Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-14-05 7:00 p.m. Given All present Staff present None Approved Adopted Resolution Nos. 3962, 3963, 3964 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14,2005 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Doug Holland, Assistant City Attorney Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works Pat Sanchez, Director of Parks and Recreation Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 2005, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16790 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-025 REQUESTING APPROVAL: 1) TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 4.99 ACRE SITE INTO ONE (1) LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING NINETY- THREE (93) RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS; AND 2) FOR BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NINETY-THREE (93) RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 1 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3962 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration as adequate for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and adopting the Negative Declaration as adequate for Design Review 04- 025 for the development of ninety-three (93) residential condominium units. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3963 recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 to subdivide an existing 4.99 acre site into one (1) lot for the purpose of developing ninety-three (93) residential condominium units. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3964 approving Design Review 04- 025 for design review and site planning to allow for the development of ninety-three (93) residential condominium units. 7:04 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Willkom Presented the staff report. Nielsen Asked how the 75 foot left-turn pocket would affect Tustin High School traffic. Ronn Knox, Katz, Stated the traffic study was based on the length available for the Okitsu & Associates turn pocket; it is 297 feet from the project driveway to the high 17852 East 1 ih school driveway, which allows plenty of space; only 75 feet are Street, #102 required. Nielsen Asked if that study also took into consideration the traffic coming into and out of Tustin High School after school. Mr. Knox Answered the traffic was observed coming from the high school and saw no potential for conflict. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Karen Sully, representing Nevis Homes Thanked staff for their hard work and the Planning Commission for hearing the proposal; stated preparation of the project has been going on for a year and is designed to benefit the community; it meets all the development standards; meetings were held with Tustin High School, Tustin Unified School District representatives, and the general manager at U-Haul; all those parties are in support of the project; meetings were held with tenants of The Cottages; the relocation notification package allows existing tenants 120 days' notice and a half-rent reduction for the four-month period; security deposits will be returned in full; tenants will be placed on a priority Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 2 Nielsen Scott Yang, Nevis Homes Nielsen Mr. Yang Floyd Mr. Yang Nielsen Danny Aguilar, 1361 EI Camino Real, Tustin Sharrone Nance, 1361 EI Camino Real, Tustin Maureen Cameron, 1361 EI Camino Real, Tustin Pontious list to buy one of the condominiums; Mr. Yang from Nevis Homes, the civil engineer, traffic engineer, property manager, architect, and developer were also available to answer any questions. Thanked Ms. Sully for her comments; and, asked for more elaboration regarding the tenant package for a better understanding of what is being offered to existing tenants. Stated the plan is to break ground October 1, 2005; at that time, every tenant will be on the purchase priority list; there is typically a waiting list three months before completion for a property such as this; the relocation fee includes half rent for four months in order for tenants to save money for moving costs. Asked if there will be any moving assistance. Indicated the consensus was the tenants would prefer to have the money ahead of time. Asked if the leases are month-to-month up to one year. Answered the leases are month-to-month at this point. Invited members of the audience to speak, to limit their comments to three minutes, and to choose a spokesperson rather than repeat comments. Stated he did not know about the project until August 2004; the contractors who do maintenance for The Cottages knew but were instructed not to say anything to the tenants; last Wednesday evening the tenants received a notice to come to the pool area for a discussion; none of the renters are contesting the project but are asking for consideration regarding the difficulties of moving tenants such as single parents, the disabled, etc. who have special needs and limited incomes. Indicated she cares for her disabled mother and has no idea where she will be able to find affordable housing and continue taking care of her mother in the time allowed. Stated she and her husband both have disabilities, have lived in The Cottages for eleven years, and had not intentions of moving; the six months allowed will be adequate for them, but there are other people who will need help to move. Asked for clarification of the legal parameters; and, suggested this is private property, for which the applicant is within the permitted uses. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14,2005 - Page 3 Holland Pontious Holland Mr. Yang Floyd Mr. Yang Floyd Mr. Yang Nielsen Mr. Yang Retha Robert, 2411 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar 7:34 p.m. Pontious Floyd Lee Indicated the applicant is intending to redevelop at the owner's own cost and expense; it is not within a Redevelopment area; it does not require any City or Redevelopment Agency assistance; this is a private project with basic requirements under State law that deal with relocation requirements with which the applicant has complied. Suggested that Mr. Yang is going above and beyond what would be legally required. Answered in the affirmative. Indicated the tenants were notified once the project seemed to be near approval; there is still risk involved, because the real estate market can change. Asked if, as vacancies occur, the units will remain empty. Stated that no new tenants will be signed; recent tenants have been given written notice about the planned conversion. Asked how much rent is at the present time. Answered approximately $1,100 per month. Suggested that the speakers seem to be asking for more regarding rent forgiveness; and, asked if Mr. Yang had discussed that with the tenants. Responded in the affirmative. Indicated she represents Schroeder Property Management Company which manages The Cottages; she also chairs Tustin Effective Apartment Managers (T.E.A.M.); the tenants will not be left floundering; all Schroeder's resources will be used to relocate them; availability exists through T.E.A.M. The Public Hearing closed. Stated the project looks very nice; it complies with all development standards; while she understands the concerns of the tenants, she supports the project. Concurred with Commissioner Pontious; if residents move from one project to another of Schroeder's properties, perhaps more financial assistance can be provided; he supports the project as presented. Agreed with the above Commissioners; and, asked for clarification regarding the trash enclosures. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 4 Willkom Lee Menard Nielsen Director Nielsen Adopted Resolution Nos. 3955, 3956, 3957,3958 Indicated trash enclosures are provided with each building cluster and are required to meet the City's standards. Added the relocation package seems generous, but he hopes some money can be funneled back to the current tenants to help with finding another location. Thanked Mr. Yang and Nevis for this project which will be an improvement; he hopes it will be a successful project and a smooth transition can be arranged; he supports the project. Echoed the other Commissioners' remarks; he hopes the applicant will continue to communicate with the tenants; it is important to have happy citizens; if that can be accomplished through T.E.A.M. or other entities, that will make the transition easier. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3962, 3963, and 3964. Motion carried 5-0. Indicated the appeal period for this item ends Monday, February 21, at 7:00 p.m. Thanked the residents for their testimony. 3. CONTINUED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 04-001, PREZONE 04-001, AND ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 04-001 FOR ANNEXATION 159 (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 - COLUMBUS GROVE) REQUESTING: 1) A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF "MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN" FOR THE ANNEXATION OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36; 2) PREZONING OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 FROM THE CITY OF IRVINE "2.3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN "MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN" ZONING DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN); AND, 3) ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND SECTIONS 3.9.4 AND 3.13.2 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 5 7:41 p.m. Reekstin Nielsen Rich Knowland, representing Lennar 7:47p.m. Adopted Resolution Nos. 3943, 3944, 3945,3946,3947 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3955 recommending that the City Council find that General Plan Amendment 04-001, Prezone 04-001, Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 04-001, and Annexation No. 159 are within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3956 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 04-001 for the annexation of MCAS Tustin Disposition Parcel 36. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3957 recommending that the City Council approve Prezone 04-001 for the annexation of MCAS Tustin Disposition Parcel 36. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 3958 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 04-001 for MCAS Tustin Disposition Parcel 36. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Invited the applicant to the lectern. Stated he concurred with staff's recommendation. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3955, 3956, 3957, and 3958. Motion carried 5-0. 