Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 1) Donna lndge (Phone Call and Email, Attachment 1) — Local realtor who works at the project site and is in support of the project. Believes that the San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue area has been in decline for a number of years and that the project will improve neighborhood aesthetics and increase property values. 2) Anthony Soria (Email, Attachment 2) — Chief Financial Officer for the Tustin Unified School District has expressed concern regarding the proposed increase to the City's density allowance. In particular, there are concerns regarding the Red Hill Avenue project adjacent to Tustin High School and the impacts to traffic and safety of student walking to and from school. Parking is also of concern to the school district as they experience illegal parking already at Tustin High School by residents in the area. There are also concerns regarding the compatibility of additional residential units adjacent to the Tustin High School athletic fields. 3) Betty Peterson (Phone Call and Letter, Attachment 3) — Property owner and resident in theSan Juan Street area with concerns regarding parking and over-development/degradation of existing community along San Juan Street. There are also concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing, traffic on Red Hill Avenue, and the proposed height of the project and its impact on views and shading. Ms. Peterson cannot attend the workshop, but has provided a letter to convey her thoughts. 4) Scott Cauchman (Phone Call, No Attachment) — Property owner and resident in the San Juan Street area with concerns regarding parking and over-development/degradation of existing community along San Juan Street. Does not feel that density in terms of du/ac properly reflects the number of persons per dwelling unit and the impact of total additional persons. Feels that the San Juan Street area is taking the brunt of development in the City and does not seem to see it happening in Tustin Ranch or Old Town etc. Feels that development is being assigned disproportionately throughout the City. Does not agree with the parcel by parcel approach and believes a wider vision is needed. Mr. Cauchman is very interested in particular in the Red Hill project and said he will be attending the workshop. 5) Thomas Hlaysa (In-Person, No Attachment) - Property owner and resident in the Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street area with concerns regarding parking and over-development/degradation of existing community along San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Stated his opposition to the Red Hill Avenue project due to concern over lack of parking and existing traffic along Red Hill Avenue. 6) Harry Rockney (Phone Call, No Attachment) — Laguna Woods resident who expressed concern regarding providing adequate water to new residential developments. 7) Charles & Beverly Laumann (In-Person and Email, Attachment 4) - Property owner and resident in the San Juan Street area with concerns regarding parking and over-development/degradation of existing community along San Juan Street. Believe that the area and infrastructure cannot accommodate the proposed development along Red Hill Avenue. Further, the proposed high density development is not compatible with the character of Tustin and is not appropriate adjacent to Tustin High School. The Laumann's expressed opposition to the proposed Red Hill project. 8) Francis Chu (Letter, Attachment 5) —Tustin resident questioning the benefit to the City and its residents of increasing the density or residential development as proposed for the Red Hill project. Identified concerns on Tustin Schools with the proposed development, in particular Tustin High School which will be surrounded by high density residential development. Suggested that the project needs to be scrutinized severely due to the proposed development thresholds which exceed the City standards. In addition, there were a number of questions and concerns identified regarding traffic, parking, and safety of the Red Hill project. 9) Ann Carter (Phone Call and Letter, Attachment 6) — Resident of North Tustin who expressed concerns regarding the traffic on Red Hill Avenue and lack of parking in the area. Ms. Carter stated her opposition to the proposed Red Hill Avenue project. Ms. Carter cannot attend the workshop, but has provided a letter to convey her thoughts. 10) Donnie Smith (Phone Call, No Attachment) — Tustin resident who recommends that the City consider underground parking if allowing higher residential densities above the current development thresholds 11) Linda Tang (Phone Call and Email, Attachment 7) — Representative of the Kennedy Commission advocating for affordable housing opportunities with any increase in allowable density. In particular, encouraging developers to utilize density bonuses and provide affordable housing. 12) Lou Larkin (Phone Call, No Attachment)—Tustin resident concerned with how utilities are going to be provided to higher density residential developments, in particular water and electricity as there is a scarcity in resources. 