Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-ATTACHMENT BATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION RELATED ITEMS EXHIBIT 1 April 10, 2018 Public Hearing Minutes 1 1 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 2018 7:05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Binsack called the meeting to order and asked for nominations for a temporary Chair. It was moved by Mason, seconded by Thompson to elect Commissioner Lumbard as the temporary Chair. Motion passed. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson EXCUSED ABSENCES: Chair Smith and Chair Pro Tem Kozak None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —MARCH 27, 2018 Minutes of the March RECOMMENDATION: 27, 2098 Planning That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the March 27, Commission 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. meeting. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0-2. PUBLIC HEARING: Thompson Thompson recused himself due to a conflict, but remained seated at the dais in order to maintain a quorum. Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that Chair Pro Tem Kozak had a family medical issue and would not be present at the meeting. Therefore, there was nota sufficient number of Commissioners to make a recommendation on Item #2. Due to a lack of quorum, this item was continued to April 24, 2018. Due to lack of 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1497 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZC)-2018- quorum, the 00002 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL item was CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -12), AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN continued a date certainn — CITY CODE RECISION OF FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP - April 24, 2098. 10) AND CERTAIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND, AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) -2018-00001 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS Minutes — Planning Commission April 10, 2018 -- Page 1 of 3 AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS; FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AS ADEQUATE REQUEST: The Tustin City Council directed that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) be prepared to provide a new regulatory framework for existing and future land development in the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP would replace the existing zoning and general plan designations on the properties within the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP is intended to establish the long-term vision with goals and objectives to create a vibrant; cohesive, connected, livable, and memorable city core. The key components include: establishing commercial and mixed-use (residential and commercial) land use regulations for the area, promoting pedestrian -oriented commercial first floor development to invigorate the area and expand walkability; transforming streets through future streetscape, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle -oriented improvements; drawing more patrons to Old Town by embracing, preserving and promoting its unique historic character; maintaining a commercial emphasis for the project area; and introducing the possibility for high-quality integrated residential mixed-use and focused multi -family development. ENVIRONMENTAL: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and is attached to the report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4363) finding: 1) that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; 2) that General Plan Amendment (GPA) -2018- 00001 be approved, including text amendments and amendments to certain exhibits/maps; and, 3) that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change (ZC)-2018-00002 including adoption of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP -12), amendment of the Tustin City Code, rescission of the First Street Specific Plan (SP -10) and certain planned communities and, amendment of the City of Tustin Zoning Map. None. REGULAR BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Minutes — Planning Commission April 10, 2018 — Page 2 of 3 Thompson Thompson attended the following events: 0 4/5: Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting * 4/6: 55 th Anniversary at El Toro 0 4/7': Walking Tour of Old Town Tustin Mason Mason participated in the California Preservation Foundation webinar he at City Hall, Community Development Department, on April 11, 201& 1 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at 7:00 p,m. in the Counci�l Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Austin, Lumbard Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BM'ACK i Planning Commission Secretary 71ARWEVEN M. mml�� EXHIBIT 2 April 24, 2018 Public Hearing Minutes MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2018 7:05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Smith INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson The Commission 1. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION reorganized as follows: As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission reorganizes once per year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chair Lumbard Chairperson Pro Tem. Chair Pro Tem Kozak RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem pursuant to standard procedures. Motion: Kozak nominated Lumbard as Chairperson. It was seconded by Thompson. It was moved by Smith, to appoint Lumbard as Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. Motion: 1) Lumbard nominated Kozak as Chair Pro Tem 2) Smith nominated Mason as Chair Pro Tem. Per the first motion, it was seconded by Thompson to appoint Kozak as Chair Pro Tem. Per the second nomination, it was seconded by Kozak to appoint Mason as Chair Pro Tem. Bobak Bobak advised the Commission to take a vote on the first motion and if it passes, then the second motion would be assumed to fail. Motion: Per the first motion, the votes were as follows: Ayes — Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson 1 Nay — Smith. Motion carried 4-1. As a result of the first motion, the second motion failed. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES --APRIL 10, 2018 Consent Calendar. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 1 of 10 3. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Received and The following report provides a summary of projects and activities since filed. the 'year in review report was presented at the January 23, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Lumbard requested that Item #5 be moved ahead of Item #4 due to there being several speaker forms and supplemental items brought to the dais for discussion of Item #4. 7:93 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Item #5. Lumbard requested confirmation from staff that there was a request from the applicant to continue the item to the next regular meeting of May 8, 2018. Binsack Binsack confirmed that the applicant did submit a request for continuation of the item (via email) to Huffer the day prior to the meeting. An updated staff report was also provided to the Commission with the packets provided. 7.14 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Comments Section. PUBLIC HEARING: 5. DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007 Item continued to A request to store a recreational vehicle on the existing residential the May 8, 2098 driveway in front of the attached garage and install a vinyl gate across Planning the driveway to screen the recreational vehicle from public view. Commission meeting. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Christine Coursen P.O. Box 4087 Tustin, CA 92781 LOCATION: 1461 Garland Avenue Minutes -- Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 2 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4364 denying Design Review (DR) 2018-00007 to authorize installation of a vinyl gate to screen recreational vehicle storage in front of the garage from public view. The subject property is located at 1461 Garland Avenue. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard to continue the item, as requested by the applicant, seconded by Mason, to the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ORDINANCE NO. 1497 No. 4363. APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZC)-2018-00002 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP - 12), AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, RECISION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -10) AND CERTAIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND, AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) -2018-00001 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITSIMAPS; FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AS ADEQUATE REQUEST: The Tustin City Council directed that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) be prepared to provide a new regulatory framework for existing and future land development in the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP would replace the existing zoning and general plan designations on the properties within the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP is intended to establish the long-term vision with goals and objectives to create a vibrant, cohesive, connected, livable, and memorable city core. The key components include: establishing commercial and mixed-use (residential and commercial) land use regulations for the area, promoting pedestrian -oriented commercial first floor development to invigorate the area and expand walkability; transforming streets through future streetscape, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle -oriented improvements; drawing more patrons to Old Town by embracing, preserving and promoting its unique historic character; maintaining a commercial emphasis for the project area; and introducing the possibility for high-quality integrated residential mixed- use and focused multi -family development. ENVIRONMENTAL: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and is attached to the report. Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 3 of 10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4363) finding: 1) that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; 2) that General Plan Amendment (GPA) -2018- 00001 be approved, including text amendments and amendments to certain exhibits/maps; and, 3) that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change (ZC)-2018-00002 including adoption of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP -12), amendment of the Tustin City Code, rescission of the First Street Specific Plan (SP -10) and certain planned communities and, amendment of the City of Tustin Zoning Map. Thompson recused himself from discussion of the item since he owns property in the Downtown area. Binsack Binsack identified the individuals involved in providing their input and review relating to the project documents, along with identifying the numerous people involved in the project (i.e. Public Works, Tustin Police Department, Orange County Fire Authority, City_ Planning staff). She also provided the background history on the project. She introduced Mr. Krout, EPD Solutions, to provide information regarding the Specific Plan portion of the item and Ms. Dobreva, EPD Solutions, to provide information regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ogdon, Jeremy Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director — Building, Mr. Jeremy Krout, and Ms. Krout, and Konnie Konnie , Dobreva, EPD Solutions, provided a PowerPoint presentation, Dobreva which included an overview of the project to the Commission. Presentation Ogdon provided responses to the concerns from a letter dated April 23, given. 2018, which was received after the review period, and was provided at the dais. An errata was also provided at the dais which included a number of comment letters and emails received since advertisement of the documents, along with responses to those comments that were received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed. Binsack Binsack recommended to the Commission that the Chair open the Public Hearing portion of the item in order to take in the public comments on the item. 8:07 p.m. Public Comments Section Opened. Mr. Thomas Penna's, business owner in the Downtown area, comments/concerns generally included: parking (short/long term); parking needs good management during Old Town growth; supports diagonal parking; thanked City staff for discussing his concerns with parking; and expedite the one-way construction to increase parking spots. Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 -- Page 4 of 10 Mr. Mark Wendel's, Kimco Realty, comments/concerns generally included: provided a letter to staff on April 24, 2018 for the Commission to consider; interested and in support of the DCCSP and mixed-use; provided recommendations to staff; supports diagonal parking on First Street; commented on funding sources and hopes for a balanced approach to funding with the City participating financially; and would like to work with the City to find a balance between public/private funds. Ms. Pam Neil's comments/concerns generally included: felt notification was not adequate; and pedestrian oriented environment may not be conducive with existing uses in the Specific Plan area. Mr. Guy Castillo, owner of Procon Development, spoke on the economic opportunities within the City to increase jobs and revenue, especially for the business owners and home owners and he was in support of the project. Mr. Alfio Rosetti, Roma D'Italia restaurant owner, voiced his concerns as follows: spoke of impracticality of the plan; referred to the City of Lancaster's downtown plan from ten (10) years ago and financial analysis and lack thereof for the DCCSP; did not think there has been enough of an analysis on the plan; he desired to hear from other professionals, other than Planning staff, on the plan; and he referred to the City of Pasadena's "road diet plan". Mrs. Kimberly Wilson stated she would like impacts to be analyzed beyond project boundaries (i.e. traffic) because she felt the neighborhoods will be impacted with traffic and parking. Mr. Bruce Wilson would like the DCCSP to be developed in phases because the streets are already congested and he voiced his concern with the larger developers. Ms. Gwen Masters', owner of Scooter's, concerns were as follows: impact to delivery trucks; referred to the Storytime article from the Tustin News; she asked if a budgetary impact study was done; the City should work with the Chamber of Commerce to make a more business friendly city; and "promoting the existing enterprises to grow and find current sales opportunities is more valuable than having a uniform look similar — "if we wanted to live in Irvine, we would move to Irvine". Mr. Mark Masters, owner of Scooter's, voiced his concern with diagonal parking and he suggested keeping the parallel parking in order for people to be able to see oncoming traffic. Mr. Arnold Surfas, Surfas LTD Furriers business owner, generally commented on the following: likes the friendly look to the Downtown area; concern with diagonal parking; suggested Class 3 bike lane; referred to Belmont Shore and Santa Ana's bike lane and narrowing of the streets; he asked how many spaces would be gained with diagonal parking, handicap, and loading zones; and he asked what the physical impact to street Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 5 of 10 reclassification would be. Ms. Tammie Bullard's comments/concerns generally included: dynamics along First Street and types of existing businesses along First Street; people need their cars to drop off/pick up due to the types of businesses on First Street and the businesses are not pedestrian oriented; will create major traffic and incidents; and safety concerns with emergency vehicles. Mr. Feinstein's comments/concerns generally included: he shared the City's enthusiasm in the growth and success of Downtown businesses, visitors, patrons, etc.; he stated he was concerned with parking in the Downtown area during weekdays and added that parking is deficient and there needs to be solutions; and increasing walkability and pedestrian friendliness seems like worthwhile goals. Mr. Eric Perez's favorable comments included: in favor of the DCCSP; the DCCSP will increase businesses and property values of homes; referred to the cities of Orange and Anaheim and their downtown areas and how successful their businesses and homes have done; this project will help other businesses; and he commented that Downtown area should not be a ghost town after dark. Ms. Nancy Schumar's, Saddleback Chapel, comments/concerns generally included: main concern about the median strip; traffic would prevent oncoming traffic from entering the public parking area and her patrons frequent local stores, bars, etc.; traffic will be impacted along EI Camino; what data is being used to determine the reconfiguration of pedestrian/bike pathways; parklets and gathering areas; and concern with the impact to residential area. Mr. Lindburgh McPherson's favorable comments included: he was in favor of the overall DCCSP; move the item forward to get the ball rolling; good for the community and for Tustin; and a step in the right direction. Ms. Colly Van Dyken, business owner of EI Camino Pet Grooming, wants the yellow curb retained in front of her store, which helps with her elderly customers. She also asked how the diagonal parking would affect her customers. 