HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMENT LETTER PC 1 DATED 4-23-18 Comment Letter PC I received from;certain property and business owners, in DCCSP area, dated April
'23, 2018, (5 pages)[
RECEIVED
Propertyand Business,Own,ers,of 18'
APR 2 3 Z018
Tustin Downtown Commercial Core
wtsTlf
'CITY'CLEIVI,
April 23,2018
Planning Commission
ofTustin
ty,
3010 Centennial My
Tustino
, CA 92,780,
Downtown Commlercial Core Sped-fic Plan(DOCSP),
M
M
...... it,"h,,Kozak,T hompsoa,L mbard,and Miasoo*
Dear,Commissioners Srni U
ilg �y ow,ns property,and/or businesses In the Downtown and Old
The unders" nedeachcurreint!
55M
t emplated DCCSP(t,he*Plan'). Witectively,we have,
Town areas of Tus,In covered by the�cont
"n Tustin., We are honored to, serve,, our
in st s t,
hundreds of years e
of exped ,ce doling bu neis
Ming cornmunittes., Our cutstomers, friends,
custome: who reside in Tusfin and the surrou,nd'
in altow us to eam our,1i Ings,here,,.,
and neighbors in Tust, 1v
10-
W'e believe the
At,this-fimiqlwe,uiraie,the-C
i.mlo E�an.
Plan is Mill'suffictifently developedin a number of keyareas. As it currentty stalnds,,the P an arm,!,s
Av neither 'the Commission nor the wider cnity, it serves Mth enough data to make an
InIform edl diedislon. We, cannot understate how profoundly wie believe,, this Ran will aff6d,
Down'town TUsfin and how,wedo business hiere. It Is es,,,,sential thiat all,off us, have the corre,,d
'Its
afion a d enough of'R,too assess,the,Plian's m eri,
inform n
'We currently find the Plan,deficlent in addressing thefollowing key Issues..
'40
iii
The Plancalls for,narr,owing First-Street and Main Street and convertinig Second Street and
rintines ould have; an impact o, public safety by
Third eet n
oe-waly streets, These, chag
cn i
HIM 2,
ncreasing response tirnfes tio, uny rnaking the, streets difficul't f6r,
vehitlesnalvigate., The Plan shotild contain Input from the Tustin Pollice
emeirgency
'!ff
Department and the, Orainge County Fire Authority on potential impacts to our, ilty,'$
pubtlic safety.
M
l
Planning Commission,Clity,Of""Tustin
April 23,
1Page 2
I
wasiThe parking plan antd, parking study, used 'nthe Draft,DGCSP is flawed,,, (Appendix pages,
l 'h1. II claims, there, II
T
p ng situation u n ,
arki
r 's encountet.
The Plan identifies �� -street �,
approximately off-str �rkingoff-sty is located on private ' , fort'fort'he exclusiveuse
MY of the private,i
propertyten,; ,
c i ' ailcestio, C use is tenuous, .,
e reliant on'The DjCCSP
t
visions a Down'townbusinesses
i
pedestrianblcyole traffic only, The Paan envisions furtherthe
Ii ', e built. cupto rs me,
l
The new
Joyees, and vendors, f ottr current businesses rely upon cars 'to, reach us.
f
residents of I1 � ,I'
ori
more clfg ' y access
i
t
IMM QiMM
the n G � je'Plan emphasizes, maki i
noble sientiment in theory,, but it, neglects the reallity that most off us, ow f Is
, and our
%i
l it I I(t , I " nly ' v I ls"y e
, out customer,
Of'T7ustinj O's
w 11 "tip - . ,side-olf"Tustin,, Furthermore,, o suppliers and theitr deliveryice
J
must � �nus silt' our b
iit
i
i, I
Dgi
�' � potential fiscal limp i' res to
owners,and operators,, y ,the Cfty,,and your cofferss. SimilarI ', repos d In
other e Il ni n iwhich
city,% stakeholders,and F i " d or the
i
City-to, move,forward with, , the Plan absent an honest, discussion,about hiow much,
i/
:i
-Planning Commission,City Of Tustin
,April 23,2018
Page
the Plan-will post to implement,who bears the burden of those hosts,and what the quantirl.able
-economic benefits to.the orhmu-bity may be.