4. CONTINUED CONCEPT PLAN 03-004, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 04-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16582, AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-004, FOR COLUMBUS GROVE (MCAS TUSTIN DISPOSITION PARCELS 35 AND 36) AS FOLLOWS: 1) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 04-002 TO LIST CARRIAGE WAY UNITS AS PERMITTED USES WITH RELATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND AMEND THE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT SITE OF 10 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOMINIUM AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN PLANNING AREA 21; 2) CONCEPT PLAN 03-004 TO SUBDIVIDE 86.26 ACRES AND DEVELOP 465 RESIDENTIAL UNITS Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 6 WITHIN PLANNING AREA 21; 3) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16582 SUBDIVIDING 86.26 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 286 NUMBERED LOTS AND 68 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 465 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING 211 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS, 68 CARRIAGE WAY UNITS, AND 184 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; AND, 4) DESIGN REVIEW 04-004 FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 465 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3943 recommending that the City Council find that Tentative Tract Map 16582 is within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Reuse and Specific Plan and finding that Concept Plan 03-004, Design Review 04-004, and the Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Application and the request to transfer affordable housing units from Planning Area 21 to Planning Area 5 are within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin Reuse and Specific Plan; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3944 recommending that the City Council approve Specific Plan AmendmentlZone Change 04-002 to list carriage way units with related development standards in Planning Area 21 and amend the 10- acre Minimum Development Site requirement for condominiums and multiple family dwelling developments to allow development of the triplex units on a 9-acre site, which is part of Tentative Tract Map 16582 encompassing 86.26 acres. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3945 approving Concept Plan 03-004 to subdivide 86.26 acres and develop 465 residential units within Planning Area 21 ; 4. Adopt Resolution No. 3946 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 16582 for the subdivision of 286 numbered lots and 68 lettered lots for the development of 465 residential units including 211 single family detached units, 68 carriage way units, and 186 condominium units; and, Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 7 7:50 p.m. Ashabi Director Commission Adopted Resolution Nos. 3949, 3950, 3951,3952,3953 5. Adopt Resolution No. 3947 approving Design Review 04-004 for the site and architectural design for the development of 326 residential units on Parcel 35 in City of Tustin and 139 residential units on Parcel 36 currently in City of Irvine upon annexation to City of Tustin for a total of 465 residential units in Planning Area 21 (Parcel 35 and 36). The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Stated it was up to the Planning Commission how to proceed, but it might be better to hear staff's presentation on Columbus Square; the Public Hearing could then be heard on both Items 4 and 5 and all parties proceed from there. Agreed with the Director's suggestion. 5. CONTINUED CONCEPT PLAN 03-003, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 04-003, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581, DESIGN REVIEW 04-006, FOR COLUMBUS SQUARE (MCAS TUSTIN DISPOSITION PARCELS 23 AND 24): 1) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 04-003 TO LIST CARRIAGE WAY UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN PLANNING AREA 4 AND PLANNING AREA 5 AND AMEND THE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT SITE OF 10 ACRES FOR CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN PLANNING AREA 4; 2) CONCEPT PLAN 03-003 - TO SUBDIVIDE 105.5 ACRES AND DEVELOP 1,077 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 4 AND 5; 3) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581 SUBDIVIDING 105.5 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 386 NUMBERED LOTS AND 186 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 1,077 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND, 4) DESIGN REVIEW 04-006 FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1,077 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS FOLLOWS: PLANNING AREA 4: . 84 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS; . 181 CARRIAGE WAY UNITS; . 72 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS; Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 8 . AVERAGE DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PLANNING AREA 5: . EIGHTEEN (18) CARRIAGE PRODUCTS; . 170 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS; . 552 CONDOMINIUM UNITS . AVERAGE DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE 8.62 WAY 18.8 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3949, recommending that the City Council find that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin ("FEIS/FEIR") is adequate to serve as the project EIS/EIR for Zone Change 04-003, Tentative Tract Map 16581, Concept Plan 03-003, Design Review 04-006, the Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus application, and the request to transfer affordable housing units from Planning Area 4 and 21 to Planning Area 5 and that all applicable mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3950, recommending that the City Council of the City of Tustin approve Zone Change 04-003 to permit the development of detached Carriage Way single family dwelling units in Planning Area 4 and 5 and establish related development standards and amend the requirement for a 10-acre minimum development site for condominiums and multiple family dwellings in Planning Area 4. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3951 approving Concept Plan 03- 003 to subdivide 105.5 acres (gross) and develop 1,077 residential units bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, Valencia North Loop Road on the south, an industrial business park and Severyns Road on the west, and West Connector Road on the east within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan (Parcel 23 and Parcel 24). 4. Adopt Resolution No. 3952 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 16581 to subdivide 105.5 acres bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, Valencia North Loop Road on the south, an Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 9 industrial business park and Severyns Road on the west, and West Connector Road on the east for the purpose of developing 1,077 residential units within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan (Reuse Plan Disposal Parcel 23 and Parcel 24). 5. Adopt Resolution No. 3953 approving Design Review 04-006 authorizing the development of 1,077 residential units on a 105.5 acre (gross) site bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, an office industrial building and Severyns Road on the west, Valencia North Loop Road on the south and West Connector Road on the east within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Parcel 23 and Parcel 24). Ashabi Presented the staff report. Director Added the following comments: . On page 7 of the Columbus Grove report, the proposed residential product summary provides some square footages that are incorrect; the square footages that were provided in the booklet are correct. . On page 13 of the report under the section that refers to Parcel 36, halfway down, it states "the City of Irvine affordable housing allows the developer to pay in-lieu fees for off-site development for affordable units and therefore as proposed only 27 affordable units including 14 transitional units for Families Forward will be provided on Parcel 37." The City of Irvine has a program wherein, if for sale product versus for rent product were provided, the applicant would provide a 50 percent reduction; the City of Irvine provided that program on the development parcel in Irvine; the City of Tustin requested an agreement be provided; the City of Irvine did not feel comfortable doing that; a condition was included that requires the applicant to provide an agreement with the City and homeless providers, or provide the affordability that would normally be provided. . In the next paragraph on page 13, it notes there was an approval by the City of Irvine on October 26; that should read November 4. . On the same page farther down, the reference to Families Forward should refer to Human Options. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 10 Nielsen Director Pontious Staff Director Nielsen Commissioners Nielsen Rich Knowland, Lennar Nielsen Floyd Mr. Knowland Asked if those changes are included in the new resolutions at the dais. Indicated the staff resolutions included only minor corrections that were discovered by staff or the applicant; the Lennar modifications presented this evening regarding affordable housing phasing are applicable to the resolutions for both the Grove and the Square. Indicated the Commissioners had not been given the document. Handed the appropriate printouts to the Commissioners. Added there was a question related to the density bonus and where it applied; the density bonus relates to Columbus Square; however, it does relate to Columbus Grove inasmuch as this is a transfer request of a portion of affordable units from Columbus Grove to Columbus Square; staff has included various conditions and findings related to affordable housing and the density bonus; the Planning Commission is being asked to make various findings regarding consistency with the City's General Plan and affordable housing requirements; no specific separate action is being requested on the density bonus, because the City's Density Bonus Ordinance notes the approval authority is the City Council; the Planning Commission will be making recommendations on the overall entitlement to the City Council. Asked if there were questions for staff on either project. Answered in the negative. Invited the applicant to the lectern. Thanked staff and the Commissioners for being available on Valentine's Day; presented a PowerPoint show highlighting the amenities of the proposed developments; and, added that the applicant wished to discuss several conditions of approval. Asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Asked how many single-story homes there will be among the two projects. Answered that within the detached neighborhoods approximately 15 percent would be a single-story configuration; most of the homes will be traditional single-story homes; some will have a single story with master bedroom downstairs, but with a popup space on the second floor that does not take away from the single- story appearance. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 11 Nielsen Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Pontious Nielsen Pontious 9:00 p.m. 9:13 p.m. Asked if that breaks evenly in the two projects. Answered that the attempt was a blended average. Asked what the senior citizens age restriction will be. Responded it would be 55 and up. Questioned who would run the recreation center and other buildings attached to the project. Indicated a master homeowners association will be responsible for the maintenance of all the parks, parkway landscaping, private streets within neighborhoods, and will also be managing and owning the clubhouse; the developer will program Intranet activity among all the homes and hire community managers and program managers to start setting up programs, sending out newsletters, setting up the Intranet program so that residents