The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 PC REPORT 13751_13841 RED HILL AVENUE i AGENDA REPORT ITEM #3 MEETING DATE: MARCH 12, 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 208 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 March 12, 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 (41 UNITS) 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 208 UNITS OF THE 500 UNITS APPROVED FOR THE ENTIRE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (RHASP) 2. A DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 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 FOR ALL NEW PROJECTS WITHIN THE RHASP AREA (NOT SUBMITTED) 6. A TWENTY (20) PERCENT DENSITY BONUS (41 UNITS) 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 10.A DUAL USE OF EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS LANE AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 3 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. BRIEF SUMMARY This item was initially scheduled for a public hearing on February 26, 2019. Due to a technical issue related to public notice, the Commission continued the item to March 12, 2019. This brief summary is intended to provide the Commission with context of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP); the proposed project in relation to the Specific Plan; Workforce Housing/Density Bonus, how residential units are allocated; and how the entitlement applications should be considered if units are allocated. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council after many workshops and hearings and a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The Specific Plan was adopted with specific development standards and design criteria and the provision for equitable distribution throughout the Specific Plan area such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. During the workshops and public hearings for RHASP, the public voiced concerns and indicated that projects resembling high-density corridors seen in adjacent communities are discouraged and the Commission/City Council agreed and reduced building height from five-stories to a maximum four-stories and a maximum of fifty (50) feet. In addition, much of the public input, at the time, included concerns related to parking and traffic and the Commission/Council directed staff to ensure no significant adverse traffic and/or parking impacts would result from development in the area. The RHASP allows commercial development to continue and introduces mixed-use with the infusion of up to 500 residential units and 395,000 square feet of non-residential uses. The residential units are banked with the City until the City allocates them to a specific project through the RAR process (the first step in receiving unit allocation). The general distribution would be 120 units in the northwest quadrant, 275 units in the northeast quadrant, 85 units for the southwest quadrant and 20 units in the southeast quadrant(see Figure 5 — General Distribution of Units in the RHASP) To receive approval of the RAR, a project must meet the required findings specified in the RHASP (discussed further in this report). If the RAR is approved, the entitlement applications, such as a development agreement, design review, conditional use permit, RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 4 subdivision map, etc., would then be considered for overall project approval. If the RAR is denied, the project review would end at this stage. This proposal is requesting 173 percent of the number of units within the northwest quadrant and three (3) times the allowable density envisioned within the General Plan. Ordinance No. 1491 (Workforce Housing Incentives) requires any residential development, including mixed-use residential development, requiring approval of the RAR to provide workforce housing (affordable housing) on the same site. There is a menu of options that developers can choose from to meet this requirement (see Workforce Housing/Density Bonus discussion below). When projects comply with this requirement the project automatically qualifies for a density bonus. Depending upon the targeted number of affordable units and income levels, applicants can request up to thirty-five (35) percent density bonus.. Furthermore, under the Density Bonus law, a project applicant may request specific concession(s) or incentive(s) and may qualify for waiver(s) of one or more building standards that physically preclude construction of the project at the prescribed density. The number of concession or incentive depends on the number and type of affordable units provided. The proposed project is the first application submittal following the adoption of the RHASP in November 2018. Contrary to the process envisioned in the RHASP, the applicant opted to submit a combined application (RAR and entitlement) all at the same time. Some, but not all of the required entitlements were provided thereby serving to create confusion. In addition, the applicant believes that their project complies with the Workforce Housing and Density Bonus Law and therefore is entitled to all of the Incentive and Waivers requested. Because the applicant requests a disproportionate number of units (2081249) and relies so heavily on density bonus incentives and waivers of otherwise applicable development standards, this Report includes a summary of the Workforce Housing/Density Bonus laws. The report then analyzes the RAR process, and concludes with an analysis of the remaining entitlement applications. APPROVAL AUTHORITY 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, entitling the applicant to file an appeal to the Planning Commission. To save time and efforts, the Director is referring the RAR application to the Planning Commission. RAR 2017-0001/CSR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 5 The RHASP specifies that all development projects require Design Review under 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) must be processed in accordance with RHASP Section 6.7.5 and TCC Sections 9292 and 9264, respectively. Applications for lot line adjustments are 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 must 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. 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 a. Workforce Housing/Density Bonus b. Mixed-Use Development Process c. Residential Allocation Reservation process d. Required findings for Residential Allocation Reservation 4. REMAINING PROJECT REQUESTS 5. PUBLIC NOTICE 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 8. CONCLUSION BACKGROUND Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan In 2013, the City received inquiries and requests to increase density greater than what the General Plan allows (25 dwelling units per acre) within the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. Then in 2014 and 2015, 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. Fallowing the workshop, the Council directed Staff to consider a Specific Plan for the area. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 6 In February 2016, the 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 up to 500 additional 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 1-5 and 105 dwellings units to the Specific Plan 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 approval of the RAR, a project must meet the findings specified in Section 6.7.2.13 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 (2) 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. 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. Thirteen (13) proposals were deemed incomplete as being inconsistent with the zoning and/or implementation of 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/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 7 :i y x y � K .v _ rep •� 'r. ,ti i i r Figure 1: 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue (Aerial Photo/Location Map) 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 66'3") 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). The project includes and/or requires the following.- 1 . ollowing:1 . A Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) for 208 units (249 w/20% density bonus) of the 500 units approved for the entire Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). 2. A Design Review (DR) 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. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 8 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 (41 units). 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. Figure 2: Architectural Site Plan LEGEND: rL7`J 51{AtlEa UrLCJ� h I:H;AT.A$IOWS 14CiCa7ES AREA OF I --------------------- mL 1 i J rtirvvl� F - I . I 1R6trl Cs _- � . i I a I Ill rt ;,v �_ > ive-story, 6ix i1el parking str'li dt&e ki I ILI r- _7 „ TLFF. H 6 11,E [" « J -�- -� r s'1 S't,i h1117 IE:95Lt,i ' T I d- 1 7 - r 'I ----------—----------------_ ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-1 •2 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-002511LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 9 The project proposes an overall density of 62 dwelling units/acre (dulac) without a density bonus or 74 dwelling units/acre with a density bonus (the maximum allowable in the General Plan is 25 du/ac). 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 44'-6" to 66'-3", depending on the height of architectural roof elements and the elevation of natural grade, which varies throughout the site (Figure 3 — Conceptual Building Sections). 1 i _._ SECTION A-A SECPON B-8 I KEY MAP I I � SECTION C-C SECTION D-D -- - - -�L_=L SECTION E-E SECTION F-F I . a..:.. .... _. KEY MAP - r.s SECTION G-G RAR 2017-00011DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-002511LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 10 11_I I 1 IM .ruimp Pp�p REAR SIDE(SOUTHEAST)ELEVATION 1 I� m r IE f LEFT SIDE (NORTHEAST) ELEVATION Figure 3— Conceptual Building Sections and Elevations 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). 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 TCC. • 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. RAR 2017-00011LR 2017-0016fCUP 2017-0025/1LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 11 Figure 4— Red Hill Avenue 249-Unit Mixed-Use Project n o . V 1 f W f RC)V, C 0 R N E R 4F SAN JUAN S1REE< <. kl `) F AVFr:ma' VL w r , a r `r :tea LC AF;RIAI VIEW ALONG RFD Emit AVFNIJF 111 ■' 1 11 0 A1 1111 1 vrvW. u f' M y x t rill day 4i r r'• r I 1 � J e $ s v l 1. 1 � •� � r,. `°�� a. IN tit. RAR 2017-0001/oR 2017-00161CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 13 LEGEND -__- -- -- — - AGRADE SPACE 7 ci a w r , .s . --------------------------------------------- ------------ as •• — m E s �u v T —..._ ii OPEN SPACE PLAN A-1 .6 DISCUSSION Workforce Housing Ordinance No. 1491 requires any residential development, including mixed-use residential development, requiring approval of RAR to provide workforce housing on the same site. Depending upon targeted income levels, the number and type of workforce housing can be: • Fifteen (15) percent of the base units (6% VL, 4.5% L, and 4.5% M); or • Twelve and one-half (12.5) percent of base units (7.5% VL and 5%M); or • One of the following: o Five (5) percent of base units for Very Low Income households, or o Ten (10) percent of base units for Low Income households, and O Pay in-lieu fee (for project received and not deemed complete, the fee would be at reduced rate for one-half(11/2) of the residential total square footage. When a project meets the above requirements, if requested, the project automatically qualifies for a density bonus of up to thirty-five (35) percent. The Density Bonus is state mandated 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. The number of concessions or incentives depend on the number of affordable units and RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2010 Page 14 income levels provided by the project. Incentives or concessions may include, but are not limited to the following: • Reduced minimum lot size • Reduced minimum setbacks • Reduced minimum street width • Increased maximum lot coverage • Increase building height • Reduced ratio of parking that would otherwise be required. In addition, an applicant may submit a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that would otherwise have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development at the approved densities. The waiver can be denied if 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. For this project, the applicant is relying heavily upon the provisions of the Workforce Housing and Density Bonus law to circumvent the development standards and Mitigation Measure of the RHASP. Since the project would provide five (5) percent, or eleven (11) units, for Very Law Income housing units, the applicant believes that the project should qualify for one (1) incentive and several waivers and that the City has no choice but to grant the requested incentive and Waivers. This is why the applicant has not submitted any variance applications. Staff and City Attorney do not agree with this interpretation. First, and as described earlier in the staff report, no residential units are assigned or allocated to any particular parcel. In the applicant's proposal, the project assumes 208 base units, without an RAR, the site has zero (0) units. The units are granted by the City with specific findings. The project would qualify for Density Bonus if the Planning Commission approves the requested RAR, since only then would the project be allocated residential units. Again, this means that the project would also not qualify for any incentives and waivers or reduced parking. Absent the approval of RAR, no units will be reserved and/or allocated to the project site and the project site could only be developed as commercial. Staff has consulted on this determination with the City Attorney and the City Attorney concurs that the City has no obligation to allocate units and therefore no specific densities are assigned to the any particular parcel within the Specific Plan. 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 iorto the submittal of project entitlements, is the RAR 2017-0001OR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 /LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 15 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 submitted some but not all required applications. It is the applicant's position that many of the development standards in the Specific Plan do not apply to this project because they are providing eleven (11) very low income housing units (See discussion under Workforce Housing). The four (4) steps for a new residential mixed-use project are as follows: Step 9: 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 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. Table 4-5 Residential Unit Allllo�s Planning Ames Maximum Permitted Units Nor-h area: North of 1.5 395 dwelling units South area South of 1-5 105 cl% elling units T(DT,AL 500 dwelling, unit RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 16 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. 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 Bank 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 For the allocation to be preliminarily approved, there are five (5) required findings that must be made. These findings are listed below along with Staff analysis. The project proposal requests an allocation of 208 residential units with a twenty (20) percent density bonus for a total of 249 units on the 3.38-acre site, which results in a density of 62 dwelling unit/acre without the density bonus units and 74 dwelling units/acre with the density bonus units. The proposed project is located in the north area of Interstate-5 in which 395 units are assigned. The request for 208 out of 395 units assigned to the north area represents fifty- three (53) percent of the north area, forty-two (42) percent of the entire Specific Plan area, and 173 percent of the northwest quadrant. 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: 1. Required Finding for Approval (Equitable Distribution of Units): 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. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/t-I_.A 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 17 Figure 5 (below) shows the general distribution of units by the north and south quadrants in the Specific Plan. Figure 5 - General Distribution of Units in RHASP North West Quadrant North East Quadrant Approx. 6 acres=120 units Approx. 13 acres=275 units South West Quadrant South East Quadrant Approx. 13 acres=85 units Approx 3 acres=20 units Applicant's Request: 208 base units - (42%of the entire Specific Plan area, 53% of units within north area; 173% of the NW quadrant) 249 w/20% density bonus- (49% of the entire Specific Plan area, 63% of units within total north area; 207% of the NW quadrant) Staff Analysis: The proposed project is located in the north area of Interstate-5, which is assigned with 395 units. One way to measure proportionality would be to divide the total acreage by the number of residential units allocated to that area. The total acreage north of Interstate-5 is approximately nineteen (19) acres. The total acreage for the North West quadrant in which the project site is located is approximately six (6) acres. A proportional distribution of units for the northwest quadrant would be approximately 120 units. Not all 120 units should be allocated to the project site as it would not be proportionally distributed. For the project site, a proportional distribution would be approximately 70 units. The project is disproportionate by 138 units (208 — 70 units). The Specific Pian does allow for some flexibility to grant additional densities if other goals are obtained (i.e. additional affordable housing, open space, etc.). However, none of these objectives are significantly obtained with the project proposed. In determining density or unit allocation, the Commission should consider both the RHASP and the City's General Plan. The Tustin General Plan allows a maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units/acre. The RHASP utilizes average density per acre and allows a flexibility in which any particular parcel may exceed the twenty-five (25) du/ac provided that the project meets the regulations of the Specific Plan. While this provision is included to create incentives and flexibility in the implementation of the Specific Plan, it was never envisioned that a project would have twice or three times of the highest density allowed in the City. As to the proposed project, it proposes 7,000 square feet of retail at ground level and 249 residential units above the retail on 3.38 acres. The proposed project includes five RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 18 (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. At 208 units, the project would be at a density of 62 dwelling unit per acre and at 249 units, the project would have a density of 74 dwelling units per acre. There does not appear to be a basis upon which to approve the requested residential unit allocation. Initially, there is nothing within the RHASP or City's General Plan that comes close to justifying or supporting the use of 208 units (62 dwelling 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 close to three times the density allowed under the General Pian. Mixed-use projects proposing densities well in excess of the General Plan's maximum density of twenty-five (25) units per acre may be difficult to justify because of inconsistencies with the General Plan, The Commission should note that the number of units directly influences the project's need for variances, waivers, deviations and other inconsistencies with the Specific Plan. In other words, fewer units would result in lower height, less required open space, less parking, less park land and dedication in-lieu fees, etc. The proposed project, if redesigned with fewer units would be able to comply with development standards negating the need for Variance, Incentive, or Waivers (see Attachment G). It should be noted that changes to the proposed project would require a new application and analysis. 2. Required Finding for Approval (Unit Threshold): The number of units requested is within the threshold established by the Specific Plan's Program EIR. Recommended finding: Standard minimally satisfied. 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 a disproportionate number of units would be allocated to one (1) site. 3. Required Finding for Approval (Uses, Design Criteria and Development Regulations): The project is substantially consistent with the uses, design criteria, and development regulations of the RHASP. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. 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 RAR 2017-0001/QR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019. Page 19 predominately residential with 249 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 serve or sell goods or merchandise to residents of the development, the community or surrounding areas. 