bedroom unit assumes a 2- person household, and a 2-bedroom unit assumes a 3-person household. The rents calculated are then adjusted by the most recent utility allowance as determined by the County of Orange Community Services Department. The reduction for the utility allowance is currently $87.00 per month for a studio unit, $97.00 per month for a one bedroom unit and $133.00 per month for a two- 3 11751iI3r'-1'.l P�AAIJIl y� � i! itCi'i_' , ifll,,1P il'11Pa'u�al`��'I I"11 I_ bedroom unit. The utility allowance utilized includes gas cooking, gas space heating, gas water heating, as well as electric and water charges which will be paid by the tenant. Table 4 below shows the maximum affordable rent for Very Low Income Households based on 2018 income limits: Table 4. Maximum Affordable Rent (2018 Income limits) Maximum Maximum Annual Monthly futility Affordable Bedrooms Rent Rent Allowance Rent Very Low (1) Studio $9,734 $811.00 $87.00 $724.00 1 Bedroom 11,124 927.00 97.00 830.00 2 Bedroom 12,515 1,043.00 133.00 910.00 (1) Maximum annual rents for Very Low Income households have been computed using 50% of Area Median Income adjusted for family size rather than the income limits shown in Table 4 which include the impacts of a high cost area adjustment and reflect maximum allowable household incomes rather than the household incomes used for rent calculations. The rental rates shown in Table 4 will be updated prior to the commencement of rental activities and periodically thereafter to reflect then current income limits, utility allowances, and any changes in applicable regulations and statutes. WASL will enter into a density bonus agreement with the City prior to obtaining the first building permit for a residential unit. The agreement will ensure that the maximum rents for the affordable units will be calculated using the methodologies as utilized in Table 4. The Density Bonus Agreement will include a provision that the City will have inspection rights to the rental application files for affordable tenants, for purposes of determining that the tenant qualifies as a Very Low Income tenant as provided for herein. Voluntary Workforce Housing Program In-Lieu Fee In addition to providing 11 affordable units, as provided for in Section 9923(b)(2) of the Tustin City Code, the developer will pay the City an in-lieu fee calculated in Table 5 as shown on the following page: 4 ; 1/] 3,1.41 R!d1!ill /\vk nn_i W'tIlous"1l"- Ill.!r, Table 5. Voluntary Workforce Housing Program In-Lieu Fee Computation Quantity Total Residential S.F., Including Private Open Space - 208 Base Units 193,959 50%of S.F. Per Ordinance 96,980 In Lieu Fee Amount $8.o0s.f. $ 775,840 The Workforce Housing Program In-Lieu fee of$8.00 per s.f. shown above is applicable to projects for which project applications were received by April 17, 2018. WASL will provide for payment of the in-lieu fee prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit, but will provide an instrument, information or other documentation reasonably acceptable to the City providing assurance of payment of the in-lieu fee prior to issuance of building permit. Reduction in Parking Government Code Section 65915 (p) provides for the following parking ratios: 1. Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. 2. If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through street parking. 3. This subdivision shall apply to any development that meets the requirements of subdivision (b) but only at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this section, subject to subdivision (d). The development meets the criteria of subdivision (b) of Government Code Sec. 65915 by providing more than five percent of the total units of a housing development (excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to that section) for Very Low Income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. 5 WASL requests that parking requirements be reduced in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(p). The project will provide 401 onsite parking spaces for its residential units (exclusive of parking allocated for retail tenants) which are 7 1 spaces more than the minimum requirements of Sec. 65915(p). An additional 28 spaces allocated to retail tenants can be used for guest parking after business hours. 13 onstreet parking spaces can also be utilized by residents or guests but are not included in the totals above. As noted in comments during the Planning Commission approval of the Red Hill Specific Plan, a parking management plan will be prior to issuance of building permits for the project. Requested City of Tustin Assistance Financial Assistance The applicant does not request any direct financial assistance from the City for this project. Requested Density Bonus Incentive Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1), the applicant is entitled to one concession or incentive as a result of providing at least 5 percent of the units as affordable for very low income households. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the park fees associated with the project. As required by Government Code Sec. 65915(d)(1), the concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. Based on recommendations of City Council in the November 6, 2018 hearing, we understand that Staff will consider a reduction of fees for projects, which provide for Affordable units in accordance with the Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance. Also, based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 25, 2018, it is our understanding that any park fees paid will be utilized to supplement park facilities serving residents of the Specific Plan area. Waiver of Development Standards As provided for in Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1) and Sec. 9124 of the Tustin City Code, the developer is proposing waiver of the following items, which, if not waived, would physically preclude the construction of the development: 1. A waiver of the limitation on building height of 50 feet and 4 stories. This waiver is provided for in Sec. 6.8 A.3 of the Specific Plan] which provides that "An additional story in height, up to a maximum of five stories, may be granted to properties requesting the development of integrated mixed-use 6 projects." The project will have a maximum height of approximately 54 feet' and five stories. The project conforms to the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, as required for setbacks. The street frontage will consist of one level of retail and two stories of residential, and then the project steps back from the street at with four stories, and further setback with five-story construction, including the parking garage at the back of the property. 2. A waiver of the requirement in the Specific Plan to provide 300 s.f. of private and common open space per unit. The project will provide approximately 245 s.f. of private and common open space per unit and will have ample onsite open space and amenities for its residents. Both Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1) and Sec. 9124 of the Tustin City Code provide that waivers of development standards must be granted unless the City Council adopts a written finding, based on substantial evidence, of either of the following: 1. The waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. 2. The waiver or reduction of development standards would have a specific adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. 1 Maximum building height excludes stair towers. 7 H IM E N l� FACEBOOK In, Mtn Visclli A whole 11 affordable units out of 249, I thought California passed a law quite a while ago, requiring 15% of all new construction be affordable. And 6 stories high? Red hill & what st? Where the old church was? MaryAnn Hare Yikes, Miles T, Madison "325,000 square feet of additional commercial development 500 new dwelling units contained within 4-5 story buildings Shared/reduced parking standards...See More Darcie Cancino Miles T. Madison the report also indicates that the community wants 2-3 story development! How did five stories come out of that? d„moi Brenda Smith Carrillo They're asking for a variance (an exception)to exceed the 4 story maximum to 5 stories on the apartment building and 6 stories on the parking structure oh and they ignored the community recommendation of no more then 3 stories Julie Crowell 4-5 story,.? Is it zoned for that already..? Marcia Bartosik Moreno I can't recall if it is; something to check out. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Traffic in that section is going to affect more than just adjacent residents if a complex that size is approved. We need to show up enmasse to the hearing as we did when they wanted to change First Street down to two lanes. Better to protest and be heard before they vote than M Darcie Cancino The meeting on February 26 is the Planning Commission. It's very important to make comments before the planners, since they will make recommendations to the City Council. Public IIS . aring The Rannlnp Commiss"public hearing mll take Owe on . Fekww"24.2019 • T'--� Tustin,CA 927&0 • 9�rs?[u,N�ttc�of�,�piic?�e,�rar�.ii?f�F i John Nielsen There is some misinformation in this posting. If you want the up to date accurate information for this project let me know. call 714-389-4095 for information or email at Jnielsen@np- Consultants.com Marcia Bartosik Moreno So are you saying that there is misinformation in the Specific Plan ? John Nielsen Misinformation for this project. Marcia Bartosik Moreno John Nielsen what is the misinformation?again...in the Specific Plan itself? .ri John Nielsen This has to do with a specific project in the specific plan w Marcia Bartosik Moreno Only more reason to be against the project. Darcie Cancino John Nielsen if the FIR or other project documentation contains inaccurate information, this needs to be corrected and republished with sufficient time for the public to review and prepare their comments. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Mr. Nielsen you say there is misinformation in this public document yet you won't publicly identify what it is. Obviously something is being hidden and that is all the more reason for constituents to oppose this project. I have experience with public projects and it is illegal to knowingly print and post misinformation.A revised posting should be done. s John Nielsen The announcement says the Parking Structure is 6 stories that is incorrect it is less. The project is stairstepped starting at 3 stories at the street. The parking structure is hidden at the back of the project to take care of all parking onsite. Nothing to hide. 4 d, Marcia Bartosik Moreno A revised document should be posted. Period. Darcie Cancino John Nielsen shouldn't the most "up to date accurate information" be contained in the public record documents and not with the consultant firm? John Nielsen That will be requested. John Nielsen Darcie Cancino You would think man Darcie Cancino Sounds like it's still six stories. I'm dealing with similar deception from Vineyard Developments. 1,'`i John Nielsen The project is 5 stories at the back, three stories on the street. .y" g.i Brenda Smith Carrillo John Nielsen the applicant is asking for an exception so residents need to show up to say no to more stories 7-- John Nielsen | have an appointment and will respond later if there are any questions and concerns. or you can email or call. Thanks, John Darcie Candnn Note the third bullet under Future Land Uses and Activities. Participants in the planning workshops seem pretty clear that building higher than three stories was not wanted. h1tpo://vv"vvv.tustinca.org/—/Red-HiU-Axonup-Specific— '- - - -- ' -------- - � 7 ---------- ---- -'— '--- -------- Dmrcic Cauciuo Last night, ucoalition ofresidents of the charming Park Santiago neighborhood in North Santa Ana successfully beat ohigh density six-story apartment complex that was proposed on the edge of the neighborhood, on Main across from the Discovery Science Center. So it is possible to stop over-development. It takes a lot of time, commitment, and unity but neighborhood preservation is worth the fight. Tustin's unique appeal deserves protection. Redevelopment is necessary, but reasonably sized housing, compatible in scale, is essential. NEXTDOOR Jim Williams Tustin Meadows,6d ago lam sure they have already made their decision. What a nightmare Margo Zatyko , Tustin Heights-5d ago Omg this is nuts... Winnie Pham-Villalvazo , Tustin Meadows-5d ago Is anyone going to attend this Tuesday, Feb 26, 2019 public hearing?This will definitely affect Tustin Meadows, especially traffic congestion. It's good that "(City of Tustin) Staff is recommending disapproval of the project...". It looks like the Planning Commission wants to see if residents want there to be a 249 unit apts. So residents will need to show up in person or voice their disapproval of the project to Planning Commission at 714-573-3106 (1 can't find an email address), CityCouncil@tustinca.org, or CityManager@tustinca.org Shelly Madison , Tustin Field 1.5d ago @Jim William you are absolutely right! They have already taken the apple. Winnie Pham-Villalvazo Tustin MeadoWvs,5d 91-io The 249 units apt will be that vacant lot and Coldwell Banker building across from Dig Lots and Del Taco, so north of 5 fwy Redhill. Here's a screenshot. Suanne Honey , St Cecilia-4d ago My Experience with the City of Tustin planning commission and council only give lip service to this. they do not care at all what the citizens of Tustin want. Even when massive amounts of people show up to oppose a planned development, they ignore the citizen's concerns. They say they want us to show up. Not true. Cathy Threadgill , Tustin Ranch-4d ago We need more than 11 affordable housing units! Winnie Pham-Villalvazo , Tustin Meadows-Edited 3d ago Tustin has at least 262 affordable housing units in Tustin-Legacy. The units are aesthetically pleasing so they blend in with the area. https-//www.irvinecompany,com/story/anton-legacy- celebrates-1st-anniversary-of-affordable-housing/ "Anton Legacy provides residents of Tustin with 225 affordable housing apartments" (Anton Legacy is on Park Ave., between Costco at the Tustin District and Victory Road (the new park where the jungle gym looks like a huge boat)) "Irvine Company also built 37 affordable housing units at its Amalfi Apartment Homes " (Amalfi Apts are on the other side of Tustin Ranch Road across from the Target at the Tustin District) You can contact the City's Economic Development Dept for more locations. Their website is https://www.tustinca.org/422/Economic-Development You can learn more about affordable housing from the Tustin's Housing Authority at https:l/www.tustinca.org/460/Tustin-Housing-Authority JL John Nielsen , Columbus Square•2d ago If you want up to date accurate information on this project, either call me at 714-389-4096 or email me at Jnielsen@np-consultants.com ,d% John Nielsen , Columbus Square•1d ago To address a couple of inaccuracies of the project: the parking structure is not 6 stories, it's less, and it is only three stories in the front of the project on Red Hill. Amanda Duenner . 17th1Yorha-1 ri ago Not enough parking spaces. Jim Williams , Tustin Meadows-1 d ago Always will a parking problem. iam sure they have there mind made up anyway. Margo Zatyko , Tustin Heights-Edited 1d ago There are no apt. complexes in Tustin that are over 2 story. These will be unsightly towers over the city. This is not what Tustin is all about. We pride ourselves on the small town feel and high rises are not our style. We are not LA. If the city would incorporate the unincorporated area of North Tustin they would get plenty of tax revenue. This unincorporated area pays their taxes to the county. IL mirk holdsworth , Columbus Square-1 d ago I live on the 3rd floor of an apartment complex in Tustin but we have no designated visitor parking spaces available. Shelly Madison , Tustin Field l•1 d ago Amalfi is the black eye of Tustin! It looks like cell block housing! It has brought crime and does not fit the Tustin hometown theme at all. We really can not trust the planning... See more Winnie Pham-Villalvazo , Tustin Meadows-Edited 19h ago **Too bad the City can't convert a portion of this vacant lot into a dog park. I intend to attend the Thurs, Feb 26th hearing. I think one of the Tustin Meadows HOA Board members... See more Jason Gomez Pine Tree Park-15h ago Traffic is already a nightmare in this area around rush hour time. Imagine adding another 400+ cars here when none of the signals lights are timed together with the freeway (cal trans responsibility). I'm not opposed to developing the property, however we need to be realistic. An apartment complex of that magnitude does not make sense. Margo Zatyko , Tustin Heights-12h ago www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2015/06/01/north-tustin-fights-for-independence- identity-and-maybe-a-new-zip-code/amp/ Here is the link of the news article from the Orange County Register regarding the unincorporated area of Tustin.. Very interesting read. CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearing on February 26,2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,300 Centennial Way,Tustin, California. The City of Tustin encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. The following notice is being provided so that you can ask questions, make comments and stay informed about projects that might be important to you. We encourage you to contact us prior to the public hearing if you have any questions. The Planning Commission will consider the following: • Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 201-00001(Allocation of Residential Units) • Lot Line Adjustment(LLA)2017-00002(Adjustment of Lot Lines between Parcels) • Design Review(DR)2017-00016(Site Design) • Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-00025(Shared Parking) (RECEIVED Applicant: Irvine Asset Group LLC/Craig Swanson FEB 19 2019 Project Address: 13751&13841 Red Hill Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY; Protect Description A request to construct a 249 unit apartment (238 market rate units and 11 affordable dwelling units) on two lots located within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plain area. The project consists of a five (5) story apartment building, 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space and a 6-level parking structure with 427 parking spaces. The application includes the following requests: NO - - - - c�— • A Residential Reservation Allocation (RAR) request for 249 units of the 500 units approved for the entire Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) • A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)to combine the two existing lots into one(1) parcel • A Design Review(DR) approval for building design and site layout • A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on ground floor • A twenty(20) percent density bonus No • A Variance in open space requirements including reduction of required private storage area per unit W • A Variance to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories N,C) on the apartment building and six(6)stories for the parking structure NC1 • A waiver of the required parkland dedication in lieu fees • A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project identified above is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that"CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Staff is recommending disapproval of the project and therefore CEQA Section 15270 applies. (Page 1 of 2) If you require special accommodations, please contact q�the �f,�Community Development Department at (71 4) 