8:45 p.m. Closed the Public Comment Section. Mason Mason asked about the following, in general: what the Specific Plan does and why this Specific Plan; she wanted confirmation that when developers come to the City with plans that there is an opportunity to review those plans (i.e. Planning Commission); she asked if the Specific Plan would regulate parking; did the Tustin Police Department and Orange County Fire Authority reviewed this plan; and if staff would elaborate on the impact to the Cultural Resources District. Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 6 of 10 Binsack In response to Mason's question regarding what the Speck Plan does, Binsack stated the following, in general: the City has been approached by various business owners asking the City to infuse more revitalization into the Downtown area; the City has conducted a piecemeal approach (i.e. landscape improvements, diagonal parking, signage, street fairs, improvements with trees, etc.); the City's desire here is to address the matter in a more comprehensive approach; early on in the process (i.e. workshops), many residents/business owners claimed they needed help with their business (due to the lack of); and expanded the boundary area; in response to why this Specific Plan, Binsack stated the following: the DCCSP does not approve a specific development plan but, if approved by the City Council, it would certify an EIR which is a significant proposal; it does not modify the underlying zoning of any of the lands — all will still remain commercial; it proposes the opportunity for residential, where residential never existed before; she referred to the Vintage project, which received a significant benefit — GeneraI Plan Amendment and a Zone Change and the City of Tustin is benefitting from that; the DCCSP proposes to allow flexibility along First Street and Newport Avenue; at this point in time, there is no shortage of public parking currently in Downtown area and allows flexibility along First Street, EI Camino and Main Street; maintenance fee for parking in the Downtown area;'the technical advisory committee did review the plan; the plan is not intended to promote a City of Irvine experience, as previously stated by Ms. Masters, and that the Cultural Resources District proposes the same guidelines, to ensure the sensitivity particularly in the near historical heart of the Downtown area; and standards may be slightly different along Newport Avenue, Centennial Way, First Street, etc. Smith Smith invited Lt. Manny Arzata to speak on the topic of traffic review. He also asked staff what the timeline is for the DCCSP to "roll out' if approved and if there were any comments on "road diets". Lt. Manny Arzate Lt. Manny Arzate, North Area Commander, stated that in the discussions with staff and the traffic supervisor, it is the Tustin Police Department's opinion that the proposed project will not affect response times. The City of Tustin has one of the lower response times in the County which is approximately four (4) minutes compared to the national standard which is ten (1 0) minutes. He added that one of the advantages is the proximity of the Downtown area to the Tustin Police station which helps keep response times down. Arzate's final comment was that the DCCSP will impact Tustin Police Department very minimally, as far as response times. Smith Smith asked Binsack if the DCCSP is approved, would the City undertake a subsequent parking plan that will specifically address the roll out of the pacing of how the City is going to conduct the parking changes or if it is going to be handed off to staff, in the next five (5) years. Smith also asked the consultants what the typical timeline would be for a project like this to roll out. He also asked if there were any negative comments regarding road diets, in other cities, where they have failed or succeeded. Minutes —Planning Commission April 24,2018— Page 7 of 10 Binsack In response to Smith's questions, Binsack referred to the Conceptual Plan — the City has undertaken a more significant design and analysis of the narrowing and modification of Main Street. She added that with respect to First Street, it is very conceptual in nature at this point in time, as well as the one way streets. Binsack also added that City staff can take into consideration comments made and reach out to those individuals, with regards to those design plans, as well. She also stated that the City can take a look at the reference to the yellow curb loading areas, etc. at that time as well. In response to Smith's questions, Jeremy Krout, EPD Solutions stated that it is going to be a variable situation. It could be a 20 year build out, depending on the real estate market, any development process, typically, without a plan like this, is risky, time consuming and often fought with problems. Krout added that if the real estate market continues to improve, there isi a good foundation for build -on so the DCCSP could take five (5) to ten (10) years or sooner. Per the road diets, Krout stated he was not involved with the City of Pasadena so he could not speak on the topic. He referred to his experiences, specifically with the City of San Luis Obispo, where he grew up, and the changes made to that downtown area, were positive. With the DCCSP being presented, the overall long-term improvements to the DCCSP area would be positive. Kozak Kozak's final comments generally included: he thanked everyone in attendance along with their input and concerns; he added that this is a long-term vision plan with goals and objectives to revitalize Tustin's traditional commercial core and create a vibrant, cohesive and livable commercially oriented downtown; Kozak added that the workshops previously conducted generated the vision, goals and objectives that were articulated by the attendees and included by the Planning staff into the DCCSP; any project that comes through to the City will have to go through the design review process and will have to follow the guidelines within the Specific Plan; and this plan is in the best interest of Tustin and the Downtown Commercial Core. Mason Mason reiterated her support of the DCCSP and that staff should continue to work with the community. She added that it is apparent, by those present, that there is love for the City and that everyone wants to do what is right. Mason would like to see more businesses in the Downtown area and she made favorable comments about the Downtown area. She made a motion to approve the item as recommended by staff. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated comments/concerns previously mentioned by the speakers, which generally included: parking; drivability to businesses that rely on those customers; public safety; funding — who is paying for all of this; First Street existing businesses and whether or not the City is trying to replace those businesses; median strips; yellow curbs; bicycle lanes; diagonal parking, and park lets and who is going to occupy those park lets. All of these concerns go into the implementation of the plan and how the City rolls out and the goals set in this plan. Lumbard thanked the public speakers for their feedback and shares their concern with parking. He was Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 — Page 8 of 10 in support of the project and he reminded the audience that this was a City Council initiated effort in order to make Tustin better, and this plan does just that. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4363. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained from the vote. Binsack Binsack informed the audience that the item would again be noticed for a public hearing and will likely go to the City Council at the second meeting in June. She added that City staff wants to reach out to those individuals that provided public interest. Also, Binsack stated that staff may be able to make some modifications that are not substantive, due to the errata brought forward to the Commission. Binsack added that staff will also be posting the notice on the City's website. Lumbard Lumbard also asked that the notice be emailed to those speakers present, if they provided emails. Binsack Per Binsack, anybody who has shown public interest, that is not within the public notification, is not on the list, or if they want to provide that information separate and apart from what staff has received that evening, staff will reach out to them. Kozak Kozak asked if the comments/concerns previously made would be addressed at the June City Council meeting. Binsack Per Binsack, many of the comments were received last minute and staff will provide comprehensive responses for the City Council's meeting. Staff will also identify additional concerns identified by the Planning Commission as well. 9:96pm Lumbard requested a five (5) minute recess. 9:23pm Meeting reconvened. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. Binsack Binsack had no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East. Parking should be a topic of discussion in all future discussions. Thanked former Chair Smith and the newly appointed Chair Lumbard. Kudos to Chair Pro Tem Kozak! Smith Smith appreciated and thanked his fellow Commissioners with regards to the diversity of viewpoints. Minutes — Planning Commission April 24, 2018 -- Page 9 of 10 Kozak Kozak thanked staff and the consultant team for doing a terrific job with regards to, the Program EIR and Tra,ffic Study, He attended the following: * 3/31 Annual Easter Egg Hunt 0 4/17 OCTA Citizens Advisory Lumbard Lumbard attended the following eivents: * 4/11 The Flight Open House * 4/12-14 Solvang trip with, his family, (beer gardens, wineries wallkable community) * 4/17 Principal for a Day at Columbus Tustin Middle School * 4/18 ATEP Campus ribbon cutting * 4/22 Earth Day SEEMEMM 4/29 Blue Buoy Swim School from 10:00 a.mi. to 2:00 pi.mi. Congratulations for Chair Pro Tern Kozak and thank you to former Chair Smith for your year of service. 9:30 PM' ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. �&Jwffa 0 Logi I AUSTIN Lb?Vt6ARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT 3 Approved Resolution No. 4363 RESOLUTION NO. 4363 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT; APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [GPA -2018-000011 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1497 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2018- 00002 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -12), RELATED AMENDMENTS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, RECISION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -10) AND CERTAIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND, AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin City Council has focused financial resources and approved numerous measures intended to encourage economic development and business attraction to ensure continued economic vibrancy of the City's historic Old Town Tustin commercial core. Though these measures were helpful, City leaders recognized that additional residential development in the area could add more patrons and visitors to the area that would positively contribute to the economic health of Old Town Tustin and the surrounding commercial core, thus preserving, protecting, and revitalizing this important area of the City. B. That on February 4, 2014, the City Council authorized the preparation of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) and related supporting documents. C. That between October 2014 and January 2016, the City of Tustin held three (3) public Workshops that included property owners, business owners and others to help define a strategy to enhance and protect the heart of Tustin's historic Old Town village atmosphere while creating a stronger, vibrant, pedestrian -oriented destination intended to revitalize the community's commercial core. The proposed Master Plan/Specific Plan will ensure implementation of architecturally -coordinated development in the area, attract thriving new businesses, encourage private sector investment and reinvestment, and enhance customer visitation to the Resolution No. 4363 Page 2 commercial corridors of Old Town, First Street, Newport Avenue, and the freeway interface at Sixth Street for a vibrant downtown commercial core. D. That the proposed DCCSP project required preparation of a Specific Plan, preparation of Tustin General Plan Amendment, revision of several existing Tustin City Codes and zoning ordinances including but not limited to: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2018-00001 including text amendments and amendments to Exhibits/Maps within the Land Use and Circulation Elements. 2. Ordinance No. 1497 adopting: a. Zone Change (ZC) 2018-00002 establishing the DCCSP (SP -12); b. Recision of the First Street Specific Plan (SP -10) and certain Planned Communities; a. Various Tustin City Code amendments intended to support the DCCSP; and b. Revision of the Tustin Zoning Map reflecting the changes proposed above. E. That the proposed DCCSP project is considered a "project" subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), that involved the following: 1. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared and concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30 -day public review period from August 1, 2016 through August 31, 2016. The notice was published in the Orange County Register on August 1, 2016, and made available for public review through various means. 2. A Scoping process was completed in which the public was invited by the City to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on August 16, 2016 at the City of Tustin Library. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP that was published and distributed on August 1, 2016. 3. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and made available for a 45 -day public review period (February 15, 2018 to April 2, 2018). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR was sent to all required agencies and interested parties and published in the Tustin News on February 15, 2018 and made available for public review through various means. 4. Responses to Comments received were prepared and were released for agency review prior to consideration by the approving body. 5. That as part of the approval process for the DCCSP/Zone Change and the GPA and the associated actions thereto, the EIR must be Resolution No. 4363 Page 3 adopted/certifiedl by the City Council concurrently. A Notice of Intent to adopt an EIR with Statement of Overriding Consideration will be prepared for subsequent City Council consideration since the City Council is the final approval authority for the project. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the general plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the DCCSP'that finds, the project to be consistent, with adoption of the pirerr sed GPA's. G. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on April 10, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. At that time, the Tustin Planning Commission continued the pubr• April 24, 2018. 11. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt and certify the Final EIR for the DCCSP project (Exhibit 1); approve GPA 2018-000011 including but not limited to text amendments and amendments to Exhibits/Maps w ithin the Land Use and Circulation Elements (Exhibit 2); and adopt Ordinance Noi. 1497 approving ZC-2018-00002 including but not limited to approval of th- Dr • Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan, recision of the First Street Specific Plan (SP -10) and certain Planned Communities, various Tustin City Code amendments intended to support the DCCSP, and revision of the Tustin Zoning Map (Exhiibit 3). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 24 th day of April 2018. Austin Lu bard Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Elizabeth A. B,insack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Plannir-R4 Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4363 we NI 'uly passed and adopted at a regular meeting oif the Tus,tin Planning Commission, 116 N n the 24th day of April 2018. 