Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - APP-0533-14 - STAFF REPORT & ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 16pF 0Rq A UNTY C AGENDA ITEM May 13, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THRU: John W. Sibley City Manager FROM: Rick Otto Community P Dcelo meat Director ReviewedNer' red By: City Manager Finance Director To Be Presented By) Ortlieb Cons Calendar _ City Mgr Rpts Council Reports _ Legal Affairs Boards /Crates X Public Hrgs Admin Reports Plan /Environ 1. SUBJECT APPEAL 0533 -14 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1818 -09, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2009 -002, ZONE CHANGE 1254 -09, SPECIFIC PLAN 001 -09, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2012 -101, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0025 -09 (ALSO KNOWN AS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17344), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5825, MAJOR SITE PLAN 0595 -09, AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4413 -09 FOR AN APPLICATION KNOWN AS RIO SANTIAGO 2. SUMMARY The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission denial of the subject project. The applicant proposes to change the General Plan and Zoning designations for the 110 acre site and create a Specific Plan that would allow: a maximum of 130 single family homes; a maximum of 265 senior (age- restricted) housing units that could include up to a three story building; pay -for- use private recreational facilities which could include up to an 81,000 square foot building; and open space areas north of and including Santiago Creek. Publicly available trails, publicly available open space and private streets are also proposed as part of the project. 3. RECOMMENDATION / ACTION 1) Uphold the Planning Commission denial of the subject applications. Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision, staff would return with a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision; or 2) Overturn the Planning Commission decision, thereby directing staff to prepare ordinances and resolutions necessary for project approval. ITEM /// 1 05/13/14 4. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated for affirming the Planning Commission project denial. If the project is approved, and depending on the parameters of approval, costs to the City could potentially be incurred in the form of the following: • Providing park improvements and/or parkland to offset users within the project. • Providing for trail maintenance or encouragement of maintenance, including in the event of trail flooding. • Providing trail connections. • Continued need to seek trail widening for the Mabury- adjacent trail and for a creek crossing trail in conformance with the General Plan. • Rehabilitation and/or maintenance of Planning Area A, including the creek. • Funding the City's fair share of traffic improvements triggered by the project. • Administration of the project Specific Plan. • Increased emergency response. • Increased exposure to liability. • Increased Specific Plan administration. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) Should the City Council choose to reverse the Planning Commission denial, staff would return to the City Council with Strategic Plan Goals identified from the Council's discussion. 6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Planning Commission rejected the General Plan Consistency reported in the applicant's Specific Plan and in Environmental Impact Report 1818 -09. The Planning Commission found the project to be inconsistent with the ideas and concepts of several General Plan Goals and Policies. A summary of the Commission's discussion is contained in the "Discussion and Background" section later in this staff report under the sub - header "Committee and Commission Review." The Planning Commission meeting minutes and the findings (Attachments 25 and 27 and Exhibit I) also contain a summary of the Planning Commission discussion of the project. In addition, the Planning Commission commented that the project did not take into account the impacts of the project on existing Orange Park Acres and East Orange Plans or the various Greenbelt Vision Plans that the site is currently a part of. ITEM 2 05/13/14 7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND EXISTING SITE The existing site is as stated on pages 7 and 8 of the January 13, 2014, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 16). PROPOSED PROJECT An expanded project description is contained beginning on page 9 of the January 13, 2014, Planning Commission staff report. An abbreviated summary is as follows: The proposed project contains approximately 110 acres on -site and 02.01 acres off -site. The Project proposes the following: General Plan: The project proposes to change the City's General Plan Designation for the site from Resource Area (RA) to Low Density Residential (LDR 2.1 -6.0 Du /Ac), Medium Density Residential (MDR 15.1 -24.0 Du/Ac), Open Space Park (OS -P) and Open Space (OS); and from, Low Density Residential (LDR 2.1 -6.0 Du/Ac) to Open Space (OS). The project also proposes to change the City's General Plan to remove portions of the project site from the 1975 East Orange General Plan (approximately 40.3 acres) and Orange Park Acres Plan (approximately 56.45 acres). Zoning: The project proposes a Zone Change to re- designate the site from Sand and Gravel (S- G) and Single - family Residential 8,000 sf (R -1 -8) to Planned Community (P-Q. Four distinct Planning Areas are proposed under a new project area Specific Plan as follows: Public Open Space Area (Planning Area A): The project proposes open space on approximately 50 gross acres located on both sides of Santiago Creek. Proposed Planning Area A boundaries are bordered on the north by Mabury Avenue, west by Cannon Street, south by Planning Areas B, C, and D, and east by Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Proposed Planning Area A includes the Santiago Creek Greenway Reserve, the flood channel including Santiago Creek, a multi - purpose trail next to the Reserve /Creek, and includes potential trail connections. Recreation Area (Planning Area B): The project proposes privately- operated recreational uses that are open to the public on approximately 10 gross acres on a fee basis. Proposed Planning Area B includes uses such as: an 81,000 square foot building with a maximum two -story height that the Specific Plan allows to house a privately- managed recreation facility consisting of uses such as a wellness center, gymnasium, pool, multi - purpose rooms, a child care center, locker rooms, and administrative offices. Outdoor sport fields and courts are allowed in association with the facility. Educational facilities and a resource center, such as an Autism Center, could also be part of the 10 gross acres site, in association with the 81,000 square foot building. ITEM 3 05/13/14 Age - Qualified Residential Community (Planning Area C): The project proposes an age - qualified (55 and older) community of no more than 265 units on approximately 16 gross acres of the project site. Planning Area C is proposed to be comprised of a combination of individual units composed of one and two - stories flats (referred to as "villas" in the Specific Plan), independent living, and assisted living. Unit sizes are proposed to range from 400 to 2,400 square feet in area. There would be a height limit of two - stories along the perimeter and three - stories in the center of the area. The proposed project includes a minimum 50 foot setback for three -story structures from all edges of Planning Area C. Accessory amenities such as community dining areas with a kitchen, community room, reading room, support services such as coffee and juice service with minor accessory food sales for the senior community, exercise rooms, pool and spa facilities, outdoor gardens, trails, scenic view corridors, and recreation facilities are identified as components that would be associated with the age targeted community. Single - Family Residential Community (Planning Area D): The project proposes to establish no more than 130 single - family residences on approximately 34 gross acres of the project site. Planning Area D proposes residential lots with a minimum lot size of approximately 6,000 square feet, with some lots as large as 20,000 square feet. Approximately 2.01 acres of grading activity is proposed to occur off -site in the County of Orange owned property. ENTITLEMENTS The request incorporates: • General Plan Amendment No. 2009 -002 (GPA 2009 -002): GPA 2009 -002 would change the City's General Plan Designation for the site from Resource Area (RA) to Low Density Residential (LDR 2.1 -6 Du/Ac), Medium Density Residential (MDR 15 -24 Du/Ac), Open Space Park (OS -P) and Open Space (OS); and from Low Density Residential (LDR 2.1 -6 Du/Ac) to Open Space (OS), including text and graphics. GPA 2009 -002 would also change the City's General Plan to remove portions of the project site from the 1975 East Orange General Plan (approximately 56.45 acres) and Orange Park Acres Plan (approximately 40.3 acres), including text and graphics. Those plans designate the respective site areas as "Santiago Creek Greenbelt and Regional Park" and "Santiago Creek Green Belt Plan." GPA 2009 -002 includes amending the General Plan description of the OS -P designation which would allow private land operated by non - profit organizations and private landowners to be eligible as parkland. • Zone Change No. 1254 -09 (ZC 1254 -09): ZC 1254 -09 would change the existing zoning district classifications on the project site from S -G (Sand and Gravel Extraction) and R -1 -8 (Single - Family Residential 8,000 s.f.) to P -C (Planned Community District). • Rio Santiago Specific Plan 001 -09 (SP 001 -09): SP 001 -09 would establish project specific design criteria, development standards (including allowed uses), circulation patterns and infrastructure improvements necessary to implement the project consistent with the General Plan. The Specific Plan would replace portions of the ITEM 4 05/13/14 project site from the 1975 East Orange General Plan (approximately 56.45 acres) and Orange Park Acres Plan (approximately 40.3 acres). • Tentative Parcel Map (TTM 2012 -101): TPM 2012 -101 would divide the project site into four parcels for lease, sale, financing or other conveyance purposes. • Tentative Tract Map No. 17344. (TTM No. 17344) [(also known as TTM 0025- 09)]: TTM 17344 would divide the project site into 155 numbered and 27 lettered lots. • Development Agreement 5825 (DA 5825): DA 5825 is a proposed contractual agreement between the City and the applicant consistent with the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code. DA 5825 would vest development rights for the Rio Santiago project and would require conveyance of land for public use. • Major Site Plan No. 0595 -09 (MJSP 0595 -09): MJSP 0595 -09 is required for the whole of the project including the overall layout shown on the Tentative Tract Map due to the new uses proposed on the land. • Design Review Committee No. 4413 -09 (DRC 4413 -09): DRC 4413 -09 would establish the overall design criteria and development standards of the Specific Plan. ISSUE ITEMS OUTLINED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION Beginning on page 23 of the January 13, 2014, Planning Commission Staff Report, 22 Project Issue Items are discussed in detail. The issue items are grouped into the following categories: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of the DEIR o Issue 1: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ■ Grading and Construction Aesthetic Impacts ■ Long -Term Aesthetic Visual Impacts ■ Light and Glare Impacts ■ Air Quality Impacts ■ Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts (Dam Inundation) ■ Transportation/Traffic Impacts ■ Cumulative (Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic) Impacts • Land Use Considerations • Issue 2: Proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Change • Issue 3: Proposed Land Uses • Issue 4: Context • Issue 5: Density • Issue 6: Massing • Issue 7: Planning Area A Public Entity Dedication ITEM 5 05/13/14 • Health and Safety • Issue 8: Fire Fuel Modification Plan • Issue 9: On -Site Hazardous Material o Issue 10: Adjacent Former Villa Park Landfill • Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreational Amenities o Issue 11: Trails • Issue 12: Applicant Offerings Versus Parkland Dedication Fees • Issue 13: General Plan Land Use Designation Amendment • Issue 14: Private Recreational Amenities • Issue 15: Creek Restoration • Issue 16: Buried Rip Rap on County Property • Design • Issue 17: Architecture • Issue 18: Landscaping • Issue 19: Design Objective Parking and Circulation o Issue 20: Street Standards • Issue 21: Parking Code Deviations • Issue 22: Timing for Right -of -Way Dedication Environmental Document Environmental Impact Report 1818 -09 was prepared for the project and rejected by the Planning Commission. The project's environmental process is documented beginning on page 3 of the January 13, 2014, Planning Commission Staff Report. Environmental Impact Report 1818 -09 is included as Exhibits A -C. Public Notification The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) availability for comment, Design Review Committee Meeting, Planning Commission Meeting, and City Council meeting, including the appeal, were all noticed per state and City noticing requirements. Noticing included site posting, mailed notices, posting on the City website, and advertising in the Orange City News. Notice was provided to property owners /tenants within a 300 -foot radius of the project site, to persons specifically requesting notice, to persons that provided comments in response to the project's Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, to persons who commented during the Notice of Preparation, to persons that commented on the Ridgeline project while providing comments pertaining to development plans for Rio Santiago, to all public agencies, and to persons providing correspondence or testimony at Planning Commission meetings. ITEM 6 05/13/14 Committee and Commission Review • Planning Commission (PCB: At the March 17, 2014 PC meeting, the PC unanimously (3- 0) voted to deny the whole of all applications for the project. Two Commissioners recused themselves from voting. The PC decision to deny the project in entirety was based on the text in the findings for PC Resolution No. 04 -14 (Exhibit I), the text of meeting minutes (Exhibits 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, and 28), and as briefly summarized as follows: • The project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not provide full disclosure, is misleading, is inaccurate particularly with regard to the dam inundation analysis, is inadequate /lacking in facts particularly with regards to the Land Use and Biology Threshold analysis, uses speculative responses to public comments, dismisses Santiago Creek Vision Plan and greenbelt documents, dismisses analysis of impacts on the East Orange and Orange Park Acres Plans, is not the City's independent document, did not have adequate peer review, has staff arguments against the developer's parks position in the project EIR, contains too many significant overrides, has an incorrect traffic impact conclusion, defers mitigation, and lacks thought for alternatives. • The density and housing unit numbers for the site are too intense. • Planning Area A lacks provisions for ownership and maintenance. • The proposed amendment of the General Plan Open Space Park definition creates a problem in that private ownership of parkland could result. • The uses and associated mass would be intense to viewsheds. • Some of the permitted uses would exhibit commercial functions in large buildings. • Conditionally Permitted Uses and accessory uses would further exhibit commercialization. • The managed recreation use proposed on Planning Area B lacks proof of a funded and certain operator. • The senior component on Planning Area C would not have services in close proximity. • The three story buildings in Planning Area C would not be compatible with the area. • Unrestricted apartments could be requested for the site in the future. • The Planning Area C General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential is the City's highest density designation and is too much density for the area. • The Planning Area C uses would act like a hotel with staffing. • Dam inundation risks would result. • Emergency responders would not have adequate time or resources to assist residents in a catastrophe (such as dam inundation). • One Commissioner stated that life would eventually be lost due to dam inundation and it is too dangerous to build a residential product on this site. Another Commissioner disagreed, noting that something needs to be done on the site. ITEM 7 05/13/14 • The Area D single - family residences do not match the area to the east in terms of density. Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size is not appropriate for the area, 8,000 square foot lots would be more appropriate. • The area greenbelt plans need to be addressed. • Trail construction timing could be delayed and has risks that it may not occur or would put the City at risk for not receiving trail completion. • The potential Conditionally Permitted Uses could present further issues. • The Specific Plan is not complete, has implementation gaps, and could cause implementation liabilities for the City. • Project goals and objectives are vague. • The fallback provisions for a master association to manage Planning Area A and the trails is cause for concern. • The Development Agreement should include trail connections as a project benefit and timing for deliverables needs to occur. Several members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting in opposition or support of the project as reflected in the attached January 20 and 27, 2014, meeting minutes. The positions of opposition or support provided at the Planning Commission meetings are similar to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. • Desijzn Review Committee (DRC) The Design Review Committee reviewed the subject proposal at their August 7 and October 21, 2013 meetings, and recommended, by a vote of 4 to 1, that the Specific Plan would be adequate to guide project development as it pertains to their design review purview. • Orange Park Acres Planning Committee (OPAL: The duties of the OPAC are to review land use proposals and make recommendations in the areas of design review, traffic and other impacts on projects within its purview. The Orange Park Association Board of Directors acts as the OPAC. This project would be subject to OPAC's purview, although under OPAC guidelines, a developer's failure to submit a development to OPAC is not mandatory to consideration or approval by the City, but does give the City the option of deeming the application incomplete. In a letter to OPA President Tom Davidson and developer representative John Martin dated November 18, 2010, the City Attorney opined: Without going into any specific detail as to their nature, the insults and accusations between the parties evidence a level of personal animosity that exists between members of the OPA Board and JMI that make it impossible for the OPA Board to meet the basic standards of impartiality. It needs to be made abundantly clear that the City is not laying the blame at the feet of the OPA Board or JMI and in fact, fault is generally irrelevant to the City's decision. What the City has concluded is that animosity exists and at least from a due process and administrative processing perspective, is irreparable. Based on the above, the City Attorney opined that the developer's failure to complete the review process with OPAC was not to be considered in reviewing the project and the developer determined to suspend the review process with OPAL. ITEM 8 05/13/14 8. ATTACHMENTS /EXHIBITS Attachments to Report: 1. Vicinity Map 2. DRC Staff Report Dated June 5, 2013 3. DRC Meeting Minutes Dated June 5, 2013 4. DRC Staff Report Dated August 7, 2013 5. DRC Meeting Minutes Dated August 7, 2013 6. DRC Staff Report Dated October 2, 2013 7. Information Memo to the DRC Dated October 2, 2013 8. Specific Plan Architectural Changes Provided to the DRC on October 2, 2014 9. DRC Meeting Minutes Dated October 2, 2013 10. Department of Public Works Memo Dated September 3, 2013 11. Department of Public Works Street Standard No. 108 12. Detail 5 of the City's Recreational Trails Master Plan Standards 13. General Plan Figure CM -3 Plan for Recreational Trails and Bikeways 14. Detail 4 of the City's Recreational Trails Master Plan Standards 15. Specific Plan Local Streets, Private Drives and Alley Cross Sections 16. Minimum Park Standard Definition 17. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 13, 2014 18. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated January 13, 2014 19. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 20, 2014 20. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated January 20, 2014 21. Information Memo to the Planning Commission Dated January 23, 2014 22. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 27, 2014 23. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated January 27, 2014 24. Information Memo to the Planning Commission Dated February 7, 2014 25. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 19, 2014 26. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated February 19, 2014 27. Information on Surrounding Density Provided to the Planning Commission on March 3, 2014 28. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated March 3, 2014 29. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 17, 2014 30. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated March 17, 2014 31. Applicant Provided Project Summary Dated December, 2013 Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 B. Technical Appendices to Draft Environmental Impact Report No disks on rear cover) C. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 (Response to EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) D. Specific Plan E. Specific Plan Errata 1818 -09 (included as data Comments, Errata to Draft ITEM 9 05/13/14 F. Tentative Tract Map G. Tentative Parcel Map H. Development Agreement I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -14 J. Public and Agency Comments Provided During the Commission Review K. Appeal Application No. 0533 -14 cc: Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Development JMI Properties /Santiago Partners, LLC 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA. 92802 Megan Penn KTGY Group, Inc. 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 Jakki Tonkovich Vista Community Planners 1278 Glenneyre Street, Suite 110 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 ITEM 10 05/13/14