Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 NOVEMBER 12 2019 PC MINUTES MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2019 7.00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission reorganizes once per year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem pursuant to standard procedures. Motion: Chairperson Kozak nominated Commissioner Mason to be appointed as the new Chairperson, seconded by Chu. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Mason nominated Commissioner Kozak as the new Chairperson Pro Tem, seconded by Jha. Motion carried 5-0. 7.04 p.m. Mason asked that a 5 minute take place in order to reorganize the newly appointed Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. Present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Chu, Gallagher, Jha, Kozak, Mason None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Consent CONSENT CALENDAR: Calendar was approved, as amended. Mason Mason requested Item #2 be removed from the Consent Calendar in order to be further discussed. Willkom Willkom suggested that Item #2 be moved to the end of the agenda, for discussion, if the Commission was in agreement. Kozak Kozak seconded Mason's request to move Item #2 to the end of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 1 of 11 Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 Minutes of the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September 24, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu to approve the Minutes of the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Gallagher and Jha abstained due to their absences. Motion carried 3-0-2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2019- 00001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19103, DESIGN REVIEW 2019-00009 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 400 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD D, TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (LOTS 2 AND 5-10 OF TRACT 18197) APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD HOMES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC ATTN: CHERYL CASANOVA 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1000 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: LOTS 2 AND 5-10 OF TRACT 18197; GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FUTURE AIRSHIP AVENUE TO THE NORTH, STREET `D' TO THE EAST, ALLEY GROVE PROMENADE TO THE SOUTH, AND STREET `B' TO THE WEST WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8, 13 AND 14 OF NEIGHBORHOOD D, TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN. ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 20067 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 2 of 11 No. 13-32 approving a second addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second supplement to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its addendums and supplement, is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, addendums and supplement are considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared for the project and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. RECOMMENDATION- 1. ECOMMENDATION:1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4394, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately 25.4-acre site within Neighborhood D of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan for the development of 400 residential units is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4395, recommending that the City Council approve: a. DA 2019-00001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 25.4-acre site within the boundaries of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. b. TTM 19103 to subdivide an approximately 25.4-acre site into seventy-three (73) numbered lots and ten (10) lettered lots for the development of 400 residential condominium units, a community recreation facility, open space areas, and other neighborhood amenities. c. DR 2019-00009 for the design and site layout of 400 residential condominium units, a community recreation facility, open space areas, and other neighborhood amenities. Willkom Willkom thanked all of the individuals who participated in the proposed project. She also added that the Brookfield team would also like to provide a brief presentation to the Commission. Beier Presentation given. Ms. Cheryl The applicant, Cheryl Casanova, Brookfield Homes, also provided a Casanova presentation. She also thanked City staff for their support on the project. Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 3 of 11 Gallagher Gallagher made favorable comments with regards to both presentations. His comments/questions generally included: affordable housing (i.e. low, very-low housing spectrum of the RHNA requirements); the City's collaboration with the developer on the design concept and asked how the City and developer are coming up with the design concepts; Gallagher asked about the schedule of the promenade connecting the Flight to the District; asked about the size of the promenade; asked about the development timing; asked to confirm the timing of the extension of the linear park be in coordination with that expansion; and connectivity between the housing developments and the Heritage school and the planned high school. Willkom In response to Gallagher's question, Willkom stated, in general, the proposed Brookfield development does not include affordable units; however, the City envisions the provision of affordable housing within the multi-family apartment projects. Currently, there is an active Request for Proposal and one of the requirements is a provision for affordable housing. Willkom invited Ryan Swiontek to the podium in order for him to elaborate on the design concept process. In response to Gallagher's question on the promenade, the City will be developing the promenade. She deferred to Swiontek with regard to the scheduling. Swiontek In response to Gallagher's design concept question, Swiontek stated the following, in general: he mentioned the City's Design Guidelines in terms of Neighborhood D South being more contemporary in nature in trying to distinguish ourselves in Orange County as well as Southern California (he referred to the Levity project and Tustin's future moving forward); he mentioned Brookfield projects in West Los Angeles being very successful; per