573-3106. CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING If you challenge the subject item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Tustin,at, or prior to the public hearing. Information relative to this item is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Nall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at(714)573-3127. Erica N.Yasuda City Clerk Publish: Tustin News I February 7,2019 (Page 2 of 2) If you require special accommodations, please contact the —0�a Community Development Department at (714) 573-3106. Tustin Meadows Community Association �A/ LETT Rywf ; 21,e If I want to have one effect while I'm on the serving on the the Board, it will be to increase communication. Seth has been doing an excellent job getting our word out using our newsletter and the new official Facebook presence (lookup luscinMeadowsCA on Facebook). Each of our Board Members truly does hear your voices and we do our best to get back with you using the resources we have at hand. One of the problems we often run into is that we on the Board have basically two types of communication: two-way formal communication and Board Meetings. That's pretty much it. If you run into us on the street we're pretty limited about what we can official- ly speak on as a member of the Board. The two-way formal communication is basically when you call the manager, write a letter, or leave an email message to a TMCA Board member.Then they can respond via email, a letter, or another phone call. No decisions take place during these phone calls, the real decisions only tape place during the Board Meetings. If you want to be where the action is, come to the monthly Board Meetings. That's where the decisions are made, that's where your questions will be heard and re- sponded to. But, I'm coming to recognize that's not enough. We live in an age of the internet when everyone moves a bit faster. Much of what we do on the Board is dictated by California State Law but there are places here and there where we can open our doors better and be a bit more human. We're trying to hold regular social get togethers and come up with new ways to hear your voices and respond quickly. As we try to be more human, please be patient,we're all neighbors here, things take time, no one's perfect. Final note. Recently, the Management Office made a clerical mistake in mailing out invoices for our semi-annual assessment notice. Many homes (including mine) didn't get the notice. That didn't mean it wasn't due, we still need to pay. We will all be given an extended grace period to cover the missing notice but the notice shouldn't be necessary, it's a courtesy. We should all get access to the online portal at http://tustinmeadows.com/ documents/ where we can see details or even pay online if you like. Sincerely, Mike Sorensen, President 1 February 2019 Calendar SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY 11-1URSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 2 Groundhog Day 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super Bowl 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Board Meeting at the West Club- house at 7:00 p.m. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 President's Day ARC Meeting at the West Club- house at 7:00 p-m. EVENTS Welcome to 2019!We have lots of fun events planned for the new year. You can hear about them at the next board meeting in February! Closing of the year 2018 was our Winter Social. We had Santa &Mrs. Claus and Snoopy visit the West Clubhouse.Those that attended got to have Elf tacos, tasty holiday treats and even pizza too! (Thanks to Winnie Pham) I want to thank our sponsors Victoria Rogers and Jill Annen of Setter Living So Cal for helping with all the fun crafts for the kids. Kids made reindeer stables, decorated ornaments and Christmas trees too!Thank you to our Insurance company Prendiville Agency for sponsoring our drinks. A huge thank you to our music performers Erik Tribble and family for lending their beautiU voices and talents to our community for this event!Thank you to Daniel Smith and his neighbor Dan for helping with the inflatable decorations and Christmas lights. Also thank you to everyone who helped clean up especially Kevin Verdi! A special thank you to Santa for making it snow at the West Clubhouse too! Upcoming events will be a "Welcome to the Neighborhood' and the 4th of July Planning meeting! Dump- ster Days in the Spring will be here soon too! Please contact Action Property Management and give them your current email address to add you to our email blast. Be the first to know about upcoming events in the neighborhood.Any questions or suggestions on events you'd like to see? Contact me at eventsdirector@tustinmeadows.com 2 Adrian Henson, Events Director CIVIC We are currently monitoring 3 activities within the city that affect the Meadows, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP), location of the permanent homeless shelter, and revitalizing the parkways/median on Sycamore. The RHASP was previously approved to change the zoning of the commercial areas along Red Hill from Walnut north to San Juan, from commercial to mixed commercial/residential.This will allow the commercial property owners to add up to a total of 500 residential units along Red Hill.The City Council believes this will incentivize the commercial property owners to upgrade their properties.The problem of the additional residential units is the additional parking congestion, traffic, and the esthetics of the 4 story residential units that can now be built in our 1 and 2 story neighborhood. Currently, no commercial property owner has yet to present a plan that meets Cityrequirements, so nothing has been approved. Residents supposedly will have an opportunity to comment on those plans when presented. On a related event, a group of residents from the Sycamore Gardens community near the corner of Sycamore and Newport was at the Council Meeting on 12118/2018, to complain about their severe parking problems at their location. I reminded the Council that this location was only a block away from Tustin Meadows, and our residents living next to Sycamore were complaining about outside residents parking within TM.Adding a residential facility at the Walnut/Red Hill location could increase the parking problem unless the new site had adequate parking to accommodate their residents. As of Jan. 2 only one plan to upgrade a commercial site was filed. It is for the vacant site on Red Hill, next to the Tustin High field.That plan must be refilled. Second the City Council Meeting on 12/1.8/2018 also addressed the location of the temporary homeless shelter that Tustin is under court order to provide.The Councils initial selection in the old ATEP facility drew strong condemnation from local residence, due to its proximity to the nearby elementary school. That strong resistance, including a recall petition against one council member, caused the council to look for and select a different location for a temporary homeless shelter.The new location is at the former Army Reserve site on Barranca, in the Legacy.The council also charged the Planning Commission with finding a permanent location for the shelter ASAP.They are, or have started to, form a residents group to support selection of the permanent site.The council was forced to reconsider their original temporary shelter site selection because of the extensive resident involvement in their protests, and their ability to develop a organized volunteer group against the City's position. Our next step is to monitor the process for select the permanent shelter location. The third area of interest is the renovation of Sycamore's median and parkways. Per a discussion with the City planning department at the end of Nov, the City still has this action on its agenda, but hasn't allocated any budget to fund its implementation or schedule its initiation. In February is the semi-annual allocation of the budget. If the Sycamore renovation isn't allocated in this beer budget period, we will not see anything done for another 6th months. We will schedule some discussions with some Council members to get a real schedule for that renovation activity. Neil Sherman, Civic Director 3 TINY TOTS Now Enrolling for the 2018/2019 School Year • Parent & Me: meets weekly and is open to children 18 months-3 years of age. • 2-day Preschool: meets T/TH and is open to children who turn 3 by December I. • 3-day Preschool: meets M/W/F and is open to children who turn 4 by December 1. Contact our enrollment chair at registration@tmtinytots.com to schedule a tour. *Enrollment priority is given to children and grandchildren of Tustin Meadows residents. The Tiny Tots have had a busy and fun filled fall. We learned how plants grow, started our phonics program and took our first field trip of the year to Tanaka Farms. If you see us in the park, be sure to say hi! We would like to thank everyone who helped make this year's Silent Auction Fundraiser a success, from the family members that helped set it up to the generous donors. Purre Barre Spa Gregories Stater Brother's Anaheim Hills Golf Club Club Pilates St. Cecelia's Safe Swim Focus Dance Center Amazing Lashes TAPS Core Yoga Polished by Steph Roam D'Italia Culver Pet Clinic Barolo Cafe Yoga Squared Discovery Cube Tito's Vodka Claro's Italian Market Meditation Rock and Jump My Piano Journey Fresh Start Music Motion Fitness Circux Trix Atomic Ballroom Chick-Fil-A Ruhens Tustin Lanes SkinCeuticals El Camino Groomers JEI Tutoring Regal Cinemas Great Clips Adventure City Lucille's In &Out Knotts Berry Farris Young Living Essential John Eing, CPA, MBA, Tom Sawyer the Musical Dr. John Park Chiropractic Oils CFP Costco Luv 2 Play Danica Pardini The Jewelry Bar Blue Buoy Swim School BrainyActz Escape Room Sender One COMMUNICATION Useful links: Community website: tustinmeadows.com Faeebook page: facebook.com/TustinMeadowsCA Resident portal: resident.actionlife.com Action property manager, Cecilia de Heras: cdeheras@actionlife.com Classifieds: Rare 50-80's collectibles f PLA, SI, sports cards, albums, cd's, books, movies, stamps, etc.1 Tarot Cards NIB, relaxing Yoga equipment Imats, books, albums, tapes, cd's, candles, etc} electric body massager, skin products NIB, 3 cf solid metal Fireproof Safe, wood 8-in-1 tabletop music player/ recorder/copier NIB, Bissell upright vacuum, ceramic water bottle spout & wood stand, Noritake China set, Val.St.Lambert Crystal goblets, new vintage 110 pc. silverware set, rarely worn boys/mens complete black/grey clothing, misc. gardening/kitchen/household/items Call Jim 714-486-3323 Want to enter a classified ad? Please email me communicationsdirector@tustinmeadows.com and cdcheras@actionlife.com. Seth Groder, Communication Director 4 CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearing on February 26, 2019 at 7.00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,300 Centennial Way,Tustin,California. The City of Tustin encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. The following notice is being provided so that you can ask questions, make comments and stay informed about projects that might be important to you. We encourage you to contact us prior to the public hearing if you have any questions. The Planning Commission will consider the following: • Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR)201-00001(Allocation of Residential Units) • Lot Line Adjustment(LLA)2017-00002 (Adjustment of Lot Lines between Parcels) • Design Review(DR)2017-00016(Site Design) • Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-00025(Shared Parking) Applicant: Irvine Asset Group LLC/Craig Swanson Project Address: 13751&13841 Red Hill Avenue Project Description A request to construct a 249 unit apartment (238 market rate units and 11 affordable dwelling units) on two lots located within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. The project consists of a five (5) story apartment building, 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space and a 6-level parking structure with 427 parking spaces. The application includes the following requests: • A Residential Reservation Allocation (RAR) request for 249 units of the 500 units approved for the entire Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) • A Lot Line Adjustment(LLA)to combine the two existing lots into one(1) parcel • A Design Review(DR)approval for building design and site layout • A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on ground floor • A twenty(20) percent density bonus • A Variance in open space requirements including reduction of required private storage area per unit • A Variance to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories on the apartment building and six(6)stories for the parking structure • A waiver of the required parkland dedication in lieu fees • A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project identified above is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Staff is recommending disapproval of the project and therefore CEQA Section 15270 applies. (Page 1 of 2) If you require special accommodations, please contact the Community Development Department at (714) 573-3106. CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING If you challenge the subject item in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Tustin,at,or prior to the public hearing. Information relative to this item is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at(714)573-3127. Erica N. Yasuda City Clerk Publish: Tustin News I February 7, 2014 (Page 2 of 2) If you require special accommodations, please contact the -3106. Community Development Department at (714) 573 �N.rw ri + n AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TUSTIN IF YOU ' RE INTERESTED LET US KNOW! If you, your Parents, your children need affordable housing in Tustin, we want to hear from you! Give us a call 714-389-4095 NP Consultants We work for a Development company that plans to put affordable housing in Tustin. We want to hear from you call 714-389-4095 Ask for John Demkowicz, Erica From: Soria, Anthony <ASoda@tus#in.k12.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:00 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Cc: Franklin, Gregory; Miranda, David; Soria,Anthony Subject: RE: Erica Demkowicz shared "Submittal Package_02-15-18.pdf" with you Hello Erica, Thank you for taking the time in responding to my request for information on the apartment development being proposed on the vacant land near Tustin High's baseball field off Redhill between Orange Ave. and San Juan. Per our conversation, our concerns are as follows: • The need for netting along the fence line going north/south on the vacant lot where parking structures will be located • The need for sufficient parking on the site to ensure cars are not scattered throughout the development on the streets and parking design to ensure safe traffic flow during peak usage times • Limited access to roof top areas where an active shooter could retreat to in getting a clear sight to students,. parents and faculty on campus • Continuing to have access along a service road running east/west adjacent to the varsity baseball field leading up the U haul store front. Again, thank you for allowing our district the opportunity to address concerns regarding the development. Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions or other comments. Tony Anthony Soria, CPA Chief Financial Officer Tustin Unified School District Phone 1-714-730-7301 X302 Fax 1-714-505-8397 From: Erica Demkowicz (via Dropbox) [mailto:no-reply@dropbox.corrm] Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 4:30 PM To: Soria, Anthony<ASoria@tustin.kl2.ca.us> Subject: Erica Demkowicz shared "Submittal Package_02-15-18.pdf" with you 1 Binsack, Elizabeth From: Andrea Maloney <amaloney@sapettorealestate.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:41 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Demkowicz, Erica Cc: Craig Swanson, Pam Sapetto Subject: Re: Request for Continuance for February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing for Red Hili Mixed Use Project Importance: High Elizabeth and Erica: To follow up on Applicant's request for a continuance provided yesterday (see below), please confirm receipt of this request and that the staff report will not be posted or distributed. Thank you. Andrea Andrea Maloney Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. One Park Plaza,#600 PMB 313 Irvine, CA 92614 949-683-3271 From: Andrea Maloney<amalonev@sapettorealestate.com> Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 3:21 PM To: "Binsack, Elizabeth" <EBinsack tustinca.or >, "Demkowicz, Erica" <EDemkowicz@tustinca.orP> Cc: Craig Swanson <cswanson@irvineassetgroup.com>, Pamela Sapetto <psal)ettoPsaoettorealestate.com> Subject: Request for Continuance for February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing for Red Hill Mixed Use Project Elizabeth/Erica: On behalf of the Applicant, Irvine Asset Group/WASL we are requesting a continuance for the Applications RAR 2017- 00001/LLA 2017-00002/DR 2017-00016/CUP 2017-00025 for the Tuesday February 26, 2019 Planning Commission hearing. Thank you. Andrea Maloney Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. One Park Plaza,#600 PMB 313 Irvine, CA 92614 949-683-3271 1 ATI-`�'A C H M E N T RESOLUTION NO, 4378 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2019-00001 , DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-00016, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 00025, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-00002 AND DENSITY BONUS FOR A 249 UNIT MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 13751 AND 13841 RED HILL AVENUE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a request for a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2019-00001, Design Review(DR)2017-00016, Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-00025, Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) 2017-00002, twenty (20) percent density bonus that includes a request for an Incentive request for waiver of park dedication in-lieu fee and two (2) Waivers, one (1)for exceeding the maximum building height and one (1) for the reduction of the open space requirements was filed by Craig Swanson/Irvine Asset Group LLC. to construct a 249 unit apartment with 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space and a 6-level parking structure with 427 parking spaces in a vertical mixed-use building, located at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue. B. That the subject property is located within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) zoning district and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan General Plan land use designation where the proposed uses are authorized by the RHASP and Tustin General Plan subject to applicable regulations. C. That the proposed project requires the following entitlement applications based upon development proposal; however, not all of these applications have been submitted: a. A Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) for 249 units of the 500 units approved for the entire Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) b. A Design Review (DR) approval for building design and site layout c. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on the ground floor d. A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to combine the two (2) existing lots into one (1) parcel e. A Development Agreement for all new projects within the RHASP area (not submitted) f. Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCG) Section 9111 et al Resolution No. 4378 Page 2 g. A Variance to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story and fifty (50) feet maximum to five (5) stories and six (6) levels for the parking structure (not submitted) h. A Variance for less than the required open space (not submitted) i. Removal of a Mitigation Measure related to parkland dedication and in-lieu fee for projects within the RHASP (not submitted) j. A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space D. That in accordance with Section 6.7.2 of the RHASP, the submittal of a RAR application is the first, in a sequence of several steps for a residential mixed- use project within the RHASP. The RAR application for the allocation of residential units is subject to review and standards outlined in Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards and Chapter 5, Design Criteria of the RHASP. Pursuant to Section 6.6.2, the Community Development Director has the approval authority for the RAR application. Pursuant to Section 6.6.1, the Community Development Director may refer an action to the Planning Commission. E. That the Community Development Director intends to deny the RAR application in which the applicant could file for an appeal to the Planning Commission. To save time and efforts, the Director referred the RAR application to the Planning Commission, F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on February 26, 2019, by the Planning Commission. G. That the project proposal requests an allocation of 249 residential units on the 3.38 acre site which results in a density of 74 dwelling units/acre, The proposed project is located in the north area of Interstate-5 in which 395 units are assigned. The request for 249 out of 500 total units, is 49.8 percent of the total allocation for the entire Specific Plan and 63 percent of the North Area. This allocation request, along with other deficiencies in the project in design, architecture, development standards, building height, massing, open space, park dedication in-lieu fee, connectivity, pedestrian linkages, parking, etc., are contrary to the required findings, vision, and goals of the RHASP as follows: Required Finding #1: The project is substantially consistent with the uses, design criteria, and development regulations of the RHASP. 1. Uses: a) While the proposed use would eliminate a development on a long time vacant parcel, the proposed project is not an integrated Resolution No. 4378 Page 3 mixed-use project which is encouraged within the RHASP. The project will contain a total of 249 residential units with only 7,000 square feet of true retail space at the southwest corner of the site and is predominately residential. The remaining Red Hill Avenue building frontage will contain amenity areas associated with the project that includes a clubhouse/fitness, leasing office and mail lounge. The amenity areas are not retail spaces which would be selling goods or merchandise to residents/consumers. The proposed amenity areas would not generate the same level of pedestrian activity and desired retail presence which the Specific Plan encourages with an integrated mixed-use project. b) While the project would include limited commercial (retail), the project does not retain the commercial character of the RHASP corridor. The commercial retail square footage proposed equates to only 20 percent of the overall building frontage fronting along Red Hill Avenue. The remaining frontage contains leasing office, fitness area, and residential units. c) While the project provides outdoor seating and a courtyard, the project does not emphasize or promote pedestrian activity. The building is designed with retail heavy on the south side of the frontage and not providing a continuous commercial corridor as envisioned by RHASP. The project is not designed to promote the use of transit, bike and/or ride sharing, or pedestrian connectivity among and between existing neighborhoods and the project. The project provides minimal requirements of the RHASP for integration of uses within the area and does not meet the overall intent of a goals and objectives of the RHASP. d) The proposed project is not complementary to the existing one-, two- and three-story residential neighborhoods and surrounding land uses. The project exceeds the maximum allowable number of stories under the Specific Plan and does not activate the street with retail uses along the entire Red Hill Avenue frontage. Retail uses only occupy 7,000 square feet or 20 percent of the building frontage and are limited to one (1) small area of the project. The retail commercial uses are a necessary component of furthering the overall vision of the Red Hill Avenue area as a mixed-use commercial district. e) The project would increase housing units within the area. The project, if approved, would also include five (5) percent or eleven (11)affordable housing units for Very Low Income households and payment of a reduced housing in-lieu fee. While the provisions of housing units and affordable units are the goals of RHASP, the Resolution No. 4378 Page 4 proposed project density, massing, height, parking appears to be excessive and disproportionate for the area. Further, additional affordable units could be obtained through various menu option provisions of Workforce Housing Ordinance (example: development proposal could choose any one of the following options: 15 percent for Very Low, Low, Moderate income households, or 12.5 percent Very Low and Moderate income households, or ten (10%) percent of Low income households). 2. Design Criteria, a) While the proposed project meets the minimal requirements of the RHASP relative to architecture, site design and landscaping, the proposed building design is not superior or matches the architectural vision for the area. The building reflects a typical design that is reflective along high-density corridors. During the public workshops and hearings, this was a significant concern that was articulated to be avoided within Tustin. The Red Hill Avenue building frontage consists of more solid walls than glazing, which does not contribute to a high-quality architectural design and design criteria of the RHASP. b) The proposed project is designed with a five-story building and a six-level parking structure at a height of up to 66'1". While the building design provides step backs and courtyards along the frontage to soften the building height and provide an illusion of smaller buildings, the site is surrounded with buildings that are one-story residential across San Juan, a two-story apartment immediately behind the existing office building at the corner of San Juan and Red Hill Avenue, a high school field to the rear, a one- story commercial (carwash and U-Haul) across the alley, a one- story commercial shopping center across Red Hill Avenue, and a two-story condominium complex at the opposite corner of the project site. The proposed project, as designed, would be massive, incompatible and unharmonious with the surrounding structures. Further, the RHASP was approved with the Planning Commission and City Council direction that structures should would not exceed 50 feet and four (4) stories. c) The RHASP design criteria emphasizes human scale. The proposed project does not enhance the existing streetscape with inviting landscape areas and expansive pedestrian- oriented/public amenities such as wider sidewalks, plazas or paseos. In addition, the proposed retail uses do not maintain a strong physical and visible relationship with the sidewalk. Resolution No. 4378 Page 5 Building design, selected materials, paint colors and landscaping for the project does not result in a high-quality architectural project for the area. The project's 3.38 acre lot size and location at one of the defined gateways in the RHASP area creates a unique opportunity to construct a high-quality architectural project that sets a precedent for future projects in the area. d) While the RHASP design criteria calls for linkages to surrounding neighborhoods and parks, the proposed project provides minimal landscaping along Red Hill Avenue and limited depth from the front property line (4'9") to the proposed building. The proposed building siting and design does not accommodate the pedestrian amenities or connections with the public realm encouraged and desired for the Specific Plan area. 3. Development Regulations: a) The proposed project does not meet the required development regulations relative to building height, therefore requiring a variance. b) The proposed project consists of five (5) stories for the residential portion and six (6) levels for the parking structure with heights ranging from 45'-5" to 66-1" The height limitation of four (4) stories but in no case exceeding 50 feet incorporated into the RHASP promotes compatibility and maintains a human scale for new development projects with the existing area. The proposal is inconsistent with this scale. c) The Planning Commission and City Council specifically directed and adopted standards for buildings to not exceed four(4) stories and 50 feet. The applicant has stated that these standards do not apply to the project. The project as proposed contradicts the Planning Commission and City Council specific direction, established standards, goals, and overall vision of the Specific Plan. d) The proposed project does not comply with the required amounts of private open space and common open space as stipulated in the RHASP, therefore requiring a Variance. e) The project proposes an average amount of private open space per unit of 70 square feet and common open space of 154 square feet per unit without including the OCFA fire lane; both falling short of the requirements of 100 square feet of private Resolution No. 4378 Page 6 open space and 200 square feet of common open space of the RHASP. f) The project proposes private and common open space through inclusion of private patios, balconies, courtyards, clubhouse, fitness, Wi-Fi