Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS FOR ITEM #5 ITEM #5 Social Media Comments Received As of August 14, 2018, 5:30pm John Nielsen . 1hr Ok folks lots of mis-information going on about the proposed project on Red Hill across from Big Lots. First, It is NOT 500 units, it is less than half that amount. Second, it is mostly studios and one bedroom units creating less vehicles.There will be an onsite hidden parking structure, to park all vehicles. No entry& exit off of San Juan. Top of Form M Mary Lynn Coffee John is correct. Elevations and landscaping plans are also very attractive, and amenities are significant . Lori Brown Badilla Do you have any information on the Big Lots shopping area. Will they be upgrading that are to keep up with the new Del Taco. U a Mary Lynn Coffee I do not know immediate plans for upgrades. I do believe the quality of the proposed project willl lead to an upgrade if one does not occur prior to the construciton of the propoed project. W —.I ChristyLee Lee May I post this on Nextdoor, please? Mary Lynn Coffee Please do. Thank you F Brett Olivier I'm starting to worry a little bit about Tustin and density level of the new development going up in town. y� Mary Rizzaro 250 units X at least 1- 2-3-4-5 persons in a unit... Density. fl Mary Lynn Coffee 200 EV Mary Lynn Coffee primarily 1-beddroom Sandi BeeSandi and 115 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome into your community! But still, 2 to a bedroom will double the amount of cars. r Diane De Vaul Sandi Bee Or even more when they sneak in the additional family members or illegally sublet. Except that doesn't happen in Tustin. . 'GlOti1�Q.c• Ak Harriet Fain Diane De Vaul why would you assume anyone would sneak in "additional" family members? Is there an occupancy limit? Mt Oliver S. Madison So at least 250-500 cars. Chris McCrary And their friends.... , Kristine Singson Mark Doddridge just in time, we're moving lol Steve Giddings ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-0001 AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT AREA APPLICANT: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way,Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 36 acres along a portion of Red Hill Avenue generally bounded by Bryan Avenue to the north and Walnut Avenue to the south bisected by Interstate 5 (1-5), extending one (1) parcel east and west of the Red Hill Avenue right-of-way. REQUEST: To establish new development standards and regulations for a portion of Red Hill Avenue through the approval of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13)that would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage and introduce new integrated mixed-use land uses within the project area. Zone Change (ZC 2017-001) would amend the City of Tustin zoning map and change the existing zoning designation from Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) to SP-13.General Plan Amendment. (GPA) 2017-01 would amend the City of Tustin General Plan land use map and include minor text amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed specific plan. Christyl-ee Lee I wish we had more things for kids to do. We do not have a bowling alley anymore, it is just sad. A skating rink would do well. I would drive van loads of kids to the one in Orange. It was worth the trouble because the kids had such fun. iL Brett Olivier If your looking at plans for a new development in Tustin maybe less is more! Tricia Fallo-Van Haeren Bummer. I wanted that lot to be a shopping center. I thought it would make that area more appealing. Manage Miles T. Madison Studio housing and one bedrooms do not equate to less parking. I know this all too well. �r Jill CrussemeyerJill and 115 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks.Give them a warm welcome into your community! With the new density off Tustin Ranch Road at the old marine base and additional new developments in the old town area, the increase in Tustin residents is not trivial (nor the traffic). I also wonder about water since we've had watering restrictions in Tustin for a few years. California politicians need to figure out a new revenue stream besides property taxes. f: _ Cher NB Time to move to Portland!!!! Jill CrussemeyerJill and 115 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks.Give them a warm welcome into your community! Boise is the new Portland Cher NB Jill Crussemeyer Have family in Portland...... or Boise might be an option! Chris McCrary That's where all the rest of the liberal Californians are moving to... Only to muck it up just like here.. ' %111 Cher NB Texas is too far,,,,, or I would go there. Gotta go where family is.... ITEM #5 ITEMS RECEIVED AT THE MEETING DURING PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, August 14, 2018 Mayor Al Murray Honorable Members of the City Council Chairman Ryder Smith Honorable Members of the Planning Commission Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan I personally commend you for attempting to encourage the development and enhancement of the Red Hill Avenue corridor. I'm sure we all agree that Red Hill Avenue from Edinger Avenue to north of First Street has fallen into complete disrepair and is an embarrassment to the City and her residents. How the City let it decay to such a state is not is not the purpose of this letter. It is how are we, the residents, businesses, landowners, and the City are going to remedy the situation. As a 30 year resident of Tustin, a graduate of Cal Poly with a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban and Region Planning, and a 28 year career in land development as a civil engineering designer, I have to once again voice my concern over the proposed development within this specific plan. First let me say that I am not opposed to mixed land use. What I am opposed to is the high density of development proposed within it. If all the land within the study area was devoted to residential development, it would result in a land use density of 13.97 units per acre. That seems reasonable, but when the plan allows for concentrating 500 dwelling units plus 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses on to 36 acres of land,you are looking a very intensive land use. Keep in mind the plan allow for 395 dwelling units plus other mixed uses on the land north of 1-5. And it would allows the transfer of some if not all of the remaining 105 dwelling units allocated for the land south of 1-5 to be transferred to the to the land on the north side.This is a tremendous increase in density. According to the EIR that would result in an increase of 1,520 additional residents Section 4.1 page 9 "The Specific Plan would not change allowable building heights in the Specific Plan area such that it would degrade the quality or character of the area. "The current zoning and General Plan Land Use designation for high density limits building to 35 feet.The specific plan proposes building heights of 40 feet to a maximum of 50 feet. The building heights of 4 to 5 stories does not reflect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Visualize 4 and 5 story buildings along Red Hill as you travel either north or south from the 1-5 freeway. Then at San Juan Street to the north and Mitchell Avenue to the south there would a