The section-in.-the Plan Appendix titled"Economic' n* is" rdly addresses fiscal impact. coat.
ha
(Appendix pages 11-111 to 11-123.) It contained demographics and housing data-from the.
Census bureau That wasd slmpl� "cut and pasteinto a presentation,but zero analysis.
Review of Past, rojects Mase Studies
The City should present'sum Lades of pgst projects they. have undertaken including ars
honest assessment about what,asp cts of those projects succeeded and what aspects failed.
An. honest assessment will include feedback from }all stakeholders including residents,
ust niers, merchants'-'and city officials alike. We 6u 'gest looking into.the diagonal parking
added to El Camino R6al many y brs ago, the development of Prospect Vjllagq, and the
development of The District Shopping.center.
Furlh rrnore, it would be valuable to see what other communities in Orange-County and
.Southern Californ'la have undertaken Specific Plans for-downtown areas. presentation f
those plans"successes and failures would aid in assessing the merits-of this proposed Plan.
Comment Period and Community Feedback
The Community Development.department.heldzbver l or shop 'dudng.the preparation of
• this Flan. However, we draw a distinction between the development of the Plan and its
release in its current form. Allowing only tern days for the stakeholders of this community a
well as the Planning CoM' rni ilon),t6 digest over 1,600 pages of rnatedal is im-ply,insufficient,
R
Furthermore, the CorTimunity Dev to ment D partrn nt should,reach out to all business
and ,properly owners In -the affected areas through. survey or ballot to collect their input,
perhaps with the-!assistance of the Chafnber of Commerce. The ten-day comment period,
coupled Wth'the:tiny signs the City posted announcing the Plan ning-Go mmission meeting does
not seem like a genuine effort to solicit input from affected stakeholders.
Existinq Businesses
The Plan is-very geared towards attractin ,`n r,business. While "a rising tide raises all
beats,"new business does not have to come at the expense of existing businesses: We Flops
I
y
T
•
■
Planning-, ornrinis ion, ity. fTustih-
April 3 ,2018
Page 4 ;
the City will engage wdth us to help us move ur businesses forward. None of us h6ve-enjoy d
our omrnerci l'suc a es because of lack of ideas or grit. ifthe ity cooperated with existing
businesses more.-closely, Increni6ntal improvement -to Downi16wn could Kapp n snore easily,
even outside this Plan.
The success or failure of this Plan hinges.oh the buy'-in from all stakeholders of-the Tustin
community. Community is NOT just zoning maps and building codes — it is people. No
ani durst bf stfek-i r provernents or setback adjustments oan.,make a community. If'staff at the
city-Of Tustin is serious.ab6ut tine Plan,it must do a better dab to sell the Plan to members:of
this op.mmunit ,including the,Pl nn-ing Paimmission and City Council.
All-ef u -need. more inform-atibfiIn order to nlake 6n informed decision ton IliiD merits ofthis
Plan. we look forward to constructive dialogue with the City to address the.Issues and
questions we 0-resented here.! In .order for any Pian proposal -to reflect the best possible
.alternatives, and in turn lead to the.best possible outcomes; eve are better served Working
together-a rnutuall� iinter std Parties.. We are '+got Yet at that point, " o ve' +Ur a tris 8
cont.
Commis inh't . rithhold their votes on this Plan at this tir7ne.
Sincerer,,
Paul Berkman- Allen Bisbee
owner President," eneral Manager
Rutabegorz Saddleback Chapel
458 Vilest a'In Street 220+East MainStreet-
Tustin,CA 92780 TRi tin,CA 92780
l ick,and Tommie Bullard Kimberly Qonroy
Owners R Owner
InAtat=Design Studio Amid an Grub/The Swinging Door Saloon
X80 East First Street,Suite A 3551355 El Camino Real
Tu tin,.OA 92.780Tustin,CA 02780
Phil aftd Linda'Cox Jo ph Leaman-Prescott
dwners owner
)'s Market Plaza Maureen Leaman
435 El QaiinorReal 440 El Camino Real
Tustin,CA 92780 � Td tin,CA 92784
(continued prr nt page)
i
t
Planning CbmMISSIon,City f Tt dhp
_.
