HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-24-18 COMMENT LETTERS W/ CITY RESPONSES HANDOUTS COMMENT LETTERS WITH CITY
RESPONSES
DAIS HANDOUT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 2018
Comment Letter PCI received from Kim,co, Realty, dated, Aprill 24,1 2018 (3, pages)
RECEIVED
owt.4w 4**n �O,ftj A*4irol
AP R 2 4
KIMCO' I
ERYDAn I V 11 1 NG
22429,Park,Avenue II TlustJn.CA 927822705 ()EVELC"PMENT DEPT
April 2,3,,2,018,
Elizabeth Bin
Cornmunity cievelopment Director
City of Tusti n
300,Centennial Way
Tustin
I ,CA 9,2780
Re: Cornmems ts to Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan
Dear Elizabeth,,
Kirrico Realty,Corp.and Pruidential Global investment Management own and operate the Larwin Square
Shy pi Center located at NelwporAve,and First Street in Downtown Tustin,,CA.Kirnco Realty, Corp.
received notice that the draft of the Downtown,Commercial Core Specific Plan was to'be,,reviewed by
the Public at the PlariningCompis sion meeting on April 10,2018.,and was subseq,uently postponed to
April 24,,2018.'We've reviewed the Specific Plan document,andwanted-to send You KImco Realty,
Colrp*s comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
First of all,we'd like,to Prailse the City's efforts to create'the Specific Plan,and we,support the,goal of'
revitial'tz,in,g,'T'ustin,",,s Downtown Commercial Core area with mixed-,use redevelopments Induclingretaill,
commercial,and multi- it residential.,As weave previoulsly discussed,,in the near,'future Kimco Realty
Corp.would like to redevelop portions,of'Lar"win Square along,First Street with retail end multi-flamily
residential rel xedl-use.IHowever,we have sorne concerns about the draft Specific Plan which we've
outlined be1o1w,,
1. We don't believe that,200 multi-family residential umei ts,allocated for Development Area 3(DA-3)o
which incluides,Larw1n Square and other properties north of First Street,is sufficient.Our internal
mixed-u,se,design studies,and financial pro forrnas have dieter ,inn d that a mi'xeduse,
redevelop mentof ourproperty along First Street would require 200. 5 ent,units,to be 2
financial[ feasible.If we were to devel'op,that manly,residential units,at,Larwin Sq ua re,'there
wouldn't be any remaining uniltsto allocate to the other properties in DA-3 north of First Street.
Therefore,we respectfully request thatthe l number,jof residential units allocated to DA-,3 be,
increased.
2. 'The proposed 4—stolry budding height firnit in the Speclific Plan limits density to Vlevels of residential
i
above ground,lfloor retaill/com l merciall space.Our design studies shlow that this would only
atcornmodate approximately 150 apartment units at Larl Se along First Street,whith is not
economically feasible.We request that the City consider a 6-story building height limit"which would
allow 5,levels olf res,identiall'above ground floor retail,/commerciall.This buildinglei ght would
accommodate 250 units at L,arwin Square,,which Is economically feasible.The increased buildirig
a
R
height would',also crake the mixt d-use redeveloprnerit.of other propgrtles in,the-Downtown-Core
rrrore,ecandMicallyfaasible. i
3. The resideritial.parking requirement-of -spaces-per unit for resident -plus 1 .space.per unit-for
visitors is:too'much based.upon-current parking studies.The cost.of constructing parking structures
has-becomeie&emely expensive,and requiring too much parrl ingfor residential uses will fi.nancit
aliyr
prohibit the very mixed-use deveidpment that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan is
trying to create.Recent'studies-show thr t.with-the Increased.use�of ride-sha-ring,Liber,and�Lyft,the
current parking-dernand for rnultHarnily residential.has decreased to an average of 1„5 spaces per
apartment unit.We.strongly recommend'adopting the current-residOntiat parking standard.of 1.5 �
'spaces per,unit,-which will help to rrrake rriiiced-usa develo pnient-in the-Downtown Commbecial Core }
economically viable..