will know what is available to them; when the project is built out, the homeowners will have the right to change this; the senior project will have a different homeowners association from the rest of the community, and residents will not pay the same fee; senior needs will be different and they will not be assessed for programs that do not apply to them. Asked whether or not these facilities are limited to the homeowners and the existing homeowners buying into the project versus other homeowners in Tustin. Stated that most homeowners associations allow people from the outside to rent them for special occasions; anything with a gate would be for the residents only; the areas outside the buildings will be open to the public; there will be public use easements over them and also adequate parking available. Suggested coordination with programs provided by the City's Parks and Recreation Department, particularly regarding the seniors. Noted this might be the time to begin going through the issues one by one. Suggested it would be a good idea to take a short break to allow the Commissioners time to read the material presented by Mr. Knowland. Adjourned for a break. Reconvened the Public Hearing. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14,2005 - Page 12 Nielsen Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Pontious Holland Nielsen Director Asked Mr. Knowland to further elaborate on the differences between staff's recommendations and Lennar's suggested mod ifications. Addressed the issues presented in the submitted "Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Approval for Columbus Grove and Columbus Square," which are incorporated herein by reference. Asked if the product will be pre-sold. Answered in the negative; and, added the applicant's preferred method of selling the affordable housing would be to target the marketing to the buyer rather than use a lottery system. Suggested that targeting a select group will generate criticism from the general public. Indicated that a tiered program would be the most acceptable approach. Stated the major issue for the Planning Commission is the phasing. Emphasized that the condition does not reference to whom the product will be marketed; staff is sympathetic to the applicant's concerns regarding affordable housing; the traditional approach in many jurisdictions is to require that affordable housing be built first; the condition of approval allows the developer some flexibility regarding this housing; 63 percent of the affordable units are in the senior housing project; staff is uncomfortable with the language that has been suggested by the developer because it is too loose, with no guarantee or assurance that things will take place at any particular time. Indicated there is a difference between good faith and approximate phasing. Noted there is an additional issue related to the senior housing; the appropriate entitlements have not been submitted to the Community Development Department or to the Planning Commission for consideration; these entitlements are discretionary; the units were used for density averaging purposes; a conditional use permit and a parking demand analysis to support such a reduction in parking would be required, but the application has not been submitted; a condition of approval was included indicating that, if the parking demand analysis does not support a reduction, the number of units would need to be reduced; with the exception of the number of affordable units, staff tried to move all the entitlements forward for the benefit of the applicant so that the other Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 13 Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Pontious Director Mr. Knowland Menard Mr. Knowland Menard products could go forward and imposed conditions of approval to ensure the 63 percent of the affordability would happen within a reasonable amount of time and get the model homes, recreation building, and first production units moving; the 420th building permit was considered a rational point in time. Added the real issue is that a 2,000-home master-planned community with 16 different neighborhoods has been designed up to construction documents in order to satisfy questions asked by staff; that is not how master-planned communities are done; this project involves multiple builders committed to programming and developing senior housing; the senior issue has been floating for a year and a half while other plans were being prepared; it was not possible to submit at the same level of architecture that Lennar's builders could; the intention is to come up with something better than what has been submitted; the applicant needs more time to do the final senior design. Suggested the applicant has not had enough time to prepare the senior housing portion; and, asked if more time is needed. Responded that Condition 2.2, as written, requires submission of an approved senior housing program prior to the first building permit. Stated that is not how staff explained it to her. Indicated the requirement is that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production unit, not prior to the issuance of the first building permit; applicant may proceed forward with the initial phase which would include the models. Noted that allows only two weeks; questioned how the developer is expected to accomplish the approval of the model and then go right into production; the applicant is not prepared to rush into this situation; there will be no risk to the City. Asked for clarification of the phasing that would include the very low, low, and moderate income housing, excluding the senior housing. Referred to Exhibits CP 8 and 9 that show the phasing by each floor plan. Asked again where those three phases will be on the timeline; for example, the three-story town homes. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 14 Mr. Knowland Menard Mr. Knowland Pontious Mr. Knowland Pontious Mr. Knowland Pontious Mr. Knowland Pontious Holland Answered Phase I; and, noted that everything comes online at the same time to allow the public to have price points and different home types from the beginning; the disaster for this type of neighborhood would be trying to build half of it, because that would result in all high-end homes or all entry-level homes. Asked if the only issue involves the ones the applicant cannot control due to outside issues and the senior housing. Indicated that Lennar will control everything; there is a huge amount of plan check work that will be coming to the City, plus having the senior housing approved before the first building permit; submitting within 12 months seems a feasible alternative. Suggested it may not be possible to reach a point of resolving these issues tonight, but the Planning Commission needs to reach a point where staff and the developer have some notion of the Commission's position; the affordable housing phasing within the development is not the primary concern; separating out the senior housing issue with Condition 2.3 of Resolution No. 3952 to deal only with the designated low income housing within the development would be advisable; this is an outstanding developer, but good faith efforts only create problems; 12 months seems too long; the Commission needs to see that the project is moving forward. Stated the best way to handle the phasing of the affordable housing is to have a condition that says: "Construction phasing of market rate and affordable homes shall be in accordance with Sheet CP-8 of the phasing plan." Asked if that would include the senior housing. Answered in the affirmative; the issue with the senior housing is that it has not been approved yet and must go back through the process. Reiterated that the Commission needs some assurance that things will get done. Stated his fear that staff will not get it done; the applicant will be stuck in a process over which the developer has no control; then building permits will be stopped. Suggested going back to staff to fast track the project. Asked the applicant for a realistic assessment of when a final map will be processed. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 15 Mr. Knowland Nielsen Pontious Mr. Knowland Director Mr. Knowland Director Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Nielsen Indicated there are final maps that could be submitted tomorrow; there are also construction plans of homes, engineering plans of streets, landscape, and final maps that are all ready to go. Stated there would be no way to get through these complex issues this evening; and, asked staff for tentative language on the points discussed so far. Suggested staff and the developer may need a feeling of where the Planning Commission would like to see the project going; and, ask them to come back. Stated the construction phasing includes adequate detail about how to phase through this development; Condition 2.1 states the first building permit cannot be pulled until all the infrastructure is complete; this is unrealistic in master-planned communities. Indicated staff could write a modified condition but not specifically related to the referenced pages, because there are several phases identifying Phase I; if the infrastructure were not in place and Phase I to be built, it would not have appropriate streets in place; staff needs to sit down with the phasing plan and the suggested condition and work out the language. Suggested this might be a City Council issue: there are conditions of approval regarding constructing backbone infrastructure adjacent to the property or off-site that the applicant would be conditioned to build; there is no issue with that; however, if the applicant builds a piece of infrastructure within the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure plan, a credit should be allowed against the fee that will pay for the Backbone Infrastructure. Agreed that would be a City Council issue; the Public Works Department will go through those conditions of approval and will modify them for the Commission's approval; that is also true of the park credit and the phasing; on subdivision issues, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, not an approval. Stated that staff is not happy with some of the architecture. Asked if the applicant and staff would be able to get together and move this along. Indicated the applicant is happy with the architecture and does not want to have to cut through another design review. Indicated it sounds as though the developer can work with staff to resolve the architectural issues. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 16 Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Pontious Floyd Mr. Knowland Director Mr. Knowland Pontious Mr. Knowland Director Menard Mr. Knowland Nielsen Peter Gorman, 11105 Matthews Drive Tustin Referred to the motor court town homes with one-bedroom units that have a one-car garage; this meets the parking requirements, but the condition calls for a two-car garage; this would require the entire motor court to be redesigned; there is adequate parking without a two-car garage. Asked how many units would be involved. Answered there would be a total of 40 units, two one-bedroom units in each building. Clarifed there would be a one-car garage and a parking stall. Asked for the location of the parking stall. Indicated it would be in close walking distance. Asked which condition was being referred to. Stated Resolution No. 3952, Condition 9.1, on page 17 was the appropriate condition. Noted that was the CC&Rs section. Indicated that part of the CC&Rs is to require the garage to be usable. Stated that could be addressed as a clean-up issue. Suggested that recommendations could be made to staff and move forward. Asked the Planning Commission to do whatever needed to be done in order for the project to move forward. Invited other interested parties to come forward. Stated he is the Superintendent of the Tustin Unified School District but was speaking this evening as a parent and resident of the City; there needs to be appropriate funding for schools in the plan approved; there should be equity in funding schools among all developers that will be on the Base within the Tustin Unified School District; approval of the project should be delayed or language added regarding school facilities mitigation, such as: "Prior to recordation of the first final tract map, Lennar should enter into a school facilities mitigation agreement with the Tustin Unified School District." Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 17 Jonathan Abelove, 13859 Apache, Tustin Director 9:54 p.m. Pontious Mr. Knowland Nielsen Director Mr. Knowland Pontious Director Mr. Knowland Stated he is a governing Board member of the Tustin Unified School District but was speaking as a private citizen, the parent of two children who attend schools in the District, a resident of Tustin, and the owner of a business within the District; supported the statements of Peter Gorman; this request is being made in the best interests of the children who are currently attending and will be attending schools within the District; the appropriate developers should pay for the new schools on the Base and not the entire City and residents of the rest of the City. Directed attention to the conditions in the packet which were associated with the design review; for example, Resolution No. 3947, page 17, the Fees section addresses various fees the City collects and includes school district fees in the amount required by the Irvine Unified School District because the Grove is within the Irvine School District; for Columbus Square, Resolution No. 3953, page 17, subsection h requires that the fees be paid to the Tustin Unified School District; those fees would be collected prior to issuance of building permits. The Public Hearing closed. Recommended continuing the project to the next Planning Commission meeting, February 28, 2005. Stated that continuing the item to February 28 will be detrimental to the developer; a $32 million cooperative agreement with the City was signed a week and a half ago; it is necessary to get the entitlements; Planning Commission providing direction on those two issues in order to move this to Council to get final resolution would be appreciated. Asked if staff was comfortable with what was discussed. Suggested the items be continued for two weeks or proceed with staff conditions as presented. Indicated the applicant would prefer an action tonight. Asked if the items were continued to February 28th the project would go before the City Council March ih. Answered in the affirmative. Insisted these conditions have been unresolved for six months; adding an additional two weeks will serve no purpose; the applicant would like to proceed to Council. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 18 Pontious Staff Mr. Knowland Nielsen Pontious Director Floyd Pontious Mr. Knowland None Director Lee Menard Asked if the item would go to Council on February 22nd. Indicated in the affirmative. Restated the applicant's desire to move forward. Stated the project could either be continued or approved with the original conditions. Suggested that some of the phasing sections could be modified. Indicated staff is not comfortable with the modifications presented at the dais by the applicant; if the applicant wished to propose modifications for consideration this evening per the handout, staff recommends a continuance. Agreed with the Director's suggestion. Stated the City Council may also ask for a continuance. Answered that $58,000 a day in interest makes reaching a resolution imperative. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Menard, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3943, 3944, 3945, 3946, and 3947 (Columbus Grove) and Nos. 3949, 3950, 3951, 3952, and 3953 (Columbus Square), as written by staff. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE FEBRUARY 7, 2005, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Stated the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 16782 and Design Review 04-024 for the Lennar South Coast project. Noted the CDBG meeting takes place Wednesday, February 16, at 6:00 p.m. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thanked staff for their work on tonight's reports. Echoed Commissioner Lee's thanks to staff. Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 19 Floyd Wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. Thanked staff. Pontious Offered congratulations to Dana Ogdon for his promotion to Assistant Director of Community Development. Asked whether staff has any workshops planned, especially regarding a timeline for Tustin Legacy development Nielsen Thanked staff. Wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. 10:05 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. =Ð. ~ ~~ ?;2~--+?A' j- Elizabeth A. Binsac Planning Commission Secretary Minutes - Planning Commission February 14, 2005 - Page 20