April 23,- 01
Page
1
Rick Arid Teri.Mandel Mark and'Gwen Master
Owners 'Own rs
Wellprint, lnc. Scooters a�Hbo Cards and Gifts.
380 East Flrst Strdee 369 East Fist 5tret
Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,OA,92 9
Eugene,D. i icco Tiffany Mjll r
w6sident-/, to.. Owner
Tu' tin, ornmu-nit Bank Mrs.B' onsi nme-hts, Etc.
1 Newport i re`,•Suite 199 11 West Mai street
Tustin,DA Tustin; A 92780
1 he as Penr a Mary M.,Prescott
wn er Owner
Salon allery!2fid Suites arqu Santiago
220 El D imino F eat 21 -South'Pro p t Avenue
Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,"CA 92780
Earl.J.Precot#: - Thornas b:.�PrF ott cont
owner Owner
330 West-Eir t-8treet 270-East Ml in- trek,
?25,-255'Ell Camino.,Real 225-255 El Oa ino,F eai
250 South ProsRect:Avenue 250 South-Pro ect Avenue
Tustin,DA 92780 Tustin,CA 92780
Alflo Rossetti Arnold and Tina Surfa
Vice Preidnt Owners
Roma U,ltaiia Surfas Ltd.tFurriers
11 El,Camino Real 145 west First-Street
Tustin,OA 9'278-0 Tu stp-,OA 32780
. olly,Van Dykein Lys,walket
Owner DEO
El C'aminb,Pet Grooming Graphic Productions
J FI Da mn l alY 278 South Prospect Avenue,Suite,A/B
Tustin,,DA 92780 *Tustin,CA 870
5
Y
I
1
i
Response to PC 1 Comment Letter received from certain properly and business owners in DCCSP area,
dated April 23,201
omment 1:The commenters identify themselves and state that they believe the City's public hearing on
the consideration of the Downtown Commercial Core Draft Specific Plan DSP and Draft EIR should be
postponed.
[response l:This is net a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.-The public hearing process for the
DCCSP and FIR in which the City Planning Commission consider and male a recommendation to the City
Council for final determination is precisely the process that is appropriate at this stage because it allows
the Planning Commission and City Council to consider public input and weigh the merits of the plan before
making a decision.Therefore, it is appropriate for the hearings to take place.
Comment : The commenters state concerns about public safety related to the narrowing of Fiat Street
and Main Street and converting Second Street and Third Street into one-way streets.
[response : Public safety related to circulation was addressed in the DCCSP EIR on page 5.9-15 under
Impact TR-3 TR-3and no impacts related to public safety were identified. Further,the Orange County Fire
Authority and Tustin Police Department were involved with the review of the DCCSP and EIR and did not
identify any saf ety concerns relative to the identified improvements. In addition, refer to the response R -2
in the comment letter received from Collette Mo re, dated April 16, 201 (Letter R ) for further discussion
on the analysis of the identified improvements. No further analysis is required.
Comment : The commenters.state they are concerned with parking supply in the DCC, particularly if
residential development occurs in the DCC.The commenters also reference the Existing Conditions Report
and question the report's statements regarding existing parking supply being sufficient for the Old Town.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR,The referenced statements in the
Existing Conditions Report is a summary of a prior parking study prepared on behalf of the City.Since
thea, ar new purling study for the DCC area was prepared on the City's behalf in 2017. The requirements
in the DCCSP for new residential development to provide parking to meet the anticipated demand of the
new housing will ensure that sufficient parking is available in the DCC area,
Comment :The commenters assert that the DCCSP ignores the potential for customers to drive to get to
the DCC from other areas of Tustin and from outside of Tustin.The commenters also state that suppliers and
their delivery vehicles must continue to easily access DCC businesses.