4. The Specific.Plan,proposes to reduce the number of traffic.lanes.'on,First Street from lane �to 2,
with .traffic lanes being replaced.py'bic-cle lanes and ahgled, treiet parking.This signiflcantlyr
reduce cu torner'traffic from F1rst Street to Lary in' Square. i
a. � e're-also concerned that the,reduced number of traffic,lanes ori First Street will increase
the number of vehicles cutting.through Our shopping c nter.to:get from entennial'Way to
dwport-Aire nue.
b. we also l ave,questions about,how the r-eco First Street Will be ccoMpli h d.It
would'be best if the City were to-rieconsiruct First Sireet.at one.bme to provide-t ie-dn-
-stre t parking,.bicycle lane,:bus sups enclosufes,sidew' a'l k impro'Vemebts,and street
furnishings Within-tyre public'Rig ht-Of-way;to create the pedestrian friendly environment
described in-the Specific Plan.Other ise,.if theCity:intends-to require the property owners
:to re*steu t ections of First-Street,and the pede tr'ran sidewalk improvements along
their'propertyfrontage,when'the individual property'owners seek approval f dp rate
mlxed�use-redev lopment permits;were concerned that First Street will be its various
stages of=reconfiguration acrd construction far the riext:10-years or more.
a
S. Our Larwin Square Shopping Center:is,bounde&on sides by'Newport avenue,First treet,;and
Centennial Wg1 .,lf we were r-er'uired to fund-.irnprovemehts-onA1 J streets s pert Of ,proposed
_
mixed-use development along Firsttrget,it would disprapottionately burdenthe projectf end crake
it fi nancially-urwfeasible.-We would'request.that any redeveIopment'be requ1red.to help fund '
improv mens to,only,the str et-fro-ntage which the mined-use redevaloprixent building faces.
. The Public Improvements Funding Matrix In.Section hof-the pecific'Plan proposes that 9 a".of the
primary fundiri sources,and 63%of the secondary funding sources for:all.of the nu-merous public 7
improvements,,infrastructure improvements,and private pr pgrty improvements des ribed ire detail I
for,the Downtown L ommercial Core will,be-from developers,property owners,and business
owners.
a. Develophn nt Agreements with the;City will-require developers-and property owners: o'fund
100%.pif-t h e-p u b I ic and_private irrr'provernents along�their street.frontage in exchange for the
City's discEetionaeyapp rovat of-the de eioprrient projects,
b. Assessments for public improvements through Business Improvement Districts,Community 7 cont.
FaciIities'Di tricts,Landscape and LighVhg,Districts;Maintenance Assess mentDistricts;Parking
Infrastructure-Districts;acrd Enhancetl Infrastructure,Financing;Districts.will ail be'funded 100%
b ro ert owners and business:owners.
]�p P tN
I
i
c. old the primary funding from the City is projected to,come from el went Impact
Fees which the C4 collects from devel lopers as a re.quirement of approval for proposed
development,permits.
d., We respectfully recommend that the City,consider other primary and secon,dary sources to fund
the numerous Improvements described In the Splecific Plain,Otherwise,requiring the vast
majorimproverntints to,be fundedby developers,property owners,,and la ss owner's 7 cont
will prohibit thetype of mixed-use development,in the Downtown Commercial Coire area that
theSpeciffic Plan is trying to create,decrthe sales revenuie of businessawn ers In'the
Downtown Core;and decrease the sal tax revenue toCi ty generated by those business,
owners.
Againi,,,we support the creation of the Specific Plan and Its goal to revitalize the Downtown Commercial
Core,,,We apprel ateyour consideration ofourcomments and concerns and hope thely can be
aiddressiedinn the final Specific Plan.I would be happy to,meed with y1ou at your,conveniente iscuss
any of these comments.
Best,Regards,,
,Mark Wevindel
Director of Development Western Region
K,
' tNGEVERYD AI I
lit:A It,'Ir If
Office"(949)252-3870 J, Cell:(9449)343-1815
Fax',"(516)3,36-5549 '1 Cisco"5,23870
2,429 Park Avenue, I Tustin,CA 9,2782-2705
CC: Jeff Parker,Tustin City Manager
4
Fy
'k
'k,/N/
3,
Response to Comment Letter PC2 received from Kimco [fealty, dated April 24, 201 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, comm ercia1, and multi-family residential.
The commenter represents Kimco Realty Corp. and would life to redevelop portions of Larwin Square
along First Street, Newport port 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 : The commenter states that 200 residential units allocated to DA-3 aro 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 : This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP E[ .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 Lamin Center is a superior project.
Comment : This comment requests that the City consider increasing the height limit in DA-3 from -story to
-story.The increased -story building height limit would allow 5 levels of residents sI above ground floor
retail/commercial,allowing 250 units to be accommodated at Larwin Square instead of the maximum 150
units accommodated by a -story height restriction.