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 neighborhood commercial character of the RHASP corridor. The commercial retail square footage proposed equates to only twenty (20) percent of the overall building frontage along Red Hill Avenue and only 1.3 percent of the entire proposals square footage. 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 on the south side of the frontage and not providing continuous meaningful commercial along the 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 (4-stories) and building height (50 feet) under 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, 1 .3 percent of the entire proposals square footage (7,000 square feet/502,759 total project square footage) 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 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251/LLA 201700002 March 12, 2019 Page 20 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 the Workforce Housing Ordinance (example: development proposal could choose any one of the following options: fifteen (15) percent for Very Low, Low or Moderate income households, or 12.5 percent Very Low and Moderate income households, or ten (10) percent of Low income households. A lower allocation could yield a higher number of affordable units (see Attachment G — Example of Affordable Housing Scenarios). Based on a 70-unit allocation with a thirty-five (35) percent density bonus and if other General Plan goals and objectives are met, a residential unit count of 95 units could be considered. 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 (5) story building and a six (6) level parking structure at a height of up to sixty-six (66) feet three (3) inches at their highest points. 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 one-story residential buildings 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 fifty (50) feet and four (4) stories. As noted, the applicant stated that these standards should not apply to their project. • 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 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0010/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 21 physical 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 Analysis: Development Regulations/Standards (see Figure 6 for comparative summary) As mentioned earlier in the report, the following standards relates to the number of units proposed at the project site. Should the total number of units be reduced, the project could comply with the prescribed minimum development standards and Waivers and/or Variance may not be needed. Nevertheless, the following findings and analysis are included for Planning Commission consideration. • Building Height: * 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 44'-6" to 66'-3" 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. The project as designed does not comply with building height limitation of the RHASP. * The Planning Commission and City Council specifically directed and adopted standards for buildings to not exceed four (4) stories and fifty (50) feet. The applicant's statement that this standard does not apply to their project contradicts the specific direction, established standards, goals, and overall vision of the Specific Plan. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-00161CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 22 • 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. 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 Emergency Access Fire Lane (EAFL); 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 EAFL 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 1.6 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. 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 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 23 unit be provided on-site and a parking management plan be required as part of the project. o If units are granted via the RAR and a density bonus is approved in conjunction with the Workforce Housing Ordinance, the applicant can use the ratio of parking permitted by the Section 65915(p)(1) of State's Bonus Density Law. Staff would support doing this with a legitimate and sufficient parking management plan. Figure 6—Comparison Chart of RHASP & Proposed Project _ Project's RHASP Requirements Proposed Deviations from (Mixed Ilse) Project Standards/RHASP Number of Units 395 allocated 208 138 units above (based on distribution) (249 w/density bonus) Min. Required St. 100 feet min. 612.75 feet Frontage/Lot Width 1 story higher— 4 stories max. and up to 50 5 stories—residential residential Building Height feet 6 levels—parking structure 2 stories higher— (44'-6"—66-3") parking structure (addt'l. 16-3"overall)(1) None w/pedestrian Varies along Red Hill Front Yard Setback accessible amenitiesfrontage (min. 4'-9" to max. 20'-3") Side Yard Setback 10 feet min. 14'-6" (Interior) Side Yard Setback None wlpedestrian 11'-9" (Corner/Street Side) accessible amenities Rear Yard 10 feet min. Varies from 12'-6"—32'-6' Private Open Space 100 SF/unit(min.) 70 SF/unit(avg.) 30 SF/unit less(1) 189 SF/unit w/EAFL 11 SF/unit less(1) Common Open Space 200SF/unit(min.) 154 SF/unit w/out EAFL 46 SF/unit less(1) Combined Private & 239 SF/unit (with EAFL) 61 SF/unit less (1) Common Open Space 300 SF/unit(min.) 225 SFlunit(w/out EAFL) 75 SF/unit less(1) 588 spaces/2.25 per/du, 427 spaces @ 1.6 per/du, 161 parking spaces less Parking plus parking for retail at plus 28 spaces for than required 1/250 SF commercial per Shared Parking Study 1.67 acres required for Park Fees dedication Waiver requested Waiver requested OR For$4,183,200 in-lieu fee for entire amount(2) $4.2 million park in lieu fee Footnote: (1) Waiver requested (2) Incentive requested RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0010/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 24 Required Finding for Approval (Vision, Usable Open Space, Public Amenities): 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. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied, 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), 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 four(4)feet to nine (9) inches for two (2) retail spaces, six (6) feet to nine (9) inches for the third retail tenant space and twenty (20) feet to three (3) inches 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 as 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 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025/ILA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 25 project incorporates limited 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 fagade 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 to resemble high density corridors' seen in adjacent communities. • 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 and story heights 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 fifty (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, • While the parking structure contains an artistic treatment along 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. The height of the parking structure also creates less desirable use of the 463 feet long by 12 feet wide area between the project and the Tustin High School play field that the applicant wants to use for open space. Required Finding for Approval (Design Review}: The overall project meets the findings for Design Review outlined in Section 6.7.1. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. Staff Analysis: A detailed analysis with respect to Design Review findings is included in the next Section of this report (See Remaining Project Requests). RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 26 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 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. REMAINING PROJECT REQUESTS Regardless of the above recommendation, the applicant did submit some, but not all necessary discretionary approvals for consideration thereby creating additional confusion. Nevertheless, a discussion of those requests is warranted. 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 J). A Design Review (DR) 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 facade rhythm and utilize high-quality exterior materials, textures and colors that contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape and serve as a goad-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. e The pedestrian amenities are limited in scope and reflect a typical design and layout that is not visually interesting. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 ILLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 27 • 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. o 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 twenty-eight (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 RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 28 therefore the project does not qualify for density bonus and all associated incentives, concessions and parking reduction, a Shared Parking Study prepared by LLG 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. If units are granted via the RAR and a density bonus is approved in conjunction with the Workforce Housing Ordinance the applicant can use the ratio of parking permitted by Section 65915 of the State's Density Bonus law which stipulates [one (1) parking space for studio/1-bedroom units and two (2) parking spaces for two (2) — three (3) bedroom units]. Staff would support this along with a legitimate and sufficient Parking Management Plan for a mixed-use project. In determining 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 deny this request may be supported by the following findings: a 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. 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. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 /LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 29 • 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 forthe minorshift 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; a The parcels resulting from the LLA will conform to the Tustin General Plan, and any applicable specific plan, zoning and building ordinances; * 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. • Variances: The applicant has indicated that the Specific Plan standards do not apply to this project since Waivers for building height and open space have been requested under the Density Bonus provision. City staff does not concur and notes the following Variances would be required: 1) reduction in open space requirements and dual use of the Fire and Emergency 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 fifty (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 RAR 2017-00011DR 2017-00101CUP 2017-00251/LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 30 porches, clubhouse/fitness area, Wi-Fi lounge, dog spa, bike shop, lobby, dual use of the Fire and Emergency Access 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 Fire and Emergency Access lane off of San Juan Avenue is 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 fifty(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 fifty (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. If variance requests were submitted, the request would not qualify for approval in that the property does not have special circumstances that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The proposed project would not meet the criteria for granting of a variance for the following reasons: 1 . The lot size is 3.38 acres which is larger than most other lots in the immediate neighborhood and would provide applicant with much more ability to comply with the minimum development standards. 2. The lot shape is rectangular (approx. 600' width x 270' depth) and not an irregular shape. 3. The topography is generally flat and there are 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 minimum development standards. 5. The situation is a self-imposed hardship, not a condition particular to the property. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 31 • 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 TCG 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 in-lieu fees and/or land dedication is required as mitigation in accordance with the RHASP. Fees are to be invested in the area, which the Planning Commission and the City Council specifically required due to a deficiency 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 TGC 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. However, following the same spirit above, should the Commission/Council wish to grant a waiver to this or similar projects based on the provision of affordability, staff recommends the waiver be limited to affordable units only. The applicant in this case would need to submit supportive data that concludes the reduction of park fees would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing. 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. • 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 Notice Public hearing notice for February 26, 2019, was published in the Tustin News, mailed to each owner within 500 feet of the project site, inclusive of the project itself, and to all property owners within the Tustin Meadows Planned Community, The site was physically posted on the project site no less than ten (10) days in advance of the scheduled hearing date and on social media outlets including Facebook, Nextdoor.com and the City's website. While actual notice has been given to project applicant and his authorized agent, no paper RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-0025//LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 32 notice was sent to the Applicant and his authorized agent addresses (Attachment 1). Accordingly, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 12, 2019. No less than ten (10) days from the date of scheduled hearing of March 12, 2019, staff provided written public notice to the applicant, his agent, his legal counsel via email, certified mail and regular U.S. mail. Staff also provided an updated public notice of the continued public hearing to all interested parties, on the City's website, Facebook and Nextdoor.com. In addition, staff also posted the continued public hearing notice at the project site. Public Comments Attachment H 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 • Four(4) to five (5) stories are too high • More traffic, less parking • 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. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the project, staff recommends that the Commission continue the item and direct the applicant to submit the requisite applications and environmental documents so as to provide adequate analysis to complete the environmental review and provide for public review. Note that at this time staff does not have all the required information to complete the environmental review of the project. 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 J- Planning Commission Resolution No. 4378. RAR 2017-0001/DR 2017-0016/CUP 2017-00251 /LLA 2017-00002 March 12, 2019 Page 33 f r En a H. bernk6wElci, AtPU Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner Director of Community Development JLy.gtina Willkom Assistant Director of Community Development 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 submitted by applicant G. Example of Affordable Housing Scenarios H. Public Comments I. Letter from John J. Flynn III to the City dated February 22, 2019 and Response Letter from City Attorney to Mr. John J. Flynn III dated February 25, 2019 with enclosures J. Resolution No. 4378 ATTACHMENT A Location Map: 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue ti hart~. Project Site 300' 500' f 4 4 1�f J ♦ � ! L ✓ l �4 ATTACHMENT B LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1 LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): RAR 2019-00001/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 PROPOSAL:156 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT d. 2013 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL— REVISION i#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 PROPOSALA35 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT k 2016 PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL— REVISION #1: 135 UNIT APT./MIXED USE PROJECT I. 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 WITH 20% DENSITY BONUS, 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 ED- Project Boundary Q` Bryan Ave i o�O0 ap oO 00 00 D002 W — 0Q �oo� 00000 , P I -San Juan St L9 1-5 q=1w i� / I = a ®® Mitchell Ave EE 5TL ren 1._ - -111 Walnut Ave . H1 ,-, --' i 0 250 500 Ti flTil®�fT1 ( � Feet TUSTIN Exhibit 1-2: Specific Plan Area xtu n�u.lveNue ATTACHMENT D r as an IF 4k M u CL m a0 >1 u CL Q-r, CL A U C tjo CL C3 Q. m o -0 0 CL a x r1i 00 r4 �o r4 CL 2 w ID to Go ch o Qj CL fn L mw 2 a) crnL ci cc E 0 m Z" i 13L r_ 0 0 CL eq r4l 00 oll r-- Ill� mOU Lu m Ln I a ELLMI I i F PASS V CD CD Otw CL -4:Z C., 'E 1-4 9ACL m bD 00 L: CL to (U am > CL 0 CL c " CL 'P EGo u LD w = m T Ln ri C3 45 x C LL c o 3 Eo C E • U x W a m E l l IN = a S u °' E 4 C N= N I � � a 4 w O r� z a a -aZ c40 L _ O c _- m C LW iV d � a . v iri 4 a a 0 a w u a (U � � . L Q 41 y„ a '- �' N 16 O _ oq c m o m E cCL - o a N 0. c a `m pcaCL u CL '_ v c o Y 3 Y N CL 16 ,� v 3 `n x "m m a M c u a a N a n e n o io N Q a a v 3 0 0 E 'E b r .O v O C m N '� CID 0 v o ° c vYi c .� y ,_ v u o n a a I o a ^' m u d a o a en as 1--1 Q N ill p1 .--I In •S N IV O Y i C ry fL •••I•r d G C u a r X 0 I. M 7 E o Cu E 0 n \i/ c❑ m % E A/ x ss 'MFA Fe m a v E ° M a lu R lv > I. C7 m '^ c a a O c.' to d� M •�+y� C w11�/ SSC"1�V.5 L�.l � N j L CO P•ISSA AWAY a I._ m O Ly z a ~ C O v V iTT rr TT ii rr I t �I I I IT T y y c o v a v x i' 01u � 6 u co 0 _ Q +L+ C ■� �z eMH 3 ac t w U p a u v m a fIInoOraC 67 u a -6 o E a a n •o ni - a .0 0 -0 c «. o N c ar, - ® lC C H tv a = a N m a+ o m E m u. 3 A �c a au a a a p 'L j 10 .� ei a. `0 a m N Y " [O - 'ia a'c a a s a •� 4 d ' _- C 'u aD — 1* Q U m N C pD 7 '6 C E Ln W E L E c LL L m o d c ar vLL L a 0 c Qjm u o 0 S7 C I m a o q. m Q �- ei Q 1Q 'a o a s Y c u ' 00 v o ry .-i 1n .� o jq ry op Qq o a in u o 'N j .n-1 M ry ry N m m vii m a Ln a H ro a` in v 3 O Z 0. 1L • • • • • • • • • m Ya 0 > J-_ ° O a �y ° V ¢ Ou U O r-{ m — m p • O + p y 0 y :3E C E E Y Y m E _ c a ' E 6 3 u E u 'L m a a a C a N m O Q_ C A a ° a m p +L-� N v1 '�6 00 m E � aj y G ° °- ro -o a m v 00 C C m ° a N C a a bD O a O 7 i9 _E ` C arZ cu CL a C C O V c m c E c E Q m u C .c O O_ r m rn on u ' 70. H O ate+ Y 7 ja, a u m m f). CL w E u a O a . lw C U E i @ a@CL CL4t E lfl -0 C C N ` 'U C i a ° a o CL ¢ a c O = 0 '� 'c apo m ° C '6 U a t! E a a m Ln ° N c m O ¢ v a v u Q y ` U m r- — L 7i = a o E wY m c m a a Q u E m am u a m a dr c m ° ro = a s Y m O al °- v m y , . m ro L C a N C Y 'C ti N a a L Y C m O a 0 7 L a+ -p E N , .- c a , L m 'E .. y u N x L .°o O m aUD +L+ ri .m a DO N M O_ L a+ 3G H +� O C •^a N .49 L O 'a t _ N 3 •i.. N W C E m }i u 7 O N E O m m 7�i C N 7 d } — C i ar u 3 0 D a Lrlo y u 6' m o a a c ° m ° } r: `_' a s 3 ' V1 � a m 3 o a s _ E m 00 a� n 'm ti a a ° t E m o x a0 a c s a o p N •o ° ° �" '� ry m m m N U O •� r- ? N a rF a m O m W .-. 0. ro a, -0 b! � • • G O 0a m M -C ,` c m E a i o a a E Q E l� a a m . s m a Q Ln a E E R c ° o T.� _ v m m a t m m CL bo o m ° C u ro =CL 43 N ° CO a wt -m C a Qj °- a a E •w - a u °a a � a U Y � ° N L a ucz C 0, 4 L Vate ° .� o O u c m a C2 = m •w � 6mi. .--e m a a � p C m O m a a �ca mu 'c u E© uc 3 O QEO0 pH a no ° a y v ym ` c u a'mi m u c o. � S a t o o a a r a a m p ¢ a. o `° is N m m a ¢ a :nu a O Q m a} 'm N c co ,v 7s a N = 'O L• r" E 1 9 3 3 0 ° M m c a -° , o E a y = a r•+ s 1 °tee v m o m r^ m rn - o E r, Y a V 7 N m V 'L m YO- V y C N r.i m Ln O N U s 7 d m D d' 0 • e • • • • • • O OC d • • • • v n a 3 C V y O a r� W C � d Y � O N O CL n m 0 d c 0 c Q c ai Y CL tV d Q c U w U V L C - Q t m OLai m m t0 N C u Y 41 � U C - �� ra m`c N � C r ci ac 1� m .3 � Y a y v m m a a c - Y/ no ` acp r U Y Y O. a _ ° 0 } C w 7 W fl-fy t• C O. •..r.� O j^, ev y O 3 Cy N N a', t ` w • d j G. V c C O C d G /Y1/1 j •��n a Yi`n �On LpYm Lc O a) ae°wV p v CL as -a u v , ufVn CCO O v p m 0 c' CL Nti O_ u 1 x C3 yN m o O = _ v m0 C * aQm O N rm n 4 p Y N Ln 7 w � tll 00 r„ i "CJ .L N y M = c u a m a o a m ° Cr u ai o v O W� N Q I_ m OY ° O a] m /.� F H y +L�+ U V Y N 0 CML Cc O C ° V N � C E m o uai a t c m Eo a w w v = Q o m w m _ B E Y ro u y w Oo p Y ° o v a 7 m v I - W 2 - u -° d N a O i C p W N C d O1 u_ W C f7 N C N N y. m V N O - C c a C a'U C a Y d C O v a `n '7 uCOi O N E N O p U cu O d c E cu E rn p . a.'Z-- u 0 E • y f0 u " N v M n a. a m S r L6 4 • o_ m °� v N O L d ry rp U! LL • • • • • • • aivi F N C C C1 Q L Y U = 4 m u u ? O as to V •..� O Ul c Q DO -p y Y v°-i Oa N m 0. O. O } C C .p -.!2N ° ° W V W i E C °- -41 u N © C \ O. N u U p O x V E C N C y N .. O .v c �v m ep a; OL C .