visual jolt as you go from 4 and 5 story buildings to 1 and 2 story buildings.That is a change in the character of the area. In fact the General Plan Goal 1, Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density quality of Tustin's existing single- family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi-family development to meet regional housing needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development, accessibility, transportation and public facilities." When residents purchased their homes,they envisioned that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. Now with the proposed specific plan, those neighborhoods will be impacted with 40 to 50 foot tall buildings. How would you feel if you, your family, you children, or grandchildren's home would be impacted by this plan? Parking The requirement for 2.25 spaces for each residential unit is not adequate.The plan anticipates 1,520 new residents with 500 dwelling units. That results in 3 people per unit. The plan does not suggest how many bedrooms would be in each unit or who would be living in these units. It could be multiple adults sharing an 2 or 3 bedroom unit with each person having their own vehicle. The parking from the multi-family housing along Red Hill Avenue is currently spilling in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Thus detracting from those neighborhoods, and reducing the amount of parking for the residents. Also vehicles are left parked there for days.The residents adjacent to Pine Tree Park are already impacted by the heavy use of the park on the weekends. In addition, the employees and guests of The Groves, an assisted living and memory care facility on Bryan, park their vehicles in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Shared parking does not solve the problem of inadequate parking standards. Will one parking stall for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential development really be adequate?The 325,000 square feet of proposed non-residential development will only require 325 parking stalls. Could this be another parking disaster like The District? Air Quality Section 4.2 page it "Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the Specific Plan would exceed population forecasts, on which the AQMP is based. Further, implementation of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from future development (i.e., new development in the Specific Plan area) would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds (refer to discussion under Threshold 4.2-2). Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable." With this in mind, please consider the students that will be walking to the various schools adjacent to Red Hill Avenue. Increasing the pollution these students will be exposed to is not something we should subject them to. Have airborne pollutants been tested for at the congested intersections—ie Red Hill and the 1-5, Red Hill and EI Camino affecting students walking to school? With regards to the cumulative impacts The Specific Plan Project would result in operational air quality impacts because emissions would exceed the SCAQMD-adopted operational threshold for NOx (nitric oxide). Mitigation Measures MM4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2 are really just suggestive efforts to change public behavior but cannot guarantee the desired results of lower pollutant emissions. Mass transit and car pooling have not been successful in the past and it is not a problem the City is capable of solving. It's a regional problem based upon the OCTA not having schedules that reflect users needs and residents unwilling to give up their personal vehicles. Please read Section 4.2.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation— Section 4.2 page 20"Specific Plan-Related Operational Emissions. Despite implementation of MMs 4.2-1 through 4.2-3,the Specific Plan's mitigated operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX resulting in a significant unavoidable impact." "Additionally, operational activities would create a significant and unavoidable impact due to exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. Implementation of MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-4 would reduce impacts; however, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain." Section 4.2 page 21 "The Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable." Green House Gases(GHG) Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) strategies, implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections forthe area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. Section 4.5 page 16 The mitigation is based upon events that do not exist today. Future legislative actions? Future local mass transit? Have you tried to get from point A to point B with OCTA? 4.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation "Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG Reduction Programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact." Water Quality Section 4.7 page 13 Ground Water—The EIR states that the increased need of 106,262 gallons of water per day for the proposed specific plan versus the current general plan is not significant. However they don't seem to account for future extended drought conditions. Tustin currently purchases 24%of its water,what will happen as the demand for water increases in Southern California due to development? Who will bear the cost? Conservation can do only so much. Land Use and Planning Section 4.8 page 5 Even though the City feels there would be no adverse impact, it will have a significant impact on the adjacent existing surround single family residences due to increased residential density within the specific plan area. Please understand I am not anti-development and I am not against change. Change is inevitable. I am very concerned about my community. Preserving the hometown atmosphere, the sense of place. I am concerned about what life will be for future generations. Please postpone approval of Resolution No. 4367, 4368, and 4369 until you have fully read and digested the EIR and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Think about the long term consequences of approving the plan and its impact on the residents, students, and schools that will be affected by this development plan. There are some really good ideas and concepts contained within it, but some concepts don't really mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods. I personally ask each one of you to consider how you would feel if you lived near this project area. Would you want this type of development?What would you change to make it better? I understand that there are developers that are twisting your arm to make these changes.They do not have a real stake in our community. They will build it, sell it off, and move on to the next property. What you decide will be here for decades, maybe longer. What do you want your legacy to be? Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have say. If you would like to meet with me personally, please call me at 714.544.7176 Sincerely, Charlie Laumann i • 1 r w ��� a ��tn'� � �� '"� �� I �4 a� �� � ,r ter;. � ■ m WiF Go lb .. e - . 1 .... _ R, jb c Y vUlw 1 ,e 1 ff - ° A � w • L^fit1 a k a L A ' ' •1 a 31 r i I'D. ■ IJ .' r d 1 a ,� M