1 Now -W A ELIZABETH A. ffIN'S-ACX' Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit�s: 1. Environmental Impact Report, for DCCSP project 2. General PI, an AmendPA-2018-000,01 1 Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change -2018-010002 including the DCiCSP Attachment 1: Zone Change (ZC) 2018-00002 establishing the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP -12); Attachment 2: Recision of the First Street Specific Plan (SP -1 0) and certain Planned Communities; Attachment 3: Various Tustin City Code amendments intended to support the DCCSP; Attachiment 4 Revision of the Tustin Zoning Map reflecting the changes proposed above. Resolution No, 4363 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISIONER AYES: Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith PLANNING COMMISIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISIONER ABSTAINED, Thompson PLANNING COMMISIONER ABSENT. ELIZABETH A. BIN�SACK Planning Commission Secretary RELATIVE TO REFERENCED EXHIBITS • FOR EXHIBIT 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DCCSP PROJECT - SEE ATTACHMENT C, RESOLUTION 18-24 (FINAL ENVIRONMENAL IMPACT REPORT) • FOR EXHIBIT 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA -2018-00001 - SEE ATTACHMENT D, RESOLUTION 18-32 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2018-0001) • FOR EXHIBIT 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 1497 - ZONE CHANGE -2018-00002 - SEE ATTACHMENT E, ORDINANCE NO. 1497 (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS) ATTACHED TO THIS JUNE 19, 2018 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT EXHIBIT 4 Planning Commission April 24, 2018 Dais Hand-outs y :. A Well .. .s From: Chuck Lewis[mailto:chucklewis1000&gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:40 PM To: Yeager, Lucy Subject: Building Owner - Support of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) Dear Planning Commission, I am not able to make the meeting tonight regarding the proposed DCCSP, but wanted to make sure you know I fully support your proposed plan. As the owner of 661 W. 1 st Street, your plan (specifically 2.3.1.2, as noted below) will directly and nqo itively impact my building and enhance my tenants' ability to meet client needs. Parking is a real challenge for us. There is a translator business operating on Yorba with many employees and little parking of there own --thus the employees there arrive early and park on all the open spaces on Myrtle. With much of the limited on -street parking soaked up by them, it adds to our challenge. Your plan would open up much needed additional parking and create enhancements/curb appeal to the entire area. You have my support. I love the plan! With appreciation, Chuck Chuck Lewis Trustee of the Charles and Kathleen Lewis 2005 Trust 360 E. First Street. #198 Tustin, CA 92780 714-318-3137 cell chucklewisl 00(a)gmail.com 2.3.1.2 First Street The conceptual First Street improvements are consistent with the preliminary adoption of the MPAH reclassification amendments and promote a pedestrian friendly corridors by reducing the number of traffic lanes and lane widths, thus expanding opportunities for other modes of travel and transforming the character of the street. The conceptual improvements, represented conceptually in Figure 2.10, reduce the number of travel lanes from two to one in each direction and narrow the lane widths to 11 feet. This allows for a 5 -foot on -street bicycle lane (Class 2), a 17 -foot diagonal parking lane on both the north and south sides of the street, and a 16 -foot -landscaped median. Pedestrian travel is also facilitated by expanding the existing sidewalk to 8 feet on the north side and 10 feet on the south side. Chuck Lewis 360 E. First Street. #198 Tustin, CA 92780 714-318-3137 cell ITEM #4 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DCCSP FROM CHUCK LEWIS APRIL 24, 2018 Comment Letter PC3 received from Chuck Lewis, dated April 24, 2018 (1 page) From: Chuck Lewis[maifto:chucklewis100@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:40 PM To: Yeager, Lucy Subject: Building Owner - Support of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) Dear Planning Commission, I am not able to make the meeting tonight regarding the proposed DCCSP, but wanted to make sure you know I fully support your proposed plan. As the owner of 661 W. 1st Street, your plan (specifically 2.3.1.2, as noted below) will directly and positively impact my building and enhance my tenants' ability to meet client needs. Parking is a real challenge for us. There is a translator business operating on Yorba with many employees and little parking of there own -- thus the employees there arrive early and park on all the open spaces on Myrtle. With much of the limited on - street parking soaked up by them, it adds to our challenge. Your plan would open up much needed additional parking and create enhancements/curb appeal to the entire area. You have my support. I love the plan! With appreciation, Chuck Chuck Lewis Trustee of the Charles and Kathleen Lewis 2005 Trust 360 E. First Street. #198 Tustin, CA 92780 714-318-3137 cell chucklewisl 00Qgmail.com 2.3.1.2 First Street The conceptual First Street improvements are consistent with the preliminary adoption of the MPAH reclassification amendments and promote a pedestrian friendly corridors by reducing the number of traffic lanes and lane widths, thus expanding opportunities for other modes of travel and transforming the character of the street. The conceptual improvements, represented conceptually in Figure 2.10, reduce the number of travel lanes from two to one in each direction and narrow the lane widths to 11 feet. This allows for a 5 -foot on -street bicycle lane (Class 2), a 17 -foot diagonal parking lane on both the north and south sides of the street, and a 16 -foot -landscaped median. Pedestrian travel is also facilitated by expanding the existing sidewalk to 8 feet on the north side and 10 feet on the south side. Chuck Leavis 360 E. First Street. #198 Tustin, CA 92780 714-318-3137 cell chtic' e�L°IS 1ti�ifZtuL3lril.Cl?m Response to Comment Letter PC3 received from Chuck Lewis, dated April 24, 2018 (1 page) Comment 1: The commenter supports the DCCSP Project because it will provide additional parking and enhance the area. Response 1: Thank you. Your comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. lkucl •U&N 210101,yi Well 1 In A r . RECEIVED ...,re Q E a «y I 201S, KIMCO-EVERYDA`:f L.I�ING' CONidt;30's ITY DEVELO 't1stL-'.NT DEPT 2429 Park Avenue I Tustin, CA 92782-2705 April 23, 2018 Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Comments to Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Dear Elizabeth, Kimco Realty Corp. and Prudential Global Investment Management own and operate the Larwin Square Shopping Center located at Newport Ave. and First Street in Downtown Tustin, CA. Kimco Realty Corp. received notice that the draft of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan was to be reviewed by the public at the Planning Commission meeting on April 10, 2018, and was subsequently postponed to April 24, 2018. We've reviewed the Specific Plan document, and wanted to send you Kimco Realty Corp's comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting. First of all, we'd like to praise the City's efforts to create the Specific Plan, and we support the goal of revitalizing Tustin's Downtown Commercial Core area with mixed-use redevelopments including retail, commercial, and multi -family residential. As we've previously discussed, in the near future Kimco Realty Corp. would like to redevelop portions of Larwin Square along First Street with retail and multi -family residential mixed-use. However, we have some concerns about the draft Specific Plan which we've outlined below. 1. We don't believe that 200 multi -family residential units allocated for Development Area 3 (DA -3), which includes Larwin Square and other properties north of First Street, is sufficient. Our internal mixed-use design studies, and financial pro formas have determined that a mixed-use redevelopment of our property along First Street would require 200 - 250 apartment units to be financially feasible. If we were to develop that many residential units at Larwin Square, there wouldn't be any remaining units to allocate to the other properties in DA -3 north of First Street. Therefore, we respectfully request that the number of residential units allocated to DA -3 be increased. 2. The proposed 4- story building height limit in the Specific Plan limits density to 3 levels of residential above ground floor retail/ commercial space. Our design studies show that this would only accommodate approximately 150 apartment units at Larwin Square along First Street, which is not economically feasible. We request that the City consider a 6 -story building height limit which would allow 5 levels of residential above ground floor retail/ commercial. This building height would accommodate 250 units at Larwin Square, which is economically feasible. The increased building height would also make the mixed-use redevelopment of other properties in the Downtown Core more economically feasible. The residential parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit for residents plus 1/4 space per unit for visitors is too much based upon current parking studies. The cost of constructing parking structures has become extremely expensive, and requiring too much parking for residential uses will financially prohibit the very mixed-use development that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan is trying to create. Recent studies show that with the increased use of ride -sharing, Uber, and Lyft, the current parking demand for multi -family residential has decreased to an average of 1.5 spaces per apartment unit. We strongly recommend adopting the current residential parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, which will help to make mixed-use development in the Downtown Commercial Core economically viable. 4. The Specific Plan proposes to reduce the number of traffic lanes on First Street from 4 lanes to 2, with 2 traffic lanes being replaced by bicycle lanes and angled street parking. This will significantly reduce customer traffic from First Street to Larwin Square. a. We're also concerned that the reduced number of traffic lanes on First Street will increase the number of vehicles cutting through our shopping center to get from Centennial Way to Newport Avenue. We also have questions about how the reconstruction of First Street will be accomplished. It would be best if the City were to reconstruct First Street at one time to provide the on - street parking, bicycle lanes, bus stops enclosures, sidewalk improvements, and street furnishings within the public Right -Of -Way; to create the pedestrian friendly environment described in the Specific Plan. Otherwise, if the City intends to require the property owners to reconstruct sections of First Street, and the pedestrian sidewalk improvements along their property frontage, when the individual property owners seek approval of separate mixed-use redevelopment permits; we're concerned that First Street will be in various stages of reconfiguration and construction for the next 10 years or more. 5. Our Larwin Square Shopping Center is bounded on 3 sides by Newport Avenue, First Street, and Centennial Way. If we were required to fund improvements on all 3 streets as part of a proposed mixed-use development along First Street, it would disproportionately burden the project, and make it financially unfeasible. We would request that any redevelopment be required to help fund improvements to only the street frontage which the mixed-use redevelopment building faces. 6. The Public Improvements Funding Matrix in Section 6 of the Specific Plan proposes that 94% of the primary funding sources, and 63% of the secondary funding sources for all of the numerous public improvements, infrastructure improvements, and private property improvements described in detail for the Downtown Commercial Core will be from developers, property owners, and business owners. a. Development Agreements with the City will require developers and property owners to fund 100% of the public and private improvements along their street frontage in exchange for the City's discretionary approval of their proposed development projects. b. Assessments for public improvements through Business Improvement Districts, Community Facilities Districts, Landscape and Lighting Districts; Maintenance Assessment Districts; Parking Infrastructure Districts; and Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts will all be funded 100% by property owners, and business owners. c. Even 86% of the primary funding from the City is projected to come from Development Impact Fees which the City collects from developers as a requirement of approval for proposed development permits. d. We respectfully recommend that the City consider other primary and secondary sources to fund the numerous improvements described in the Specific Plan. Otherwise, requiring the vast majority of improvements to be funded by developers, property owners, and business owners will prohibit the type of mixed-use development in the Downtown Commercial Core area that the Specific Plan is trying to create, decrease the sales revenue of business owners in the Downtown Core; and decrease the sales tax revenue to the City generated by those business owners. Again, we support the creation of the Specific Plan and its goal to revitalize the Downtown Commercial Core. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and concerns, and hope they can be addressed in the final Specific Plan. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any of these comments. Best Regards, Mark Wendel Director of Development I VVestem Region ••...o EVERYDAY LIVING" R E A L T Y Office: (949) 252-3870 1 Cell: (949) 343-1815 1 mwendel@kimcorealty.com Fax: (516) 336-5549 1 Cisco: 523870 2429 Park Avenue I Tustin, CA 92782-2705 Cc: Jeff Parker, Tustin City Manager Lucy Yeager, Tustin Planning Consultant ITEM #4 COMMENTS FROM KIMCO REALTY WITH CITY RESPONSES HAND DELIVERED TO TUSTIN CITY HALL APRIL 24, 2018 Comment Letter PC2 received from Kimco Realty, dated April 24, 2018 (3 pages) K 1 M C 0 " rEV tf""' ` '�IaING" E��K =1 REALTY 2429 Park Avenue I Tustin, CA 92782.2705 f,'01V1MUNn DEVELOPMENT OE? -l' April 23, 2018 Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Comments to Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Dear Elizabeth, Kimco Realty Corp. and Prudential Global Investment Management own and operate the Larwin Square Shopping Center located at Newport Ave. and First Street in Downtown Tustin, CA. Kimco Realty Corp. received notice that the draft of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan was to be reviewed by the public at the Planning Commission meeting on April 10, 2018, and was subsequently postponed to April 24, 2018. We've reviewed the Specific Plan document, and wanted to send you Kimco Realty Corp's comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting. First of all, we'd like to praise the City's efforts to create the Specific Plan, and we support the goal of revitalizing Tustin's Downtown Commercial Core area with mixed-use redevelopments including retail, commercial, and multi -family residential. As we've previously discussed, in the near future Kimco Realty Corp. would like to redevelop portions of Larwin Square along First Street with retail and multi -family residential mixed-use. However, we have some concerns about the draft Specific Plan which we've outlined below. 1. We don't believe that 200 multi -family residential units allocated for Development Area 3 (DA -3), which includes Larwin Square and other properties north of First Street, is sufficient. Our internal mixed-use design studies, and financial pro formas have determined that a mixed-use redevelopment of our property along First Street would require 200 - 250 apartment units to be financially feasible. If we were to develop that many residential units at Larwin Square, there wouldn't be any remaining units to allocate to the other properties in DA -3 north of First Street. Therefore, we respectfully request that the number of residential units allocated to DA -3 be increased. 2. The proposed 4- story building height limit in the Specific Pian limits density to 3 levels of residential above ground floor retail/ commercial space. Our design studies show that this would only accommodate approximately 150 apartment units at Larwin Square along First Street, which is not economically feasible. We request that the City consider a 6 -story building height limit which would allow 5 levels of residential above ground floor retail/ commercial. This building height would accommodate 250 units at Larwin Square, which is economically feasible. The increased building height would also make the mixed-use redevelopment of other properties in the Downtown Core more economically feasible. 3. The residential parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit for residents plus 1/4 space per unit for visitors is too much based upon current parking studies. The cost of constructing parking structures has become extremely expensive, and requiring too much parking for residential uses will financially prohibit the very mixed-use development that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan is trying to create. Recent studies show that with the increased use of ride -sharing, Uber, and Lyft, the 4 current parking demand for multi -family residential has decreased to an average of 1.5 spaces per apartment unit. We strongly recommend adopting the current residential parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, which will help to make mixed-use development in the Downtown Commercial Core economically viable. 4. The Specific Plan proposes to reduce the number of traffic lanes on First Street from 4 lanes to 2, with 2 traffic lanes being replaced by bicycle lanes and angled street parking. This will significantly reduce customer traffic from First Street to Larwin Square. a. We're also concerned that the reduced number of traffic lanes on First Street will increase the number of vehicles cutting through our shopping center to get from Centennial Way to Newport Avenue. b. We also have questions about how the reconstruction of First Street will be accomplished. It would be best if the City were to reconstruct First Street at one time to provide the on- ! street parking, bicycle lanes, bus stops enclosures, sidewalk improvements, and street furnishings within the public Right -Of -Way; to create the pedestrian friendly environment described in the Specific Plan. Otherwise, if the City intends to require the -property owners to reconstruct sections of First Street, and the pedestrian sidewalk improvements along their property frontage, when the individual property owners seek approval of separate mixed-use redevelopment permits; we're concerned that First Street will be in various stages of reconfiguration and construction for the next 10 years or more. 5. Our Larwin Square Shopping Center is bounded on 3 sides by Newport Avenue, First Street, and Centennial Way. If we were required to fund improvements on all 3 streets as part of a proposed mixed-use development along First Street, it would disproportionately burden the project, and make 6 it financially unfeasible. We would request that any redevelopment be required to help fund improvements to only the street frontage which the mixed-use redevelopment building faces. 