the scheduling of the promenade, the City's goal on the commencement of the promenade will coincide with the schedule of Brookfield's construction schedules; the goal is to provide the connections and movement between the Flight, the Mess Hall, as well as the District with access; the same project team is also working on the private property development scheduling so there will be a cohesive project group working on the promenade; models are projected for May 2021; ten (10) feet is generally a shared path but the promenade will be approximately fifty(50)feet or larger for walking and biking area; the promenade will also serve as a buffer between the adjacent land use which will be commercial/office development; this is the initial phase of the promenade and there may be enhancements when new office developers come in; in terms of performance on the developer's side, it is generally dictated in the schedule of the development agreement which will be presented to the City Council in December 2019; there are performance matrix, in terms of initial phasing as well as model build out and final build out for the community (approximately 66 months after close of escrow); the City would like to move forward as soon as possible with the linear park because even beyond the proposed project, the City is working on the next development with apartment developers as well which means there will be more residents to serve than just the proposed project; and typically the City constructs sidewalks as development occurs and the Public Works Department can take a look the site to ensure connectivity is in place which is outside of this particular project. Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 4 of 11 Kozak Kozak also inquired about the design aspects of the buildings and asked if any thought was given to any horizontal treatment along the roofline to soften the vertical massing and the edges. He referred to a neighboring city with a project in similar size and massing, similar to the proposed project, but without any type of roofline horizontal treatment, which looked "boxy". Swiontek There is a lot of offsetting at the massing on the upper levels of the buildings; the third stories are pushed back so it is not as abrupt; and the parapet cap typically provides a more contemporary design, the focus would be more on the projecting elements. A lot of the upper levels have recess massing, projected balconies or trellises on the large decks for the metro product as well as the detached square foot dwelling products. There are also metal awnings on some of the products to draw one's eyes on the parapet itself. Chu Chu's questions/comments generally included: if there would be playgrounds for children within the proposed project; the City is supposed to offer affordable housing (50%) and the proposed project does not offer affordable housing — would there be a problem? notification to other agencies and the public via the Tustin News -concerned many residents do not read the newspaper—any other way to notify the public (i.e. via U.S. mail?)- she asked about the Stantec memo and the methodology section, and if the agenda report would have to be revised because of SB 743. Swiontek In response to Chu's previous question, Swiontek stated that the City is looking at a substantial playground area to serve the neighborhood children which will be a large component of the Tustin Legacy(i.e. shared urban amenities in public areas), not just particular to internal tracts. Willkom In response to Chu's questions, Willkom stated the following, in general: she asked Chu if she was referring to RHNA's requirement; there are no affordable units proposed with the project, but to comply with RHNA's current allocation, the City does have affordable housing requirements for other sites; the City notified affected agencies and property owners within a 300 foot radius; because the proposed project site is currently vacant and the surrounding areas are also vacant, those who were notified are not residents; the agenda was also posted on the City's website, at the Tustin Library, Tustin City Hall, and public hearing notices were posted at four(4) intersections near the proposed project site which is above and beyond what the law requires; per Chu's question regarding SB 743, Willkom explained that it is the new legislation that will become effective on July 1, 2020 and it changes the way the City looks at traffic congestion and overall traffic for each proposed development as well as the level of service; SB 743 will look at vehicle miles traveled instead of level of service; since the project came before the SB 743 effective date, the applicant is not required conduct a traffic study at a later date. Mason Mason asked about the open space ratio required with new developments with regard to the 2.6 acres open space mentioned in the agenda report. She also asked for more information regarding the density for the overall project. Mason asked Swiontek about the similarities and the differences between the proposed Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 5 of 11 project to the Levity project. She asked what the approximate distance between Levity and the proposed project. Willkom In response to Mason's inquiry, the TL Specific Plan requires 100 square feet of common open space per unit and in addition, the Specific Plan also requires 100 private open spaces per unit to be provided in the residential community. The proposed project provides above and beyond the required open space; the common open spaces are privately owned however, three (3) areas are accessible to the public. City staff included in the covenant that requires the open spaces be accessible to the public. For the density requirement, Willkom stated that since the amendment of the Specific Plan in 2017, the City does not limit density; instead development is limited based upon total number of units authorized by the Specific Plan. The overall density for the proposed project is approximately 15.75 DUA, which is below the City's highest allowable density within the General Plan. Even though the area is envisioned to be urban (higher density)the proposed project is being proposed at a lower density than what the City had anticipated. Swiontek Swiontek's response to Mason's question regarding differences between the proposed project and Levity generally included: all of the products at Levity are three stories and the proposed project products are two stories to differentiate the height of the buildings and streetscapes; the proposed project units front onto the street (not a walled community); similarities with the recessed upper levels, massing; townhome product is a triplex in the proposed project with more open spaces; the high quality finishes that differentiates between Levity and the proposed project; both projects are of a contemporary nature in terms of design and is the direction the City is generally going in with in following the City's Design Guidelines; and as per the distance between Levity and the proposed project, it is approximately one-half of a mile to one (1) mile minimum. 