- W 7 z ,p Y -a Y C C OO C C a N 7 Y Y Q L C W O a Y S O 3 un 2 ° cn L U t O_y ` O y -° N a G =a Y Y N Ql N 3'IJ � c N o a U M 7 C f0 CO 7 O V O x m O m `� 2 C rco a mG u vyi m VO ry E m w r 0.a° L O aL W. • • • • • ATTA, C H M E N T E P AN S AVc I LA B L E AT C C) M M U N I DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 19 TiHIIE PIUBLIC HEARiNG , h? U P 0 N R E Q U E ATTACHMENT F kFCEIvEL NOV 21 2013 WASL Tustin Investors V LLC Voluntary Workforce Housing Incentive Plan By., UNITY DEVELOPMENT 13751/13841 Redhill Avenue Mixed Use Project November 20, 2018 Project Description & Affordability Leve! 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 13751/13841 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 Kimiey- 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 13751113841 Redhill Avenue Workforce Housing Plan Prepared by: 11-20-18 Sprijigbrotsk Really, flvtsor,:. hi 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 Units 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 Plan Type Very Low Total Income Unit Unit Type Units Mix Studio 28 2 1 Bedroom 140 6 2 Bedroom 81 3 Tota I 249 11 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 11751/13841 Reclhi l l Workforce i IMI 11-20-15 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 - Househo_ld 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- s 13751113841 Redh111 Avemice NN'orld'orcc Housing Kin II ?()-IPk' � iuii I ^ ,i: l, i;.c111v adl bedroom unit. The utility allowance utilized includes gas cooking, gas space heating, gas water heating, as well as e I e ct ri c a n d 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 utility 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 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 $8.00 s.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 It'nrhiI IItF:;ir,�, I'Ll iI WASL requests that parking requirements be reduced in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(p). The project will provide 4 01 onsite parking spaces for its residential units (exclusive of parking allocated for retail tenants) which are 71 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 13751113ti41 ftcclhill Avenuc 1`1 orkfbrc.c Housing Plan 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. Maximum building height excludes stair towers. 7 ATTACHMENT G Examples of Affordable Housing Scenarios Allocation of units at project site based on proportionality(70 units—20.7 du/ac) Percentage Number of Percentage Number of Density Workforce Housing Option by Income Affordable Density Density Total (dwelling Level Units Bonus Bonus Units units/acre) Units 6 VL 5 22.5 16 86 25 15% 4.5 L 3 (6%VL,4.5% L and 4.5% M) 4.5 M 3 12.5%(7.5%VL and 5%M) 7.5 VL 6 25 18 88 26 5M 3 5%VL,or 5 VL 4 20 14 84 25 10%L, and or or Pay in-lieu fee 10 L 7 20 14 84 25 To achieve 35%density bonus 11 VL 8 35 25 95 28 or 20L 14 35 25 95 28 Allocation of units at project site using General Plan highest density (84 units—25 du/ac) Percentage Number of Percentage Number of Total Density Workforce Housing Option by Income Affordable Density Density Units (dwelling Level Units Bonus Bonus Units units/acre) 15% 6 VL 6 22.5 19 103 30 (6%VL,4.5%L and 4.5%M) 4.5 L 4 4.5 M 3 12.5%(7.5%VL and 5%M) 7.5 VL 7 25 21 105 31 5M 4 5%VL,or 5 VL 5 20 17 101 30 10%L,and or or Pay in-lieu fee 10 L 9 20 17 101 30 To achieve 35%density bonus 11 VL 10 35 30 114 34 or 20L 17 35 30 114 34 Allocation of all the units at the northwest quadrant based on proportionality(120 units—35.5 du/ac) Percentage Number of Percentage Number of Total Density ff Workforce Housing Option by Income Aordable Density Density Units (dwelling Level Units Bonus Bonus Units units/acre) 6 VL 8 22.5 27 147 43 15% 4.5 L 5 (6%VL,4.5%L and 4.5% M) 4.5 M 5 12.5% 7.5 VL 9 25 30 150 44 (7.5%VL and 5% M) 5 M 6 5%VL,or 5 VL 6 20 24 144 42 10%L, and or or Pay in-lieu fee 10 L 1.2 20 24 144 42 To achieve 35%density 11 VL 14 35 42 162 48 bonus or 20 L 24 35 42 162 48 ATTACHMENT H (PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF MARCH 5, 2019, 3:00 P.M.) Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:03 PM To: 'Guy Ball' Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project - Public Records Request Hello Guy, Yes, the e-mail that you received was to inform you that your name was on the Interested Party List and that is was provided to the individual that requested the list. Regarding your questions from your March 3`d e-mail (repeated verbatim below), City staff have the following responses: Question: I understand their will be 249 apartments. How many total bedrooms will there be? City Response: Based upon the submitted application of 249 units, the unit breakdown includes both studio and 1-and 2-bedroom units that will range in size from 586-1,118 square feet. • 140—1-bedroom units 0 81—2-bedroom units • 28—studio or Jr. 1-bedroom units Question/Comment: If there were only one bedroom per apt—and since the price of apts are beyond the price of single adults these days, that would mean we probably have two people per apartment for a total of 498 possible drivers (and cars). But there are only 427 parking spaces and this is shared with the commercial development. Question: Is this amount of residential parking allowable or is it part of the variance being sought by the developer? City Response: The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan requires 2.25 parking spaces for every residential unit plus parking for the retail areas, which must be parked at the applicable rate in accordance with the Tustin City Core. The applicant for this project is proposing a shared parking arrangement for the project, meaning that parking is shared between the residents and the commercial retail area. While a shared parking arrangement is allowed through the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the Shared Parking Study, that was submitted to the City and prepared by the applicant states that 1.6 parking spaces are adequate for the project. The City respectfully disagrees with the analysis and the evidence supporting a modification to the prescribed parking standard. uestion: Is there an EIR yet regarding the traffic flow in and around that area—and particularly the road interchange at the freeway interchange? (Since this area is already a problem with backed up traffic even prior to the added residential units, I'm concerned how the gridlock will be handled.) City Response: At this juncture, environmental analysis for the Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use project has not been completed. The Planning Commission public hearing that took place on February 26 and was continued until March 12, 2019 primarily includes a request for a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR), or allocation of residential units, which is the initial step for a mixed use project application under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The application before the City includes the RAR as well as some other entitlements and the staff report for the March 12, 2019, clarifies this in greater detail. Please refer to the link below for the Planning Commission February 26, 2019 agenda/staff report regarding the project. The March 12 report, which doesn't change the City's position or recommendation on the project and will be available towards the end of this week, provides additional clarification on the project and the applicants' requests. 1 http://tustin.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=S&clip id=1628 The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan was completed last year for the overall project area and is on the City's website. Please see the link below for reference, The FPEIR analyzed the overall impacts associated with the addition of 500 additional dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of additional non- residential square footage to the Specific Plan area. https://www.tustinca.org/338/Red-Hill-Avenue-Specific-Plan The City is recommending denial of the requested application, which includes 249 residential units as it is not in compliance with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan or consistent with the City's General Plan. 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". If, on March 12,the Planning Commission wishes to approve the project, staff will be recommending that the Commission continue the item and direct the applicant to submit the requisite applications and environmental documents so as to provide adequate analysis to complete the environmental review and provide for public review. At this time, staff does not have all the required information to complete the environmental review of the project.. Regards Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Guy Ball <mrcalc@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:32 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Subject: Re: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project- Public Records Request Hi Erica. I was curious about this email, Was this just a heads up sort of email to let me know that my name is on the list that was requested? Also, was there any place online that I could see a more detailed description of the new Red Hill project proposal? I was curious about the amount of bedrooms in all the apartments as well as what sort of green space they had for the use of residents. Also, where there any traffic studies or EIR yet? I'm really concerned about the impact on Redhill and the impact on the 5 freeway in that area which is already jampacked most of the daylight hours. Thanks Guy Guy Ball Sent from my mobile device On Mar 5, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.orB>wrote: The City has received a Public Records Request (see attached) regarding the above-referenced project. Please be advised that the City must respond to the request and provide the list; however, 2 please note that City staff have redacted any phone numbers, addresses and e-mail information from the list in accordance with the California Constitution Art I, Sec. 1 (Rights to Privacy). Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 <Records Recliiest - Nielsen, John; 3.1.19.gdf> Demkowicz, Erica From: Jim Maring <jmarcons@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:05 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Re: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project - Public Records Request do not care if my info. is given to them. The project is absolutely ridiculous and I do not mind telling them so. ,Jim Maring -----Original Message----- From: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Cc: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 11:58 am Subject: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project - Public Records Request The City has received a Public Records Request (see attached) regarding the above-referenced project. Please be advised that the City must respond to the request and provide the list; however, please note that City staff have redacted any phone numbers, addresses and e-mail information from the list in accordance with the California Constitution Art I, Sec. 1 (Rights to Privacy). Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Pianner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 1 Demkowicz, Erica From: Flossie efiossiefriedman@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 10:45 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Re: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project - Public Records Request Since John Nielsen is now working for the consultant firm pushing this through planning commission and city council and he was Tustin's mayor, I'm wondering about the ethics going on here. Sent from my Wad On Mar 5, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz( tustinca.or > wrote: The City has received a Public Records Request (see attached) regarding the above-referenced project. Please be advised that the City must respond to the request and provide the list; however, please note that City staff have redacted any phone numbers, addresses and e-mail information from the list in accordance with the California Constitution Art I, Sec. 1 (Rights to Privacy). Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 42780 (714) 573-3127 <Records Request - Nielsert, John; 3.1 .19.pdf> i Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:05 AM To: 'Darcie Cancino' Subject: RE: Red Hill Mixed Use Project Attachments: DR 2017-00016, et. al; 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue; RHASP Mixed Use; 3.12.19.doc; Flynn Request for Continuance; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project; 2,22.19.pdf; Flynn Response re Request for Continuance (Red Hill) (Final); 2.26.19.pdf Hello Darcie, At this juncture, environmental analysis for the Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use project has not been completed. The Planning Commission public hearing that took place on February 26 and was continued until March 12, 2019 primarily includes a request for a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR), or allocation of residential units, which is the initial step for a mixed use project application under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The application before the City includes the RAR as well as some other entitlements and the staff report for the March 12, 2019, clarifies this in greater detail. Please refer to the link below for the Planning Commission February 26, 2019 agenda/staff report regarding the project. The March 12 supplemental report, which doesn't change the City's position or recommendation on the project and will be available towards the end of this week, provides additional clarification on the project and the applicants' requests. http://tustin.gra n icus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=S&cl i p_id=1628 The City is recommending denial of the request, which includes 249 residential units as it is not in compliance with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan or consistent with the City's General Plan. 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". If, on March 12, the Planning Commission wishes to approve the project, staff will be recommending that the Commission continue the item and direct the applicant to submit the requisite applications and environmental documents so as to provide adequate analysis to complete the environmental review and provide for public review. At this time, staff does not have all the required information to complete the environmental review of the project. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 -----Original Message----- From: Darcie Cancino <rdcancino@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:41. PM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Subject: Red Hill Mixed Use Project Good evening, where can I find the actual EIR document for this project? I do not see it on the website posted to Facebook. Please provide a link to the EIR or other reports and project documentation. Thank you, Darcie Cancino 2 Demkowicz, Erica From: Losey, Brad <BLOSEY@mbakerintl.com> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 2:34 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project - 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Attachments: Red Hill Development - 2019-03-03 - Losey-signed.pdf Thank you Ms. Demkowicz, have attached a letter containing my comments on the proposed project. Is this the correct way to submit these comments? If not, please let me know how to appropriately submit this. Thank you, Brad Losey, P.E. I Project Manager-Surface Water I Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 1 Santa Ana, CA 92707 1 [0] 949-855-7082 1 [M] 714-404-6721 blosey_@mbal<erintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com INT' ERNAT10NAL From: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 14:38 To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDeml<owicz@tustinca,org> Cc: Demkowicz, Erica <EDeml<owicz@tustinca.org> Subject: EXTERNAL: RE; Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project- 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Good Afternoon, Please find the attached public hearing notice and correspondence provided to the Planning Commission at last night's meeting for the above-referenced project. At last night's meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project until their next regularly scheduled meeting on March 12, 2019 at.7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. We encourage that you attend the meeting and provide written comments via e-mail at ederni<owicz@tustinca.org. You may also either drop off any comments at the Planning counter or mail them to the address below: Community Development Department Attn: Erica H. Demkowicz, Senior Planner 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 If you should have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at (714) 573-3127 or at edemkowicz@tustinca.or�. Regards, i Erica H. Demkowicz Erica H. Demkowicz,AICD Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 2 Brad Losey, RE 14672 Cheshire Place, Tustin, CA 92780 | b[c)sey4TMCA@gmail.com March 3, 2OI9 �I y of 'T��istin Planning Commissioners Ci�y ofTustiw CewtenmizUVVay �ms%k�, �Y�� 9 21 7 8 Vie Re: Re6�iideo--4. [/!" 20)_Y-0lamd L�� 0I�-�� Cmmstructiam 1,384! H!,1U &v-cn)m� Ci%y 0fPharimin,,� larnwriting tnexpress nmyopposition tothe proposed subject project. The Red Hill Area Specific Plan (RHASP) was recently adopted. lQpposed the RHASP because the plan did not meet the recommended environmental thresholds for several key livability elements. The mitigation measures proposed by the RHA3P did not appear to be effective, and the plan appeared to be too weak on compensatory measures. Nevertheless, the RHASPvvas adopted with some thoughtful and beneficial amendments. It is now the document that vvemust uphold. The proposed subject development does not support the vision ofthe RHASP and specifically impacts the key livability elements that concerned me with the draft version of the RHASP. The proposed development iowoefully deficient interms of- ° Open space—The open space criteria in the RHASP is below the recommended threshold for sustainability and livability, and this proposed development does not even meet the weak and poorly mitigated criteria within the RHASP. The developer's request towaive the in-lieu fees for open space unfairly burdens the city with the responsibility for providing open space in an already deficient corridor. m OensitV—Theproject proposes to construct the densest population within the City, without providing any significant draws or amenities for the public. Most of the amenities are intended to cater to the development residents and offer no benefit to the public. The developer's method ofcalculating the "density bonus" isflawed. The density bonus istobecalculated over and above the Specific orGeneral Plan density. Not adensity bonus tacked onabove the number of units the developer feels vvoU|d be profitable. • Parking —ln an area that has a historic parking problem, this development's lack of adequate parking spaces ora parking plan is below the minimum threshold within the RHASP. The developer's assumption that loft or 1-bedroom apartments would only require a single parking space, is fallacious and does not comply with the parking formula in the RHASP. The RHASP mitigation measure for the City's parking issues is weak, but this project only makes a bad problem even worse. • Traffic —There is no effective mitigation measure in the RHASP to address the traffic issue at the 1-5/Red Hill Ave interchange. The RHASP weakly assumes that Caltrans and OCTA will fix the problem. As one of the engineers who participated in the recent I-5 PA/ED project for OCTA, I can assure you that there are no plans to improve this situation at this interchange. The mainline is tabled for further capacity, and the interchange remains in a tight-diamond configuration. No capacity or traffic upgrades will occur on Red Hill Avenue. This development only serves to exacerbate the existing problem. Making it worse by putting a large proportion of the residential units allowed under the RHASP at one end of the area, instead of distributing them evenly throughout the corridor as the RHASP requires. In addition to the quality of life and livability issues not addressed in the RHASP listed above, this development shows a complete disregard for the culture and context of our City. The City of Tustin is the "City of Trees" yet this developer proposes a massive edifice at the back of the walk. The proposed height of this development (and parking structure) would tower over the neighboring homes, Furthermore, this proposed development violates the RHASP building height and number of stories requirement. This is not a development that fits with the current feel of Tustin and would be a poor example for further development within the RHASP. The lack of vision and context sensitivity would be in stark contrast to the open feel of the Tustin Legacy portion of the Red Hill Corridor and would also contrast severely with the existing suburban development along the remainder of the Red Hill Corridor. Even the commercial development along Red Hili Avenue between Dyer and Edinger have adequate setbacks and landscape to keep the corridor open and airy. This enormous structure would overpower the area and forever change the character of our city. I strongly urge you to vote in agreement with the Staff Recommendation and reject this project based on its many flaws and failure to conform to the RHASP. I will be closely watching this issue. Sincerely, 12 1-7 Brad Lo , P.E. C City of Tustin Planning Department Tustin Meadows Community Association Page 2 Demkowicz, Erica From: Guy Ball <mrcalc@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 7;06 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Questions regarding 13751 Red Hill Avenue mixed use project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Erica. 