13) Christine Smith (Email, Attachment 8) —Tustin resident with concerns regarding traffic and the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and the Interstate 5 freeway. Additional concerns related to parking and increased density were also identified. 14) Elizabeth Oberlin (Email, Attachment 9) — Tustin resident concerned about potential parking impacts associated with the proposed Red Hill Avenue project. Believes that the prior approved senior assisted living project is what is needed in that location. Ms. Oberlin cannot attend the workshop, but has provided an email to convey her thoughts. Attachments: 1. Email received July 2, 2015,from Donna Indge 2. Email received July 5, 2015,from Anthony Soria 3. Letter received July 6, 2015, from Betty Peterson 4. Email received July 6, 2015,from Charles and Beverly Laumann 5. Letter received July 6, 2015, from Francis Chu 6. Email Letter received July 6, 2015, from Ann Carter 7. Email Letter received July 6, 2015, from Linda Tang 8. Email received July 6, 2015,from Christine Smith 9. Email received July 6, 2015,from Elizabeth Oberlin ATTACHMENT 1 Email received July 2, 2015, from Donna lndge From: donna indge Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:38 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: 13751 Red Hill Ave, Tustin project Hi Ryan It was a pleasure talking with you today. I wanted to put in writing my support of the project pertaining to the above address. For 20 years I have and continue to sell real estate in South Tustin. I have seen a lot of change in South Tustin over the years, with companies going out of business, changing hands, vacant lots and in particular, the lot next to 13751 Red Hill has been derelict for years. By allowing the project to continue, it will help build up the area, thus improving the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood and showing prosperity in an area that looks like it is in the throws of becoming run down. If there is opposition from the neighbors in the surrounding homes, in my opinion, it will be solely for self-serving reasons because they will lose the parking lot to park their cars in overnight. Change is always good in an area providing it shows growth in the right direction and it looks like this project will be good for the town. The more we can improve South Tustin, property values will benefit in the long term. If we allow South Tustin to continue on the current path, it is very likely that it will continue to decline over the coming years. Sincerely, Donna Donna Lee Indge Coldwell Banker Best Realty (714) 501-5376 BRE License #01077452 ATTACHMENT 2 Email received July 5, 2015, from Anthony Soria From: Soria, Anthony [mailto:ASoria@tustin.k12.ca.us] Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 3:39 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Franklin, Gregory; Parker, Jeffrey C.; Miranda, David; Soria, Anthony Subject: Possible Development of Property Adjacent to THS Hello Elizabeth, I understand that on Monday July 6th, the City Council and Planning Commission will be conducting a public workshop regarding the possibility of increasing the maximum density per acre. Additionally, in a related conversation with Jeff Parker, a proposed apartment development on Redhill next to the car wash and near Tustin High is also being considered for increased maximum density allowances. The purpose of this email is to express our district's reservation with the density increases particularly near Tustin High School. In particular, we are concerned with the following items: • The concentration of traffic coming out the complex at peak hours in the morning when students are walking to school. • The existence of sufficient parking spaces on the site itself. As we have found with the condos that were converted into apartments on the east end of the district's parking lot, renters were illegally parking their vehicles in our school lots. • Traffic congestion from those who choose to illegally park in our school parking lots. • The potential impacts that athletic events will have on the new structure such as baseballs flying into area in question. Often, district staff have had to retrieve baseballs from the currently empty lot. What happens when baseballs start flying over the fence and damaging parked cars or God forbid striking an innocent bystander? I will be on vacation the next two weeks and will not be able to attend the meeting but David Miranda from our office will be attending. Should he be speaking up at this meeting to express the district's concerns? I look forward to further discussing this policy change with you when I get back from vacation. Thanks, Tony Anthony Soria Chief Financial Officer Tustin Unified School District Office Ph# 714-730-7301 X302 ATTACHMENT 3 Letter received July 6, 2015, from Betty Peterson RECEIVED JUL-0-6-2015 r pp Hr /__ / • COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT BY: Lco h e i vc GZ<v�r�-� • e7)4_, —/ -J I n U L-O G�r /C c C G4 =to 402l—G/ovr-r o -_ / /� y Vate, e, 5 420-s-Late. � � P . 11 2 e _ - � oZ Itg tut—OL .9 r �� �_�P� -� —� d2 (✓neo �' e -� e _/ ````� I — ,26) -Yl p-rP c-ta.-o 11 � 62.E �r�y,✓�° Z -B-cam ly az.. 1L,L. s„..7- �a .-C7 A.--ea o .A rt-Q lw kat a al-( 2.14 t-ce _ _mac. . - �_�_._ _. a� -' �� —42 7 yeLte-krzAA: " ,c±7. 