8:00 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Comments Section. Jha Jha made favorable comments to City staff and the applicant in helping the development with the Tustin Legacy. Chu Chu made favorable comments regarding the project and the design. Gallagher Gallagher concurred with his fellow Commissioners' favorable comments. Kozak Kozak shared his fellow Commissioners' comments. Mason Mason also made favorable comments specifically regarding conformity and the well-balanced land use. She asked the applicant to ensure the proposed project looks distinctive. She added that the walkability be increased and urged that there are areas for children to play. Motion: It was moved by Gallagher and seconded by Chu to adopt Resolution Nos.4394 and 4395. Motion carried 5-0 Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 6 of 11 REGULAR BUSINESS: 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY UPDATE On March 26, 2019, the Planning Commission, as Historic and Cultural Resources Advisor, approved a Work Program for 2019. The Work Program included an update of the City's Historic Resources Survey (Survey), last prepared in 2003. On May 2, 2019, the Community Development Department released an RFP to qualified professionals to update the Survey. During the months of August and September 2019, staff conducted interviews with each of the five (5) consultants who responded to the RFP, and a contract was offered to Architectural Resources Group. This report and presentation is given to the Planning Commission as a status report and update of the survey's progress. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. Dove Dove introduced Ms. Mary Ringhoff, project manager to ARG, to the Commission. Ms. Mary Ms. Mary Ringhoff, Project Manager of ARG, provided a presentation. Ringhoff Willkom Willkom advised Commissioner Chu that she is not only a Planning Commissioner, but she is also part of the Cultural and Historic Resources Advisor, which is why City staff is presenting the Commission with this update. Mason Mason asked Ms. Ringhoff if ARG had not used the Arches app before. She also mentioned the importance of notification and engagement from the residents (i.e. adding to NextDoor app). Ms. Ringhoff Ms. Ringhoff stated that ARG has used a variety of different apps before but they have been waiting for Arches to be released, which it was in the Summer. Arches is an open source platform for online databases and was developed by the Getty Institute and it is free, but there is front end building of the database that needs to be done, as well as building the collector. That cost would be absorbed by ARG since they would be using the app for multiple projects. Chu Chu also stated the importance of getting the public involved. Specifically community outreach, within the agenda report where it states the City will be conducting two (2) community workshops, but the project timeline shows only one (1) workshop. Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 7 of 11 Willkom In response to Chu's question regarding the timeline, Willkom stated that at the time City staff prepared the agenda report, they did not have the kick-off meeting, as of yet. Now that it has been done, a more refined project timeline will be provided to the Commission as staff updates progress, along with the efforts to get the survey completed. Kozak Kozak referred to the public kick-off meeting listed on the timeline in January 2020 and a Planning Commission update in April 2020. He asked if staff could insert another update to the Commission in order to apprise those residents who inquire. Willkom In response to Kozak's request, Willkom stated that staff will be updating the timeline and they will include the second workshop, as requested. Motion: Received and filed. 4. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) UPDATE California State housing law requires that each city and county plan for existing and future housing needs by mandating that there are sufficient sites and zoning identified in the housing element of its General Plan to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The 6th Cycle RHNA will cover the planning period from October 2021 through October 2029. This report provides the Planning Commission with the RHNA status update. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. Reekstin Presentation given. Jha Jha asked Reekstin how RHNA came up with the new methodology, which is double than what was recommended on October 7, 2019. Reekstin Reekstin stated that the main thing that happened was, there was less focus on what local jurisdictions were projecting for their growth and that was taken out of the equation. RHNA kept in jobs accessibility and transit accessibility and Tustin has good transit and many jobs close by which gives Tustin a higher RHNA number and they also use socioeconomics factors (i.e. cities that have less poverty, better educated population — those cities were given higher RHNA numbers). For example, in Orange County, the RHNA numbers in Anaheim and Santa Ana did not really change. But the RHNA numbers in Newport Beach, Irvine, Tustin communities dramatically increased. Gallagher Gallagher asked Reekstin that if a number came out that was 5 and 6 thousand, beyond what the City could do with the existing infill and current General Plan, specifically for Tustin Legacy, would the next step be that the City needs to then update the General Plan or make an amendment to increase density and land use requirements transferring from commercial