Response : 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 decisionmalers for their consideration.
Comment nt : The commenter states that the residential parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit for
residents iglus 1 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 paring is not in Keeping With the community's experience with existing and new residential
parking requirem nts; however,this comment will be forwarded to the-d ecisionma kers for their
consideration.
Comment :The commenter is concerned that the reduced number of traffic [an s on First Street will
increase the number of vehicles cutting through the shopping center to get from Centennial Way to
Newport Avenue.The cornmenter 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 gears or more.
Response :The specific configuration of future changes to First Street will be informed by a corridor
specific traff is 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 CE A, at such time that they are proposed.Construction implementation and phasing is determined at
implementation, based upon availability of City resources and funding.
5
1
1
I
Comment :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 a 113 streets a s part of a future mined-use development along Fiat
Street, it would disproportionately burden their project, and rale 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 improvement
would be determined as part of the project entitlement review and considered in the content of the
existing condition,General Plan and DCCSP requirements.This-comment will be forwarded to the
decisionmal ers for their consideration.
Comment : The commenter summarizes several public and private improvements outlines!: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 male mixed use development cost
prohibitive and decrease sales tan revenue.
Response ;This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.This comment will.be forwarded to
the deci ionmal ers for their consideration.
Comment So. The commenter states that they support the creation of the DCCSP and its goal to revitalize
the DCC.
Response :The City appreciates this comment.This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for
their consideration.
6
Comment Leffer PC 1, received from certain propebusiness owners in DUCSF area, dated April
23, 20,18 (5, pages)
RECEIVED
Property and Business Owners,of
AR
P 2 3 2018
CE
'IE R 2
Tustin Downtown CommeO
rcial Core 3
E'
'S
C C c R
T , ;I
j V FIC
RK "FFICE,
1,TYCLER
U
April 231,201 B
Planning Commission
Cftyof''Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tuistin
CA 92780
Re: Downtown Commercial Core,Specc Plan
pgl Dear Commissioners Smith,Kozak,Thompson,Lumbard, and Mason-.
The undersigned each cur renfly owns propefty and/or businesses in the Downtown and!Old
ii
Town areas offustin covered by the on D,CC,SP(the"Plan"). Collectively we have
hundreds of' years, of' experience doing business, In 'Tustin. We are honored to serve I
IBM customers, who reside in Tust-11in and the surrounding communities. Our customers, friends,,
and neighbors In Tustin allow, us, earn,our fivings here.
ME �we
Alkhjia.lime. wk believie the
entl
P
Ilan'is insufficiently develloped in a;number, key,areas,., As it curry stands,the Pliar al rm s
ther the Commission nor the wilder community it serves, with, enough data, to make, an
nei
informed decision. 'We cannot understate how profoundly we believe this plian will affect
Downtown Tustinand' how we,do b,usiness, hiere. It,is essential that all of,us have the correct
informotion and,enough of i(tto,assess the Plan s ments.
I currently'find the Plandefident in addressing thefollowing key issues:
t
d MainStreet and conve ing Second Str t and
T'he,Plan calts�Cdr narrowing First Street an rt ee
Third Street iInto me-way streets. These changes, could have an Impacton public safety by
0 r
Increasing response timmes t unacceptablo levels Ior by, making the streets difficuit, fo
fice
I ol navigate. T'he Plan should contain inIptit from the Tustin Pol
emergency vehicles t
m
li
p,
Department and 'the Orange County Fire Authority on potential Impacts to our community"s,
All
public af6ty.
N,
1J�
1
1
APM 23 2,018
Page 2
The parking plan and parkIng study'usled in the Draft DCC,SP Is flawed,, (Appendix pages
11-9,2101-1011.) it clamsha °ei s "ample parkingin Old,Town,'In Imes trained
Ingsit
�, gusto � s,, vendors, nc
I
The Plan Iderttifies 1,741 off-street parking spaces and 404 on—streletspaces., However,
xim 'ly 80%of thteoff-street,parking'I's located!on pnivate property fiortmile
roiate
app
exclusive
IN
of the private property ownersn n tenants,, and em,ployees. The Plan's
0
attemptc s to spaces towards,public use istenuous.