lounge, pet spa, bike shop, lobby, parking structure alley and fire lane. The dual use of the OCFA fire lane as an emergency lane and recreational area should not be supported, as the area should be primarily utilized for emergency purposes only. In addition, the use of the approximately 12 foot long and narrow alley located between the parking structure and perimeter wall may not be desirable or usable recreational area for residents.. g) Pursuant to RHASP Section 4.4.4, the parking for residential units in a mixed-use project is 2.25 spaces per unit and non- residential parking based on TCC retail parking standard of one( 1) space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The RHASP allows a developer to utilize shared parking for mixed- use project. While a Shared Parking Study was submitted with the project in-lieu of the required parking standards stating that a parking ratio of 1 .6 spaces per unit would be sufficient and 28 spaces for retail space, the study does not provide sufficient acceptable justification and evidence supporting modifications to the prescribed standards. h) The submitted study includes a recommendation of parking management strategies such as the use of valet parking, mechanical vehicular lifts, and/or a residential vehicle registration program. These strategies demonstrate methods to reduce parking demand, but none of the strategies are proposed at this time. Based on insufficient parking, staff believes the lack of parking would create a negative impact on-site as well as to surrounding commercial developments, school, and residential neighborhoods. i) Based upon the City's experience with existing residential communities, staff is concerned and recommending that a minimum of two (2) spaces per unit and the remainder uses be parked on-site and a parking management plan be required as part of the project. Finding #2: The project implements the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence in architectural design, provision of substantial usable common open space, provision of public art(which may consist of murals, sculpture, decorative fountains or other art deemed Resolution No. 4378 Page 7 acceptable) connectivity to adjacent parks and/or schools if appropriate, and pedestrian connections. 1. While the project provides the minimal requirements of the RHASP in terms of architecture and site design, the project does not provide substantial usable common open space (in fact a reduction is requested), any public art or connectivity to parks and/or school. The project also does not promote a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented development or sense of place. 2. While the project includes a small retail plaza and urban plaza along Red Hill Avenue, the project lacks well-defined, public gathering spaces within the site and the building placement and site design do not prioritize pedestrian usage and the public realm. The two (2) proposed outdoor seating areas are designed in front of two (2) of the four(4) retail tenants. The distance from the front property line to the building is narrow at 4'-9" for two (2) retail spaces, 6'-9" for the third retail tenant space and 20'-3" for the fourth retail tenant. The limited setback adjacent to the retail spaces does not result in high-quality and usable public gathering spaces within the project that will activate the street. 3. The project includes retail storefronts at the south end and leasing and fitness center at the central area of the site. The project has minimal visual interest and the use of high-quality architectural details and materials that complements the future public streetscape. The Red Hill Avenue frontage consists of more solid walls than glazing, which does not contribute to a high-quality architectural design that furthers the goals and objectives of the RHASP. Clearly defined ground floor retail spaces with increased floor height and additional amounts of glazing should be incorporated for all proposed retail areas along the Red Hill Avenue frontage. The proposed basic storefront treatment for the innermost retail tenant spaces lacks visibility and identity for a future tenant. The public indicated that they do not want projects along Red Hill Avenue to resemble high density corridors seen in adjacent communities. The proposal is highly reflective of those corridors architecture. 4. The RHASP calls for project design that respects human scale. While the project incorporates commercial retail at the ground floor, the combined use of stone veneers and stucco on the building facade does not promote an inviting pedestrian scale for the project. The neutral toned color palette and lack of use of color to accent architectural details results in a generic, institutional-looking building. Repetitive building details on the Red Hill Avenue facade results in an architectural design that lacks unique features or attributes that contribute to a sense of place. The building lacks enhanced architectural details or other unique Resolution No. 4378 Page 8 features (i.e. roof decks, green roof, recessed or operable storefronts and windows, strong commercial presence along Red Hill Avenue, etc.). 5. While the proposed private courtyard (private use only), urban plaza (public use) and vehicular entry (public & private use) are placed in between buildings, the pedestrian spaces are not well-designed or creatively integrated into the design for public use. The project's lack of meaningful massing breaks in the building fagade for public usage results in building blocks that are not pedestrian friendly. 6. The proposed project is five (5) stories (parking structure is 6-levels) which exceeds the allowable building height and results in additional building mass and height that is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and commercial area. The four (4) story and up to 50 feet limitation in the RHASP is intended to maintain a pedestrian scale for mixed-use projects. Exceeding the maximum allowable building height results in a variance request, of which staff is unable to support. 7. While the parking structure contains an artistic treatment to help screen the west elevation, the art would not be readily visible to the public as it faces the Tustin High School play field. The lack of art along Red Hill Avenue does not contribute to and/or help establish a public identity for the area. Pursuant to RHASP Section 5.6.3, public art adds a unique human quality to the outdoor environment and is an increasingly important element of the built environment. The artistic mural on the parking structure does not satisfy the RHASP public art requirement and fails short of providing adequate screening of the parking structure. Finding #3: The number of units requested is within the thresholds established by the Specific Plan's Program EIR. 1. A total of 249 residential units are proposed which is within the Specific Plan's total 500 units analyzed in the Program EIR. The Program EIR analyzed 395 residential units for the Specific Plan area located north of Interstate 5 and 105 residential units for the Specific Plan area located south of Interstate 5. However, the proposal is inconsistent with equitable distribution and disproportionate number of units would be allocated to one (1) site. Finding #4: In allocation of the 500 Residential Allocation Reservations units, the City shall consider an equitable distribution within the Specific Plan area such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. Resolution No. 4378 Wage 9 1 . The proposed project is located on the North area, which has a total of approximately 19 acres and assigned with 395 units. One way to measure proportionality on a parcel basis would be to divide the total acreage on each side of Interstate 5 by the number of residential units allocated to that side. The total acreage north of Interstate 5 is approximately nineteen (19) acres. For the North West quadrant consisting of approximately six (6) acres, a proportional distribution of units would be approximately 120 units. However, all 120 units based on proportional and distribution should not be allocated to the project site. 2. That the Planning Commission is required to consider the proposed project consistency with the City's General Plan for two (2) primary reasons. Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65860, the City's zoning is required to be consistent with the General Plan. Govt. Code Section 65915(f) of the State Density Bonus Law, provides: "Where the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail." The proposal with densities well in excess of the General Plan's maximum density of 25 units per acre (30 units/acre with a 20 percent density bonus) is inconsistency with the General Plan. 3. That there is no basis upon which to approve the Project. There is nothing within the RHASP or City's General Plan that comes close to justifying or supporting the use of 208 units (63 units per acre) as the base from which to calculate the density bonus. Furthermore, the proposed 74 units per acre does not meet the RHASP's equitable distribution requirements and is well over double the density allowed under the General Plan. H. That the project's RAR application does not meet the required findings and therefore the RAR request is hereby denied, which results in no allocation of residential units and as a result, the project cannot move forward. 1. That regardless of the above action, the applicant would like the remainder of the application to move forward before the Planning Commission and the City Council. 