Response :Traffic and circulation impacts were fully analyzed in Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR and the
accompanying traffic impact analysis.The Traffic distribution for eisting and proposed uses were
considered in the analysis as described on page 5.9-12 of the Draft EIR.As stated in Section 5.9.5 of the
Draft El R1 the traffic analysis er as performed pursuant to the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies (December II2).Trips generated by the Specific Plan's proposed land uses have been
estimated using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model TAM), which considers the regional
effects of traffic.The analysis dete rmined that them would be no significant impacts related to traffic
within the DCCSP, except for the intersection of Newport Avenue at the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection would mitigate the impact; however,the intersection is
under Caltrans jurisdiction, and the City does not have the sole authority to install a signal at this location.
Therefore,the impact at this intersection is considered significant.and unavoidable. Caltrans is planning on
installing the signal; therefore,customers and delivery vehicles are not expected to experience significant
delays as a result of the DCCSP. No further analysis is required.
6
IL
s
Comment :The commenter states that no analysis regarding the Specific Plan's potential fiscal impact is
provided and references the Downtown Tustin Commercial Core Project Economic Analysis Memorandum
prepared as part of the existing conditions report effort for the DSP.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. f=urther,the Tustin City Code (TCC)
and California Government Code Sections 65450-65457 do not require the preparation of a fiscal
impact analysis as part of the preparation or consideration of a Specific Plan.The Downtown Tustin
Commercial Core Project Economic Analysis Memorandum was prepared with the stated purpose of
providing "background on the economic conditions in Tustin, with a particular focus on the downtown area."
The analysis identified a lack of new housing in the area despite a demand for housing that would continue
to increase as new commercial and office space is developed in the area, which the analysis also
predicted.Adding housing units would benefit the local businesses by locating residents and customers in
close proximity to the businesses.
Relative to the potential fiscal impacts of implementing the DCC P,the DCCSP EIR analyzed the D P's
potential impacts on utilities and road infr astructure and identified improvements that would be required
to support the future demand caused by the growth considered in the DCCSP. f=uture development is
required to pay connection fees for utilities,which will be used by the utility companies to pay for any
improvements to the utility systems to support the new development. Similarly, any road improvements that
are required to support the future growth would be implemented by a specific development project or
paid for on a fair share basis. [lo further analysis is required.
Comment :The cornmenters request the City present summaries of past projects the City has undertaken,
which would include feedback from all stakeholders.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.The City considered many other
plans and projects in downtown areas and received community feedbag over three workshops about the
vision for the DCC. Based on this review and information the City developed the DCP. Further
suggestions, if any,can be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council during the public
hearings. No further analysis is required.
Comment : The commenters claim that allowing only ten days for the community stakeholders and the
Planning Commission to digest over 1,600 pages of material is not sufficient. The commenters further state
that City should reach out to"all lousiness and property owners in the affected areas through survey or
baIIot to collect their input" and make a genuine effort to solicit input frorn affected stakeholders.
Response `:This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.See response R2-6 in the comment
letter received f rout Collette Morse, dated April 16, 2018 (Letter R2);for further discussion on the City's
public noticing efforts related to the DC P.
crnment :The commenters state that the Specific Plan is focused on attracting new business anti raises
concern about impacts to existing businesses. In addition,the commenters close the letter with a request for
further communication and coordination with the City, and conclude with a request for the Planning
Commission to delay their vote.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCBP El .See response 5, above regarding
the DCP's benefits to existing businesses.The City's Economic Development Department provides a
number of services for the benefit of existing and future business, including business attraction, retention
and expansion.The Community Development Department also provides a variety of services that ensure
the development and use of property within the City creates and maintains a safe,economically vital and
aesthetically pleasing place in which to lure,work, and visit.These services will be readily available for all
the commenters,whether business owners, property owners, residents or visitors to the DCC.Additionally,
•
EL
staff from both departments will be available to assist with any questions or concerns as the DCCSP i
implemented, should the plan be approved.
8