1 have density concerns with this proposed project and was hopeful that you could answer a few questions prior to the meeting on the 12"'. 1 understand their will be 249 apartments. How many total bedrooms will there be? If there were only one bedroom per apt--and since the price of apts are beyond the price of single adults these days, that would mean we probably have two people per apartment for a total of 498 possible drivers (and cars). But there are only 427 parking spaces and this is shared with the commercial development. Is this amount of residential parking allowable or is it part of the variance being sought by the developer? Is there an EIR yet regarding the traffic flow in and around that area —and particularly the road interchange at the freeway interchange? (Since this area is already a problem with backed up traffic even prior to the added residential units, I'm concerned how the gridlock will be handled.) Thanks in advance for any info you can offer, Guy Guy Ball Tustin. z Demkowicz, Erica From: Justin Skoda <justin.skoda@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 9:56 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red Hill Mixed Use Development. Hello. I am writing to express my support for the Red Hill specific plan, densification in Tustin, providing more housing in our poorly unaffordable community, and creating a much better streetscape through the improvements outlined in the Red Hill specific plan. It would be nice for the building to have some urban amenities along Red hill to help activate the streetscape in the ROW and provide urban amenities to pedestrians. It is great to see Tustin embracing a more sustainable development pattern through infill development and walkability. Some may complain about traffic and parking ratios but if anything this project is over parked. Reducing traffic means shifting mode share to other modes and making walking and biking and transit for shortjourneys as attractive as possible is essential to that goal. I support this project and am glad it is happening in Tustin! Justin Skoda Sent from my Phone 1 Demkowicz, Erica From: Ron Wilson <ronwiz@twc.com> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 3:21 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Cc: Ron Wilson Subject: Red Hill Ave Mixed Use Project To: Erica H. Demkowicz,ACIP, Senior Planner Subject: Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project Dear Erica: In my 40 years in Tustin I have seen a lot of changes.Some good and some bad. This proposed development looks all bad. It looks to make existing problems worse and not better.There are already way too many high density apartments in this part of Tustin creating parking and traffic problems in addition to overloading the water, power, sewer, trash and street infrastructure. More rentals means more apartments sublet with more than one family=multiply cars and infrastructure load.More crowding, congestion and crime.This kind of thinking is bringing down the quality of living in the Tustin I used to know. The only winners I can see in this proposal is a greedy developer and maybe whoever he can bribe to put this through. Existing Tustin residents lose. This project is situated right next to the biggest intersection nightmare in Tustin; the Red Hill and IS exchange. Every time this intersection is"upgraded"to handle increased traffic it gets worse, not better.The new project promises to negatively impact this intersection and others in the area. We need properties developed for homeowners, not renters. More people with some skin in the game who aro concerned with the quality of life issues that permanent residents consider, I hope the wise and honest will prevail at these hearings and that the long term issues will be carefully weighed out. I hope the current council and other members will not be seduced at the prospect of some quick tax revenue from this monster development. I am all for progress and well planned growth. This in neither. I urge you to reject this plan. Ron Wilson,Tustin Meadows 1 Demlcowicz, Erica Froin: Lynda Jenkins <grantgirll @hotmaiLcom> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 5:44 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: 13751 and 13841 Redhill I am a long time Tustin resident and am opposed to this high density Irvine clone.Tustin doesn't need to create this kind of monotone copy of what we don't want here. if we wanted to live in a city where everything is high density and traffic jammed, we'd live in Irvine. This project is unappealing, unworthy, and unwanted for the negative impacts associated with it. Please do not build this type of project in this location or anyplace else in Tustin. We deserve much better than this replica of Irvine. Lynda Jenkins i Qemkowicz, Erica From: Joanne Shelly <joanneshelly c@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:25 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red hill project Thank you Erica and the planning commission for giving me the opportunity to speak about my concerns regarding this proposed plan. I became concerned when I received the public hearing notice and came into city hall a few days before the meeting and spoke with you which prompted me to attend the meeting. I have been a resident of the city of Tustin for over fifty years. When I purchased my home in Tustin Meadows to raise my family it was my first home. Since then, I have watched this city grow into a healthy thriving community. A city that cares about its residents. i believe this project does not fit into the city's well being for several reasons. Traffic. Redhill is a major artery for car traffic. It is also the primary on and off ramp to the five freeway. In the past, Redhill did become congested because of the city's growth until Tustin Ranch road diverted some of the traffic. It is becoming congested again. I suggest that the members on the commission drive down it as I did on the way to the commission meeting last week during rush hour. Imagine what 300 plus cars will do to traffic on Redhill. My second concern is that this plan Is changing the physical structure of our city. A five story building with a six story parking garage is an anomaly in our city. Is this the direction our city wants to go? It does not fit with the restoring of out Main Street and the idea of a family friendly community. Finally,the area on Redhill right now has an opportunity for redevelopment in line with Our city's vision for the future. I want to encourage the commission to consider this before they cast their vote. Respectfully submitted Joanne Shelly Sent from my iPad i Demkowicz, Erica From: neil Sherman <sherm1940@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:00 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Planning commission hearing on Red Hill hearing Morning Erica, The following is what I plan to say at the hearing tomorrow. Feel free to send me your comments. Neil Planning commission hearing on Red Hill hearing When the City Council approved the change in zoning along Red Hill, they had specific ideas on what they wanted to do to beautify this corridor along Red Hill. The council also listened to concerns of the local residents, specifically parking, traffic congestion and the height of a five story building next to 1-2 story single family homes. The council compromised when they approved the re-zoning. They lowered the maximum height of the buildings to 50' ft. to limit the buildings to 4 stories. The proposed plan violates several of the items the city wanted including: The plan has 5 stories and is greater than the 50 ft. limit the city wanted. The building will have 249 residences, almost 1/2 of the total allocated to the whole project. That doesn't equitably distribute the 500 residences among all the properties along Red Hill, as the city envisioned. The set-backs of the building appear smaller than the city envisioned, limiting shrubbery and sidewalks that reduce the esthetics of Red Hill. The green play area in the project is significantly small than envisioned. And finally, the parking spaces is a major issue at about 1.6 per unit vs. the cities requirement of 2.25.This will add to the existing parking problems the city is facing. As a result, we applaud the planning commissions recommendation deny the proposed plan. Our concern is that, if this plan is approved it will signal all the other dual-use property owners that they don't have to adhere to the approved zoning change requirements either. Parking, traffic, will get worse and the esthetics of Red Hill will suffer, Thank you. Neil sherman Sent from my iPad L Demkowicz, Erica From: neil Sherman <sherm1940@hotmai4.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:28 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Re: RE; Staff Report & Resolution - Red Hill Avenue Mixed Use Project; 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Erica, Thanks for the advance information on the Red Hill project proposal. The staffs report on the project is very straightforward. I don't know whether you have any constraints or formats on what you can say in the draft recommendation, but it doesn't capture the previous councils concerns and objectives when they approved the zoning change at the end of last year, The two new council members may not know of the previous councils and residents concerns, that are the basis for the commissions rejection of the proposal. I plan to raise those issues at the meeting Tuesday. Elizabeth called me earlier this week to see if I was planning to attend the meeting. I told her of my concerns and that I planned to speak I'll try to send my comments to you Monday. If you or Elizabeth want talk further on this subject prior to the meeting, let me know. Neil Sent from my Whone On Feb 21, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca,or > wrote: Hello Neil, Please see the link below for the staff report and resolution for the above-referenced project. CLICK HERE to view the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission packet. Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 i 03/05/2019 FACFBOOI{ (City of Tustin & Tustin Buzz) Rita Viselli 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? -74 MaryArui Hare Yilces. frf 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 Marcie Cancino Miles T. Madison the report also indicates that the community wants 2-3 story development! How did five stories come out of that? 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 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. r eusiurca.gsg Thn P4rnnir�L`[x�`mssh�;r;hM1r r.:earnq w l take I9'7ce.pri • Futrv7ry • Tirre 7 p,rn • Addt[S5: Tusam Council CKamber 344 Conlunn I Way Twain,GA 92780 • Cl`r'l;:n.'.ryn}ca� i''»G�t,,.Srq_.Z 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 r Marcia Bartosik Moreno So are you saying that there is misinformation in the Specific Plan ? i John Nielsen Misinformation for this project. Marcia Bartosik Moreno John Nielsen what is the misinformation? again—in the Specific Plan itself? John Nielsen This has to do with a specific project in the specific plan 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. 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. Marcia Bartosil< Moreno A revised document should be posted. Period. 21 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 H Darcie Cancino Sounds like it's still six stories. I'm dealing with similar deception from Vineyard Developments. John Nielsen The project is 5 stories at the back, three stories on the street. 4� 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 ................. Oliver S. Madison John Nielsen you are balls deep and can't see what the people of Tustin really want. 0 Darcie Cancino Oliver S. Madison the developers do not care what the residents want. It's all about the money and cramming as many dwelling units as possible into the acreage. Which is why it is essential to apply maximum pressure on the planning commission and city council by commenting at every opportunity in writing and orally, and showing up to every city meeting where the project will be discussed. N Oliver S. Madison Darcie Cancino John Nielsen wants it real bad A John Nielsen Ok, so what do you want for our older structured neighborhoods? Do you want them to continue to age in place? Do you want the problems that brings? Some of the structures in that neighborhood are at least 60 to 70 years old. Landlords have no reason to...see more E Oliver S. Madison John Nielsen wants it real bad 0 Darcie Cancino John Nielsen I believe the community was clear that redevelopment is not unwelcome, but a five-story building with a six-story parking garage is not wanted. Oarr.e Cai+cmn hQt ct trrr tt�s Q burAt under FUNFe Linc!Uses and actrotes.Participants In the plam ng r,otkslwps seem pretty C�ear that bwldh+g higher than Wee `6'i4t was,w wanted. hugs, howw*,?W'i)OVSL Ckituin.•nt��n]n•i.:YK'w,"54F9JRetl•+ti®• • Q' r. LN.e R.;vr John Nielsen As for Developers, they certainly like making a profit. However they survive on repeat business and poor projects dissuade repeat business. They also are fee"d and regulated to the max. It is extremely costly because of fees, regulations, cost of land materials and labor to build in Orange County. 0 Darcie Canino John Nielsen profit is of course a desired outcome for developers and as a free- market capitalist is something I support,but when it comes to housing development in California, it too often comes at the cost of ruinous density, traffic nightmares, crushed neighborhoods, and decimated charm. 11 Brenda Smith Carrillo I completely agree that Red Hill needs an upgrade. I live off RH and that empty lot has been an eye sore for years, but the City completely ignored what was voiced at the pre-planning meetings. Were those just a farce to appease the public? Go back to those suggestions and not what the developers are asking for. They don't live in this neighborhood, we do. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Comments must be sent to the city as well as showing up at meetings. By the very nature of the often long planning process the developers develop close relationships with city council and city staffers. Planning staff often make corrections/ suggestio...see More 0 Darcie Cancino Marcia Bartosik Moreno agree! Written comments, even well-crafted emails, are essential and become part of the project documentation and public record It is troubling though, how cozy city planning staff become with the developers, ignoring the wishes...see More Darcie Cancino Marcia Bartosik Moreno do you know how to get to the actual EIR or full project documentation for this specific development? Is it a part of the larger redevelopment plan and included in that document? Marcia Bartosik Moreno It is most likely in the larger plan and should be available on the city website/planning. The EIR should be in the report given to the council members and also available to the public. Sometimes if a report is especially large, and due to the cost of reproducing, only a limited number of reports will be available at the public hearing(s). Call or email the Planning Dept. contact listed. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Darcic Cancino I agree it's troubling relationships can be between staff and developers. Having been on both sides (government and more than one developer) I know that developers definitely work on these relationships. I do want to clarify though that ...see more X John Nielsen 1 have an appointment and will respond later if there are any questions and concerns. or you can email or call.Thanks,John Darcie Cancino 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. https://www.tustinca.org/.../Red-Hill-Avenue-Specific... Darcie Cancino Last night, a coalition of residents of the charming Park Santiago neighborhood in North Santa Ana successfully beat a high 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. John Nielsen For those that are interested,the project on Red Hill PIanning Commission hearing has been postponed.Will not be held tomorrow night. Julie Crowell John Nielsen where can I find that info?Q T Theresa Ferrari Charity I just called the City to verify and the woman who answered the phone says it's still listed as the third item on the docket,and she hasn't been made aware of any postponement. at Jahn Nielsen It will be a continued item.The City has notified the Developer that they will continue the item at the Developers request.This happened yesterday. A% John Nielsen It will still show as an agenda item because they cannot take it off at the last minute but will be continued.Most likely re-scheduled to March or April.If you want to waste your time,your choice. KKV Ow 4 9 24 Darcie Cancino John Nielsen maybe people don't consider attending city council/planning meetings a"waste of time."No need to be snarky. Annie Christian Strenk Thanks for being so respectful and informative to many who are not... Theresa Ferrari Charity Thanks to a certain employee(Q)at the city for seeing my message,calling me, and updating me with info regarding tonight.As John said,the meeting will still take place,but the topic of the proposed building has been pushed back and does is awaiting a new meeting date. A John Garay It leaves a had impression that the former mayor is trying to push people to approve a project when he has a financial stake in one of the properties on the red hill project. Corporate monopolies like the Irvine company and the people who worked for them do more for increased rents then the supply issue. Whilc the project itself is not on the schedule anymore there's still the demolition and merging of the real estate company to the empty lot of land. 0 Darcie Cancino John Garay could not agree more. Full disclosure and transparency is essential. A John Garay Yep and here's my citation to my argument https://www.keet.org/.../financialization-of-single... kcet.org Financial ization of Single-Family Rentals:The Rise of Wall... John Nielsen Darcie Cancino What would like to know? Me saying that the meeting was continued was an issue? What disclosure would you like? H Darcie Cancino John Nielsen I'm just curious about your interest in the project, is all. I see you are employed by NP Consultants and wonder about the relationship to this project. John Nielsen I do not own any part of it if that is what you are asking. I have made no secret that our firm has been retained by the developer of this project. The information I have given is strictly that information. Do I have loyalty to my client, yes. Will I lie about the project,No. Darcie Cancino John Nielsen I wasn't inferring you owned any part of the project, nor did I say you lied about anything. I did not see previous comments or threads where you stated you were retained by the developer. a;. Guy Ball John, thanks for adding in what you can share about the project. I'm particularly curious about how many actual bedrooms are in the complex. It talks about having 249 units. Is that the bedroom count or the number of apts? One of my concerns is the under-parking issues that seem to plague so many of the apt complexes in the city. One can almost easily assume almost 2 car spaces needed per apt (when you figure at least 2 adult drivers per apt) and that's assuming one bedroom. But there are only 427 spaces and this is also shared with a large commercial area. This complex is adjacent to a neighborhood area that is already impacted by not enough parking.How are the parking issues being addressed? ON Darcie Cancino Guy Ball be sure to carefully read the official city project documents yourself and not rely on statements from the developer. 4% John N ielsen Guy Ball I will address what I can here. There will be a parking management plan including strict provisions on vehicles through the lease as well as using transponders. The parking will have reciprocal arrangement for off peak retail parking for resid...see MUre Guy Ball John, thanks for the additional information. 