j
r
The CGS envisions, Downtown where the businessesbecome more reliant
pedestrian and big l �1 � I swth from the,
i
anticipatedresidents of the, lin unitsI be Il . gro
ver, a cu ; rs,l
i
i
eniployees, and u� c basin, l h ., The new
Ifs w
8,87 dwellingsWill, make tipfor businesslost,because this, Plan 'i
011/04
more u y r customers to park and accessour Downtown busine
0
� � � �
The Plan emphasizes Inthe n ' '
nob
le a u r n i theory, I , * neglects, i of � � �
vendors��I �ny use vehicles.s. stir s not rel . "his Plan �isnot 14sstly i9norant
n of in a,$ 14,
ut
of the 'fact,that ourcustomn ets,drive,to get herefrom other non
,f
r% el,"I as,cornmunities oultsidesi Furthermore, u lIi anid their delivery vehicles
% ust con'tinue to easily accessour aero sw Wecannot serveour custornerswithoutour
f
i%
vendors and their
The i ,void of any analysiis regarding it's potent fiscal irctn, t with regards
r plans proposed ini
s,,as,well as you,,the City,,and your Ia
other ' s" ,Southern
t'
nistakeholders and cls lsi We not believe it is prudent for the
it
i
City ark. with its, Plan honest hinsssion aboutt how muth
I`/
i
Flanning Commission,City Of Tustin
Apri 1 3,201
Page
:the Plani,will tpst t6 impl rnerit,,who.bean the burden of°thel a costs,and what the,quantifiable
economic benefits to the.commuriity may be.
The section-in Appendix endix titled"Economic- ►nal is"hard[- addresses-fiiscal ir-pact, cont.
- ppendix pages IkI l 1 to I1-123:) it Fcontalned demographics and housing data.frorn the
+ ensus- Bureau-that w-as simply"curt:add'.pasted"into a presentation,but zero-analysis.
Review of.Past;Pro' cts t Case Studies
The City should present surrnr arie of_past Projects the'..have 'undertaken including an
d.hon st assessment aboutrhzit,aspects£6f those.projects succeeded and what aspects failed.
k
An honest assessment will include feedback .from .41 -staff holders including r sidenK
ust6mers, rri rcfiants and pity official arlike, We suggest Idoking.into th6 diagonal.p .r in
added to El; mina Teal many ve rs;agb, the.development f Prospect Villag , end the
development of The District Shopping,center.
Purthermore,-it would be valuable.to she-what other com'munitxes in Orange County and
Southem .California have undertaken Specift Plans for downtown areas. A presentation of
tho plans`siqcdesses and ftillureS—wpuld aid in assessing the-mf Brit ,of this-Proposed Plan.
Comment.Period andmmu-n F doacf
The Community Q veloprnent,d partmeant.heldzeveral wort shop -during.the preparation of
this Plan. However, we .draw a distinction between the development of the Plan and its
S
release i'n its current form. allowing only,ten days-for the st6kehold rs of this community as
weal a the Pl n-ningCom- i r cion to di est oder'i, oo pages f.m t rial is simply''ln uffiei0.
Furth rrnbre, the'Community Development DepaEtrneht should ranch out to all-busin
7
:and propertyowners in the affected areas throu h surge y or ballot` to. collect theif input,
perhaps with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce. The tern-day comment-period
o upl d.Wth.the tiny signs the City posted announcing the Planning-,Commission meeting does
not seem lIk&-'a genuine effort to solicit inputfrom affected stake-
Existino Businesses
The Plan is-Very geared towardsttratcdn n w business, While "a rising tide raises all
boat ,"new business..does not have:to conte at the expense of:existing businesses. We hope
5
E
}k
- J
w
Planning. pmn n jon,-C ifi .Of Tustin
APH[ 3.Lot
Page 4
k
f _ �
the City-will engage with u -to help cis move-our-businesses,fom rd. Non of,us hev enjoyed F
our omme'rcl l successes because df lack of ideas or grit. It-the City cooperatedith existin
businesses more closely, incremerxtal:iffiorovements ito C owntown could happen`more easily,
even outside this-Plan.
The sucdess ar failur ,rof tins Purr hin es ori the buy-in fr�rrr all takeh tiler of the Tustin
rarRrnunitj. ommunity is NOT just.Z'Oninj maps.and building codes ---- it, is people. No
amount of s&edt'irriproverrfents or setback adjustments can,Make.a commuhilty: If staff at the
City.of Tustih-is.s nous.about thi§Plan, it mut do a'-b tter j b'to sell-the Plan to_MeMbers..'O
this communityJ ncluding#the.Planningomml is ion and City Council.