09F...di./ I) • ti-cribt it Li I! Ii ti i I I I I I. I I ATTACHMENT 4 Email received July 6, 2015, from Charles and Beverly Laumann From: Beverley Laumann [mailto:l Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 2:23 PM • To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Proposed Development - West Side of Red Hill Avenue Hi Ryan, Here are my wife's and my concerns with the proposed development. Thank you for taking the time and seeing that the City Council and. Planning Commission members are aware of our concerns. Sincerely, Charles and Beverley Laumann Proposed Development West Side of Red Hill between Alley and San Juan 1. This plan does not reflect the nature of Tustin. The current Land Use Code, General Plan and zoning ordinance do not exist to accommodate this type of high density, mixed use development. Tustin has a great many long term residents and home owners who don't want to see their City and neighborhoods turned into very high density residential uses. Tustin Tiller Days and the Chili Cook Off are examples of how the residents want to retain the small town feeling of their city. 2. The property values for single family residences in the surrounding area will fall as a result of traffic, noise, parking, crime, and other problems associated with this very high density development. Traffic 1. Red Hill Avenue already has a traffic problem. How much traffic is expected to be generated from this development? Does the projected increase in traffic exceed the current carrying capacity of Red Hill Avenue? 2. Adding an additional traffic lane along Red Hill Avenue will not alleviate the traffic congestion that will result from this project since it will only function as an ingress/egress traffic lane. It will not increase the carrying capacity of Red Hill. • 3. The Red Hill Avenue and Interstate 5 interchange is barely handling the current volume of traffic. Traffic stacks up on the off ramps coming off the freeway creating a traffic hazard. Traffic backs up along Red Hill Avenue in both directions at commuters try and make their way onto the freeway off ramps. 4. The intersection of Red Hill Avenue and El Camino is one of the most dangerous in the City. There are more accidents at this intersection that any other in the City. 5. Students at Tustin High School already have a difficult enough time trying to get to school with having to negotiate the freeway on and off ramp traffic and the intersection at Red Hill and El Camino without adding in more traffic from a high density residential commercial development. 6. There will be increased wear and tear on Red Hill Avenue and surrounding streets as traffic increases and people try to deal with the congestion. Where will the funds come from to resurface these streets? Parking • 1. The parking suggested by the developer is inadequate for the number of residential units proposed. There appears to be no off street parking for people shopping at the commercial portions of the development. This will just increase congestion to the area as people try to find parking. 2. The single family residential areas adjacent to the existing multi-family are currently being impacted since the City removed on-street parking from Red Hill Avenue. Water Services 1. Currently the City of Tustin cannot meet its own water need without adding any further residential development. 2. The City is experiencing differential settlement as a result of the amount of water being pumped from the City's wells. Wall, sidewalks, foundations are cracking as a result of this differential settlement. A further drain on the City and States resources is irresponsible. Fire 1. Does the Orange County Fire Authority have all the additional equipment and ladder trucks to fight a fire should a major incident at this development? 2. The current site plan for the development does not provide for a fire lane and there is inadequate turning radius for fire and emergency vehicles. This would increase the possibility of loss of life and property. Police 1. In a study titled "Land Use and Violent Crime," was published in the November 2009 issue of the journal Criminology. It employs geo-coded Uniform Crime Report data for the city of Indianapolis, along with information on 30 categories of land use and demographic information from the 2000 U.S. Census, to map relationships between land use and crime. The research was sponsored by the Indiana University Public Policy Institute (htto://oolicvinstitute.iu.edu/index.asox). The study found higher rates of all types of violent crime in areas of high-density residential land use, even after controlling for overall population. The correlation was more pronounced in disadvantaged areas but held true in other areas as well. "There seems to be something about (high-density residential) units that is associated with all types of serious violent crime, even controlling for the other factors in the model," the authors write. "Apparently, high-density housing units promote serious violent crime." Generally speaking, the study found higher rates of robbery, aggravated assault and rape in commercial areas, and higher rates of all violent crimes in areas traversed by major streets. It found generally lower violent crime rates in areas with parks, cemeteries and schools. Tustin High School 1. This is an inappropriate land use adjacent to Tustin High School. Does it pose a safety risk to students? 