6. The Public Improvements Funding Matrix in Section 6 of the Specific Plan proposes that 94% of the primary funding sources, and 63% of the secondary funding sources for all of the numerous public improvements, infrastructure improvements, and private property improvements described in detail for the Downtown Commercial Core will be from developers, property owners, and business owners. i a. Development Agreements with the City will require developers and property owners to fund 100% of the public and private improvements along their street frontage in exchange for the City's discretionary approval of their proposed development projects. b. Assessments for public improvements through Business Improvement Districts, Community 7 cont. Facilities Districts, Landscape and Lighting Districts; Maintenance Assessment Districts; Parking Infrastructure Districts; and Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts will all be funded 100% by property owners, and business owners. c. Even 86% of the primary funding from the City is projected to come from Development Impact Fees which the City collects from developers as a requirement of approval for proposed development permits. d. We respectfully recommend that the City consider other primary and secondary sources to fund the numerous improvements described in the Specific Plan. Otherwise, requiring the vast majority of improvements to be funded by developers, property owners, and business owners 7 cont. will prohibit the type of mixed-use development in the Downtown Commercial Core area that the Specific Plan is trying to create, decrease the sales revenue of business owners in the Downtown Core; and decrease the sales tax revenue to the City generated by those business owners. Again, we support the creation of the Specific Plan and its goal to revitalize the Downtown Commercial Core. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and concerns, and hope they can be addressed in the final Specific Plan. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any of these comments. Best Regards, \ Mark Wendel Director of Developmeent°I Westem Region �' K' M V O M rnn tr f�eiet, ;J�r%1�L WING ( � -�® REI. 01 EVERYbX t( ISVG- Office: (949) 252-3870 1 Cell: (949) 343-1815 1 mwendel*kimcoreaitv;cotr� Fax: (516) 336-5549 ! Cisco: 523870 2429 Park Avenue I Tustin, CA 92782-2705 Cc: Jeff Parker, Tustin City Manager Lucy Yeager, Tustin Planning Consultant This page is intentionally left blank. Response to Comment Letter PC2 received from Kimco Realty, dated April 24, 2018 (1 page) Comment 1: The commenter states that they support the goal of revitalizing Tustin's Downtown Commercial Core (DCC) area with mixed-use redevelopments including retail, commercial, and multi -family residential. The commenter represents Kimco Realty Corp. and would like to redevelop portions of Larwin Square along First Street, Newport Avenue, and Centennial Way with retail and multi -family residential mixed- use. The commenter expresses some concerns about the draft Specific Plan, outlined below. Response 1: The City appreciates this comment. Individual comments are addressed below and the comments will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Comment 2: The commenter states that 200 residential units allocated to DA -3 are not sufficient. Based on their pro -forma, 200-250 units are financially feasible at Larwin Square alone, and therefore, there wouldn't be any remaining units to allocate to the other properties in DA -3 north of First Street. The commenter requests that the number of residential units allocated to DA -3 be increased. Response 2: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. The DCCSP permits the transfer of additional residential allocation from the other Development Areas within the plan to support the number of units desired, assuming that the project proposed at Larwin Center is a superior project. Comment 3: This comment requests that the City consider increasing the height limit in DA -3 from 4 -story to 6 -story. The increased 6 -story building height limit would allow 5 levels of residential above ground floor retail/commercial, allowing 250 units to be accommodated at Larwin Square instead of the maximum 150 units accommodated by a 4 -story height restriction. Response 3: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. City staff believe the requested height limit change would not be in keeping with the historic or proposed built environment in the area; however, this comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Comment 4: The commenter states that the residential parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit for residents plus 1 /4 space per unit for visitors is too much based upon current parking studies. The commenter strongly recommends adopting the current commenter's referenced parking demand for multi- family (apartment) residential parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, which will help to make mixed-use development in the DCC economically viable. Response 4: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. City staff believe the requested reduction in parking is not in keeping with the community's experience with existing and new residential parking requirements; however, this comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Comment 5: The commenter is concerned that the reduced number of traffic lanes on First Street will increase the number of vehicles cutting through the shopping center to get from Centennial Way to Newport Avenue. The commenter also has questions about how the reconstruction of First Street will be accomplished and is concerned that First Street will be in various stages of reconfiguration and construction for the next 10 years or more. Response 5: The specific configuration of future changes to First Street will be informed by a corridor specific traffic study in order to balance the needs of all users. For example, turnouts can be provided for OCTA buses so that traffic can safely pass the bus while loading and unloading passengers. There is no pending project and specific configuration of future changes to First Street. The potential for localized impacts will continue to be addressed on a project -by -project basis, and are discretionary projects subject to CEQA, at such time that they are proposed. Construction implementation and phasing is determined at implementation, based upon availability of City resources and funding. 5 Comment 6: The commenter states that Larwin Square Shopping Center is bounded on 3 sides by Newport Avenue, First Street, and Centennial Way. Therefore, the commenter is concerned that if they were required to fund improvements on all 3 streets as part of a future mixed-use development along First Street, it would disproportionately burden their project, and make it financially unfeasible. The commenter requests that any redevelopment be required to help fund improvements to only the street frontage which the redevelopment building would face. Response 6: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. Any project -level improvements would be determined as part of the project entitlement review and considered in the context of the existing condition, General Plan and DCCSP requirements. This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Comment 7: The commenter summarizes several public and private improvements outlined in the Public Improvements Funding Matrix of Section 6 of the DCCSP. The commenter requests that the City consider other sources of funding for the numerous improvements described in the DCCSP, because requiring the majority of improvements to be funded by developers would make mixed use development cost prohibitive and decrease sales tax revenue. Response 7: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Comment 8: The commenter states that they support the creation of the DCCSP and its goal to revitalize the DCC. Response 8: The City appreciates this comment. This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. ITEM 11"m IT .. i RNNW 11,101121 F&IMURS's Ra _! . k Property and Business Owners of Tustin Downtown Commercial Core April 23, 2018 Planning Commission City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) Dear Commissioners Snaith, Kozak, Thompson, Lumbard, and Mason: irL• ��� ,_.d APR 2 3 2018 TUSTIN -TTv r"1 FR!<'q OFFICE The undersigned each currently owns property and/or businesses in the Downtown and Old Town areas of Tustin covered by the contemplated DCCSP (the "Plan"). Collectively, we have hundreds of years of experience doing business in Tustin. We are honored to serve our customers who reside in Tustin and the surrounding communities. Our customers, friends, and neighbors in Tustin allow us to earn our livings here. At this time, we urge the Commission to withhold their votes on this Plan. We believe tx oe Plan is insufficiently developed in a number of key areas. As it currently stands, the Plan arms neither the Commission nor the wider community it serves with enough data to make an informed decision. We cannot understate how profoundly we believe this Pian will of eco Downtown Tustin and how we do business here. It is essential that all of us have :he correct' information and enough of it to assess the Plan's merits. We currently find the Pian deficient in addressing the following key issues: Public Safety The Plan calls for narrowing First Street and Main Street and converting Second Street and Third Street into one-way streets. These changes could have an impact on public safety by increasing response times to unacceptable levels or by making the streets difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate. The Plan should contain input from the Tustin Voice Department and the Orange County Fire Authority on potential impacts to our community's public safety. Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 2 Parking The parking plan and parking study used in the Draft DCCSP is flawed. (Appendix pages 11-92 to II -101.) It claims that there is "ample parking in Old Town," in contrast to the strained parking situation our customers, employees, and vendors encounter. The Pian identifies 1,741 off-street parking spaces and 404 on -street spaces. However, approximately 80% of the off-street parking is located on private property for the exclusive use of the private property owners and their customers, tenants, and employees. The Plan's attempt to count these private spaces towards public use is tenuous. The DCCSP envisions a Downtown where the businesses become more reliant on pedestrian and bicycle traffic only. The Plan envisions further business growth from the residents of the anticipated 887 dwelling units that may be built. However, the customers, employees, and vendors of our current businesses rely upon cars to reach us. The new residents of the 887 dwellings will not make up for business lost because this Flan makes it more difficult for our current customers to park and access our Downtown businesses. Traffic Circulation The Plan emphasizes making the Downtown area more pedestrians and bike friendly. w noble sentiment in theory, but it neglects the reality that most of us, our customers, and our vendors currently use vehicles. Tustin is not an island. This Plan cannot be blissfully ignorant of the fact that our customers drive to get here from other non-Downtowfn areas ot` Tustin as well as communities outside of Tustin. Furthermore, our suppliers and their delivery vehicles must continue to easily access our businesses. We cannot serve our customers without our vendors and their goods. Financial Impact The Plan is void of any analysis regarding its potential fiscal impact - both with regards to us owners and operators, as well as you, the City, and your coffers. Similar plans proposed in other Southern California communities include a "Fiscal Impact Analysis" upon whl!,ch stakeholders and city officials can base their decisions. We do not believe it is prudent for Une City to move forward with its vote on the Plan absent an honest discussion about how mucin Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 3 the Plan will cost to implement, who bears the burden of those costs, and what the quantifiable economic benefits to the community may be. The section in the Plan Appendix titled "Economic Analysis" hardly addresses fiscal impact. (Appendix pages II -111 to II -123.) It contained demographics and housing data from the Census Bureau that was simply "cut and pasted" into a presentation, but zero analysis. Review of Past Projects / Case Studies The City should present summaries of past projects they have undertaken including an honest assessment about what aspects of those projects succeeded and what aspects failed. An honest assessment will include feedback from all stakeholders including residents, customers, merchants and city officials alike. We suggest looking into the diagonal parking added to EI Camino Real many years ago, the development of Prospect Village, and the development of The District Shopping center. Furthermore, it would be valuable to see what other communities in Orange County and Southern California have undertaken Specific Plans for downtown areas. A presentation of those plans' successes and failures would aid in assessing the merits of this proposed Plan. Comment Period and Community Feedback The Community Development department held several workshops during the preparation of this Plan. However, we draw a distinction between the development of the Pian and its release in its current form. Allowing only ten days for the stakeholders of this community (as well as the Planning Commission) to digest over 1,600 pages of material is simply insufficient. Furthermore, the Community Development Department should reach out to all business and property owners in the affected areas through survey or ballot to collect their input, perhaps with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce. The ten-day cornment period coupled with the tiny signs the City posted announcing the Planning Commission meeting does not seem like a genuine effort to solicit input from affected stakeholders. Existing Businesses The Plan is very geared towards attracting new business. While "a rising tide raises all boats," new business does not have to come at the expense of existing businesses. We hope Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Pacae 4 the City will engage with us to help us move our businesses forward. None of us have enjoyed our commercial successes because of lack of ideas or grit. If the City cooperated with existing businesses more closely, incremental improvements to Downtown could happen more easily, even outside this Plan. The success or failure of this Plan hinges on the buy -in from all stakeholders of the Tustin community. Community is 1,,!OT just zoning maps and building codes — it is people. No amount of street improvements or setback adjustments can make a community. If staff at the City of Tustin is serious about this Plan, it must do a better job to sell the Plan to members of this community, including the Planning Commission and City Council. All of us need more information in order to make an informed decision on the merits of this Plan. We look forward to constructive dialogue with the City to address the issues and questions we presented here. In order for any Plan proposal to reflect the best possible alternatives, and in turn lead to the best possible outcomes, we are better served working together as mutually interested parties. We are not yet at that point, so yve cLi e the Commission to withhold their votes on this Plan at this time Sincerely, Paul Berkman Allen Bisbee Owner President / General Manager Rutabegorz Saddleback Chapel 158 West Main Street 220 East Clain Street Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 Rick and Tammie Bullard Owners Invitation Design Studio 380 East First Street, Suite A Tustin, CA 92780 Phil and Linda Cox Owners Cox's Market Plaza 435 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Kimberly Conroy Owner American Grub / The Swinging Door Saloon 355 / 365 El Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Joseph Leaman -Prescott Owner Maureen Leaman 440 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 (continued on next page) Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 5 Rick and Teri Mandel Owners Wellprint, Inc. 380 East First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Eugene D. Micco President / CEO Tustin Community Bank 13891 Newport Ave, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Thomas Penna Owner Salon Gallery and Suites 220 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Earl J. Prescott Owner 320 & 330 West