Axl of u ne d more info rrfi atidfi.1n order to rriak '6h informed-decision on the merits of this
Plan. We look forward to constructure dialogue With the_ City to address the.issues and
qu stiors wa:pre cited .here. ,In-order-for any Plan proposal ;to reflect the best possible
alternatives, and in turn lead to the.bestpossible'outcomes, .we- are better served working
td ether-a .mutually interested parties.. Ilse are -n01 Yet et that point:. - o 'sue, urge the coni.
orn iiarr tb,Wlthhbld their-Votes o1' this Pion at this time.
Sincerely,
Paul Berkman- Allen Bisbee
Owner President i eheral i lahager
Ru abegor _ addleb ck Chapel
158, e t W'in Street 220 fast Main' Street
} Tustin,' A 90 Tristirr,CA 92186
R A
Rick and Tammie Bullard Kimb riy- onroy
Own rs. Owner
Invitation Deign Studio T AniericaknGrub The Swinging Door,saloon
66 East First' traet;Suite A 355 365 EI Camino Real
Tustin,-OA 92.780 TUstlin,'CA 92780
Phil and'�ioda� ox Joseph L �rnan-Prescott
Owner's. Owner,
ox's Mark&Plaza _ Maureen Leaman
43 E1 Gam' ino-Feat: .446 El-Camino Teal
_ Tustin,to 92180 Tustin,C,A92780
continued,ori h.dxt page)
s
4
Planning Com-mis.sions City Of Tus-tin'
,A011H 23,S201 8
Page 5
Kick and-Ted,Mandel 'Mark and.bw' en-Masters_
.Owners- 'Ovmeri
Wellpn.'iht,,Me.. scooters Ma ilbox Cards and Gifts.
.380 East Fir ei_d
-r�t'Strf 360,,Ea'st'First,S.trieet
Tustin,CA'92780
Tustin,PA92780,
Eugene-D.D.Midco Tiffany Rille"r
Pr'e'S1d6nt-[CE0, Owner
Tqs6rf!.CoM`M`u'nity BaInk Mrs.Bs donqigp!nehts,Pc.
13.891 NqWP'brtoNVd,,Suite 100 115,Wett-Main'Street
-Tuifin,CA.'.92.780, Tustin-..CA,92780
Tho 's Pati
■
P
Response to PC 1 Comment Fetter received from certain property and business owners in DCCSP area,
dated April 23, 201
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 (DSP) 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 : The commenters state concerns abort public safety related to the narrowing of Fiat Street
and Main Street and converting Second Street and Third Street into one-way streets.
Response : Public safety related to circulation was addressed in the DP EIR on page 5.9-15 under
Impact TR-3 and no impacts related to public safety were identified. f=urther,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 R -
in the comment letter received from. Collette Morse, dated ApH1 16, 2 of (Letter R ) for further discussion
on the-analysis of the identified improvements. No further analysis is required.
Comment :The commenters state they are concerned with parking supply in the DCC, particularly if
residential development occurs in the DCC. The commenters also reference the Existing Conditions Depart
and question the report's statements regarding existing parking supply being sufficient for the Old Town.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.The referenced statements in the
Existing Conditions Report is a summary of a prior parking study prepared on behalf of the City. Since
then, a new parking study for the DCC area was prepared on the City's behalf in 2017. The requirements
in the-DCCS P 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 ent : The commenters assert that the DCCSP ignores the potential for customers to drive to get to
the-DCC f rorn other areas of Tustin acid f corn outside of Tustin.The cam menters also state that suppliers and
their:delivery vehicles must continue to easily access DCC businesses.
Response 4:Traffic and circuIation impacts were f u I I y analyzed in Section 5.9 of the Draft El 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 Iand uses have been
estimated using the Orange,County Transportation Analysis Model ( TAM),which considers the regional
effects of traffic.The analysis determined than there would be no significant impacts related to traffic
within the DCCSP,except for the intersection of Newport Avenue at the l- northbound on-ramp.
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection would mitigate the imp act; 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 mpact at this intersection is considered significant and unavoidable,Caltrans is planning on
installing the signal; therefore, customers anal delivery vehicles are not expected to experience significant
delays as a result of the D' SP. 10 further analysis is required.