0 Jeff Gallagher Development will happen.This thing, however,doesn't even come close to fitting the area. As another commenter said, this would make us look like Irvine.Tustin deserves better. Elaine A. Scott Well said!! Darcie Cancino Jeff Gallagher agree! Infill redevelopment is needed and welcome. But this five story monstrosity is too dense for the location and is not compactible.The focus groups gave feedback that no more than three stories would be acceptable. The city planners need to listen to the residents. Jeff Gallagher Darcie Cancino, not just that.The whole exterior look is wrong for the area. I can't believe the city planners, who have done a pretty good job with Old Town, are so out of touch. Or, perhaps this is their vision of future Redhill Corridor. Maybe they think all property owners will follow this. If that's the case, good luck... G Darcie Cancino Jeff Gallagher it's just too high and too dense for that location. Tustin Ranch or The District, yep! It would look great. But Red Hill and San Juan??Two-three story townhomes would be more suitable. Not to mention the traffic nightmare at the Red Hill/5 freeway. In Lynda Kravets Jenkins High density housing that mimics Irvine and creates more traffic congestion is NOT what Tustin needs. In Lynda Kravets Jenkins Send comments asap to: edemkowicz@tustinca.org Chuck Rogers The city refuses to listen, I have sent numerous emails and attended the meetings In Lynda Kravets Jenkins Chuck Rogers - not good at all AIM Darcie Cancino Lynda Kravets Jenkins residents should not lose heart. It's not a done deal and can be stopped! Continue to comment and attend all relevant meetings FN MASSE. All comments must be made a part of the project documentation and included in the public record. I am part of a coalition that recently defeated a high density project on Main St. adjacent to the historic Park Santiago neighborhood. It can be done! In Lynda Kravets Jenkins Darcie Cancino I received an email response from the email listed above. If enough people send email any/or attend meetings there is some glimmer of hope. Flossie Winegrad Friedman Traffic congestion, insufficient parking. Yeh they look nice, but will be horrible for people living here. Kim Mowers DeBenedetto Flossie Winegrad Friedman I have to agree. While it may improve the tax base, quality of life is important for those of us already living here. John Nielsen The project has a hidden parking structure in the back that will accommodate all parking onsite. Flossie Winegrad Friedman John Nielsen , the specs show one spot per one bedroom apartment. Do you know many couples in a one bedroom apartment with just one car? How many extra cars will spill onto already over parked neighborhoods?And what about the parking for the retail establishments?This is, at best,very poorly thought out. Flossie Winegrad Friedman And will these residents not have any guests?This part of Tustin is already so impacted by parking and traffic issues. I can't think of a worse place to plop down this development. Justin Skoda Flossie Winegrad Friedman there are approx 450 parking spaces and 250 units according to the planning document.... that's parked at more than 1.1 for units Flossie Winegrad Friedman Justin Skoda , the specs show an allowance of one spot for each one bedroom and each studio, and two spots for two bedrooms, which also might not be enough if there are three drivers in those two bedrooms. Again, what about guests and retail customers? Justin Skoda Flossie Winegrad Friedman typically there is a metric of x spaces per y number of units or on a square footage basis for office space. I do not see a link to the design documents so I cannot say for certain. I am not worried about the parking ratio. If parking is not provided like candy, not as many people will awn a car or will elect to take rideshare, bike or walk- it also makes the units more affordable. Often parking costs 10,OOOs of dollars in development costs which really drives up the rent/ sale price for units that may not even have a need for said parking. The specific plan outlines a more walkable and pedestrian friendly urban design so that is the design intent of this project certainly. A Patty Sigiock Justin Skoda, Wow! Where have you been, Hardly anyone would live there without the need of two or more parking spaces. The people who own homes in this part of Tustin quality of life has deteriorated on account of traffic and parking. The people of Tustin have never wanted to compete with the growth of Irvine. This is just someone in planning getting paid off to do this. Flossie Winegrad Friedman Patty Siglock, very true. Justin, go to the next meeting where you will see the numbers. Possibly also available on the city web site. People need cars to get to work. I live in a nearby neighborhood and our guests already have a tough time parking and my driveway is often partially blocked by people living in nearby condos with insufficient parking. Adding to this with more apartments will be horrendous. 21-9 Darcie Cancino Patty Siglock it would be interesting to get the OC Weekly to dig into the relationships here. Former mayor now working for the consultant firm hired by the developer.very cozy. im Darcie Cancino Flossie Winegrad Friedman can you imagine the 5 with an additional 500+ cars in the mornings and evenings?? Flossie Winegrad Friedman Darcie Cancino , and the already super dangerous off ramps. That is already one of the most dangerous intersections in O.C. RN Flossie Winegrad Friedman Btw, which former mayor?This should be made more public! n Darcie Cancino Nielsen is a former mayor of Tustin and he's now employed by NP Consultants, a firm hired by the developer to push the project through. M Darcie Cancino Flossie Winegrad Friedman and the horrible timing of the lights on Red Hill! It can take almost 10 minutes to get past the 5 level n Red Hill in the morning. RN Flossie Winegrad Friedman Darcie Cancino OMG is this a known fact? What a conflict of interests! Disgusting! Un Darcie Cancino Flossie Winegrad Friedman it's not illegal but the optics of it are terrible and it just doesn't seem right because of the residual relationships and influence. Mark Patton Decision has already been made, 0 IN Jim Williams Yes on more traffic congestion. Its going to be a mess. Planning commission doesnt really care if we dont like the concept John Nielsen The site is zoned for Commercial now. If a commercial center goes there the traffic will be more than what is proposed. is Jim Williams either way its going to be a mess. �t Chuck Rogers You are not entirely correct John. Many retail establishments don't open till gam well after the morning crunch onto the already impacted, already undersized onramps. Yet many of the proposed residents would indeed be leaving during the morning crunch further impacting the area. 7, Leslie Suburu Oh god n0000000ll! I live in San Juan and it's already a nightmare to get onto red hill in the mornings. This will be hell Susan Lumbard This is a very nice looking housing complex. Prefer that they were condos over apartments. Pit- Oliver S. Madison Susan Lumbard if you have to have them Ah John Garay On the link there is a email to send those comments to. CuMMENI"S AMD QUF,nDNS 4 '1 1.. April Salas John Garay thank you Q M. Lynda Kravets Jenkins John Garay -sending comments-everyone should send comments! Linda Carceiero Rodriguez I find it amazing that the City government tried to put in a mental health facility in a business strip mall with no announcements like this one that was posted by Mr Lumbard. Something needs to happen to that area of Redhill. Not a very attractive section of that street. Robert Johnson Might as well be Los Angeles low am Darcie Cancino Where is the actual EIR document? I cannot find it in the link. Am I missing something? t' Lisa Blakely What are the cross-streets for this? Red Hill and what? 0 Yoli Miramontes Lisa Blakely San Juan?Across Big Lots I.Q. Sherry Duckett The city of Tustin will allow anything that gives them more tax revenue Y Jennifer Schmitt I live on the corner of red hili and San Juan and we are already crowded! Not to mention about one serious accident every week because drivers can't see oncoming traffic from the turning lanes. Add that to the time it takes just to get on the 5 every morning and I gotta wonder where all the people will fit? Elaine A. Scott We don't want to copy Irvine with their over crowded parking lots where you can waste your time driving up and down the parking lot, looking for a space. This complex pictured does not:fit us in Tustin. Check out Coventry Court it is so pretty, not this "Industrial" style pictured above. NEXTDOOR 0 Jim Williains , Tustin Ivleaclows- 15 Feb Iani 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 Meadows-5d ago The 249 units apt will be that vacant lot and Coldwell Banker building across from Big Lots and Del Taco, so north of 5 fwy Redhill. Here's a screenshot. �M b. 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:/lwww.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:llwww.tustinca.org/422/Economic-Development You can learn more about affordable housing from the Tustin's Housing Authority at https://www.tustinca.org/460/Tustin-Housing-Authority M& John Nielsen , Columbus Square-2d ago If you want up to date accurate information on this project, either call me at 714-389-4095 or email me at Jnielsen@np-consultants.com di John Nielsen , Columbus Square.1 d 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. T.� Amanll:-1 DUenner I7! i 1d aga Not enough parking spaces. JiI-ii Willi. ns , Tustin fvk� adows-1 d ago Always will a parking problem. jam sure they have there mind made up anyway. Marga 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. mick 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 1,1 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 platuiing commission. Over build the parking! Go ahead, I dare you! If we have too much we can always put a garden on top of it! To start out with less is a bad idea! Winnie Pham-ViIlalvazo , Tustin Meadows-Edited 20 Feb * `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. 1 thunk one of the Tustin Meadows HOA Board members will attend since he's been going to the City Council meetings and updating Tustin Meadows residents about this proposed project in our monthly newsletter. Maybe other Tustin residents can ask their HOA Board members to attend. Well,hopefully,the presenters will already have the answers to my below questions. Why is there so little parking?427 parking spaces for 249 apartment units doesn't seem realistic. (I assume 427 parking slots are for residents and residents' guests alone.) Sprawling OC consists mostly of single occupancy vehicles. Plus, even those who use public transportation for work like the Metrolink nnay still use a car to get to &from the Tustin station. So will there be a separate parking lot for those using the 7,000 sq ft of retail commercial space? If so,how many parking slots'? How is the parking lot designed for retail consumers? Which side(s) will apartment dwellers and retail patrons enter and exit from? San Juan?Redhill Ave'?Or both? Will they have their own traffic signal? It seems unsafe to have these folks exit the complex and merge into a major street like Redhill,especially between 7-9 AM. So will the developers widen Redhill Ave(due to the undeniable increase in traffic)? Will developers offer to maintain the streets for 20 years (eg repaving,patching up potholes) so the City doesn't get stuck with the bill for years to come?"1 leis proposed project is really really close to Tustin High School. Will the developers pay for additional signa=r�. f d i rl ing crosswalks, and a crossing guard so drivers can pay attention to teens and other pedestrians? �Vli-,it does "A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space"mean? Are the developers creating a public or private park? 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. a& John Nielsen , ColunlbLLs Square-31i ago The Planning Commission Public Hearing will be continued to another date at the Developers request. This happened yesterday,will still show on their agenda but the hearing will actually happen in March or April. Lupe Solis , Tustin Ranch ViItage-3d a+ o I like this project! Good plan for this land. Jackie YounL, Cold To�vn-3d ago Where do you plan to get water for this project?What about a study on traffic issues?This is NOT what Tustin needs. Jeff Sluler , Tusfiii Ml Verde•36 aL,.o We don't need more apartments. We need units that can be purchased so people can build equity and not get stuck in the rent trap Ron Wilson , Tustin Meadows-2d ago I strongly believe that this project is a bad idea. It would be right next to the Red Hill/I5 nightmare exchange and make it worse. If the developer wins, existing Tustin residents lose. We already have way too many high density apartments with all the parking,traffic and crime it brings. It would be insane to trade higher congestion and lower quality of life for a few more tax dotlars. John Nielsen Columbus Squarc-3d a,,o To get a better view of the project go to www.redhillrenaissance.com On traffic, the site is currently zoned commercial which if built commercial will actually have more traffic then the proposed project. Please also be aware that the majority of the residential units will be studio and I bedroom apartments. The residential units would be marketed to young professionals. The developer would put in street scape,sewers,signage, etc. if you have questions,call me 714-389-4095 Shelly-Madison Tustin Field 1.3d a,,o Studio and one bedrooms that's up to what three cars each?A building half the size with double the parking would be better. Another big black eye on Tustin! ATTACHMENT _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW NLLP18101 Von Korman Avenue 1-{ Suite 1800 Irvine, GA 92612 T 949.833.7800 F 949.833.7878 VIA EMAIL John J. Flynn III D 949.477.7634 jflynn@nossaman.com Refer To File#:501968-0001 February 22, 2019 Matthew S. West Elizabeth A. Binsack Acting City Manager Director of Community Development City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 Citymanager@tustinca.org EBinsack@tustinca.org David E. Kendig, City Attorney City of Tustin c/o Woodruff, Spradlin, and Smart 555 Anton Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 dkendig@wss-law.com Re: Request for Continuance of February 26, 2019 Hearing re UR 2017-016ICUP 2017-251RAR 2017-011 and LLA 2017-01: Construction of a Mixed-Use Project at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue Dear Messrs. West and Kendig, and Ms. Binsack; We represent Irvine Asset Group, LLC/WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC (collectively, "IAG") with respect to its future 3.3 acre Red Hill mixed-use project ("Project") in the City of Tustin ("City"). By this letter, IAG requests a continuance of the scheduled February 26, 2019 hearing on the Project. For the reasons stated below, IAG objects to the currently scheduled hearing because it was improperly noticed and because IAG believes that the anticipated denial of the Project is based on inaccuracies and false information presented about the Project. As an initial matter, IAG was only recently made aware of the scheduled hearing by way of a notice posted at the Project site and on the "Tustin Buzz" Facebook page. It goes without saying that this notice falls well short of that required under the State Planning and Zoning Law. Government Code section 65905, subdivision (a), specifically requires that a public hearing held on "an application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance [or] an application for a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit" be noticed "pursuant to [Government Code] Section 65091." (Gov, Code, § 65905, subds, (a), (b).) Government Code section 65091, in turn, requires that "[n]otice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property. . . ." (Gov. Code, § 65091, subd, (a)(1), emphasis added",) Notice must also be mailed to the owner's duly authorized agent and the project applicant, (ibid.) Further, notice 56873060.0 1 nossaman.corn Matthew S.West Elizabeth A. Biznack David E. Kendig February 22, 2019 Page 2 must be mailed to each owner of real property within 300 feet of the real property subject to the hearing. (ld., subd. (a)(4).) No such notice was ever provided. Accordingly, IAG respectfully requests a continuance of the February 26, 2019 hearing at least until proper notice is provided. For the additional reasons identified below, however, IAG believes that the hearing should be continued indefinitely to afford IAG and the City an opportunity to meet and confer about outstanding issues regarding this Project. We are now in receipt of the City's February 21, 2019 Staff Report recommending denial of the Project. This is the first instance that IAG has been provided the substantive basis on which the planning staff found inconsistencies between the Project and the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. On December 21, 2018, City planning staff sent IAG a letter informing IAG that its application for required permits for the Project was incomplete for at least two reasons but, nevertheless, "for the purposes of moving [IAG's] project forward to a hearing," the application was being deemed complete. One of the stated grounds for an incomplete application was that the Project "is not consistent with the adopted Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in several areas and variances are required." The City has provided no direction regarding purported inconsistencies, despite numerous requests for such information. Moreover, deeming the alleged incomplete application complete solely to railroad IAG to a hearing for denial of the Project denies IAG the opportunity to correct any purported deficiencies in its application. For this reason, the City should continue the scheduled February 26, 2019 hearing and work with IAG to address unresolved issues. Additionally, IAG requests a continuance of the hearing because it is apparent that City staffs recommendation for denial of the Project is the result of material inaccuracies set forth in the February 21, 2018 Staff Report, the December 21, 2018 letter, and postings in the "Tustin Buzz" Facebook group. IAG will endeavor to provide substantive responses to these inaccuracies in a follow-up letter responding to the Staff Report. However, given the fact that IAG has never been made aware of the purported bases for denial of its Project despite multiple good-faith attempts to work with City staff to identify issues and given the timing of the release of the Staff Report, IAG requests a reasonable continuance to provide substantive responses. Such a continuance is necessary to ensure that IAG is being afforded its due process. For the above-stated reasons, IAG hereby requests a continuance of the February 26, 2019 hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss this matter further. ----- "y'. { 't 1 ':d f ,. rA: -�#.,I-ir J. Flynn III Nossaman LLP JJF:art 56873060.x1 Matthew S. West Elizabeth A. Siznack David E. Kendig February 22, 2019 Page 3 cc: Steve Kozak, Chairperson Pro Tem, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) Jeff Thompson, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) Amy Mason, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) Ryan Gallagher, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) AJ Jha, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) 56873060.0 kyj kTA WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN &SMART A P r o l e s t i o n a l Co r P o r a [ i o n MICHAEL S.DAUDT DIRECT DIAL:(714)415-1059 DIRECT FAX:(714)415-1159 E-MAIL:MDAUDT@WSS-LAW.COM February 25, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL John J. Flynn III Nossaman LLP 1801 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Re: Request for Continuance of February 26,2019 Hearing re DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-25/RAR 2017-01/ and LLA 2017-01: Construction of Mixed-Use Project at 1.3751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue Dear Mr. Flynn, I am writing on behalf of the City of Tustin, whom this office serves as City Attorney. We are in receipt of your letter dated February 22, 2019 requesting a continuance of the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission hearing on the 3.38-acre Red Hill mixed-use project ("Project"). It appears that your client, Irvine Asset Group, LLC/WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC (collectively, "IAG") hasn't provided you with an accurate account of their interactions with City Staff. This letter is intended to dispel the inaccuracies in your correspondence. The notice provisions of Government Code section 69905(a)are designed to ensure that an applicant has actual knowledge of a hearing held on its application. There can be no doubt that IAG had actual notice of the February 26,2019 Planninu Commission hearing. In accordance with state law and the Tustin City Code, notice of the hearing was mailed to each owner of real property within 500 feet of the Project site, inclusive of the Project site itself— 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue.I Additionally, four notices were posted on the Project site no less than ten days in advance of the scheduled hearing date.' To suggest that IAC's authorized agent and project applicant were somehow unaware of the February 26, 2019 hearing date is ludicrous. By letter dated December 21, 2018, enclosed, Senior Planner Erica Demkowicz notified Pamela Sapetto of Sapetto Real Estate Solutions and 1 Copies of the mailing labels prepared for notice of the hearing are maintained on file and will be made available upon request. 