2. Will the residents complain about the noise from events on the school grounds? Events can currently be heard all the way to the intersection of Utt and Lear Lane, even with double pane glass. ATTACHMENT 5 Letter received July 6, 2015, from Francis Chu City of Tustin-Community Development 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Re: Irvine Asset Group-Community Workshop on 07/06/2015 General Plan Amendment,Zone Change Property on Red Hill Ave.near El Camino Real Tustin City Guardians, -I learned of this preposed project and the community workshop from the community newspaper"The Tustin News"dated July 02,2015.As a near two decades resident of Tustin,I take a verykeen interest with the growth and revitalization of the city.I think the city has done a tremendous job in carrying out the vision on Tustin Legacy with logistic and beneficial compromise to make it what it is and what it will become.I think Tustin Legacy is a very good example of a planned and balanced community of commerce,residential,and benevolent services within the city of Tustin. The benefit of Tustin Legacy project being an entirely new master planned development allows for the City to develop adequate infrastructure and services for the projected growth of the area.Unlike the Tustin legacy,the referenced proposed in-fill development will have challenges which can be achieved only within the confine of the original planned vision. I'd request the City to consider the following questions during the Workshop. To City Guardians: 1. What is our(the community)vision of Tustin in the developed core near Old Town?Site is about three-quarter of a mile from Old Town. 2. Is It prudent to increase population density and overburden existing area?Is it not more reasonable to have such design in planned area where such increase can be anticipated and developed? 3. What is the benefit to spot zone this project through a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change,while the original Zone continues to be a sound and valid? 4. Is Tustin such an urban community that Tustin High School should be adjacent to another high density development in addition to the existing Tustin Cottages? 5. The one time School Fees from the development will never come close to the real cost of continuing required educational funding.As it is,every school in the Tustin School District requires financial participation from students be it volunteer hours,school supplies,additional activities fee,etc.,this density increase is NOT in the original General Plan thus how will it Impact the school budget? 6. This Is not a NIMBY letter.Project proponent has every right to develop the project under the current allowable zone with 25 DU/acre complying with the current zoning and building code. However,the requested 2.4 times development density increase and parking reduction variance for spot Zoning and General Plan Amendment for the project require severe scrutiny. To Project Proponent: 1. What is the benefit to the community and City to increase the project density from 25 DU/acre to 60 DU/acre?Why? 2. Traffic-The increase in density will Impact traffic in a critical Intersection. Unlike Tustin Ranch Road,Red Hill Ave in the section between Walnut Avenue and Main Street to the I-5 on-ramp Is limited in width and lanes and further constrained due to short queuing under I-5 overpass. What Is the plan to address traffic queuing? 3. Traffic—During morning peak hours,it is chaotic at the Intersection of El Camino Real and Red Hill Ave as cars are trying to drop off Tustin High School students and morning commuters are getting out of Tustin Cottages,the proposed higher density development will only exacerbate the situation. 4. Traffic—What will be the access pattern to the proposed development on Red Hill Ave? 5. Safety—What measure will be taken to ensure development access is prominently visible to students walking to school? 6. Parking—The project MUST comply with the parking ordinance for required parking per current code.There is already an over abundant of street parking in the area and it is unfair to place the burden of control to the city government and unfair to EXISTING adjacent single families in the neighborhood having to deal with. 7. Parking—The project is not providing affordable units.Typically affordable unit residents would have a higher need for public transportation.As the proposed project would not have affordable units,there is no reason to allow for reduced parking. 8. Visual/Shadow—The additional building height will have substantial impact to the immediate neighborhood,southbound I-5 visual to the mountain,shadow to the Tustin High School baseball diamond,and simply the character of the area. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Francis Tustin,CA ATTACHMENT 6 Email Letter received July 6, 2015, from Ann Carter • Ann Carter July 7, 2015 • Tustin Planning Commission. Tustin, Ca. Attn: R.Swiontek Ref: Proposed High Density Apar intent Building Gentlemen, This letter is in protest of the proposal by Irvine Asset Group to build 60 apartments at the corner of Red Hill Ave and El Camino Real in Tustin. While I live in North Tustin and not in the city of Tustin I do use the referenced area frequently.At present that particular corner can be a nightmare to transit with the volume of traffic and the multiple traffic lights, especially when the lights are not synchronized; parking is also impossible. To consider allowing a high density apartment building will exacerbate the current problems and will be a hardship for the residents, business owners and all drivers that transit that location. I urge you to consider these hardships before proceeding in this matter. Yours sincerely, 9 LA__ Co), Ann Carter ATTACHMENT 7 Email Letter received July 6, 2015, from Linda Tang From: linda tang [mailto:kencomlt33(agmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 5:14 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Cesar Covarrubias Subject: RE: Comments on Proposed Residential Density Increase Hi Ryan, Please find the Kennedy Commission's letter regarding today's City Council and Planning Commission workshop on residential density and associated land use/policy issues. Also, please add us on the City's distribution list regarding any upcoming workshops or meetings on this issue. Thanks for your help and if you confirm receipt of this email, I would really appreciate it. Sincerely, Linda Tang The Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 p: (949) 250-0909 • f: (949) 263-0647 www.kennedycommission.org Kennedy July 7, 2015 C O .M:M_ 15 5 1 O N www:kennedycom,nissi on.org 17701 Cowan Ave.,Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92614 949.250 0909 Mr. Ryan Swiontek Fax 949 263 0647 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Comments Regarding Residential Density and Associated Land Use/Policy Issues Dear Mn Swiontek: The Kennedy Commission (the CoinmiSsion) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than$20,000,annually in Orange County. Formed.in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City considers amending and increasing the City's allowable density over 25 du/ac, the Commission recommendsthe following I. Ensure that proposed developments that request for increased density would be consistent with SB 1818. 2, Provide by-right incentives (i.e., increased density above 25 du/ac) and concessions of certain development standards that developers are not entitled tom areas outside of the. Tustin Legacy, in exchange for a dedication of 15.percent of homes affordable to families at extremely low, very low and:low-income,levels in the City. 3. Consistent with the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element goals,and programs, the City should continue it's partnership with the Commission'to facilitate the development of affordable homes for lower income working families in the City. Please keep us informed of any future meetings and if you have any questions, free to contactme at(949)250-0909 or cesarc@kenneclycommission.org. Sincerely, / a Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director Worldne forsystemie change restdtng tit the production of lines affordable to Orange County's a tree els ion mconte households . ATTACHMENT 8 Email received July 6, 2015, from Christine Smith Original Message From: C. F. Smith [mailto: Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 10:01 AM To: Puckett, Chuck; rgomez@tutsinca.org Subject: High density apartments on Redhill Having read the article in the Tustin News regarding the proposed 60 unit apartment building on Redhill less than a quarter of a mile from the worst series of controlled intersections in the county it makes me wonder why this application was ever accepted. It also begs the question why the developer thinks the City of Tustin would go along with a project so far outside the normal limits on density. What does the Planning Commission get out of this if they approved it? What is the benefit to the City of Tustin to increase the already impacted parking situation? If you have some bit of wisdom to share on why it would be a good idea to abandon the General Plan I would appreciate hearing it. Yours truly, Christine Smith ATTACHMENT 9 Email received July 6, 2015, from Elizabeth Oberlin Original Message From: Sissy Oberlin [mailto Sent: Monday,July 06, 2015 9:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: High Rise Apartments on Red Hill I'm really sorry I'm going to be out of town for this meeting. The High Rise is really a bad idea. Have you taken a look around the neighborhoods? The parking is awful. More and more family's their kids are staying with them Ionger..Unless we make every street permit parking for those residents that live on those streets, it's never going to get any better. The shopping center across the street will get most of the over night parking and maybe even into the day. Those stores are struggling now and this will make it worse..) thought at one point that lot was going to be used for Senior Living. That is what we need at this end of town. If this gets approved..you will drive more and more of the residents out of town. Please reconsider this.. Thanks for listening.. Elizabeth Oberlin