First Street 225-255 El Camino Real 250 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Alfio Rossetti Vice President Roma D' Italia 611 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Colly Van Dyken Owner El Camino Pet Grooming 301 EI Camino Real, Tustin, CA 92780 Mark and Gwen Masters Owners Scooters Mailbox Cards and Gifts 360 East First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Tiffany Miller Owner Mrs. B's Consignments, Etc. 115 West Main Street Tustin, CA 92780 Mary M. Prescott Owner Parque Santiago 215 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Thomas B. Prescott Owner 270 East Main Street 225-255 EI Camino Real 250 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Arnold and Tina Surmas Owners Surfas Ltd. Furriers 145 West First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Lyn Walker CEO Graphic Productions 276 South Prospect Avenue, Suite j8J8 Tustin, CA 92780 ITEM #4 OPPOSITION LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 2018 WITH CITY RESPONSES FROM PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS OF TUSTIN DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE APRIL 24, 2018 Comment Letter PC 1 received from certain property and business owners in DCCSP area, dated April 23, 2018 (5 pages) FCITY �� � �Property and Business Owners of Tustin Downtown Commercial Core R 2 3 201TUSTINQERIZ3 OFFICE April 23, 2018 Planning Commission City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) Dear Commissioners Smith, Kozak, Thompson, Lumbard, and Mason: The undersigned.each currently owns property and/or businesses in the Downtown and Old Town areas of Tustin covered by the contemplated DCCSP (the "Plan"). Collectively, we have hundreds of years of experience doing business in Tustin. We are honored to serve our customers who reside in Tustin and the surrounding communities. Our customers, friends, and neighbors in Tustin allow us to earn our livings here. At this time, we urge the Commission to withhold their votes on this Plan. We believe the Plan is insufficiently developed in a number of key areas. As it currently stands, the Plan arms neither the Commission nor the wider community it serves with enough data to make an informed decision. We cannot understate how profoundly we believe this Plan will affect Downtown Tustin and how we do business here. It is essential that all of us have the correct information and enough of it to assess the Plan's merits. We currently find the Plan deficient in addressing the following key issues: Public Safety The Plan calls for narrowing First Street and Main Street and converting Second Street and Third Street into one-way streets. These changes could have an impact on public safety by increasing response times to unacceptable levels or by making the streets difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate. The Plan should contain input from the Tustin Police Department and the Orange County Fire Authority on potential impacts to our community's public safety. 1 E 1 Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 2 Parkinq The parking plan and parking study used in the Draft DCCSP is flawed, (Appendix pages 11-92 to II -101.) It claims that there is "ample parking in Old Town," in contrast to the strained parking situation our customers, employees, and vendors encounter. The Plan identifies 1,741 off-street parking spaces and 404 on -street spaces. However, approximately 80% of the off-street parking is located on private property for the exclusive use of the private property owners and their customers, tenants, and employees. The Plan's attempt to count these private spaces towards public use is tenuous. The DCCSP envisions a Downtown where the businesses become more reliant on pedestrian and bicycle traffic only. The Plan envisions further business growth from the residents of the anticipated 887 dwelling units that may be built. However, the customers, employees, and vendors of our current businesses rely upon cars to reach us. The new residents of the 887 dwellings will not make up for business lost because this Plan makes it more difficult for our current customers to park and access our Downtown businesses. Traffic Circulation The Plan emphasizes making the Downtown area more pedestrian and bike friendly. A noble sentiment in theory, but it neglects the reality that most of us, our customers, and our vendors currently use vehicles. Tustin is not an island. This Plan cannot be blissfully ignorant of the fact that our customers drive to get here from other non -Downtown areas of Tustin as well as communities outside of Tustin. Furthermore, our suppliers and their delivery vehicles must continue to easily access our businesses. We cannot serve our customers without our vendors and their goods. Financial Impact The Plan is void of any analysis regarding its potential fiscal impact - both with regards to us owners and operators, as well as you, the City, and your coffers. Similar plans proposed in other Southern California communities include a "Fiscal Impact Analysis" upon which stakeholders and city officials can base their decisions. We do not believe it is prudent for the City to move forward with its vote on the Plan absent an honest discussion about how much 41 4 5 2 Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 3 the Plan will cost to implement, who bears the burden of those costs, and what the quantifiable economic benefits to the community may be. The section in the Plan Appendix titled "Economic Analysis" hardly addresses fiscal impact. (Appendix pages 11-111 to II -123.) It contained demographics and housing data from the Census Bureau that was simply "cut and pasted" into a presentation, but zero analysis. Review of Past Projects ( Case Studies The City should present summaries of past projects they have undertaken including an honest assessment about what aspects of those projects succeeded and what aspects failed. An honest assessment will include feedback from all stakeholders including residents, customers, merchants and city officials alike. We suggest looking into the diagonal parking added to EI Camino Real many years ago, the development of Prospect Village, and the development of The District Shopping center. Furthermore, it would be valuable to see what other communities in Orange County and Southern California have undertaken Specific Plans for downtown areas. A presentation of those plans' successes and failures would aid in assessing the merits of this proposed Plan. Comment Period and Community Feedback The Community Development department held several workshops during the preparation of this Plan. However, we draw a distinction between the development of the Plan and its release in its current form. Allowing only ten days for the stakeholders of this community (as well as the Planning Commission) to digest over 1,600 pages of material is simply insufficient. Furthermore, the Community Development Department should reach out to all business and property owners in the affected areas through surrey or ballot to collect their input, perhaps with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce. The ten-day comment period coupled with the tiny signs the City posted announcing the Planning Commission meeting does not seem like a genuine effort to solicit input from affected stakeholders. Existing Businesses 5 cont. 7 The Plan is very geared towards attracting new business. While "a rising tide raises all boats," new business does not have to come at the expense of existing businesses. We hope 1 8 3 Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 4 the City will engage with us to help us move our businesses forward. None of us have enjoyed our commercial successes because of lack of ideas or grit. If the City cooperated with existing businesses more closely, incremental improvements to Downtown could happen more easily, even outside this Plan. The success or failure of this Plan hinges on the buy -in from all stakeholders of the Tustin community. Community is NOT just zoning maps and building codes — it is people. No amount of street improvements or setback adjustments can make a community. If staff at the City of Tustin is serious about this Plan, it must do a better job to sell the Plan to members of this community, including the Planning Commission and City Council. All of us need more information in order to make an informed decision on the merits of this Plan. We look forward to constructive dialogue with the City to address the issues and questions we presented here. In order for any Plan proposal to reflect the best possible alternatives, and in turn lead to the best possible outcomes, we are better served working together as mutually interested parties. We are not yet at that point, so we urge the Commission to withhold their votes on this Plan at this time. Sincerely, Paul Berkman Owner Rutabegorz 158 West Main Street Tustin, CA 92780 Rick and Tammie Bullard Owners Invitation Design Studio 380 East First Street, Suite A Tustin, CA 92780 Phil and Linda Cox Owners Cox's Market Plaza 435 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Allen Bisbee President / General Manager Saddleback Chapel 220 East Main Street Tustin, CA 92780 Kimberly Conroy Owner American Grub / The Swinging Door Saloon 355 / 365 El Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Joseph Leaman -Prescott Owner Maureen Leaman 440 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 (continued on next page) 8 cont. 4 Planning Commission, City Of Tustin April 23, 2018 Page 5 Rick and Teri Mandel Owners Wellprint, Inc. 380 East First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Eugene D. Micco President / CEO Tustin Community Bank 13891 Newport Ave, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Thomas Penna Owner Salon Gallery and Suites 220 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Earl J. Prescott Owner 320 & 330 West First Street 225-255 EI Camino Real 250 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Alfio Rossetti Vice President Roma D' Italia 611 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Coity Van Dyken Owner EI Camino Pet Grooming 301 EI Camino Real, Tustin, CA 92780 Mark and Gwen Masters Owners Scooters Mailbox Cards and Gifts 360 East First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Tiffany Miller Owner Mrs. B's Consignments, Etc. 115 West Main Street Tustin, CA 92780 Mary M. Prescott Owner Parque Santiago 215 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Thomas B. Prescott Owner 270 East Main Street 225-255 EI Camino Real 250 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Arnold and Tina Surfas Owners Surfas Ltd. Furriers 145 West First Street Tustin, CA 92780 Lyn Walker CEO Graphic Productions 276 South Prospect Avenue, Suite A/B Tustin, CA 92780 8 cont 5 Response to PC 1 Comment Letter received from certain property and business owners in DCCSP area, dated April 23, 2018 Comment 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 (DCCSP) and Draft EIR should be postponed. Response 1: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. The public hearing process for the DCCSP and EIR in which the City Planning Commission consider and make 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 2: The commenters state concerns about public safety related to the narrowing of First Street and Main Street and converting Second Street and Third Street into one-way streets. Response 2: Public safety related to circulation was addressed in the DCCSP EIR on page 5.9-15 under Impact TR -3 and 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 safety concerns relative to the identified improvements. In addition, refer to the response R2-2 in the comment letter received from Collette Morse, dated April 16, 2018 (Letter R2) for further discussion on the analysis of the identified improvements. No further analysis is required. Comment 3: 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 3: 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 then, a new parking 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 4: 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 4: 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 existing 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 EIR, the traffic analysis was performed pursuant to the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002). Trips generated by the Specific Plan's proposed land uses have been estimated using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), which considers the regional effects of traffic. The analysis determined that there would be no significant impacts related to traffic within the DCCSP, except for the intersection of Newport Avenue at the I-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. Comment 5: 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 DCCSP. Response 5: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. Further, 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 DCCSP, the DCCSP EIR analyzed the DCCSP's potential impacts on utilities and road infrastructure and identified improvements that would be required to support the future demand caused by the growth considered in the DCCSP. Future 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. No further analysis is required. Comment 6: The commenters request the City present summaries of past projects the City has undertaken, which would include feedback from all stakeholders. Response 6: 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 feedback over three workshops about the vision for the DCC. Based on this review and information the City developed the DCCSP. Further suggestions, if any, can be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council during the public hearings. No further analysis is required. Comment 7: 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 business and property owners in the affected areas through survey or ballot to collect their input" and make a genuine effort to solicit input from affected stakeholders. Response 7: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. See response R2-6 in the comment letter received from Collette Morse, dated April 16, 2018 (Letter R2) for further discussion on the City's public noticing efforts related to the DCCSP. Comment 8: The commenters state that the Specific Plan is focused on attracting new business and 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 8: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. See response 5, above regarding the DCCSP'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 live, 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, staff from both departments will be available to assist with any questions or concerns as the DCCSP is implemented, should the plan be approved. 9 ERRATA ITEM #4 - DCCSP SUBMITTED AT APRIL 24, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT REFERENCE ERRATA SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report [Provided • Mitigation measure CUL -1 updated as part of Exhibit B (Attachment 2/Exhibit 1) of resulting from response to a comment. the staff report] Change to be made to pages 1-11, 1- 12, and 5.3-12. (See Exhibit 1 for revised mitigation) Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and • Correct certain mitigation measures Statement of Overriding Considerations for (MM) for DEIR consistency FEIR [Provided as part of Exhibit B (Attachment Pages 13 and 15 — MM AQ -7 2/13ehind Exhibit 1 (EIR)) of the staff report] Page 18 — MM AQ -9 (See Exhibit 2 for errata) Errata to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting • Insert two mitigation measures that Program [Provided as part of Exhibit B were inadvertently left out (Attachment 2/13ehind Following Findings and Page 4-10 — insert MM NOI-1 Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Page 4-12 — insert MM CUL -1 Overriding Considerations for FEIR) of the staff report] (See Exhibit 3 for errata noting insertions) Errata to Draft Downtown Commercial Core • Updates to certain Specific Plan Specific Plan [Provided as part of Exhibit B provisions to five specific pages (Ordinance No. 1497 (Attachment 1 of Page 38; Figure 2.8 Ordinance) of the staff report] Page 102; Word change Page 103; Figure added Page 119; Added text Page 133; Edit and removal of text (See Exhibit 4 for errata) Errata to DEIR Comments/Response to • Minor clarification revision to Comments Response to Comment Letter R1 from Collette Morse (See Exhibit 5 for errata) STAFF REPORT REFERENCE ERRATA SUMMARY Errata to Specific Plan Comments/Response to • Completion of the response to Letter 2 Comments from Wellington Plaza Association. The end of the response was inadvertently left out. (See Exhibit 6 for errata and additional communication) EXHIBIT 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Errata Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.1 Revisions in Response to Written Comments and City Changes to Text The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City. Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary Table 1-2, Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as -needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. If discovered materials are found not to be significant archaeological resources but may be considered a Tribal Cultural Resource or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, the archeologist shall contact representatives of Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation to assess the discovery and develop appropriate avoidance measures, data recovery, reburial/relocation, or other appropriate mitigation. Section 5.3, Cultural Resources Page 5.3-12, Section 5.3.10, Mitigation Measures, is revised as follows: City of Tustin 3-1 Final EIR April 2018 Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as -needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. If discovered materials are found not to be significant archaeological resources but may be considered_a Tribal Cultural Resource or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, the archeologist shall contact re resentatives of Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation to assess the discovery and develop appropriate avoidance measures data recovery, reburial/relocation, or other appropriate mitigation. City of Tustin 3-2 Final EIR April 2018 EXHIBIT 2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Errata Revisions to the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings This following contains errata to the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings associated with the Draft EIR presented before the City of Tustin Planning Commission. The following specific changes are to significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level associated with Air Quality (mitigation measure AQ -7 on pages 13 and 15). The changes are identified here in strikeeu text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 1. Revisions to Significant Effects that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level 4.1 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ -7: Energy Usage Calculations. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects requiring wi#h design review, project applicants/developers shall submitIp ans certifying energy usage ealculatiens te the ClIfy of Tustin Building Divisien shewing that the proposed development is designed to achieve 5 percent efficiency beyond the 2016 California Building Code Title 24 requirements to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Division. Example of measures that reduce energy consumption include, but are not limited to, the following (it being understood that the items listed below are not all required and merely present examples; the list is not all-inclusive and other features that reduce energy consumption also are acceptable): • Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; • Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system; • Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; • Installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; =o _ Installation of dual -paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use _of interior and exterior energy efficient lighting that exceeds the 2016 California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards; • Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed; • Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings; • Design of buildings with "cool roofs" using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors; • Design of buildings to accommodate photo -voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo -voltaic solar electricity systems; and • Installation of ENERGY STAR -qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting products. The following specific changes are to effects determined to be mitigated to below a level of significance associated with Air Quality (mitigation measure AQ -9 on page 18). The changes are identified here in strikeeu text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 5.1 Air Quali Mitigation Measure AQ -9: Localized Emissions. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for new development projects; that are one acre or larger, , the applicant develo er shall provide modeling of the regional and the localized emissions (NOx, CO, PMio, and PMz.$) associated with the maximum daily grading activities for the proposed development. If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions, the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in emissions in excess of SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Errata 0 M C a a) d w � £'C ~ Q) L U 4- 0 a) s d a c p a) 0 = C N v `` ° c Q. ° D m c 0 -0 a) c a y y 0 c . 0 �^ s 0 O •� a= 0 F -- H •� a) p H C > a •� O 'i - 0 l } C U V E W LU } L a ON al �0 i 0 0 3 0 0 a. • N> c S O p 0 O 0 S dl 'J�� 1Qy } C m L 01 0 y D O 0 O N a) }} Lo a O L } i = • �n a O m C O O 0 •Q a O c O 3 ." N o O 3 N-0 H N O c 2 0 o" °-0 0° tt} o o •a) 0= — U 4-. 0 > �� L_ N � �'- U t 'o 21L ° p 0 3 0' L L} °7 s C Q, C Ci0 LS O CS L N H LO } C '0 V' } WIL = a) .0 O L N y 0 L }- v 0 c? -Q o c 3 _ �Cs _ o E o _31pA ViaiQ--% aNam) 0 a ° os•L a7 - i o — U- ; s d 0 -•H"oO 0 LWTiOe O c a) —+ yO 5 31 O. O LO L, = .0al -0 p L d°aCC L 0 � _�aOW iL "p"a O y 0 O N a 0 c06 D Q 3 0 �_ 'G V C— } O s V a) a a) N 0 0 O C .N •VI II O h s N H L C—} L a O •E o a to a C N II O `� c O N a] �^ UO a C o F O N a'0 x a 0 o}a�>am--�— }>La - Is V +p N Z L .3 b 0 7 X 0 0=_ H N !� 'L I:KI( Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Errata DCCSP ERRATA LIST DCCSP Page Sentence or Figure Change p. 38 Figure 2.8, Second and Third Street Planned Traffic Move Prospect Avenue Movements label to correct location and add Third Street and C Street labels p. 102 Residential proposals deemed to substantially comply with Per underline and the provisions contained within this document by the strikethrough text shown approval authority (specified in Chapter 6, Administration and Implementation Plan) will may be allocated a portion of the available units remaining within the finite residential housing allocation bank established by the DCCSP. p. 103 As previously described in Chapter 2, Development Plan, Add Land Use the DCCSP specifies six primary land use designations: Designations map Downtown Mixed Use (DM), Old Town (OT), Downtown graphic to the page for Commercial (DC), Civic/Institutional (CI), Multi -Family (MF), ease of reference and Mobile Home (MH) icon Figure 3.1, Land Use e DesigRatinno\ ���rrucrvrr.T�. P. 119 Applications for Subdivisions shall be processed in Per underline text shown accordance with Section 6.1.4, Approval Authority, of this Specific Plan and Article 9, Chapter 3, Subdivision Code, of the TCC. Approval of a Development Agreement shall be required for approval of a Subdivision Map. Applications for Development Agreements shall be processed in accordance with Section 6.1.4, Approval Authority, of this Specific Plan and Article 9, Chapter 6, Development Agreements, of the TCC. Approval of a Development Agreement shall be required for approval of a Subdivision Map. p. 133 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment: to Close quotation mark update the Land Use Map to show the boundaries of the DCCSP and re -designate land uses within the Specific Plan area to "DCCSP — Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan." ® General Plan Circulation Element Amendment: to be Per strikethrough text consistent with the circulation changes resulting from shown conceptual improvements to Main Street, First Street, Second Street and Third Street anti n.,r,non+i ill hiGYGIo imnrnvemantc to VaFinnc 6#88 •c EXHIBIT 5 DEIR Comments/Response to Comments Errata Revisions to Chapter 2. Responses to Comments The following contains errata to the Responses to Comments of the Draft EIR presented before the City of Tustin Planning Commission. Changes made to the specific response (Letter R1 — Collette Morse; Response R1-6 on page 2-47) are identified here in strikeeut text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. Letter R1 —Collette Morse Response RI -6: Main Street is currently built as a two-lane street for all but a short segment near Newport Avenue where it expands to four -lanes. The proposed change of Main Street to a two-lane Divided Collector is a change to the roadway's Plan designation only and does not reduce the current roadway capacity such that cut -through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would be expected to result. First Street is currently constructed as a four -lane street, but as shown in Draft EIR Table 4.9.1, Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Summary, the roadway currently operates at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which indicates there is currently an excess of capacity along First Street. With the roadway's change to a two-lane Divided Collector, the Draft EIR Table 4.9-3, Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service, shows that First Street would operate at LOS A and B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which in that sufficient capacity will be available and that cut -through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would not be expected. Also, the Draft EIR Table 4.9-5, Cumulative 2035 plus Project Intersection Level of Service, shows that First Street would operate at LOS A, B and C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Prospect Avenue intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour under long-range 2035 conditions. In each case, the analysis indicates that sufficient capacity will be available and that cut -through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would not be expected. The proposed Specific Plan's traffic study, provided as Appendix E of the Draft EIR, provides a comprehensive analysis of the new traffic patterns that would result from the proposed changes to the General Plan Circulation Element. Of note, the redesignations to First Street and Main Street are appreved OCTA approved Master Plan of Arterial Highways designations and are in line with the same designations within the City of Santa Ana. The Downtown Plan does not provide any details on how the street will be redesigned; only .conceptual improvements. That will be up to the Public Works Department when it comes time to move forward with a design for the improvements. *,V.4 1l: Specific Plan Comments/Response to Comments Errata Specific Plan Comments/Responses to Comments Errata LTR. Date Received Commenter Comment Response/Status 2 3-14-18 Wellington Letter conveying formal request The request by the parties Plaza to remove Wellington Plaza representing Wellington Plaza would Association Condominium Property (40 office create spot zoning which violates State regarding condominium owners) located at law. This property is currently located property 500 E. First Street, Tustin, CA in the First Street Specific Plan and located at 500 (NW corner First & Centennial) office uses are allowed in that Specific E. First Street from the proposed Downtown Plan. Likewise, the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Commercial Core Specific Plan allows (Specific Plan) and allow the office use. As a long term plan for the property to revert to its original Downtown Commercial Core, the zoning of Office Only. Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) is appropriate for the *See last sentence of response Wellington Plaza property and other for completion (inadvertently left properties in the DCCSP boundary out). because the DCCSP is intended to guide future development plans per the Specific Plan's vision and consider compatibility of future proiects with ad'lacent uses. Specific Plan Related Communication Received After April 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Specific Plan Related Communication Received After April 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting LTR. Date Received Commenter Comment Response/Status 1 3-13-18 Gwen Continued communication The communication exchange will Masters, from commenter dated April be shared with the City's decision - business 6, 2018 and April 9, 2018 makers for consideration (see owner of (associated with letter 1 attached). Scooters — received 3-13-18). Mailbox, Cards & Gifts located at 360 E. First Street 6 4-10-18 Orange Letter (attached) providing The comment letter will be shared County comments for consideration; with the City's decision -makers for Transportation five comments regarding consideration. Authority Active Transportation and 1 (OCTA) comment regarding Transit Planning. Active Transportation: 1. OCTA is supportive of the City staff appreciates comments 1 planned improvements to and 2 associated with Active implement Complete Streets. Transportation conveying support 2. OCTA can serve as a and future resources. resource especially for engineering treatments to enhance safety for the community within the project area. 3. OCTA recommends the The Downtown Plan does not proposed project consider provide any details on how the implementing a Class IV street and bike provisions will be bikeway on the south side of redesigned; only conceptual Main Street serving improvements. That will be up to eastbound bicycle travel. the Public Works Department 4. OCTA recommends the when it comes time to move City consider a more gradual forward with a design for the transition in the curvature for improvements. At that time, bicyclists traveling eastbound comments 3 and 4 associated with in the Class I or Class IV Active Transportation can be bikeway. further evaluated. 5. OCTA encourages As future projects are proposed consideration of within the Specific Plan area, City Transportation Demand staff can encourage applicants to Management measures consider various Transportation associated with new Demand Management measures, workplace construction. as appropriate. LTR. ®ate Received Commenter Comment Response/Status OCTA Transit Planning Relative to the Transit Planning Continued 1. Requests coordination comment, City Staff will continue with OCTA to employ to work with OCTA to strive measures to reduce potential towards reduction of transit service transit service disruptions disruptions and future bus stop and to inform them of any interruptions or street closures that potential bus stop may result in the Specific Plan interruptions or street area. closures that may require detours associated with transit service. 7 4-14-18 Ryan Loof Email (attached) Acknowledged with appreciation. Resident communicating support of the Plan. Continued Communication from Commenter of Letter 1 — Gwen Masters From: GWEN MASTERS Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 12:44 PM To: Yeager, Lucy Subject: RE: Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan - Response to Your Comment What about common carriers? We have UPS, FedEx and DHL as well as frequent box trucks delivering cardboard supplies as well as many 40' rigs hauling customer products in and out. We probably have freight traffic every day. Are they supposed to dance around the narrow roads? Due to our volume, UPS and FedEx have their largest local delivery trucks assigned to our route. Will you look at this or consider your response adequate? Gwen Masters From: DANA OGDON Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 1:47 PM To: GWEN MASTERS Cc: Yeager, Lucy; Saldivar, Krys> Subject: Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan - Response to Your Comment Hi Gwen: I'm responding for Lucy to your last question (above). The City of Tustin has not received any written concerns regarding the proposed action from the carriers you indicated. I should ,point out that the planned redesign of First Street would continue to be able to carry such traffic. I want to also let -you know that the City of Santa Ana is pursuing the same road diet for their portion of First Street extending west of the 55 Freeway into Santa Ana. The Orange County Transportation Authority has_ reviewed each proposal and found no concerns and has given both Tustin and Santa Ana preliminary approval for the proposed change to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (see page 35 of the DCCSP). Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Assistant Director of Community Development From: GWEN MASTERS This looks like a "asked and answered" reply. I don't think Santa Ana can narrow the road down until after the 5 on-ramp. They have 2 high rises, medical buildings and apartments as well as several vacant lots ripe for commercial redevelopment. I would think eliminating traffic between the two freeways would impact the number of developers interested. I would think the city of Tustin would contact the businesses and landowners affected before officially adopting any of the ideas presented in this 300 page plan. How much have the good citizens of Tustin paid for this plan? Is it really a good idea to come up with a plan with no input from the affected citizens? This will make the cost of re -development higher and existing businesses will put any plan of redesign on "hold" due to costs or not liking "the plan". Properties will look even more rundown until property owners die and new people take over. (That's saying the new people don't like the cash flow) The city promoted the Prospect Village plan, but it's too expensive for actual usage. I hear that only one unit has someone living above and working below. If I had $800,000 to $1,000,000 for a house, I would not pick Prospect Village. Good idea — doesn't work. The district — more planning gone haywire. It's hard to drive around there. Getting gas at Costco is a nightmare. You can't get there from here in many situations. I have talked to some of the Costco managers and they all know that customers go to the Irvine store because the logistics of the commute are too much work. The district is "more walkable". I hope those walking people spend more money than the "fill up the car" people. The city of Tustin planners should spend more time in the field. Gwen Masters PS I don't know what the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (see page 35 of the DCCSP) is? Will that be at tomorrows meeting? Le_k�--r (P s' :P: BOARD of mEGTdlJS April 10, 201.8 Lisa A:.Battiett Chair ' Lucy Yeager rmsna�ti planning Consultant vice Chairman City of Tustin LauneQavies Cpmmunity Deveiopme.nt Department Director 300 Centennial way Barbarat)elgiezeTUStIn, CA'W80 Dir2ctor Andr0h,60 Subject: Nonce -of Availability :of Draft 01R'for the Downtown Commercial !)rector Core ect.