2 Photographs of the four notices posted at the Project site(2 notices per property)are maintained on file and will be made available upon request, 555 ANTON BOULEVARD,SUITE 1200 w COSTA MESA,CA 92626-7670 w (714)558-7000 w FAX(714)835-7787 WW W.WSS-LAW.COM 1388401.2 John J. Flynn III February 25, 2019 Page 2 Craig Swanson of IAG that the "anticipated hearing date before the Planning Commission will be in February 2019." On January 9, 2019, Ms. Demkowicz was contacted by Ms. Sapetto by phone and reiterated that the Planning Commission would hear the project on February 26, 2019. As a direct result of these notifications, IAG representatives have either met with or attempted to meet with City Staff, Planning Commissioners, and/or City Councilmembers in anticipation of this specific hearing date and well before the Government Code Section 65091 noticing timeframe. For the above-stated reasons,it is a mischaracterization of the facts to assert that your client only recently learned of the scheduled hearing by way of a notice posted on the Project site and on the "Tustin Buzz" Facebook page. City Staff does not administer the Tustin Buzz page, and did not post that particular notice. City Staff did, however, provide additional public notice of the hearing date on the City of Tustin website, the City of Tustin Facebook page, and on Nextdoor.com. Your correspondence asserts that IAG's review of the February 21, 2019 Staff Report recommending denial of the Project is the "the first instance that IAG has been provided the substantive basis on which the planning staff found inconsistencies between the Project and the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan," This is demonstrably not true. As a preliminary matter, IAG was heavily involved in the development of the Specific Plan. The City conferred with IAG when it retained the consultant tasked with preparing the Specific Plan;the City provided IAG with a draft Specific Plan during the Plan's development; IAG provided comments on the Specific Plan, attended public workshops, and was present at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings where the Specific Plan was discussed and ultimately approved. Therefore, IAG should be well aware of the plan's guidelines and minimum development standards. And City Staff has repeatedly notified 1AG of staff's concerns regarding inconsistencies between the Project and the Specific Pian. In addition to direct conversations between City Staff and IAG representatives, City Staff has articulated its position in writing to IAG numerous times: By letter dated March 15, 2018, enclosed, City Staff stated, "As we discussed and identified in the meeting on March 14, 2018, Staff has concerns about the residential allocation for the area north of the I-5 and the overall Specific Plan area, provision of common and private open space, dedication of park land, provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian amenities and the overall architectural style and details proposed with the project." (pg. 1); By letter dated May 8, 2018, enclosed, City Staff wrote, "Implementing the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence in architectural design and provision of substantial usable common open space are part of the required findings [for the RAR]. In staff's opinion, the project is not substantially consistent with 1388401.2 John J. Flynn III February 25, 2019 Page 3 the uses (the proposed project is largely a residential project — not mixed use with commercial development on the ground floor fronting Red Hill), design criteria (the proposed project does not exhibit high-quality architectural design and site planning) and development regulations (the proposed project does not contain exceptional pedestrian amenities with public benefit) of the RHASP." (pg. 2. emphasis in original); By letter dated October 25,2018, enclosed, City Staff stated, "As has been identified and stated in prior City correspondence (letters dated 3/14/18 and 5/8/18), City Staff has expressed concerns about the proposed project and provided information back to you relative to compliance with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The prior concenis about the provision of common and private open space,provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian amenities and architectural style and details proposed with the project remain with the revised project. The chosen architectural style and color palette, which pushes the building towards an institutional look, does not implement the vision of creating a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area. The flexible amenity setback provided is minimal with results in a passive area that has limited usability." (pg. 2); and By letter dated December 21, 2018, enclosed, City Staff concluded, "Based upon staff's review of the proposed project and the RAR findings which include use, design review, development regulations, intended vision and equitable distribution, the Director is unable to make the findings necessary to allocate residential units for the project and therefore will be recommending denial of the project." Based on the foregoing, as reiterated in many conversations between City Staff and your client's representatives, nothing included in the Staff Report should have come as a surprise to your client. Lastly, it is incorrect to suggest that City Staff deemed the application complete solely to railroad IAG to a hearing for denial of the Project. To the contrary, City Staff reluctantly deemed the application complete at the arL!inp- of 1AG to move the Project forward to a hearing. Even then, City Staff's notification to IAG that the application was deemed complete asserts that the submittal was not consistent with the adopted Red. Hill Avenue Specific Plan in several areas and variances are required for the Project. (See 12/21/2018 letter, enclosed, pg. 1). Only now that City Staff has published its report recommending denial does IAG seek to slow the entitlement process down. Nevertheless, City Staff is willing to continue the public hearing on the Project for at least one Planning Commission meeting to a date certain per your request and will ensure that written notice of the continued hearing is provided to the Project property owner's authorized agent and 1388401.2 John J. Flynn III February 25, 2019 Page 4 the applicant. City Staff will not, however, recommend an indefinite continuance absent a request from IAG to withdraw the project outright or its notice of completion for the Project. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Professional. Corporation for MICHAEL S. DAUDT Enclosures 1. Letter from City Staff to IAG, December 21, 2018. 2. Letter from City Staff to IAG, March 15, 2018. 3. Letter from City Staff to JAG, May 8, 2018 (w/March 14, 2018 attachment) 4. Letter from City Staff to LAG, October 25, 2018. M Steve Kozak, Chairperson City of Tustin Jeff Thompson, Chairperson Pro Term Amy Mason, Planning Committee Member Ryan Gallagher, Planning Committee Member AJ Jah, Planning Committee Member Matt West, Acting City Manager David Kendig, City Attorney Lois Bobak, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development 1389401.2 (Aty Slaff to �AG, Def,�,(,�rnber 21, 2018 i Community Development Department TUSTIN December 21, 2018 a - Pamela Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 _ Irvine, CA 92614 HISTORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONOR€N€G OU€t PAST Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, E=ast Tower, Suite 500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors V LLC 900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60611 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 25111RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017.01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 13759 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised application submitted in November 2018, requesting approval to construct a proposed mixed-use devePopment project with 249 residential units and 7,000 square feet of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the following project numbers: Design Review(DR) 2017-016 « Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-25 • Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2017-01 • Lot Line Adjustment(LLA) 2017-01 While your submittal is not consistent with the adapted Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in several areas and variances are required; however, for the purposes of moving your project forward to a hearing, this letter serves as notification that your application is considered COMPLETE'. Pursuant to Section 6.6.1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP), the Community Development Director is referring the project to the Planning Commission. The anticipated public hearing date before the Planning Commission will be in February 2019, In addition, please be advised that pursuant to Section 6.7.1 of the RHASP, a Development Agreement is required for the project, of which none has been submitted. Again for the purposes of moving your project to a hearing, your application is considered complete. Soo Cefitennial Way, Tustin, CA 9274() 4 P 1714) 57.a-3fOO • F (73- 1 573-31 13 a �vcVGv.tt3stinCa orn DR 2017-006 CUP 2017-08 December 21, 2018 Page 2 Mixed-use residential is not allowed as a makter of right in the RHASP, but is instead allowed if the Director can make the findings necessary to allocate the residential units. Similarly, a mixed-use housing development with affordable units is not entitled to residential units and a density bonus (and/or waivers or concessions). Based upon staff's review of the proposed project and the RAR findings which include use, design review, development regulations, intended vision and equitable distribution, the Director is unable to make the findings necessary to allocate residential units for the project and therefore will be recommending denial of the project. We will provide you with a copy of the public hearing notice and report when it is available. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 573-3127 or by electronic mail at edemkowicz@tustinca.org. Sincerely, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner CC: Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development - Planning 'This quasi complete application is the culmination of submittals you have provided with densities ranging From 39 dulac to 74 du/ac. 1.e il,e I 'Sltaff to W3, 'March '15, 2018 2 Community Development Department TUSTIN ntf•, March 15, 2016 Pamela Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions r One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 Irvine, CA 92614 LL FI IYl'URY BUILDING OUR FUTURE Craig Swanson HONORING OUR PAST Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-016ICONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 25/RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE= ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised application, received on February 15, 2018, requesting approval to construct a proposed mixed use development project with 220 residential units, 7,024 square feet of retail commercial and 5,439 square feet of potential "flex" retail space at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the fal{owing project numbers: • Design Review (DR) 2017-016 • Conditional Use Permit (CUP)2017-25 • Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2017-01 • Lot Line Adjustment(LLA) 2017-01 The Community Development Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Government Code Section 65943, this letter serves as notification that your application is considered incomplete. As was discussed and identified in the meeting on March 14, 2018, Staff has concerns about the residential allocation for the area north of the 1-5 and the overall Specific Plan area, provision of common and private open space, dedication of park land, provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian amenities and the overall architectural style and details proposed with the project. Also at the meeting you offered to provide Staff with a new refined project design and Planning Staff anticipates this meeting with the applicant and project architect in the not- too-distant future to discuss site and elevation refinements for the project. Please also note that for the project to go forward the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan must be approved by the City or you will need to submit the applications independently to support your application/project. 300 C(enxnnial Way, Tustin, CA 14�7Ni() u 1', (714) 573-3111() a C (714) 573-�'I 1 rusnnca ark DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-251 RAR 2017-01lLLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 2 Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 573-3127. Sincerely, '�x+� Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner CC: Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justina Will{nom, Assistant Director of Community Development S ICdd1CDD Staff(Curren t)IEricalPro}ect FlleslConceptual Plan-Design Review`vDR 2017.018,CUP 2017-25;LLA 2017.02; 13751 & 13851 Red Hill Ave. (Mixed Use)ICorrespa ndencelLlr;UR 2017.016;CUP 2017-25', 13751 & 13841 Red Hili Ave;incomplete Q;3.15.18.dac ell,�-�if" f tr a rn C9t a f f IV 8, 2018 (vtfid,� Marrch 14, 201"0' attachrrient) Commurtity Developm.ernt Departrnerzt TuSTIN TILL L:, 1a - Ar 1 Z *5 t�- May 8, 2018 � ? Pamela Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 _ Irvine, CA 92614 �. 1115 TO BUILDING OURFU-IURE Craig Swanson HONORING OUR PAST Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 25/RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: This letter is in response to correspondence dated April 19, 2018 regarding the above-referenced project. On March 15, 2018, the City sent a letter that expressed general concerns about the proposed project and stated that the application was incomplete. The format of the letter was follow-up correspondence to the meeting held on March 14, 2018 at City Hall about the same subject and project. At the March 14, 2018 meeting, Staff provided a detailed discussion about concerns with the project and stated that a comment letter had been prepared to summarize the concerns (Attached letter dated March 14, 2018). You, in turn, indicated that you did not wish to receive our comment letter and offered to provide Staff with a new refined project design which you believed would address the City conceals. As a result, a more detailed letter was not provided (at your request) in anticipation of submittal of a revised project design. Although you have shown modified plans at the various City Council/Planning Commission briefings, to date, a revised project has not been submitted. In addition, the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) has not been officially adopted to allow the contemplated mixed use project, which is the underlying reason why the application remains incomplete. To move the project forward you have the following options: 1) Submit a General Plan Amendment {GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) in addition to your current application so that your project can be reviewed and considered independently of the RHASP. Note all prior concerns related to density, open space, parking, etc, remains and that environmental review must be conducted independent and exclusive to your project site; or 2) Address all comments identified in the March 14, 2018 letter and the City will consider the project concurrently with the RHASP. .100 Centennial Wav, Tustin, CA 92780 9 P (714) 573-3100 o t (7 14) 573-3113 0 www.tttstinC.I.M DR 2017-016fCUP 2017-281 RAR 2017-01/LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT May 8, 2018 Page 2 With respect to your statements in the letter dated April 19, 2018 regarding the allocation of residential units, conversions of commercial square footage to residential use is contemplated in the Specific Plan, however, such conversions can only take place once the 500 allowed units have been allocated. The unit allocation is subject to meeting specific findings as part of the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) process, Implementing the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence in architectural design and provision of substantial usable common open space are part of the required findings. In staff's opinion, the project is not substantially consistent with the uses (the proposed project is largely a residential project — not mixed use with commercial development on the ground floor fronting Red Hill), design criteria (the proposed project does not exhibit high-quality architectural design and site planning) and development regulations (the proposed project does not contain exceptional pedestrian amenities with public benefit) of the RHASP. Please submit a final proposal and we will take it forward, It is anticipated that the Specific Plan will be heard before the Planning Commission and City Council when a draft is completed by the consultant. The City understands that you desire your application to be processed concurrently with the Specific Plan. As the Specific Plan is finalized and Program EIR completed, tentative public hearing dates will be set for the application and City staff will inform you once that information is known. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at(714) 573-3127. Sincerely, *caH. emkowicz, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: City Letter dated March 14, 2018 CC, Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development S:NCdd\CDD staff(Current)lErica\Project FIIWConceptual Plan-Design RevievADR 2017-016;CUP 2017-25;LLA 2017-02;13751 & 13851 Red Hill Ave,(Mixed UseKorrespondence\Ltr;DR 2017-016;CUP 2017-25;13751 & 13841 Red Hill Ave;City Response;5.8.18.doc Community Developineznt Departmelit TUSTIN ,Tqf FS i 9 U L� March 14, 2018 r. a Pamela Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions Ills WRY One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Irvine, CA 92614 Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 251RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017.01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: - CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised application, received on February 15,2018, requesting approval to construct a proposed mixed use development project with 220 residential units, and 7,024 square feet of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the following project numbers: Design Review(DR) 2017-016 Y Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-25 C Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2017-01 Lot Line Adjustment(LLA) 2017-01 The Community Development Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Government Code Section 65943, this letter serves as notification that your application is considered incomplete. For your application to be considered complete, please address information, exhibits, and materials identified in the attached Exhibit A and the redlined plans. Please also note that for the project to go forward the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan must be approved by the City or you will need to submit the applications independently necessary to support your application/project, 3oo Centennial Wiv, Tustin, CA. 92780 o P: (7t-1) 57 3.3 100 • F (714) 573-311.3 10 www Lust nca oro DR 2017-01G/CUP 201 7-25/RAR 2017-01/LLA 2017-01 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 2 Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at(714)573-3127. Sincerely, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner Attachments; .Exhibit A 'Comments, Corrections & Potential Conditions Redlines — Planning CC: Jeffrey Parker; City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development S-ICdd1CDD Staff(Current)IErlcalProject FIlesVConceptual Plan-Design RavlewTR 2017-016;CUP 2017-25;LLA 2017-02;13751 & 13851 Red Hili Ave.(Mixed Use)ICorrespondenceItr;DR 2017.016;CUP 2017-25; 13751&13841 Red Hlll Ave; 3.13.18,doc EXHIBIT A COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS NEW MIXED USE PROJECT 43751 & 13841 RED HILA, AVENUE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning: 1,1 Following the third Planning Commission and City Council/joint public workshop held on February 20, 2018, there were questions and concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council about the overall planning and vision for the area as well as members of the public, As a result and in accordance with the City Manager and City Council direction, the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan has been placed "on hold"while i .the plan is re-evaluated and addresses these comments and concerns. 