to residential? Gallagher also referred to the "check-in" periods with RHNA and Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 8 of 11 SB 35 — he asked if it is true that if the City does not meet RHNA's numbers, there is a streamline process, and that streamline has not been used in the past, due to prevailing wage requirements. Gallagher also asked, since the City owns much of the land in the Tustin Legacy, this is again not as much of a concern because people cannot just come and propose developments because the City owns the property. Reekstin In response to Gallagher's previous question, Reekstin stated that once the RHNA numbers are known, next year the City will have one (1)year to update the Housing Element by October 2021. The Housing Element update will need to demonstrate that the City can meet the RHNA numbers during the RHNA period which may require up-zoning or re-zoning of commercial and industrial properties to residential if the City does not have enough available land, either at the Tustin Legacy or other areas. Per Reekstin, there are some challenges with invoking the SB 35 provisions, but it is the law if those provisions are satisfied, it would force jurisdictions to ministerial approvals. The City does not have a history of denying housing projects, but in other jurisdictions, it may be more of a threat to RHNA. Since the City owns most of the property in the Tustin Legacy, the City has more control on what is built and to perhaps promote more affordable housing. Kozak Kozak referred to the methodology as well, per the three (3) Orange County jurisdictions, and if there has been discussion in Orange County or is there any discussion forming a group to counter the proposed measure. Reekstin Per Reekstin, so far there has only been preliminary discussions. The City should learn more in the next month or so through the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) to see if our Orange County region wants to take a united stand. Mason Mason asked Reekstin what the next steps are and what exactly is going to occur. Reekstin In response to Mason's question, City staff is going to address the City Council and provide them with a similar update and ask for their direction to send an opposition letter to HCD. Also, Reekstin will monitor what is happening regionally in Orange County to see if the OCCOG wants to take a position. It is important to see how HCD reacts. Perhaps they will determine this methodology is unfairly treating certain jurisdictions and that it came in last minute. The general public did not have a lot to review ahead of time as well. Chu Chu referred to the background section of the agenda report and asked how the City determines what sites and zoning are sufficient and if there are guidelines. Reekstin In response to Chu's question, the current housing element which applies to the current RHNA cycle, identifies individual sites by location and shows their size (acreage) and their density. City staff would have to ensure, based on the density and size, that the City has enough capacity to meet the RHNA numbers. The City has not yet completed an analysis at this point. Per Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 9 of 11 Reekstin, there is land available for at least several thousand but we have not looked at every site. If we look at the Tustin Legacy and the new Specific Plans (Red Hill Avenue and the Downtown Commercial Core Plan), they will accommodate a large number of units, but the City was not planning on developing them all in eight (8) years. The City would have to show that the capacity is present and that development can be accommodated. Willkom Willkom added that in context, currently the City has approximately 27,000 housing units in the City. The new 9,500 housing units is basically one-third of those housing units, which is a lot. The City is required to accommodate those numbers by providing sites but this may not be what the community desires. Once staff receives direction from the City Council, they will update the Commission. Motion: Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom reminded the Commission of the Annual Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast on November 21, 2019. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Gallagher Gallagher confirmed that City staff would be providing a RHNA update to the Commission once the RHNA numbers are set. Kozak Kozak attended the following events: • 10/3: Tustin Tiller Days Kick-Off • 10/4: Tour of the Irvine Ranch Water District • 10/5: Tustin Tiller Days Breakfast & Parade • 10/5: Orange County Fire Authority Open House • 10/15: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting • 10/16: State Route (SR) 55 Open House • 10/17: Orange County Planning Officials Forum • 10/19: Old Town Art Walk • 10/30: Moffett Bridge Grand Opening • 11/3: Dino Dash • 11/5: Council's Presentation of Historic Preservation Commendation (Swinging Door/American Grub) Kozak also commended Dove, Beier and Reekstin for all of their hard work on the agenda reports and presentations. Congratulations Chair Mason! Jha Jha attended the following events: • 10/9: Chamber of Commerce Business Luncheon • 10/27: Tustin Food &Wine Festival • 10/30: Moffett Bridge Grand Opening Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 10 of 11 Jha • 11/1: Tustin Police Foundation "Casino Night" Chu Chu attended the following events: • 10/17: Orange County Planning Officials Forum • Traffic Impact Study Workshop — Chu asked Willkom if City staff could provide training to the Commission with regards to the SB 743 and if City staff could post SB 743 information on the City's website (i.e. NextDoor). Willkom Per Willkom, both the Community Development and Public Works Departments are working on the implementation of SB 743 and if it is the consensus of the Commission, City staff will provide a presentation to the Commission on SB 743. The date is unknown at this time. Mason Mason commended former Chair Kozak for his years of service and she thanked her fellow Commissioners for nominating her as the new Chair. She also thanked staff for their hard work on the agenda reports and presentations. 9:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 26, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission November 12, 2019—Page 11 of 11