`(bCCSP:J Lori Do"ndhak Director Dear Ms. Yeager: Michael Hennessey Director The Orange .County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed thel3taft OR for steveJoeS ontown Commercial Core Specific .Ryan Project .(BCCSp), The following the Dw Director comments are provided foryour consideration; Mark A. Murphy Director Active Trah80gft4tion Comments R chartl Murphy 1 Page 3 24y OCTA is supportive of the planned improvements to 0 implement Corriplete Streets concepts to better serve people walking and Al rurr ,' biking "W. .6 Look forward to the reallocation of.space to betie'r serve people Director Iivi:ng and vtsttrng the City with creative solutions on First Street and Main Shawn Nelson Street to provide greaterltl .,. ing and bicycling needs. Director MguebPutido t 2 OCTA can serve as a resource where possible with best_ practices identified Dirzctor = m the OCTA Planning documents such as the OC Foothills Bikeway Strategy Todd Spdzer 2�J16 and QC Active :%%.underwa OC Active iS the first ( ... � l y�• Director countywide bicycle and pedestrian master plan,The report will :include _ MichelCe Steel Dhectoc recommended treatments io improve infrastructure for pedestr'tan function:. °QCTA can continue to collaborate with the City as -a resource for r°mra't consideration of engineering treatments to :enhance safety for pebpEe Director -walking and biking �Yithin the community and the project area. GregoryT tMrite�bottam Director 3. Rage 3-31; the following text is provided describing the planned bikeway -Ryan Chamberlain Exotrq;oMember implementation on Main Street: a. North Side' install new on=street 3 -foot bufiFered .bicycle lane (Ci_ass 2) on the north side of -the street. CpIEFEXECUTIVE-OFFICE b. South Side: Install:lane On the south side of Main Street, as bicycle an integrated off-road bicycle lane (Class 1). Derrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer 1Ne recommend the proposed project consider implementing a Class lV bikeway on the sbuth side of Main Street serving eastbound bicycle travel. The Class iV bikeway could be located between- the angle parking and the raised curb providing the edge of the pedestr%an sidewalk zone. Caltrans has established Design Information Bulle'ting 89 which provides design Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main 4traet/P.Q. Box 14164 /Orange / California 52863-1584 / (714.)560 -OCTA (6282) standards that could be utilized for the design The provision of a bikeway at grade with moving vehicles can better define the space for bicyclists and avoid conflicts between pedestrians:; and bicyclists sharing the space in';a Glass I bikeway. Additionally, the provision of a Giass IV' bikeway would avoid the need ;for ramps up arid, bwnat the beginning of the'r:.edesig wed, roadway where bicyclists would be directedto leave the travel way to use the Glass J facility. 4 Figure 3-10 illustrates the proposed Iayoutfor Nfain Street We recommend the Cify consider a more gradual transition in the curvature for kicyc[sts traveling eastbound in; the Class.l or Class IV bikeway: 5 New residential land use construction provides .p opportunity to encourage a variety of travel cho>c, We encourage the Specific Plan include iiort and long germ b%cycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and guests Short term parking in 'the ratio of one bicycle parking space for each four units _might be considered, and'tnclusiop of a secure ground floor'ndoor bicycle storage area may serve ,long-term bicycleparking needs. 6 New workplace construction provides an opportunity to encourage a variety 0 .'l ravel choices. 06 eneaurages consideration of Transportation Demand Management measures such as long term bicycle parking, employee access to shov+lers, and changing rooms to encourage multi-madat transportation choices: The availability of showers :is often noted as'the top item limitirgbicycle commuting by employees. Transit Plannrng 0oinr eht 1, OCTA currently -provides transit service near the project locati.Qn. Shoufd;the project have any impacts to nearby bus sops, please coordinate v+rith OCTA to-:ernploy-mea5ures to reduce potential transit service d srupfions. lNe a[ -so request�ttiat the 'City keep OCTA 1hformed with any potential bus stop interruptions or street closures that may require detours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this project. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me via phone at (714) 560-5907 or by email at i) huAto �ta:net. Sincerely, Dan Phu Environmental Programs Manager / e He 7 Yeager, Lucy From: Ryan Loof Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 12:30 AM To: Yeager, Lucy Subject: DCCSP Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged I just wanted to thank you and everyone involved with the DCCSP. A few years ago I found out my true interest is city planning after reading "Walkable City" by Jeff Speck. In hindsight the signs were there growing up considering how much I enjoyed playing Sim City but alas, I'm 35 years old and don't have it in me to go back to school to pursue it. So instead I just read about the subject then Monday morning quarterback all the mistakes I see when driving or walking around Orange County. On my days off I sometimes like to go for long walks and listen to podcasts. Today I did one of those long walks and as I was walking down First Street I passed by one of the signs posted about the DCCSP and took a picture of it so I could google it when I got home. I just went through the entire plan and am overwhelmed. It's as if all of you specifically asked what me, a novice urbanist city planner, would do to remodel downtown Tustin. I just think it's wonderful that there are people in charge of the town that I now call home that know the Orange County suburbs can be more than freeways, cul-de-sacs, arterial roads and strip malls and instead be an actual town. Thank you again for all the hard work and vision it took to put this plan into action. Sincerely, Ryan Loof Draft EIR Related Communication Received After Review Period For April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Draft EIR Related Communication Received After Review Period And For April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting LTR. Date Received Commenter Comment Response/Status R2 4-16-18 Collette L. Letter (attached) regarding The communication and Morse additional communication responses will be shared with the Resident - City's decision -makers for 145 N, C consideration (see attached) Street Comment Letter R2 received from Collette Morse, dated April 16, 2018 (3 pages) April 16, 2018 Submitted via Email to Mr. Dana Ogden', AICP Chairperson Smith and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Public Comments Regarding the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and Environmental hnpact Report for April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Chairperson Smith and Members of the Planning Commission: I was at City Hall on !April 10, 2018 for the Planning Commission meeting but was told by staff that the meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum and that it .would be continued to Apri124, 2018. Tam unable to attend the April 24, 2018 meeting in person due a previous commitment, so I am providing you With written comments. I'm a 20t year resident of Tustin and I'm happy to see some love and attention being paid to this part of the city. Ihave ;participated in this process since 2014, including attending all three Community workshops. Need for -Additional Community Workshgror Open House The process and plan'for this area of the City is important and the vision should be shared and clearly understood by all. I believe this process would have benefitted from a 4a' community workshop or open house -to are the proposed land use, design, circulation, and other improvements before the Draft Specific PIan and EM werereleased for public :review, particularly given the time that has lapsed between the January 2016 community workshop and this hearing tonight The process felt genuine and inclusive at the beginning with the three community workshops. Those qualities were lost with theproject delay. It would be a win=win for all if additional opportunities for public engagement and participation prior to Planning Commission or City Council action :cin the Specifio Plan and Environmental Impact'Report are provided at an open house or community workshop. Spe_cifc Plan and Environmental Impact Report Overall, I am. supportive of the land use and design changes proposed in the Specific Plan. But I do, not support the proposed Circulation Element and Master Plan of Arterial highway changes to 1°1, 2. - , 3 and Main Streets. ; I support traffic calming measures on lst Street. I support, bus routes and 'easy access to bus stops on the routes. I support protected bike lanes for cyclists. I support wider sidewalks for pedestrians. ButI do not support the loss of two travel lanes on I-' Street. R2-1 R2-2 Chairperson Smith and Mernbers ofthePlanning Commission page City of Tustin Aprii 16, 2018 I do not believe 10 Street is the appropriate street to apply the proposed changes. Based on 2016 counts, I" Street :accommodates between 14 aiid 20;0.00 darty trips from Newport to Tustin. The current designation. of a primary arterial — a 471ane divided roadway — is designed to accommodate between 20 to 30,000 daily trips. Changing the designation to a divided collector -- a 2-4ane divided roadway — which,is designed to accommodate between 9 to 15,000 dally trips is not appropriate and does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current daily trips not the additional trips from the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Circulation Element changes will result in a redistribution oftraffic within and outside of the, Plan area, ineluAing increases .and in onto residential streets. The redistribution of trips and residential intrusion/neighborhood pass through impacts were not analyzed in the Draft EK but absolutely should be to provide a full understanding of ttie impacts. I also do not support changing 21¢ and 30 Streets to one-way streets, There isa., functioning grid system that does not require changing the streets from one travel lane tri each direction to one-way streets. iu addition, there will increased delays to make left -turns onto 1d f'r'om stopped controlled intersections. I presently experience delays turning left from C Street onto tat that can range anywhere from 15 seconds to several minutes — and tbafs in the morning, thidday, or, afternoon I'm ,able to safely make a left turn into the first travel lane while other vehicles use the second travel lane. I am :concerned that with proposed changes to In Street that the delay will be increased or that'l won't be able to make a left -turn at all. Also, 1' Street is an important bus route with bus stops at Larwin Square and Tustin Courtyard, and connections to routes on Newport. OCTA will not be able io maintain timely bus routes with the loss of two travel larim Pm oiteubehind abus in the second travel lane. With only one travel lane in each direction, we will all behind busses and delayed while passengers board or }inboard busses. Need for Protection Against Residential Intrus oit/Neighborhood Pass -Through Traffic As discussed above, the Draft EIR.did not analyze the residentialiutrusion/neighborhood pass-through impacts resulting from theredistribution ss bution of trips aociated with the proposed circulation element changes. Thefoilowingtext should be added to the Specific Plan to ensure that residential streets and neighborhoods do not experience pass-through trips. Text should be added to the Specific Plan as a Plan feature and/or EIR as mitigation regarding a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP). This Plan could be prepared, implemented, and funded by the City and/or by project applicant(s). The Plan should address education, enforcement; and enhancement. Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Environmental Impact Report The Notice off. Preparation and Initial,Study are silent regarding the proposed amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County MasterPlan of Arterial Highways (MPAI to 1' 21a, 3'� and Main Streets. However, these amendments are called out in the Enviromnental Impact Report .(EIR) Project Description. This results inaProject Description inconsistency between the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS) - — - and -the EIR The EIR Project Description includes project components (i.e., Circulation Element and MPRH amendments, street modifications/reductions) that were not disclosed in the NOP/IS. Neither the R2-2 cont. R2-3 R2-4 Chairperson -Smith and M. embers of the Planning Commission City of Tustin April 16, 2618 Page 3 public nor public agencies were afforded the opportunity to understand these project components early in the EIR process, or offer comments about them and their potential environmental impacts. R2-4 cont. The Initial Study/NOP identifies a smaller proposed project, particularly related to circulation, then in the EIR. The scope and scale of the proposed project should be. consistent throughout the dE process. This has not occurred with this EIR process; thus the ISLIqOP should be reissued and the Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated. EIR Correction I have one :correction to note on. Responses to Continents page 2-1 which statesmy comment letter was dated April 3, 2018 and is noted as late. That information is incorrect and should be revised in the Final EIR I submitted my comment letter to Mr. Qgdon on„April 2"a at .-4:31 •pm via email. My comment letter was reeeived prior to the April 2ndS 00 pm deadline. 1 -have an email receipt that the email was delivered at 4:31 pm and an email read receipt that my email was read on April 311 in the morning. Prolect Notification I reside within the 360 -foot radius of the Plan boundaries; however, my receipt of mailed.noices has. been inconsistent throughout. he, process. Given my location within the 300 -foot radius, T should .have received all notices regarding the Specific Plan and Environmental Report. I had also provided my contact information at the three community workshops to receive notifications via email or other methods.. I received mailed notices of all three community workshops. But I did not receive mailed notices of. the Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting or the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. I did receive a mailed notice of the April 10, 20.1.8 Planning Commission meeting. I,have received three emails — 1) Notice of Community Workshop #2, 2) Notice 'of Availability, and 3) April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Notice Received Mail Notice Received Eniail Notice Communi Workshop #1 Yes: Isla .Community Workshop #2 Yes Yes Cominunity'Worksh00 #3 Yes No Notice of Preparation of aDraft EIR and Sco' in Meetin No No Notice ofAvailability of a Draft EIR.. No Yes Platinink Commission Meetin A ri110.2018 Yes Yes , I have kept all mailed notices and emails from the City on this project. I did not receive several mailed notices, and that has limited my ability to participate in and provide input/comments throughout this Specific Plan and EIR process. Sincerely, Collette L. Morse 145 N C Street Tustin, CA 92780 R2-5 R2-6 Response to Comment Letter R2 from Collette Morse, dated April 16, 2018 Comment R2-1: The commenter believes that the City should have provided an additional community workshop or open house on the Specific Plan prior to public hearings on the Specific Plan and EIR because of the time delay between the last community workshop and the public review the draft of the Down Town Commercial Core Draft Specific Plan (DCCSP) and Draft EIR. Response R2-1: This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR. The community visioning and three workshops were conducted over a period of about two years followed by the preparation of the Draft Specific Plan that reflects the community's vision for the DCC and the Draft EIR that analyzes its impacts. Additional Planning Commission and City Council update meetings occurred during the preparation of the Specific Plan and EIR. The Planning Commission and City Council will also hold public hearings on the Specific Plan and EIR; therefore, no further workshops are needed. Comment 112-2: The commenter states that overall, she is supportive of the DCCSP, including easy access to bus stops, protected bike lanes for cyclists, and wider sidewalks for pedestrians but not of the changes to the Circulation Element, the MPAH, and most of the conceptual changes to First Street, Second Street, Third Street, or to Main Street. Response 112-2: To enhance conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, the DCCSP proposes a transformation of the existing roadways to create "complete streets" in which the roadway design gives pedestrians and bicyclists greater emphasis. To provide the maximum amount of flexibility to design spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists, changes to the City's Circulation Element and the County MPAH are needed to reclassify First Street and Main Street to collector roadways. With the reclassification, the City will not be constrained by the current MPAH designations, which requires two vehicular travel lanes in each direction, including at locations where the two lanes of capacity are not needed. A comprehensive traffic study was prepared for the DCCSP, which shows that First Street, Second Street, Third Street, and Main Street would continue to operate with vehicular levels of service of "A" and "B" with the proposed roadway changes (DEIR Table 5.9-3: Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service). With slower speeds on First Street, the traffic forecasting model utilized for the DCCSP traffic study estimates that more through traffic will instead utilize Irvine Boulevard, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate more trips at higher speeds than can be achieved on First Street. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on First Street are forecast to reduce from approximately 17,000 ADT to 15,000 ADT (DEIR Appendix E, Figure 3: Existing ADT Volumes and Figure 4: Existing plus Project ADT Volumes) due to the modifications to First Street. The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises that roadways with ADT of 20,000 ADT or less may be good candidates for a "Road Diet" in which two through lanes and a center left -turn lane are provided (FHWA, Road Diet Informational Guide, November 2014). As noted above, the traffic forecasting model utilized for the DCCSP traffic study was used to estimate the amount of traffic that would be diverted to other roadways due to modifications to First Street. With the diversion, each of the arterial roadways in the DCCSP area continue to operate at level of service "C" or better (DEIR Table 5.9-3: Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service). As such, diversion of through traffic onto local streets is not anticipated. The DCCSP traffic study also addressed the conversion of Second Street and Third Street to one-way streets, which likewise indicates acceptable levels of service will result since sufficient capacity is provided on the arterial roadways. The conversion to one-way streets provides additional options to roadway configurations to enhance conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and parking. The functionality of First Street after conversion to a two-lane roadway with center turn -lane will be comparable to the current Main Street configuration. Finally, the traffic study addressed the conceptual improvements to Main Street (spanning DA -4 and DA -5) that involve: reducing the number of traffic lanes and lane widths, adding parking, a bike lane, an expanded pedestrian sidewalk, and installing an entry arch spanning the street. The functionality will be comparable to other portions of Main Street that are already one -lane in each direction (from the westerly City limit to Newport Avenue). Vehicles making turns to and from the side streets will benefit from gaps created by traffic signals upstream and downstream and, if necessary, can be aided by treatments such as all -way stop control. The specific configuration of future changes to First Street will be informed by a corridor specific traffic study in order to balance the needs of all users. For example, turnouts can be provided for OCTA buses so that traffic can safely pass the bus while loading and unloading passengers. Comment R2-3: The commenter is concerned with passthrough trips and residential intrusion as a result of the proposed Circulation Element changes. The commenter believes the Draft EIR failed to analyze these impacts and that a neighborhood traffic calming plan is needed, either as part of Specific Plan or as EIR mitigation. Response R2-3: As noted in Response 2, above, the traffic forecasting model utilized for the DCCSP traffic study was used to estimate the amount of traffic that would be diverted to other roadways due to modifications to First Street. With the diversion, each of the arterial roadways in the DCCSP area continue to operate at level of service "C" or better (DEIR Table 5.9-3: Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service). As such, diversion of through traffic onto local streets is not anticipated since sufficient capacity is provided on the arterial roadways. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. EIRs are not required to discuss mitigation measures for less than significant environmental impacts. The commenter has not submitted substantial evidence into the record that a neighborhood traffic calming plan is needed. As discussed in Response R2-2, there is no pending project and specific configuration of future changes to First Street. Future changes will be informed by a corridor specific traffic study; the potential for localized impacts will continue to be addressed on a project -by -project basis, and are discretionary projects subject to CEQA, at such time that they are proposed. Comment R24: The commenter asserts that since some of the circulation improvements were not specifically identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP), that other public agencies were not afforded the ability to comment early in the EIR process. Furthermore, commenter asserts that the project description in the NOP was of a "smaller proposed project" and as a result, the Initial Study/NOP should be reissued and the Draft EIR recirculated. Response R24: The Initial Study/NOP stated that "the vision focuses on continuing to ensure an economically vital, walkable, bikeable, mixed-use center with a focus on active ground floor retail and office environments." The Initial Study/NOP also stated that "the Specific Plan includes provisions for enhancing the public_ realm as an opportunity of public space and streets as a place for people." The improvements to the Circulation Element, the MPAH, and the conceptual changes to First Street, Second Street, Third Street, and Main Street are minor modification to the project description; they represent the specific mechanisms that emerged as necessary to implement the City's and Community's vision for a walkable, pedestrian friendly DCC. As discussed in Response to Comment 2 and Response to Comment 3, the circulation network changes were evaluated as part of the Draft EIR and impacts were found to be less than significant without mitigation. If a project is changed while the EIR is being prepared and the change will result in new significant impacts, the lead agency may add the information to the EIR and must circulate the new information for 5 public review and comment if recirculation is required under Public Resources Code §21092.1. Recirculation is not required if the additions or modifications to an EIR do not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or new alternatives or mitigation measures for significant impacts that the project proponents decline to adopt. Recirculation is not required when the changes merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. Here, the minor modifications to the project description did not result in significant new impacts, were included in the Draft EIR circulated for public review, and public agencies had the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Therefore, the.Draft EIR is legally adequate and recirculation is not required. Comment R2-5: The commenter correctly notes that the Response to Comments page erroneously identified her comment letter as having been submitted late on April 3, 2018 and asks for it to be corrected. Response R2-5: Correction made. The commenter's letter was received on April 2, 2018. Comment R2-6: The commenter claims that not received notices in both electronic and physical mail has limited her ability to participate and comment on the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Response R2-6: The commenter's email and physical mail address were provided to the City as part of the community workshops for the Specific Plan. The commenter confirms that she has received either an electric or physical notice, or both, of every workshop, the Draft EIR Notice of Availability, and the Planning Commission hearing. As discussed above, the commenter sent in a timely comment letter on the Draft EIR. The commenter has failed to demonstrate how not receiving the notices in both electronic and physical mail has limited her ability to participate and comment on the project. The City sent the IS/NOP and Notice of Scoping meeting to all public agencies with authority over the project or resources affected by the project, as required by CEQA, per Public Resources Code section 21080.4. The commenter does not represent a public agency and did not receive an individual IS/NOP and Scoping meeting notice. Although the lead agency may consult with members of the public who have made a written request to be consulted on the project, the agency is not required to do so per Public Resources Code Sections 21 104(a) and 21153. Furthermore, the NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office on August 2, 2016. The notice was published in the August 1, 2016 Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the IS/NOP were made available for public review at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, located at 300 Centennial Way, and it was available on the City's website: http://www.tustinca.orci/degts/­cd/­planningupdate.asp. Therefore, the City followed, and is in compliance with CEQA procedural public disclosure requirements and the commenter was not deprived of the ability to participate and comment. 2 EXHIBIT 5 April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Agenda Report [See City of Tustin Website Link http://www.tustinca.oLg/cityhall/agendas/default.asp] EXHIBIT 6 Written Communication Left at Podium from Speaker Pam Neil at the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Public Hearing 1. 1 was quite unhappy to first hear about this project via the grapevine. I read the magazine that Tustin sends out. Why was this project not introduced to the community in this or some other public forum? Not doing so gives the impression that someone is trying to sneak something in under the radar. If you were proud of your project you would seek public buy -in and, consensus. If you are hiding the project because you fear the public is going to be displeased, why are you trying to Implement it at all? Aren't you the public's advocates and champions? 2. Next, let me state, that, as a general rule, I am inclined to like the idea of pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities. (Although I prefer my bike paths separated from cars.) These concepts are difficult to introduce into an area that is already occupied without causing significant upheaval. So, it is imperative, when attempting to legislate such rosy concepts, to review what is currently there and determine if it makes any sense to impose this sort of concept in the proposed area. Apparently whoever daydreamed the idea of a pedestrian and bike area for First Street, in the DA -2 area in particular, neglected to look at the current businesses and their suitability for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Businesses currently in DA -2 from C Street to Centennial — a Proposed Pedestrian Area: 1. Auto Oriented: 1. Bel Air Motor Hotel 2. Tire Center 3. Tustin Plaza Car Wash 4. Integrity Complete Auto Care 2. Outside pedestrians not welcome: 1. The Learning Vllage Preschool — Strangers not likely encouraged to loiter and visit empty buildings 2. Palmwood — residential 3. Being required to be a pedestrian may/will create a burden (literally): 1. Post Office — dropping off or picking up packages, who wants to walk or bike with those? 2. Scooters Mailbox— dropping off or picking up packages, who wants to walk or bike with those? 3. Econo-Wash — Laundry. I've taken laundry to a laund,romat on a bicycle, it's not fun. 4. Satellite Cleaners— It's so practical to walk around with ones dry cleaning or stuffing nicely ironed clothes into a pannier or basket — good ideal S. Well Print, Printing and Copying —1 suppose the amount of inconvenience depends on what you get printed. 4. Pedestrians do not usually frequent: 1, PAS — Leasing and Property Management -2. Wellington Plaza: Insurance, Active Healing Center, Hometown Advertising, Attorneys S. Fast Food: 1. Wienerschnitzel 2. McDonald's 6. Customers likely to arrive park and transact business and leave: 1. Michael Paquette, D.D.S. —appointments 2. 'Lovett Dance Center—classes, park and attend 3. Martial Arts Studio --.classes, park and attend 4. Michael Anthony Beauty Salon — appointment or walk-ins S. Louie's Barber Shop -- appointments and walk-ins 6. Dolce Color Hair Salon — appointments and walk-ins 7. V Choice, Watch & Clock Repair— errand, drop off and pick up 8. Tobacco Buzz — errands, drop off and pick up 9. Cigar Store —errands, drop off and pick up 10. VAPE — errands, drop off and pick up Q��e � n;yh} of miq, F,eM PM ti�; 7. Unaffected: 1. Tustin War Memorial 2. Kabob restaurant—geared to quick meals 3. Godfather's Sports Bar 4. Tustin Inn S. lalapenos Mexican Food —geared to quick meals 6. Super Antojitos — restaurant 3. Why in the world would I want to drive down narrower streets? This is 2018, not 1918 or 1818.1 find Old Towne claustrophobic for driving and would definitely prefer you not extend that environment further. I am less likely to travel in areas that make me uncomfortable. Your plan would encourage me to NOT frequent currently established businesses. 4. 1 have plantar fasciitis, which can make walking feel like someone is driving a nail into my heel. My husband will be in a wheelchair, likely permanently, when he finally gets out of the hospital. There are many people who do not find walking the pleasurable activity that is envisioned by the proponents of this plan. Somebody else's paradise is my living hell. 5. Even if walking was easy and pleasurable for me -- I work and have a very busy schedule. Increased traffic jams will annoy and frustrate me. I will avoid the narrowed streets and find myself avoiding my previously preferred businesses. I am not the only person in the city who is pressed for time in their daily life. 6. Is the city really interested in driving current businesses, who bring money into the city coffers, out of business on the hopes that the city's plan will bring about some sort of undefined improvement? What is that improvement? On page 5.1-6 it states that "It is anticipated that these changes would improve the existing visual. character and quality of the area." So it's going to be prettier? I I just don't see that as sufficient reason to go through all this expense and disruption. 7. 1 notice a lot of new trees in the plan. I LOVE trees. Is planting a bunch of new trees during a drought a sensible landscape choice? Even if they are reasonably drought tolerant when established, most trees require a fair amount of water to get to the point of being. established. I gather the city intends to increase its landscape maintenance budget while it goes about reducing tax revenue from established bu`sinesses.-What are-themtrees_llke? Do they drop sap, grow larger than the space they are allocated? Drop fruit or other detritus that is unpleasant or a tripping hazard? -Have roots prone to buckling the street and'sidewalks down the road? I want to know the particulars BEFORE they go in. 8. The other thing i noticed was simple the paragraph that looked like a whole Pandora's box all in itself: Design Criteria and Development'Standards. Are we trying to create an Irvine clone here? I thought the people of Tustin chose NOTto live in Irvine, avoiding its_ countless rules, restrictions and one-way streets. Why would you want to change what we love into what we avoided? The only thing about Irvine that I would like to replicate in Tustin is the classes Irvine offers for adults. Now that would be a useful investment for all the money that seems to be available for this half -thought through daydream. 9. The kind of stores that get established in a.,pedestrian environment are not the stores that one goes to for everyday needs. They are boutiques; that frequently are here today and gone tomorrow. (Not a stable tax base.) I grew up in Laguna Beach and they -did all -the street -narrowing things you are planning and now have tourist stores in place of places to buy your medical or household needs. Residents buy things in neighboring towns, tourists buy in the new stores that come and go, they don't care. I don't think we have a lot of tourists in Tustin. .10. Please step back and let the community really have a say about how you transform the place in which we invested our hard-earned money. We chose to establish our homes here, this is our environment, our beloved city. Please take the time necessary to really think through all the ramifications and consequences before approving this project. Get a true consensus.from the whole community, not just a small sampling, before implementing a pian so large and life changing. Don't make a plan that looks "pretty" but is actually dysfunctional —you don't want that as your legacy. 11. Don't attempt legislate cultural change without getting a buy -in from the stakeholders in the community: the home and business owners that have invested their money in this community.