Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 10-08-24 ITEM #1 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2024 7:00 P.M. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mason All ROLL CALL: Chair Higuchi present. Chair Pro Tern Douthit Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Mello PUBLIC INPUT: Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. CONSENT CALENDAR: Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Mello, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried: 4-0-1 with Mello abstaining from the vote. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. CONTINUED ITEMFROM THESEPTEMBER 24,2024 MEETING: HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROJECT IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS 1.1A, 1.113, 1.1F AND 1AG OF THE 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Under State law, the Housing Element must show that the City can provide its fair share of regional housing over an eight-year period (2021 to 2029). The City's share of housing is established by a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The current RHNA Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 1 mandates the City to accommodate the construction of at least 6,782 dwelling units on vacant or underutilized residentially zoned properties. The City's current zoning can only accommodate 4,614 new dwellings; which results in a shortfall of 2,168 units. Pursuant to State law,the City must establish a "rezone program" in the Housing Element that specifies properties that will be rezoned to residential to resolve the shortfall. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions, all of which recommend that the City Council approve the applications necessary to implement Housing Element Program 1.1 and meet the City's RHNA obligation: • Tustin Legacy—Sites 1A, 1B and 2 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4494, recommending that the City Council find the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (TLSP) Amendment 2024-0002 is adequate. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4495, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1547 for Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2024-0002 to allow for additional high-density residential development on three sites in the TLSP, Housing Element Sites 1a, 1b, and 2, with a minimum density of 20 units per acre (du/acre) on the selected sites. Amendment to the TLSP would to be consistent with existing State housing law, including the provision for State density bonus. • Enderle Center—Site 17 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4496, recommending that the City Council find the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-0001, Code Amendment (CA) 2024- 0003, and Zone Change (ZC) 2024-0001 is adequate. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 4498, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1549 for CA 2024-0003 to establish a Housing Overlay (HO) district (overlay zone) in conjunction with the planned community commercial district(base zone)to implementthe housing implementation program of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 housing element of the general plan. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 2 5. Adopt Resolution No. 4499, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1550 for ZC 2024-0001 to amend the City's zoning map to apply the Housing Overlay(HO) districtto the Enderle Center Rezone Project area. • The Market Place—Site 18 6. Adopt Resolution No. 4500, recommending that the City Council find the FEIR for GPA 2024-0001 and East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Amendment 2024-0001 is adequate. 7. Adopt Resolution No. 4501, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1551 for SPA 2024-0001 to accommodate residential development on 18 acres of The Market Place Rezone Project site and create a new high-density residential land use category to implement the Housing Implementation Program of the 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan. • General Plan Consistency (Enderle Center &The Market Place) 8. Adopt Resolution No. 4497, recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 24-79 for GPA 2024-0001 for minor text amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed ZC 2024-0001 (Housing Element Site 17 - Enderle Center) and SPA 2024-0001 (Housing Element Site 18—The Market Place) Eastman Presentation was given by Assistant Director Eastman. Higuchi For public clarification, Higuchi asked Eastman if a 400-500-unit project was being brought to the Commission. He also asked if a developer were to bring a housing project at the Enderle Center to the City today, without the housing overlay being approved, could the project be approved. Higuchi clarified his understanding that, due to the location on a transportation corridor, and the sites being zoned commercial, a developer could bring forward an affordable housing and prevailing wage project, and circumvent the whole zoning process. Higuchi inquired on the number of public hearings, including public hearings related to the housing overlay, would need to be held prior to a project being approved. If the proposal was a market rate housing project, would the project be presented to the Commission? He asked for confirmation on appealing the Commission's decision of the item to City Council. Higuchi asked Eastman to reiterate the process if the item were to be denied by the Commission and the February deadline was missed. What would the first course of action be taken by Housing and Community Development(HCD)? If the City's Housing Element were to be de-certified, would that leave the City open to Builders Remedy? Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 3 Eastman In response to Higuchi's questions, Eastman stated "no" that the City is not approving a 400-500-unit project tonight. He stated that Senate Bill (SB) 6 and other state laws do allow for residential development on commercially zoned properties if certain criteria are met (i.e. affordable housing, prevailing wage, etc.). Therefore, theoretically, a developer "could" develop on one of these three commercial sites, under certain housing law, but the current zoning does not allow for it. In response to the number of public hearings, as it relates to the rezoning,the item would be presented to the City Council in November for review and approval, and if the City Council approves the item, there would be a second reading on the item, and then it would take 30 days for the rezoning to go into effect. After that, if a developer wanted to propose an affordable housing component, then there would not be any necessary hearing process. If the proposed item had a commercial component (i.e. Enderle), then that item would require some review because commercial is not exempted from discretionary hearings. If the proposed item was market rate housing, it would be permitted by right under the proposed zoning and therefore would not need to be presented to the Commission. With respect to what happens if the City would deny approval of the proposed rezoning program; the City's Housing Element would be de-certified by HCD. Eastman stated that if the City's Housing Element were to be de-certified, that would leave the City open to Builders Remedy, lawsuits, lack of grant funding, etc. Willkom Willkom added, if the developer proposes housing, then the housing is permitted by right. However, if the proposal includes a subdivision map,the proposal would need to be presented to the Commission, not the City Council. She confirmed the appeal process Higuchi previously mentioned. Mason Mason asked if the item is approved and goes to City Council, could a developer demolish any of the three areas included in the rezone. She further asked, if the area is zoned commercial, with a housing overlay, would the developer need to come back to the Commission for attempting to rezone the entire area housing. Mason mentioned rumors of the Enderle Center being up for sale. She also asked if there was a development plan in place, and if so, would the project return to the Commission. Mason stated the Commission has lost a lot of the ability to make decisions for the City due to laws coming from Sacramento. She asked staff if the community would have the opportunity to speak up against a future item. Eastman The EIR that staff prepared does not include demolition of existing structures, therefore additional environmental assessmentwould need to be completed bythe developer to make that clear. The demolition of commercial and rebuilding of housing, is something that is definitely possible. The housing overlay only applies to "up to 7 acres" of the parking lots as discussed in his presentation. There is the desire to incorporate the retail component within the Enderle Center. Eastman clarified that regardless of this rezoning, the Enderle Center is privately owned property, and property owners have the right to redevelop their property as long as Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 4 Eastman they meet all applicable codes. As of now,the City has not received a development project for the Enderle Center. To answer Mason's question on the development process; yes, the Community could speak up against the development. Any development that is proposed will have to submit a traffic analysis for the City, which would include any technical issues related to mitigating project impact, including from a traffic standpoint. Mello Mello asked about TLSP Neighborhood D North, and where the excess capacity is coming from and what it is currently zoned. He inquired as to whether there would be any change to open space. He referred to the chart within the Power Point presentation, specifically the allocation of the 6,782 units by income levels, and asked why there were no acutely-low or extremely-low units. Mello asked if the City has been assigned RHNA numbers thatthe City has to build to acutely-low or extremely-low units and if it would be required by a developer. Eastman In response to Mello's question regarding Neighborhood D North, Eastman stated there is no change in zoning. Neighborhood D North is a subset of Neighborhood D. Currently, there are no units allocated at the Neighborhood D North. Staff's recommendation as part of the rezoning is simply applying residential capacity;the zoning and land use do not change. Any area that was identified forthe linear park, for example, does not change. Regarding income levels, Eastman clarified that the allocated very-low income category includes the extremely-low income and acutely low-income categories. Acutely-low income is a fairly new category. Eastman clarified that the City is only rezoning properties to accommodate units to meet RHNA. Douthit Douthit asked the City Attorney if the Commission recommended denial to the City Council, what would the outcome be? He also asked if staff consulted with the Tustin Preservation Conservancy or the Tustin Historical Museum on any historical aspects of the Enderle Center. Daudt In response to Douthit's question, Daudt stated the following, in general:This item includes staff's recommendation for a General Plan Amendment and under State Law,the recommendation from the Planning Commission has to be done by written recommendation to City Council for approval of the proposed SPAs, in order to implement the policy direction that City Council provided through its adoption of the Housing Element. If the Commission wanted to change course,the City would not be able to proceed forward with a recommendation tonight, in opposition, because State law requires a written recommendation of denial of essentially what the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider, in terms of rezoning, etc. If denial was the direction of the Planning Commission, that recommendation would potentially putthe City in jeopardy of meeting the February deadline forthe rezoning the City has already committed to,which then would lead the City to the potential negative consequences previously mentioned during staff's Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 5 Daudt presentation. Daudt provided several options/resolutions against implementation of the recommended items (additional delays) if there is a consensus that the Commission does not want to move forward with the item to the City Council for their consideration. Willkom In response to Douthit's previous questions, Willkom stated, as part of the environmental review process, City staff does need to look at Cultural Resources analysis or a study. Mason Mason asked for clarification on historic preservation buildings that are over 50 years old. Hypothetically, she asked what if there was no longer a