6
t;
4
I
I
Comment : The commenter states that no analysis regarding the Specific Plan's potential fiscal impgct is
provided and references the Downtown Tustin Commercial Core Protect Economic Anal-ysis Memorandum,
prepared as part of the existing conditions report effort for the DSP. I
Response :This is not a°comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP E1R. Further,the Tustin City Code (TCC)
and California Government.Code Sections 65450- 457 do not require the preparation of a fiscal
impa c,t analysis as part of the preparation or consideration of a Specif is'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 th.e potential fiscal impacts of implementing the DCCSP,the DCCSP FIR analyzed the D SP'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 i
required to pay connection fees for utilities,which will be used by the utility companies to pay f or 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 sham basis. No further analysis is required.
Comment :The commenters: request the City present summaries of past projects the City has undertaken,
which would include feedback from all stakeholders.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP EIR.The City considered many other
plans and projects in downtown areas and received community feedback over three workshops about the
vision for the DCC. Based on this review anti information the City developed the DSP. f=urther
suggestions, if any, can be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council during the public
hearings. No further analysis is required.
Comment : The cornet nters claim that allowing only ten guys for the community sta'keholders and the
Planning Commission to digest over 1,60 0 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 oe
ballot to collect their input":and reale a genuine effort to solicit input from affected stakehold ers.
Response :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 DSP.
Comment :The commenters Mate 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 Grote.
Response :This is not a comment on the adequacy of the DCCSP FIR. See response 5, above regarding
the D SP'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.Addition-ally,
4
e �
staff from bath department will b e ava11able to assist with any questions o concerns a s the DCCSP i
implemented,should the pian be approved.
8
Comment Letter PO receNe,d fr�*m Chuck Lewis, dated April 214, 2018 (1 pagi,e)
From,*.Chuck,,Lewis[rnaiko-,ch,uc,,,klewislOOOgn-all.co,m]
Sept Tue9d,,ayp, 241 2018 2040 PM
To:Y ILucy
Subject:BuNdin,gi Owner,-Support of the Downtown Gammerdal Gore SpecM,c Plan(KCSIP),
i
Dear Plarmml g,Conitni".ss ton,,
1,am not abjlc to,in the mettting,t,,o,,ni'gbt regardmigtheproposed,IX"CSP,'but wanted to ntake sure you know I
fully support your proposed,plan.
PL%the own,er of 661 'W. Ist Street".your plan,(�pc6lfiically 2.3.1.2t as noted below)wilt d1rectly and,
act m bu"din h ts"abili ,�to)meet(fent needs. Parking*s,areal cliallenge
V22-AillwW Y 11, g,and en,ance my tenan ity I I
f 0 it �et , i g of there ovm
r us., 11ere Is a,tratistator business operating on Yo�rba wi`h maxly nployeesand little parkin,
thus the etn'Ployees there arrive early xi,d park on all the open spaces on Myrtle., With,i. chof the limited on-
street,parking waked upby them, it a&kto our chaflen,go.
Your plan would open-up,muchneeded addltlonal arking and,,crea,te en,'b,a,n,,c,,,,e,,me.,n,,ts/'cu,rb uppeal tothle
,P
e ,.
You,have my support. I love the plan 1.
With appreciation,
Chuck-
Chuck,Lewis
Trustee of the Charles and KathIea0 Trust
E. First,Sere et.,#198,
Tustin, CIA 192780
7114-3118-3137' cell
ch:u,cki�ewis,,l9!29gmalll,.comi
23.1.2 FintStreet The concept usi,Flxst Street improvements are,consistent wilth the prelhin,ary
adoption of'the MPAH reclassification am endments and promote est flan ftiendly vor
reilucing the number of tmffic lanes and lane wrMtkus,thus ex panding opPortunifles for other,modes,of
t1mvel,and trartsfonning,the c hamcter of the,street.T-hecoitceptoal,,In-tp,,rovemen�t,,s,repm. e nted
coniceptuafly in,Figure 2.10freduce the of tra,'vel lanes from two twon,ein eaich direlction and
narrow the lane 1e , T hb, als for a 5-foot on,,-,,st,, e lane,(Class 2),,a 17-foot
dia.gonal,parking,lane on,both,the noft . outh,sides of thie street,and`a 164bot4and-sca,ped me,,diain.,
PedeArian travel is abol favill'tated,by expanding, the exWlng sidewalk to,Sfeet on the north Ad,leand 10
&et on'the south side.
Chuck Lewi's
360 E,F"A Street.#198
Tustili,CA 19,2780,
714-318-3137 cell
chucklewl's 1000 gr'lla"11.00111,
�5
` I
I
Response nse to Comment letter PO received from Chuck Lewis, dated April 24, 201 -(1 page)
E
omment 1: The-commienter supports the D CCSP 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.
E
F
w
F