1.2 If you would like to proceed with the submitted project Independently, then an application -for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change would need to be submitted in addition to the other entitlements that are being requested along with new environmental study. You may submit the necessary applications and apply for both, however, issues that have been noted In prior Council workshops and staff letters remain. As such, Staff would not support the request as the- project would create spot zoning and be Inconsistent with the General Plan. 1.3 It is envisioned In the draft Specific Plan that Residential Allocation Reservations would be allocated based on superior projects. As to the project and the draft proposal, somehow the proposal has become more dense, less of a mixed use project and as such, the City is not in support of the unit allocation based on the proposed Residential PJlocatlon Reservation (RAR)findings: 1.3.1 The project Is not substantially consistent with the uses, design criteria, and development regulations of the RHASP in that the project Is predominantly a residential project with 220 units (approx, 65 du/acre) with limited amounts of commercial square footage and retail presence along Red Hill, Additionally, the project does not comply with the minimum residential private and common open space requirements. As a new project, the overall. design is not exceptional In Its level of detail to create visual interest, use of high quality materials or colors and does not promote the pedestrian environment at the l ground level through well-designed plazas, courtyards, public art and/or the { use of landscaping along the Red Hill frontage. f=urther the proposal dual counts portions of the commercial square footage for open space as well as a narrow required landscape setback and required green lane. The project also dual counts open space and the parking analysis Is Inadequate (i.e. does not consider residential, retail and guest parking for the project). 1.3.2 The project does not Implement the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence In architectural design, provision of substantial usable open space, provision of public art (which may consist of murals, sculpture, decorative fountains or other art deemed acceptable) connectivity to adjacent paries and/or schools If appropriate, and pedestrian connections in that the proposed mixed use development is largely a residential development with only a token amount of retail commercial on the ground level. As a result, it does not demonstrate excellence in design as a mixed use project which Is one of the DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-261 RAR 2017-011L1A 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 2 main objectives of the Specific Plan. The proposed Spanish Revival architectural style is a modern twist on the traditional, but does not exhibit sufficient pedestrian details and scale that help create a sense of place for the area which Is the vision for the area. As a vacant parcel sited at Red Hill and San Juan Avenue, a prominent gateway to the Specific Plan area, the project lacks visual interest and attention to detail to create and foster the pedestrian environment desired. Additionally, the project does not provide the required amounts of open space as stipulated In the Plan. 1.33 The number of units requested is within the thresholds established by the Specific Plan's Program EIR in that there are a total of 500 residential units allocated for the Specific Plan area; 395 residential units are allocated for the area north of the 1-5 Freeway and 105 residential units for the area south of the 1-5 Freeway. While the proposed project Is within the threshold, the project absorbs the majority of available units which leaves minimal remaining units for the area north. 1.3.4 The overall project does not meet the findings for De'slgn Review outlined in Section 6.7.1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian, 1.4 While the Specific Plan Is currently going through the environmental process, if the Plan is approved by the City, parkland is identified as a deficiency and mitigation fees may be applicable to the project. As proposed, the project applicant has Indicated that they do not Intend to provide parkland/open space or pay a park land in-Ileu tee, 1.5 The submitted Response to Comments (RTC), in which the applicant Is to provide a written response/explanation as to why or why not the City's comment or correction has or has not been addressed was incomplete. The RTC lacked clarity with some items not addressed at all(I,e. item # 1.1 (1,1.1-1,1.6) and 1.5 while other Items read as though an Individual was to respond, yet no written response was provided (i.e. Item # 1.10, 1.16, 1.17, 1,18, 1,19, 1.20, 1.21 (1.21.1-1.211.3), Complete written responses were only provided for items#1.3, '11.15 2nd 1,22), 1.6 REPEAT COMMENT: Please Identify and dimension all line types Including property lines, public right-0f-way, curb line, easements, amenity setback area, existing and proposed utility boxes and existing uses on adjacent parcels on the proposed site plan (Sheet A-1.2). Use colors to identify the type of line, if necessary. Building recesses and pop-outs will also need to be dimensioned on the site plan as well as each floor plan for each level (as measured from property line) to ensure that the building is constructed as represented in the renderings, 1.6.1 REPEAT COMMENT: Identify all laundry areas on each floor level (as applicable). 1.7 REPEAT COMMENT: Please Identify the amenity setback area and anticipated activities within this area (1,e. outdoor dining, landscaping, seating, plazas), etc. An enlarged flexible amenity setback plan (or rendering)should be provided in addition to the site plan (Sheet A-1.2)which doesn't have this information Identified. DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-25/RAR 2017-011LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 3 1.6 REPEAT COMMENT: The revised plans do not provide the minimum required amount of private and common open space per unit. In addition, the combined total of both areas does not equal to the required 300 SF which will be specified in the RHASP. Private open space per unit Is less than the required 100 SF and the common open space per unit Is less than the required 200 SF, 1.6.1 As proposed, the pet spa and bike shop would be considered amenity areas and therefore could be counted towards the required common open space. The fitness and business center, however, cannot be counted towards the required open space as they can be potentially converted to retail at a future date. The proposed project counts these areas twice which is not In accordance with the Specific Plan, The designated OCFA Fire Lane with sports courts is considered a required tum around area for public safety and therefore cannot count towards the required open space. If children or adult. are users of this area for recreational purposes, there will be a conflict with emergency vehicles. Please revise the open space calculation and remove the areas not considered common open space from the computation. In order to be counted as open space, the open space areas must be usable recreation/common open space for residents. Open space and_courtvards located In the commercial areas of mixed use must be accessible to residential occupants and 'visitors and cannot be counted towards the required common open space. Landscaping and seating shall be permanently integrated into all required common open spaces. Please revise Sheet A-1.6 with changes to the proposed private and common open space and includeflabel the blue colored areas shown on this page. 1.8.2 Revised Sheet A-1.6 Indicates an increased rear yard setback for the parking lot from 10 feet to 12-feet (i.e. proposed dog run and urban bistro garden), While the setback is a nominal increase, City staff continues to have concerns about the actual usability of these areas and the value It brings to the project relative to common open space for the residents. An increased setback between the Tustin High School and the adjacent residential continues to be recommended as a buffer between uses. 1.9 REPEAT COMMENT: Please clarify the gated area and Its operation within the parking structure facing the alleyway. Is this an exit-only" area for residents of the building? Please clarify. Adequate queuing is not provided for a vehlcular entrance from the alleyway into the structure, With the resubmittal, there was no written response to this Item and/or reference to where the revised Information could be found on the revised plans. 1.10 REPEAT COMMENT: Please Identify both OCFA turnaround areas on the Fire Master Plan (Sheet F-2). Only one turnaround area is noted adjacent to the existing alleyway, but the other one off of San Juan is not noted. 1,11 Please Indicate the proposed number of storage rooms on each level and modify each floor pian summary. Modify Sheets A-2.1, A-2.2, A-2.3, A-2.4 and A-2.5. DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-251 RAID 2017-01/1.1A 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14,2018 Page 4 1.12 Please revise the Building Summary on Sheet A-2.0 to accurately reflect the actual Floor area on each level. The square footages on Sheet A-2.0 do not correspond with the square footages on each building level. 1.13 REPEAT COMMENT - Gateway Signage; Per Chapter 5 of the RHASP, comer lots shall provide, as part of development projects, an area for gateway monumentation, A comer triangular-shaped setback range of 15-25 feet shall be provided for gateway monumentation. All gateway monumentation shall comply with TCC visual clearance requirements and is subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. With the resubmittal, there was no reference to where the revised information could be found on the revised plans. The area-for gateway monumentation needs to be Identified on the site plan and the triangular area noted with dimensions (Sheet A-2,1). 1.14 The submitted Parking Demand Analysis states that the parking ratio for the proposed residential portion of the project Is 1.6 spaces per unit based upon an assessment of twelve (12) other projects within Southern California cities and Ut,l shared parking methodology, The ULI shared parking methodology was also utilized for ,the retail portion of the project and the potential conversion of 5,437 square feet of retail space to food service which would trigger a maximum parking demand. The 1.6 ratio, of which the residential parking analysis was based upon, is not consistent with the parking requirements as specified in the proposed Specific Plan. As a result, staff has concems that the combined parking ratio for residential and commercial is too low and that the project is under parked. 1.15 The City is in the process of adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance that will apply Citywide. A copy of the proposed ordinance was forwarded to the applicant. Once adopted, residential rental products will be required to either provide an affordable unit mix or pay a fee in-lieu of providing the affordable housing. Please identify how the project will comply with this requirement. Street Design/Streei Parking/►andscape Medians/Street Parking 1.16 REPEAT COMMENT: Exhibit 3-5 within the draft Red Hill Avenue Spectflc Plan (RHASP) illustrates the Conceptual Median Locations along Red Hill Avenue. The conceptual medians proposed between San Juan Street and EI Camino Real need to be shown on the site plan (Sheet A1.2) within the plan set. It is unclear If this revision was addressed, and Sheet A1.2 modified as Sheet A1.2 does not contain any conceptual medians. 1.17 REPEAT COMMENT; Please provide a cross section of the existing public right-of-way and the proposed right-of-way with the flexible amenity setback. DR 2017-0161CUP 2017-201 RAR 2017-011LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 6 Architecture 1,18 The proposed combination of green screens and public art on shown on the rear of the parking structure do not adequately screen the parking garage or provide visual interest as viewed from the Tustin High School and other public vantage points. Any proposed public art needs to be thoughtfully planned and designed as part of the overall architectural design — not as an afterthought. Allernakive screening methods and/or graphic treatment needs to be further evaluated and explored along the entire rear facade of the structure. Per Chapter 5 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, design features must be consistent on all elevations of the structure. All four (4) elevations of the building are not treated equally relative to design features and details. 1.19 REPEAT COMMENT: Retail and commercial storefronts should utilize a bulkhead and avoid generic full height aluminum storefront systems. City Staff provided a similar comment during the preliminary review of the project. With the resubmittal, there was no written response to this item and/or reference to where the revised information could be found on the revised plans, Landscaping 1.20 Per the RHASP (Chapter 3), adjacent future development shall expand upon the approved streetscape character with a palette that is complementary but does not distract or disrupt. The proposed palm trees are not complimentary to the parkway palette and City staff recommends they be removed and replaced. Based on the allowed parkway trees please revise the landscape plan and modify the landscaping on the project site to compliment the parkway, PUBLIC WORKS& ENGINEERING: Based on the submittal, the Engineering Division has the following comments: Traffic Study Generaf comments 3.1 Previous comments addressed. 3.2 Main project access on Red Hill Avenue should consider separating left-tums and shared thru/right-turns to reduce single lane queue on-site, Entry width could be reduced to 12' to allow for 14' left-tum and 12' thrulright-tum exits. 3.3 Was control delay approach to determine projects impacts applied to both Caltrans 1-5 ramp intersections? 3.4 It would be helpful to the reader to show TAZ boundaries In a figure, 3.5 What is assumed for the project site under no-project conditions? Zero uses or currently approved plan? DR 2017-010CUP 2417-251 RAR 2017-OIILLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page a 3.6 Besides RHASPA what cumulative projects are assumed i.e., Downtown Community Core Specific Plan? Report specific comments 3.7 Page 2-- Second paragraph, second line: Remove"s" in Red Hill. 3.8 Page 3- Correct Figure.2-2 reference to Figure 3. 3.9 Page 8 - Remove "Turning Movement" from heading and add "and average daily traffic (ADT)"after PM peak hour. 3.10 page 10 - Second paragraph under Existing Plus Project Traffic Forecasts: Add "and ADT" after PM peak hour. j 3.11 Page 10- last paragraph, if existing volumes to/from Red Hill Plaza are based on counts were RHASP uses not assumed? i 3.12 Page 11 - First three paragraphs: Add "and ADT" after PM peak hour. 3.13 Page 12- Fourth paragraph: Add "and Exlsting" after Existing. 3.14 Page 13-Third full paragraph: Add "with and without the project" at the end. 3,15 Page 13- identify"net" traffic, 3.16 Page 14-Third full paragraph: Add "with and without the project" at the end, 3.17 Page 16 - Add as the fifth bullot: Subject to review and approval by the City, provide a striping plan on Red Hill Avenue and signal plans and specifications for the signal installation at Project Driveway 1. 3.18 Page 18, Table 18 and In "Summary of Findings and Recommendations" - Remove reference to protective/permissive left-turns and focus the discussion on the improved conditlons with protected left-turns. 3.19 Starting with Figure 4: Global change for San Juan suffix to"ST." Panting Study: G General comment 3.20 Experience in City does not support the empirical data presented In the report regarding less need than required by City Code for parking. Report specific comments 3.21 Page 3-First paragraph: Identify the number of spaces required by the City Code. DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-261 RAR 2017-011LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 7 Conceptual Site Plan; 3.22 As with any entry gate, queuing area Is required on the project site and not in the alley. Therefore the gate at the alley should be for emergency or exit only as there is not enough room for an entry queuing. Queuing is discouraged in the public alley, 3.23 Signals for main entry an Red Hill Avenue will be conditioned on the project. Show easements for signals and equipment on current site plan. Prior to issuance of any permits on the project, signal plans need to be submitted. These signals will benefit Red Hili Plaza as it will be the east leg of this intersection. Therefore the applicant may wish to pursue a fair share contribution or reimbursement from the owners) of Red Hill Plaza. (2"d Request) 3.24 Remove decorative pavers from the public right-of-way. Or, the applicant shall enter Into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the maintenance of the decorative pavers. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the agreement exhiblt(s) and the City Attomey's cost for preparing the agreement. 3.26 Remove the extra northerly handicap ramp proposed on Red Hill Avenue and provide an angled.crosswalk at the north side of Red Hill Avenue, 3.26 REPEAT COMMENT: The driveway approach on Red Hilt Avenue shall be designed and constructed per the City of Tustin Standard 210, modified to have sufficient width to accommodate the required travel lanes and 35-Foot radius curb retums to be compatible with current or future traffic signal Installation, 3.27 All proposed / required public improvements, including but not limited to ADA ramps, cross walk, traffic signal pole & equipment cabinet at project entrance/ Red Hill Avenue, 8 Inch curb, and etc, shall be shown on all applicable plans including site plan, conceptual renderings. 3.28 The proposed "District" monument sign wall shall be designed and constructed on the private property. 3.29 Conditions of approval will disclose,that on-street parking and the southbound right- tum lane along Red Hill Avenue is temporary until such time the space Is needed for roadway widening, The applicant shall install signs (sign and locations shall be reviewed & approved by the City) stating No parking bpm-lam, 2 Hour parking 7am- epm, 3.30 Any proposed monument signs shall comply with the City of 'Tustin Guidelines for Determining Sign Location Visual Clearance and Public Safety Areas. The proposed monument sign at the comer of Red HIII Avenue and San Juan Street shall be designed and constructed entirely on private property. The most current Federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. DR 2017-018/CUP 2017-261 RAR 2017-01ILLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14, 2018 Page 8 3.31 Based on the Red Hill Avenue Streetscape and Median Feasibility Study from El Camino Real to Bryan Avenue (CIP 70209) dated September 10, 2012, the applicant shall be responsible for fair share cost of Red Hill Avenue landscape median project(50%). 3.32 A project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area would require specmc conditions of approval and these are enclosed with this letter for your reference, Preliminary Water Quality Management Pram: 3,33 If any major changes are made to the plans or the development during entitlement processing that may affect the strategy or approach to the BMP layout, grades or required setbacks, the Preliminary WQMP plan set may require additional review attention and revisions to be considered in the final WQMP as needed for conformance. Note: The letter Is a compilation of the City's review of the above-referenced project and should not be considered exhaustive with respect to comments. Additional comments may be forwarded by Staff as a result of future reviews, revisions to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan which is in the process of being finalized and upon additional materials and information that is requested and submitted. Please include all redlines with the resubmittal. ('11i"y Staff W WG, October 25" 2018 /11 Community Development Department TUSTIN October 25, 2018 _ Pamela Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 . 