crisis anymore, with regard to the legislature? How does the City revert back to rezoning "just commercial" at the Tustin Market Place? Willkom Willkom reiterated what Eastman previously mentioned in his presentation. The City's obligation is to rezone the three sites to accommodate the units assigned to Tustin. The City is not required to build the units. This Housing Element is for an eight-year period (2021-2029). At the end of the planning period, HCD will most likely come up with another set of regulations that the City will need to look into. In conclusion,the City is implementing what has already been approved by the City Council and has been certified by HCD. 8:12 p.m. Higuchi opened the Public Input portion of the meeting. Public The public's concerns/comments generally included the following: spoke on why Input. the City is bringing this forward so close to the deadline; density bonus was not discussed; why not amend the RHASP and DCCSP instead of the Enderle Center; there were questions as to whether or not the Enderle Center has been sold; there were comments that all development would be for low-income residents; recommend staff look at the City of Huntington Beach because they are fighting the State and have been granted an extension; request that the City approve part of the HE rezone sites and ask HCD for a one year extension; locate the units to another site; felt left out of the public process; use only the southeast parking lots for housing at the Enderle Center; amend the HE sites inventory to not include the Enderle Center; what is to prevent the State from requiring more from cities;traffic along 17t" Street is terrible; the daughter of an Enderle Center business owner stated her father is losing his life's work and 40 years of investment because the property owners are evicting him as soon as the rezoning is adopted; the number of units proposed is too high; appreciation for the pressure the state is putting on the City; prefer not to have high-density at the Enderle Center;question where new residents will park and concern for the number of parking needed; high-density housing increases crime rates;increase the housing in areas that need reinvestment, such as off McFadden; lots of misinformation and lack of knowledge with business owners; developers get kickback for building low income; questions what benefit is Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 6 Public to the City of Tustin; how much notice will residents receive before construction Input. begins; public felt unprepared for meeting, but appreciated the detailed presentation; resident of the Landing in Tustin Legacy said the Legacy development is fantastic and the density is good; referenced the proposed development by The Irvine Company on lots 11, 12, 13 should be similar to the Landing, and not Amalfi; put residential similar to the landing on areas in Tustin Legacy south and east (west?) of the Landing, which are zoned for office but likely not needed due to COVID; increase land area for housing so as to reduce density of housing in the Legacy; and lack of understanding the process and why questions aren't being answered. 9:14 p.m. Higuchi closed the Public Input portion of the meeting. Higuchi Higuchi asked Daudt if there is an opportunity to negotiate an extension with HCD or force them to give the City an extension by filing a litigation. He also asked if Huntington Beach is exposed to Builders Remedy currently. Daudt In response to Higuchi's questions, Daudt stated there is no opportunity for the City to request an extension. Any effort to force HCD to give the City an extension, or to use litigation to change how state laws are applied, would be unsuccessful. Daudt briefly discussed thatthe City of Huntington Beach is a charter law city which is distinct from the City of Tustin being a general law city. As a general law city, Tustin is bound more to State and Governor mandates. In concept, a charter city has more control over local municipal affairs.The disputes in Huntington Beach are largely centered around their rights as a charter city,as opposed to State mandates. The City of Tustin being a general law city would not be able to make similar arguments as Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach is subject to Builders Remedy to the extent that they do not have a certified housing element. Mason Mason's closing comments/questions generally included: what is the deadline for rezoning; is there a 17t" Street corridor specific plan; is there a way to get a 17tn street specific plan initiated, and how long would it take; can some of the items be approved tonight and others be continued to a later date; how often can the City resubmit alternative sites, and is the State open to that as long as the City is hitting the 6,782 number of units? Willkom In response to Mason's questions, Willkom stated that originally HCD provided the City with three years to rezone, but around the time of the adoption of the Housing Element the State legislature added an additional 120 days. The current deadline is three years plus 120 days, which falls in early February 2025. Willkom added there is no 17t" Street corridor specific plan. The process to adopt a specific plan is Lengthy — studies of the area and available infrastructure, etc. would need to take place before a specific plan can be adopted. She estimated it would take one to two years, or longer, depending on the entire process. Willkom explained the City Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 7 Willkom Council has the ability to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation or overrule the recommendation. The RHNA obligation is 6,782 housing units and it is firm. As to changing the rezoning to a different site at a later date, Willkom clarified that the City would need to go through the revision of the Housing Element, which includes lengthy process prior to submitting it to the state for their approval. Willkom reiterated that tonight's item is to rezone sites in order to meet the RHNA obligation by the State's deadline. The City is not obligated to actually build the units, the City is only required to rezone to accommodate the allocated number of units. Mason Mason asked if a developer were to propose a project at one of the rezone sites, would there be a public hearing, or could the develop just build their project? Willkom Willkom clarified that if the Council approves the rezoning, then a housing project would be permitted by right. However, if a housing project includes a subdivision map, that subdivision map needs to go to the Planning Commission for approval. Additionally, the housing project would need to go through the City permitting process, and during the permitting process the applicant would need to comply with all of the City regulations, including building standards, development standards, and objective design standards. Higuchi Higuchi provided a recap of what was discussed already during Eastman's presentation and staffs discuss with the Commission. Willkom Willkom stated the process has been ongoing for several years. Tonight, the Commission is considering the rezoning and the EIRs for the rezone project, and state law requires that the City allow for residential development by right. The Commissioners expressed their views and thoughts on the Rezoning Program. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mello,to adopt Resolution No. 4494. Motion carried 4-1,with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mello,to adopt Resolution No. 4495. Motion carried 4-1,with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mello,to adopt Resolution No. 4496. Motion carried 4-1,with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mello, to adopt Resolution No. 4497. Motion carried 4-1, with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4498. Motion carried 4-1, with Douthit dissenting. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 8 Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4499. Motion carried 4-1, with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4500. Motion carried 4-1, with Douthit dissenting. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4501. Motion carried 4-1, with Douthit dissenting. 9:45 p.m. Recess. 9:53 p.m. Resumed meeting. Item cont. 3. CONTINUANCE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE MULTI-FAMILY to the next RESIDENTIAL PARKING & PRIVATE STORAGE STANDARDS CITYWIDE scheduled (CA 2024-0006) AND IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE (SPA meeting. 2024-0005) AND RED HILL AVENUE (SPA 2024-0006) SPECIFIC PLANS On December 5, 2023 the City Council was presented an assessment of barriers to development in the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) areas. The assessment was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and recommended, among other things, changes to multi-family parking and private storage area requirements. On July 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss changes to the multi-family residential parking and private storage requirements consistent with the EPS report. Staff has since prepared draft amendments to the Zoning Code to implement the Commission's recommendations. However, refinements to the proposed revisions are currently under consideration. Therefore, staff is requesting that this item be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the proposed Code Amendment (CA) 2024-0006, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2024-0005, and SPA 2024-0006 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to continue the proposed CA 2024- 0006, SPA 2024-0005, & SPA 2024-0006 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024 — Page 9 Adopted 4. CODE AMENDMENT 2024-0005 (ORDINANCE NO. 1556) — CODE Reso. No. STREAMLINING AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 4505. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4505, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1556, amending Section 9299 of Part 9 (Administration) of Chapter 2 (Zoning) of Article 9 (Land Use) of the TCC to implement the Streamline Tustin Program to reduce the Zoning Administrator timelines for approving alcoholic beverages sales establishments when there is no public opposition, remove the requirement for Zoning Administrator approval of soil remediation projects, clarify Language regarding murals, and eliminate duplicated text and provide clarity. Barragan Presentation given. Mello Mello inquired as to whether or not soil remediation companies are allowed to use self-directed remediation such that Department of Toxic Soil Contamination (DTSC) is bypassed. Barragan Barragan was not familiar with self-directed remediation. He will research and provide a response at a later date. The most recent soil remediation project was under the oversight of DTSC, along with other agencies. The only conditions the City applied to that project was relative to the City's Noise Ordinance. Willkom Willkom added, for any soil remediation project, the developer needs to obtain a permit from the City and typically the permit processing involves the Orange County Health Care Agency and depending upon the contamination level, DTSC may or may not be involved. 10:08 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Hearing. Hurtado No public input received. Higuchi Higuchi made favorable comments to City staff. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Douthit, to adopt Resolution No. 4505. Motion passed 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024— Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS: Willkom Willkom thanked her staff: Jay Eastman, Samantha Beier, EPD staff, and supporting staff for all of their hard work on the Rezone item. It is definitely a team effort to get to this point! She informed the Commission of the Tustin Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast November 211. Welcome to our new Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer— Kenny Nguyen. Nishikawa Nishikawa, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, announced his retirement in December 2024. Congratulations Ken! PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REPORTS: Kozak Kozak attended the Tustin Tillers Parade. Mello Mello thanked staff and fellow Commissioners for their input/hard work on the Rezone project. Mason Mason would like an update on how the City is communicating with the public (i.e. social media, public noticing, etc.); 17t" Street Corridor needs a specific plan; and Historic Preservation Program—including historic buildings from 17t" Street. Douthit None. ADJOURNMENT: 10:14 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 22, 2024. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 8, 2024— Page 11