The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUPPLEMENTAL #3 ADD'L. COMMENTS ITEM #3 Email Comments Received November 28, 2017 at 2:14pm Tiscareno, Vera From: William McKinnies <wmckinnies@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:14 PM To: Tiscareno,Vera Subject: Comment on Development of Land at Victory and Park in Tustin Legacy Vera, I understand that you are the secretary for the Planing Commission and can pass along public comments that you receive. I believe the Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal by Cal Atlantic regarding Lot 19, Tract 17404. The proposal is to change the development from single family homes to condominiums. I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting but would like to make the following comments. Having downloaded and scanned through the 240 page Agenda Report on Cal Atlantic's proposal, I notice that my general concerns about the increase in population density in the area are substantiated by numerous sections of the report and applicable code, laws etc. cited therein. These various codes etc.seem to have been overlooked in the rush to rubber stamp this proposal for approval. Specifically: Pages 5-6 list Tustin City Goals and Goals#s 3, 4, and 6 are NOT will.not be met by the proposed development. Page 183 no boxes are checked as being "Environmental Factors Potentially Affected"; this says that Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, Aesthetics, and Recreation WILL NOT be adversely affect. This is pure non sense, of course all of those things will be affected by changing a 20 acre parcel from single family homes (approx 70?) to 218 units of condos. Parking, traffic and local park use come to mind as well as placing more three story multi unit residential buildings adjacent to existing single family homes. The existing community will be over run. In the Environmental Impact Study(EIS) section: Page 190 sections XIII part A, XV part A, ad XVI parts A, B, E and Especially F are all problems that would be created by the proposed development that have been over looked or intentionally ignored. A prime example is section XVI part F Parking, we already have a parking problem in the area. there is not enough on street parking for the population and people are using the lots in various parks (illegally) to park their vehicles and the excessive amount of parking on the little bit of street available to do so is a blight on the neighborhood. Instead of 70(?) single family homes with 140(?) cars that would be parked in garages or on the streets within the tract, 218 units will generate approx 654 vehicles, many of them looking to park on streets NOT CONTAINED withifi their development. Therefor, due to the potential harm to the existing neighborhood, the original plan for single family homes should remain in force. Regards, Will McKinnies 1 ITEM #3 Opposition Email Received November 28, 2017 at 3:57pm Tiscareno, Vera From: bluee40 <bluee40@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:57 PM To: Tiscareno,Vera Subject: Opposing to the Tustin development of land at Victory and Park Vera, I understand that you are'the secretaryfor the Planing Commission and can pass along public commentsthat you receive. I believe the Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposa['by Cal Atlantic regarding Lot 19,Tract 17404. The:proposal is to change the development.from single family homes to condominiums. I will not be able to' attend tonight's meeting but would'like to make the following comments. Having downloaded and scanned through the 240,page.Agenda Report ont Cal Atlantic's proposal, I notice that my general concerns about the increase in population density in the area are substantiated by numerous sections of the report and applicable code, laws etc` cited therein. These various codes etc:seem to have been overlooked in the rush to rubber stamp this proposal,for approval''. Specifically:,Pages 5-6 list Tustin City Goals and.Goals#s 3, 4, and 6 are NOT will not,be.met by the • M proposed development. Page 183 no boxes are checked as being."Environmental Factors Potentially Affected"; this says that Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, Aesthetics, and Recreation WILL NOT be adversely affect. This is pure non sense, of course:all of those things will be affected by changing a 20'acre parcel from sin_ gle family homes (approx 70?)-to 218 units of condos. Parking, traffic,and local park use come to mind.as well asp placing more three,story multi unit residential buildings adjacent to.existing single family homes. The existing community will be over,run. In the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) section: Page 190 sections X11.1 part A XV part A,.ad XVI parts A, B,`E and Especially F are all problems that would be created by the proposed development that have been over looked or intentionally ignored. A prime example is section XVI part`F Parking, we already have a parking problem.in the area. there is not'enough on street parking for`the population and people are using the lots in various.parks (illegally) to park their vehicles and the excessive amount of parking on- the nthe little bit of street available to do so is a blight on the neighborhood. Instead of 70(?) single family homes with 140(?) cars that would be parked in garages or on the streets within the tract, 218 units will generate approx 654 vehicles, many of them looking to park on streets NOT CONTAINED within their development. Therefor, due to the potential harm to the existing neighborhood, the original plan:for single family homes should remain in force. Regards, Austin Hsu 115 Evelyn Place Tustin, CA 92782 ITEM #3 Opposition Email Received November 28, 2017 at 4:18pm Tiscareno, Vera From: Jeremy Schwartz <schwartzJeremy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:18 PM To: Tiscareno,Vera; Piguee, Kenneth Subject: Fwd: Lot 19 Hello Tustin Staff, I've just been walking by Lot 19 sign and noticed a 1.5 ft x 1 ft sign saying public comment is happening tonight on the Lot 19 land I've been asking about for months. Its hard for me to believe I have not been notified about this, is there a mandatory notification for people within a certain distance of the project? Was any effort made to actually notifty those people in advance of this meeting? Thanks, Jeremy ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jeremy Schwartz<schwartz.jcrtimv(ir-Pxnail.eom> Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Lot 19 To: Piguee, Kenneth <KPi��LIeC f."tLtStiiicLt.(�)rfT> Hi Ken -- Anything new with Lot 19 development plans? Do I understand right that they will have clearance to go 3 stories tall on that lot? Thanks, Jeremy On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:14 PM Jeremy Schwartz<sch��art/,.jeremy@rc .gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Ken! Appreciate the heads up there. Is there ever a chance for the public to get involved in this kind of planning? I'm just really hoping I don't have a 3 story structure across the street from my house. Appreciate any advice you have on how I can be proactive about it. Map below: I ILII ,.w Huntley at Greenwood x in Tustin Legacy by... �Rry f,. J- je ; ti d w Victory Park W . yy,U. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM Piguee, Kenneth <KPi-=uee(g.tustinca.org>wrote: Hello Jeremy- Thanks for your email regarding Lot 19. We do have a section of our website devoted to it here: hqp://WW"'.tLIStinczL.or,,/depts/ed/legacy/liveineiglibonc(iods.asp. 2 As of right now, we are in the ENA (negotiating)phase, so no plans are available at this time. Please feel free to contact us with any other questions. Thanks, Ken Kenneth Piguee Management Analyst Economic Development Department City of Tustin. Office: 714-573-3316 i Cell: 714-402-8533 mobile+1{a H)DS -0600 mobile-+ ]{3]0)I)S8-1)600 mobile+1(310)988-9600 3