1. That the remainder applications include the following: A Design Review (DR) approval for building design and site layout 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on the ground floor 3. A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to combine the two (2) existing lots into one (1) parcel Resolution No. 4378 Page 10 4, A Development Agreement for all new projects within the RHASP area (not submitted) 5. A twenty (20) percent density bonus 6. A Variance to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories on the apartment building and six (6) levels for the parking structure and over fifty (50) feet (not submitted) 7. A Variance for less than the required open space (not submitted) 8, Removal of a Mitigation Measure related to parkland dedication and in-lieu fee for projects within the RHASP (not requested) 9. A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space J, In determining whether to make the required findings for Design Review(DR) for the proposed project, the Planning Commission must determine if the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings: 1. Pursuant to RHASP Section 5.3, in order to maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the surrounding environs, building design should follow sound design principles and evoke a suburban character in form and function. Red Hill Avenue, while primarily an auto-oriented commercial corridor, maintains a surrounding environment that is suburban or quasi-urban in character. The proposed project is designed with more of an urban feel which is reflected in the overall proposed building height, massing and density. As a new project within the RHASP area, the design should look to establish a facade rhythm and utilize high-quality exterior materials, textures and colors that contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape and serve as a good-example for future development projects in the area. 2. The project contains limited landscaping along Red Hill Avenue and public amenities such as plazas, courtyards or paseos that connect the project internally or with other surrounding neighborhoods, 3. The pedestrian amenities are limited in scope and reflect a typical design and layout that is not visually interesting, 4. The project is primarily an in-fill residential project that does not improve the visual and functional connections between Red Hill Avenue and adjacent public and institutional uses. Resolution No. 4378 Page 11 5. The project lacks elements that help to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements. 6. The proposed design includes large areas of stucco material, minimal glazing to differentiate between the commercial and residential areas along Red Hill Avenue, minimally recessed or flush mounted windows and fenestrations that result in an overly simplified or value engineered attempt at contemporary Spanish Mediterranean. 7. The overall lack of meaningful breaks in massing result in a project that is not pedestrian friendly. As a result, the project is not consistent with the overall intended vision of the RHASP. K. That Section 6.7.1.A of the RHASP requires the following findings be made for All New Development Projects in the RHASP. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed project and has made the following findings: 1. The proposed mixed-use project will contain 249 residential units and only 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space which is primarily a residential in-fill project versus a mixed-use project. The retail commercial space is too small relative to the overall project and does not further the goals and objectives of the RHASP as a mixed-use area. The project does not contribute to the establishment of a pedestrian-friendly, retail commercial district. Proposed retail commercial area is located at the southwest corner of the project and is not located along the entire Red Hill Avenue frontage which is envisioned within the RHASP. Given the limited amount of retail commercial space and high number of residential units proposed, the project would impair the orderly and harmonious development and future development of the area as a mixed-use district, a primary goal and objective of the RHASP. 2. The proposed project will consist of a five (5) story building and six (6) level parking structure, both of which exceed the maximum allowable building height of four (4) stories and fifty (50) feet per the RHASP. The project reflects a typical site design and finishes and lacks the use of high quality materials. The overly-simplified architectural styling has minimal visual interest. As a new project within the RHASP area, the building design does not establish a facade rhythm or utilize high- quality exterior materials, textures and colors that contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape. The project lacks elements that help Resolution No. 4378 Page 12 to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements. 3. The proposed project does not contain unique features that promote a sense of place (i.e. rooftop park or green roof, strong commercial retail presence along Red Hill Avenue). Building placement, materials and site design do not prioritize pedestrian usage or promote pedestrian scale (i.e. clearly defined ground floor with the increased floor height and increased amounts of glazing). As a result, the proposed project will set a poor precedent and impair future development of the area. 4. The proposed project lacks required amounts of private and common space and open space that is provided is not well integrated into the project. Lack of use of landscaping to define or accent specific areas does not contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape so as to further the vision for the RHASP. 5, The proposed project is not consistent with the policies and intent of the Development Plan (Chapter 3) and Urban Design Plan (Section 3.4) in that the proposed project does not further the commercial character envisioned for Red Hill Avenue as a mixed-use area. The project is primarily residential with 240 units and only 7,000 square feet of commercial retail space with limited use of high-quality exterior materials, textures and colors that contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape and a sense of place. 0. While the proposed use complies with the Permitted Land Use and Activities Table (Table 4.1), the other requested entitlements which include Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Density Bonus, Variances, etc. do not complement and contribute to the project area. The entitlements do not embody the goals and objectives of the RHASP area in that there are requested deviations for increased building height, reduction in open space, reduction in parking requirements and lack of use of high-quality building materials which sets a poor design precedent for future development in the area. 7. The development does not substantially comply with or has not obtained approval for a modification to conformance with the Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Development Standards (Chapter 4) in that the proposed project includes two variances for building height and open space, which the City cannot support. 8. The development does not substantially comply with or has not obtained approval for a modification to conformance with the Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Design Criteria (Chapter 5) in that it Resolution No. 4378 Page 13 lacks elements that help to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements. The proposed design includes large areas of stucco material, minimal glazing to differentiate between the commercial and residential areas along Red Hill Avenue, minimally recessed or flush mounted windows and fenestrations that result in an overly simplified or value engineered attempt at contemporary Spanish Mediterranean. 9. Compliance or modification thereto with applicable Development Standards and Design Criteria has not been demonstrated or ensured through Design Review of the project site plan, building elevations, floor plan, parking plan, landscaping plan, lighting plan, access plans, refuse plans, and any other applicable plans(s) or document(s). 10.While parking for the project is provided entirely on-site with a proposed shared parking (an alternative option provided in Section 4.4.4, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards), experience in the City does not support the empirical data presented in the report regarding less than required parking ratios for the project. Approval of the Shared Parking Study will not have a beneficial impact and would adversely affect the surroundings with overflow parking on City streets and in the adjacent shopping center or residential areas. 11.The development does not demonstrate high-quality architectural design and site planning and does not reflect the nature of the site and the surrounding area through the following: a. Incorporating roof forms and facades that provide building articulation, create visual interest and reduce the appearance of uniform building massing. b. Creating a design that is both cohesive and varying with respect to architectural style, architectural details, windows, doors, colors and materials. c. Facilitating pedestrian orientation through building placement, building scale and architectural design. d, Ensuring associated elements including parking, service areas, landscaping, lighting and pedestrian access, and amenities are functional and serve to enhance the overall appearance and experience of the project. e. Siting and designing structures that relate to and respect adjacent development and sensitive land uses. 12.The project will require an upgrade of existing infrastructure and the developer will be subject to the costs of infrastructure improvements. Resolution No. 4378 Page '14 13.The developer has not entered into a mutually agreeable Development Agreement, as required per the RHASP. 14.The project impacts have not been assessed through the approved RHASP Program EIR, since environmental documentation has not been provided or analyzed in compliance with the CEQA guidelines. L. That Section 6.7.1.6 of the RHASP requires the following findings for Mixed- Use Development. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed project and has made the following findings- 1. indings:1. The project does not comply with the Reservation Allocation Reservation (RAR) application process as provided in Section 6.7.2 (Reservation Allocation Reservation Process and Findings) as the requested number of units are not proportionate to the project site or overall RHASP area (See Findings related to RAR). 2. While the proposed use complies with the Permitted Land Use and Activities Table (Table 4.1), the other requested entitlements which include Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Density Bonus, Variances, etc. do not complement and contribute to the project area. The entitlements do not embody the goals and objectives of the RHASP area in that there are requested deviations for increased building height, reduction in open space, reduction in parking requirements coupled with the lack of use of high-quality building materials and site planning that is conductive to pedestrian interaction and activities. 3. The development does not substantially comply with the Mixed- Development Standards (Chapter 4) in that the proposed project includes two (2) variances for building height and open space, which the City has not approved. 4. The development does not substantially comply with the Mixed-Use Design Criteria (Chapter 5) in that the project lacks elements that help to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements. The proposed design includes large areas of stucco material, minimal glazing to differentiate between the commercial and residential areas along Red Hill Avenue, minimally recessed or flush mounted windows and fenestrations that result in an overly simplified or value engineered attempt at contemporary Spanish Mediterranean. Resolution No. 4378 Page 15 5. The development does not provide a sufficient mix of uses, as the commercial space only consist of 20 percent and its placement along the principal street frontage of Red Hill Avenue is limited to one (1)area of the project versus the entire Red Hill Avenue frontage. 6. While the proposed development includes provision for affordable housing, however, without allocation of units to the project site, the project cannot move forward. As a result, there is no project and the affordable housing component cannot be considered at this time. 7. The proposed development does provide at least one of the following public benefits as part of the development, subject to the review and approval by the project approval body: a. Provision of affordable housing is significantly greater than the mandatory requirements contained in the City's affordable housing ordinance. (No) b. A public amenity that is easily accessible is included such as a public plaza that provides, at minimum, seating, landscaping and lighting. The proposed project meets the minimum requirement of the RHASP, but is not of an exceptional design that contributes to the pedestrian scale and streetscape. (Yes) c. Provision of additional combined common/private open space in excess of the standards outlined in Table 4-4 of the RHASP. (No) d. Prominent public art, which is located and feature within easy public view. (No) e. Installation of specific public infrastructure above any required by the project. (No) f. Off-site parking improvements above any required by the applicant. (No) g. Recreational amenities above any required by the applicant. (No) h. Other, as proposed and deemed important to and acceptable by the City. (No) 15.The development does not facilitate multi-modal transportation through building siting and design that provides convenient access to transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Site design does not include features that interest alternative pedestrian transit activity such as public bike racks, transit wayfinding kiosk, sheltered waiting areas, etc. 16.The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated its level of development experience to the City. Resolution No, 4378 Page 18 M. In determining whether to make the required findings for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for shared parking between the apartment units and retail commercial space on the ground floor, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed request will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings; 1. The Shared Parking Study submitted with the project in-lieu of the required parking standards stating that a parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit would be sufficient and 28 spaces for retail space does not provide sufficient acceptable justification and evidence supporting modifications to the prescribed standards. 2. The submitted study includes a recommendation of parking management strategies such as the use of valet parking, mechanical vehicular lifts, and/or a residential vehicle registration program. These strategies demonstrate methods to reduce parking demand, but none of the strategies are proposed at this time. 3. Based upon the City's experience with projects that provide deficient on-site parking, there will be off-site impacts that will have negative impacts on the adjacent commercial developments and residential neighborhoods. 4. Based upon recent parking analysis concerns expressed with two (2) spaces per unit or more, experience in the City does not support the empirical data presented in the report. A minimum of two (2) spaces per unit and the remainder of the project should be parked, provided on-site and a parking management plan shall be required as part of the project. N. That if variance requests were submitted for 1 ) reduction in open space requirements and dual use of the emergency OCFA fire access lane and recreational open space and 2)to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story maximum to five (5) stories on the apartment building and six(6) levels for the parking structure and over 50 feet in height, the requests would not qualify for approval in that the property does not have special circumstances on the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the criteria for granting a variance because of the following reasons_ Resolution No. 4378 Page 17 1. The lot size is 3.38 acres which is larger than any other lots in the immediate neighborhood and would provide applicant with much more ability to comply with the prescribed development standards. 2. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is typical in the neighborhood. 3. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique slopes or hillside applicable to the property. 4. The site consists of a vacant lot and a lot developed with an office building (to be demolished). The project could be redesigned to comply with prescribed development standards. 5. The situation is a self-imposed hardship, not a condition particular to the property. 0. That the proposed Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Manual, and conforms to the City's General Plan as follows- 1 . ollows:1 . The project involves two (2) adjoining parcels; 2. There will be no greater number of parcels will result from the lot line adjustment; 3. The parcels resulting from the LLA will conform to the Tustin General Plan, and any applicable specific plan, zoning and building ordinances; 4. Any associated utility or access easements are not impacted; and 5. All impacted owners, and any other party holding a beneficial interest in the subject properties, are represented and in agreement to the adjusted property lines. P. That the project proposes eleven (11) affordable residential units five (5) percent for very low-income housing. The applicant derives the 249 residential units by starting with 208 base units and applying a twenty (20) percent density bonus for a total of 249 residential units. The Density Bonus is a state mandate and a developer who meets the requirements of the State law is entitled to receive a density bonus and other benefits, such as concessions, as a matter of right. In this instance, there is no basis in which to consider the request for a density bonus since no units are allocated to the project site. Resolution No. 4378 Page 18 Q. That the RHASP requires a developer to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City to ensure public benefits are realized as residential units allocations, incentives, concessions are provided to developers. The applicant in this case has not submitted a DA. R. That this Resolution incorporates staff reports and all associated exhibits related to the proposed project and is hereby made as part of the findings. S. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Staff is recommending denial of the project and therefore CEQA Section 15270 applies. lI. The Planning Commission hereby denies Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2019-00001, Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) 2017-00002, Design Review (DR) 2017- 00016, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-00025, density bonus, and other associated required entitlements that have not been submitted in conjunction with a request to construct 249-unit mixed-use project. The project consists of 249 unit apartment building, 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space and a 6-level parking structure with 427 parking spaces at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 26th day of February, 2019. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4378 Page 19 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 Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4378 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 261h of February, 2019. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary