PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES – SEPTEMBER 6 – ORCHARD HILLS AND IBC
9/6/18 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES
By Susan Sayre
Highlights:
- Veteran’s Cemetery site staff reports were requested by this 9/6/18 meeting, but the reports are delayed because the studies require more time to complete. The studies will be presented to the commission as soon as “feasible”.
- What ….no public parks in IBC developments? Irvine Parkland Requirement for IBC developments are rescinded for a fee and the city is searching for IBC land on which to build public parks.
- The notice requirement for City Council and Commission meeting agendas is being changed to 2 weeks as of September 20, 2018.
Present were: Greg Smith (Shae), Dustin Nirschl (Fox), John Duong (Lalloway), Anthony Kuo (Wagner) and Patty Bartlett (Schott).
Announcements
- Tim Gehrich announcements
- The staff reports on both the ARDA and Golf Course Veteran’s Cemetery sites were requested for 9/6/18, but they are not yet completed. Staff requires more time to complete the studies and they will be placed on the agenda “as soon as feasible”.
- The notice requirement for City Council and Commission meeting agendas is being changed to 2 weeks as of September 20, 2018.
Agenda Items 1 and 2: Minutes for 8/16 regular meeting and special meeting were approved, with John Duong not being present as he arrived late: 4-0
Agenda items 3 and 4: Zoning ordinance update and apartment project postponed to a later date.
Agenda item 5: Vesting Tract Maps and associated master plans located in Orchard Hills
Duong abstains as he lives near this project.
Staff report: Staff reported changes in tract map which consisted of alternative property setbacks due to architectural plan changes and relief from parking distance requirements. Staff further reported that wall heights are to be increased.
Bartlett: Bartlett voiced concern that the setbacks would place property back yards too close together. Staff reported that there were to be no back-to-back reduced setbacks.
Motion for approval: passed 4-0 with Duong abstaining.
Agenda Item 6: Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Park Plan for Milani Residential project in IBC.
Staff report: Staff reported that the park plan for recreational amenities has expired and so has the Tract Plan. Staff reported that the recreational amenities are not for public use, but for private use of the residents. Staff reported that the community park requirement has been satisfied by in lieu fees so therefore the neighborhood park and public park requirements no longer exist for the development project. According to the staff report, the project is compliant with zoning and the general plan requirement. Staff also reported that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not been changed by the amended project plans.
One Public Comment (Susan Sayre): Commenter asked whether there was a way for IBC to have community parks. Commenter stated that IBC should not be rescinding the public park requirement as IBC residential and commercial residents would benefit from parks, walkways and bridges to encourage community interaction and recreational activities so that people can find recreational activities locally and walk and bicycle on trails and bridges to avoid having to drive. Commenter further reported that pedestrians are at risk crossing the busy wide intersections. Commenter asked if IBC residents were being informed of the fact that IBC is assigned to the Santa Ana School district. Commenter further reported that the IBC is assigned to the Santa Ana School district, which is not up to par with the Irvine School District and which may pose a safety risk to children. Commenter requested that developers disclose this fact to residents.
Note: Before meeting with Dustin Nirschl, he reported that the entitlement and conditional use agreements and parkland in lieu fee agreements were made long ago and could not be changed.
Bartlett: Bartlett voiced concern that the tract maps and parkland plan have expired and that extension after extension has been granted. Bartlett said that the property was sold to another developer with expired tract maps and parkland plan.
Duong: Duong, who was concerned about expiring of tract maps and parkland plan, asked how many other projects in IBC were expired or about to expire. Staff reported that at least 1 was about to expire.
Nirschl: Nirschl asked staff if any IBC developments met the community and neighborhood park requirement. Staff stated that the Trilogy apartment complex has a community park that is open to the public and the Elements complex on Jamboree and Campus. Nirschl asked attorney whether the parkland provisions of the agreement for the Milani project can be changed. The attorney said that the in lieu provisions cannot be rescinded or changed.
Kuo: Kuo asked if there was a way to have the tract maps, Park Plans and Land Use agreements expire at the same time. Staff said that as they each are valid for differing lengths of time, they could not expire at the same time. Kuo asked what the plans were for parks in the IBC. Staff reported that there is plenty of funding available to purchase land in the IBC to use as a community park open to the public and that a broker is working with Community Services to locate property to use as a park. Kuo reported that when he asked about the city purchasing parkland a year ago he was told that the city did not have the funds to purchase land for a park. Kuo complained that park planning in the IBC is haphazard. Kuo also said that he was concerned that there was so much time that passed between the expiration date and the requests for extension. He further stated that the multiple extensions are impeding the developments of community parks and affordable housing.
Gerich: Gerich reported that the new owner of the property has made substantial investment in the project which is now ready to go.
Kuo: Kuo said that there is a school district disclosure requirement in city ordinance, but he is not seeing the disclosure requirement in staff documents. Staff reported that the disclosure requirements were in the documents, but when asked to locate it, the requirement could not be found.
Smith: Smith reported that the school district boundaries are old and the school district boundaries differ from city boundaries. Smith agreed the project must have school district disclosures for IBC residents.
Duong: Duong asked about how the parkland assessment fees (in lieu fees) were determined. Staff stated that the assessment fees are based on the estimated number of residents in the project. Staff reported that the estimated number of residents has gone up due to census data, so the assessment fees have gone up accordingly. Staff said that if the developer pays the assessment fees early, they can avoid the rise in fee rates.
Nirschl: Nirschl stated that IBC needed more parkland. He asked the applicant if his project had a public park in his project plans. Applicant said that he did not. Applicant reported that he purchased the property in 2017 and has been working full time on the plans and he should be able to start construction by the end of the year.
Smith: Smith reported the entitlement plan that the applicant purchased has the park area in the center of the project which is intended for the residents only. Smith said that opening the center of the project up to the general public would pose a safety risk.
Kuo: Kuo said that small development projects like this one are really not amenable for creating public community parks.
Bartlett: Bartlett stated that pocket parks, passageways, corner parks are possible, but the problem is that the entitlements and conditional land use agreement cannot be changed.
Motion to approve: 5-0