14l11tfi5 Irvine, CA 92614 iSuic-nine Doli rtrll,ict 1- O NC7ktNU OUR PAST Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 25/RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame Thank you for submitting a revised application, received on September 26, 2018, requesting approval to construct a revised proposed mixed-use development project with 249 residential apartment units and 7,024 square feet of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. The following project numbers identifies this request • Design Review(DR) 2017-016 • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-25 Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2017-01 • Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) 2017-01 The Community Development Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Government Code Section 65943, this letter serves as notification that your application is incomplete. On October 16, 2018, the City Council approved the Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and introduced for first reading, draft Ordinance 1498 in which to adopt the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). A second reading of Ordinance 1498 will take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Should the City Council have its second reading, the RHASP will be officially adopted and effective 30 days thereafter The RHASP considered by the City Council has provisions in which your project is not consistent. Briefly, the list below identifies your projects inconsistencies and/or deficiencies. 1. Revised project description, development application, Parking Demand Analysis and Traffic Impact Study reflecting current submittal, 300 Cx�ntcnnial Way. Tu4tin, CA ()2780 1) 573-3 1()() • I (7 14 i7� .91 f � wtiwnitit�nra t.,r� DR 2017-016lCUP 2017-251 RAR 2017-01I1-1-A 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT October 25, 2018 Page 2 2. Revised project design with a maximum of four (4) stories and 50 feet for both building and parking structure per the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian (RHASP); 3. Parking Management Plan per the RHASP; 4. Updated will serve letters from all utility companies (specifically including CR&R) who will provide service to the project; 5. Re-approval of Fire Master Plan noting sports courts in OCFA fire lane off of San Juan Avenue; and 6. Revised open space and affordable housing calculations should the number of units be reduced in accordance with the maximum 4-story building height. As has been identified and stated in prior City correspondence (let-ters dated 3114118 and 518118), City Staff has expressed concerns about the proposed project and provided information back to you relative to compliance with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The prior concerns about the provision of common and private open space, provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian amenities and architectural style and details proposed with the project remain with the revised project. The chosen architectural style and color palette, which pushes the building towards an institutional look, does not implement the vision of creating a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area. The flexible amenity setback provided is minimal which results in a passive area that has limited usability Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at(714) 573-3127. Sincerely, *EricaXH. i�koWcz, AIC Senior Planner CC: Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth 6insack, Director of Community Development Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development S:1Cdd1CDD Staff(CurrenO)Er€caTroject Filesconceptual Plan-Design RevieMOR 2017.016;CUP 2017-25', LLA 2017-02:13751 & 13851 Reif Hill Ave.(Mixed Use)lCorrespondence\Llr:DR 2017-016;CUP 2017-25; 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Ave;incomplete', 10 26,18 doc ATTACHMENTJ 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 sloes 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- 1 . ubmitted:1 . A Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) for 208 units (249 with 20% density bonus) 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 for all new projects within the RHASP area (not submitted) Resolution No. 4378 Page 2 6. Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9111 et al 7. 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) 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 (not submitted) 10.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 Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 2019. H, That the project proposal requests an allocation of 2.08 residential units (249 with 20% density bonus) on the 3.38 acre site which results in a density of 63 dwelling units/acre without a density bonus and 74 dwelling units/acre with a density bonus. The proposed project is located in the north area of Interstate- s in which 395 units are assigned. The request for 208 out of 395 units assigned to the north area represents fifty-three (53) percent of the north area, forty-two (42) percent of the entire Specific Plan area, and one- hundred-seventy-three (173) percent of the northwest quadrant. 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: Resolution No. 4378 Page 3 1. Required Finding for Approval (Equitable Distribution of Units): 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. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. a. The proposed project is located in the north area of Interstate-5, which is assigned with 395 units. One way to measure proportionality would be to divide the total acreage by the number of residential units allocated to that area. The total acreage north of Interstate 5 is approximately nineteen (19) acres. The total acreage for the North West quadrant in which the project site is located is approximately six (6) acres. A proportional distribution of units for the North West quadrant would be approximately 120 units. Not all 120 units should be allocated to the project site as it would not be proportionally distributed. For the project site, a proportional distribution would be approximately 70 units. The project is disproportionate by 138 units (208-70 units). The Specific Plan does allow for some flexibility to grant additional densities if other goals are obtained (i.e. additional affordable housing, open space, etc.). However, none of these objectives are significantly obtained with the project proposed. b. That in determining density or unit allocation, the Planning Commission has considered the RHASP and the City's General Plan, The Tustin General Plan allows a maximum density of twenty- five (25) dwelling units/acre. The RHASP utilizes average density per acre and allows a flexibility in which any particular parcel may exceed the 25 dwelling units/acre provided that the project meets the regulations of the Specific Plan. While this provision is included to create incentives and flexibility in the implementation of the Specific Plan, it was never envisioned that a project would have twice or three times of the highest density allowed in the City. c. 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 (62 dwelling units/acre without a density bonus or 74 dwelling units/acre with a density bonus) 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 close to three times the density allowed under the General Plan. Resolution No. 4,378 Page 4 2. Required Findings for Approval (Unit Threshold): The number of units requested is within the thresholds established by the Specific Plan's Program EIR. Recommended finding: Standard minimally satisfied. a. A total of 208 residential units are proposed before a density bonus 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 Pian area located south of Interstate 5. However, the proposal is inconsistent with equitable distribution and a disproportionate number of units would be allocated to one (1) site. 3. Required Finding for Approval (Uses, Design Criteria and Development Regulations): The project is substantially consistent with the uses, design criteria, and development regulations of the RHASP. Recommended findings: Standard not satisfied. a. Uses: i. 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 249 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 serve or sell goods or merchandise to residents of the development, the community or surrounding areas. 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. ii. While the project would include limited commercial (retail), the project does not retain the neighborhood commercial character of the RHASP corridor. The commercial retail square footage proposed equates to only twenty (20) percent of the overall building frontage along Red Hill Avenue and only 1 .3 percent of the entire proposals square footage. The remaining frontage contains leasing office, fitness area, and residential units. Resolution No. 4378 Page 5 iii. The project provides outdoor seating and a courtyard; however, the project does not emphasize or promote pedestrian activity. The building is designed with retail on the south side of the frontage and not providing continuous meaningful commercial along the 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. iv. 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 (4-stories) and building height (50 feet) under 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, 1.3 percent of the entire proposals square footage (7,000 square feet/502,759 total project square footage) 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. V. 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 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: fifteen (15) percent for Very Low, Low, Moderate income households, or 12.5 percent Very Low and Moderate income households, or ten (10%) Resolution No. 4378 Page 6 percent of Low income households. A lower could yield a higher number of affordable units. b. Design Criteria: i. Based on preliminary renderings, the project, as proposed, meets the minimal requirements of the RHASP relative to 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 and design criteria of the RHASP. ii. The proposed project is designed with a five-story building and a six-level parking structure at a height of up to 66'3" at their highest points. The building design provides step backs and courtyards along the frontage with the intention of softening the building height and providing an illusion of smaller buildings. However, the site is surrounded with one-story residential buildings across San Juan, a two-story apartment building 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. iii, 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 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 Resolution No. 4378 Page 7 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. iv. 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. c. Development Regulations: i. The proposed project does not meet the required development regulations relative to building height and therefore requires a variance. ii. The proposed project consists of five (5) stories for the residential portion and six (6) levels for the parking structure with heights ranging from 44'-6" to 66'-3" 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. The project as designed does not comply with the building height limitation of the RHASP. iii. The Planning Commission and City Council specifically directed and adopted standards for buildings to not exceed four (4) stories and 50 feet. The project as proposed contradicts the Planning Commission and City Council specific direction, established standards, goals, and overall vision of the Specific Plan. iv. 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. V. 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 Emergency Fire Access Lane (EFAL), 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. Resolution No 4378 Page 8 vi. The project proposes private and common open space through inclusion of private patios, balconies, courtyards, clubhouse, fitness, M-Fi lounge, pet spa, bike shop, lobby, parking structure alley and EFAL. The dual use of the EFAL 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. vii. 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 1.6 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. viii. 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. ix. Based upon the City's experience with existing residential communities, staff is concerned and recommends 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. 4. Required Findings for Approval (Vision, Usable Open Space, Public Amenities): 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 ResoiLltlon No. 4378 Page 9 deemed acceptable) connectivity to adjacent parks and/or schools if appropriate, and pedestrian connections. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. a. 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), public art along Red Hill Avenue or connectivity to parks and/or school. The project also does not promote a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented development or sense of place. b. The project includes a small retail plaza and urban plaza along Red Hili 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 four (4) feet to nine (9) inches for two (2) retail spaces, six (6) feet to nine (9) inches for the third retail tenant space and twenty (20) feet to three (3) inches 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. c. The project includes retail storefronts at the south end and leasing and a 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. d. The RHASP calls for project design that respects human scale and surrounding area in terms of massing, height, and design compatibility. While the project incorporates limited commercial retail Resolution leo. 4378 Page 10 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 fagade 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.). This was a significant concern at the public hearing and workshops for the RHASP and the public indicated that they do not want projects along Red Hill Avenue to resemble high density corridors seen in adjacent communities. The proposed project is highly reflective of those corridors' architecture. e. While the proposed private courtyard (private use only), urban plaza (public use) and vehicular entry (public & private use) to the project are placed in between buildings, the pedestrian spaces are not well- designed or creatively integrated into the design for public use. The project lacks of meaningful massing breaks in the building fagade for Public usage results in building blocks that are not pedestrian oriented. f. The proposed project is five (5) stories (parking structure is 6-levels) which exceeds the allowable building and story heights 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. g. While the parking structure contains an artistic treatment along 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 falls short of providing adequate screening of the parking structure. The height of the parking structure also creates less desirable use of the 463 feet long by twelve (12) feet wide area between the projects and the Tustin High School play field that the applicant wants to use for open space. Resolution No. 4378 Page 11 5. Required Finding for Approval (Design Review): The overall project meets the findings for Design Review outlined in Section 6.7.1. Recommended finding: Standard not satisfied. a. A detailed analysis with respect to the Design Review findings is included in Section K of this Resolution. I. 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. J. 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. That the remainder applications include the following: 1. 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 4. 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) S. 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 (not requested) 10.A dual use of emergency fire access lane and recreational open space K. 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 . indings:1 . The proposed project would reduce blight by constructing a development on a vacant site. The project will construct and improve Resolution No. 4378 Page 12 the current conditions 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. 2. 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, 3. 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. 4. The pedestrian amenities are limited in scope and reflect a typical design and layout that is not visually interesting. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 13 8. 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. L. 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 (approximately 1.3% of the total building area, including the parking structure) 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-oriented, 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 story and 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 fagade 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 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. PesdUtbll No. 4378 Page 14 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 Pian (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 249 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. 6. 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 lacks elements that help to create a sense of place within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design and public improvernents. 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. Resalutbll No. 4318 Page 15 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 Study (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. 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. Resolution No. 4378 Page 16 M That Section 6.7.1.8 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 . 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. 5. The development does not provide a sufficient mix of uses, as the commercial space only consist of twenty (20) percent and its placement along the principal street frontage of Red Hill Avenue, 1 .3% of the proposals overall square footage and 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 Resolution No. 4378 Page '17 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) 8. 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. 9. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated its level of development experience to the City. N. 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 requestwill 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 Resolution No. 4373 Page 13 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 twenty-eight (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 with a parking management plan as part of the project. 5. The applicant is requesting to utilize a density bonus parking provision to support their project. With no unit allocation for the project, the project does not qualify for a density bonus and all associated incentives, concessions and parking reduction. O. 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 . The project involves two (2) adjoining parcels; 2, There will be no greater number of parcels will result from the LLA; 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 Resolution No. 4373 Page 19 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 applicant has indicated that the Specific Plan standards do not apply to this project since Waivers for building height and open space have been requested under the Density Bonus provision. City Staff does not concur and notes the following Variances would be required: 1) reduction in open space requirements and dual use of the Emergency Fire Access Lane (EFAL) and recreational open space and 2) to exceed the allowable building height from the four (4) story rnaximurn to five (5) stories on the apartment building and six (6) levels for the parking structure and over fifty (50) feet in height. Such requests would not qualify for approval in that the property does not have special circumstances that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The proposed project would not meet the criteria for granting of a variance because of the following reasons: 1 . The lot size is 3.38 acres which is larger than most other lots in the immediate neighborhood and would provide applicant with much more ability to comply with the minimum development standards. 2. The lot shape is rectangular (approx. 600' width x 270' depth) and not an irregular shape. 3. The topography is generally flat and there are 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 minimum development standards. 5. The situation is a self-imposed hardship, not a condition particular to the property. Q 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. ReSGILJt on No. 4378 Page 20 R That the RHASP requires a developer to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City to ensure public benefits are realized as residentiai unit allocations, incentives, concessions are provided to developers. The applicant in this case has not submitted a DA. S. That this Resolution incorporates staff reports and all associated exhibits related to the proposed project and is hereby made as part of the findings. T. 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. Ii. 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 six (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 12111 day of March, 2019. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No 4378 Page 21 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 Con-imission, held on the 12t' of March, 2019. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary