The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-ATTACHMENT FAttachment F Summary of Public Comments • Increased traffic • Parking already bad along Redhill • Reduced parking is a bad idea • All streets around will be like parking lot • Area already too crowded • Density too high • 4-5 stories too high • Impacts to those who live in the area • Only developers will benefit from this • Developers money will speak louder than residents • Developers should follow current zoning • Tustin will become Costa Mesa and Irvine • Redhill needs facelift • Development proposed is not compatible with surroundings • Stack of homes without affordable housing • Not a very thought out plans • Too big for the area City and developers will get revenues at the expense of current residents • Not a good idea • Pre -Tustin Legacy, Tustin has so much more character • Rising housing costs • 325,000 sqft of commercial and 1,000 plus people in 4-5 stories is a lot! • Tustin fireworks will no longer be provided • Overbuilding and turning Tustin into overpopulated traffic nightmare • Devastating to beautiful community • Overcrowding • Change of Tustin character • Overburden of sewer and power grid • Big Lots area definitely needs to be redone • Need to improve cell ad Wi-Fi • Mess up the City by adding more housing, less parking and more traffic • City needs to provide incentives and accessibility to entice developments • Tearing downs buildings and build housing is just wrong • So much development and no place to park • The only positive is that it would clean up the "hotel" • This will only displace long term residents • Council only listen to developers not residents • City is reacting not planning Demkowicz, Erica From: Sonia Carrera-Vanek < Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 9:54 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Concern on Traffic and parking! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I have an office in Prospect and City is nice and growing and I understand the success and revenue grow for Tustin (I Like all) but Parking and traffic is very hard in old Tustin because the large amount of cars cutting main streets is large and restaurant opening with not parking! In EI Camino Real is a problem. Please how is the city dealing with the impact in old town? Sonia Carrera-Vanek Westin Financial Corporation Tustin, Ca. 92780 PH: Demkowicz, Erica From: Susan Eilenberg < Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2018 11:18 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica; 'Adam Foster'; 'ajernegan'; 'Alice Houseworth'; 'america'; 'andrea'; 'apine'; 'Austin Lumbard'; 'bluemoon'; 'bluepacific'; 'Bob Jarrad'; 'Brad Losey'; 'Bruce Heathcote'; 'cabtguy'; 'christy'; 'chukbacca'; 'Claudia Quezada'; 'cristina'; 'cshucker'; 'clan'; 'Dan Gwaltney'; 'Dat Nyugen'; 'David Larson'; 'dmc26'; 'Don Sodaro'; 'donna'; 'Donna'; 'drkvarnstrom'; 'edelpizzo'; 'frank'; 'frankb'; 'gcsutd'; 'greg'; 'Howard Abel'; 'i post'; 'ithink'; 'James Armistead'; 'Jenx'; 'Jerry Amante '; 'Jessie'; 'Jim Burke'; johnm'; Johnson, Eric; Jojo'; 'Jomurillo'; 'Jon & Marty Peters'; Joseph'; 'Jruano'; 'Julia'; 'kit'; 'kymberly'; 'lara'; 'last'; 'laura'; 'mdelumba'; 'mercedes'; 'mhtaylor'; 'Michael Hubman'; 'Mick Meldrum'; 'Mike Abel'; 'Mike Cannan'; 'moore'; 'nhrousey'; 'norm'; 'norm'; 'norma'; 'onemead'; 'perez'; 'polly'; 'psapetto'; 'ruth'; Saldivar, Krys; 'smedina'; 'Steve Silverstein '; Swiontek, Ryan; 'tbone'; 'Tom O'Meara'; 'trist'; 'will'; 'wilson'; 'wright' Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thank you, Erica. I am interested in whether there will be a 5 story parking structure built facing Tustin High School's stadium. If there is, then I am wondering if there will be any safety measures to prevent any unguarded access to endanger spectators in the stadium. Ours is a rare High School built right near the freeway for easy escape access. Our sector has had shootings (e.g. years ago at Taco Bell where no one was hurt, but our at -that -time 13 year old son witnessed it) and an FBI search (including helicopter and TV reporters) for a walking man with a rifle, who they caught. Of course, I am hoping there will never be a need for such safety measures but I am sure the city wants measures in place. Parking levels with walls blocking the direction of the high school would be a suggested fix, along with trees blocking any open parts of the parking structure. Regards, Susan Eilenberg From: Demkowicz, Erica < Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 4:43 PM To: Adam Foster < ; ajernegan < ; Alice Houseworth < ; america < ; andrea < ; apine < ; Austin Lum bard < ; bluemoon < ; bluepacific < ; Bob Jarrad < ; Brad Losey < ; Bruce Heathcote < ; cabtguy < ; christy < ; chukbacca < ; Claudia Quezada < ; cristina < ; cshucker < ; dan < ; Dan Gwaltney < ; Dat Nyugen < ; David Larson < ; dmc26 < ; Don Sodaro < ; donna < ; Donna < ; drkvarnstrom < ; edelpizzo < ; frank < ; frankb < ; jojo < ; jomurillo < ; Jon & Marty Peters < ; joseph < ; jruano < ; julia < ; kit < ; kymberly < ; lara < ; last < ; mhtaylor < ; Michael Hubman < ; Mick Meldrum < ; Mike Abel < ; Mike Cannan < ; will < ; wilson < ; wright < Subject: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Attached is the public hearing notice for the upcoming City Council hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2018 regarding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. If you should have any questions, please contact Erica H. Demkowicz at (714) 573-3127 or or Scott Reekstin at (714) 573-3016 or Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 12:18 PM To: 'Donald Sodaro' Subject: RE: I can't download it Don, Yes, it may be an issue with your individual computer. We have just mailed hard copies of the public hearing notice to approximately 3,200 property owners and tenants within and surrounding the Specific Plan area. If you received a notice in the past through the mail, then you will receive a hard copy in a day or two. If you did not and would like to receive one, I am happy to mail one to you. We also have copies of the public hearing notices at the front Planning counter if you'd like to stop by and pick one up. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Donald Sodaro [mailto: Sent: Friday, October 5, 201811:42 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica < Subject: Re: I can't download it I click on it and a question comes up "download it?" and I say us and then nothing happens. Sorry it is probably me. Don Sodaro ----Original Message ----- From: Demkowicz, Erica < To: Donald Sodaro < Cc: Reekstin, Scott < Sent: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 11:14 am Subject: RE: I can't download it Hello Don, You should be able to simply click in the attachment to open the notice. I have attached it again for your use. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Donald Sodaro [ Sent: Friday, October 5, 201810:40 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica < Subject: I can't download it Is there some trick to downloading the notice? Don Sodaro Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 4:58 PM To: 'Bruce Heathcote' Cc: Tom O'Meara; Jerry Amante; Jenson, Kathy; Reekstin, Scott; Willkom, Justina; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan The errata will be an attachment to the City Council staff report and I can forward it to you with the report, once finalized. Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Bruce Heathcote[mailto: Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 3:41 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica < Cc: Tom O'Meara < ; Jerry Amante < ; Jenson, Kathy < ; Reekstin, Scott < ; Willkom, Justina < ; Binsack, Elizabeth < Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Erica, What happened to the attached errata that was supposedly part of the Commission's recommendation? Bruce Heathcote Senior Vice President Lee & Associates I Irvine LEE ,ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SFRViCES Heathcote Group License ID 904560 9838 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 1 No warranty or representation is made to the accuracy of the foregoing information. Terms of sale or lease and availability are subject to change or withdrawal without notice. From: Demkowicz, Erica < Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 3:21 PM To: Bruce Heathcote < Cc: Tom O'Meara < ; Jerry Amante < Jenson, Kathy < Reekstin, Scott < ; Willkom, Justina < ; Binsack, Elizabeth < Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Bruce, The version of the RHASP (dated July 2018) that the City Council will be considering is the same version that the Planning Commission considered on August 14, 2018 and September 25, 2018, except that several errata are proposed for the Council's consideration. No revised or edited version of the RHASP has been produced as the Planning Commission's recommended actions have not been confirmed by the City Council. If and when the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation and/or makes any other changes to the document, then the Specific Plan will be edited accordingly with the errata. The public hearing notice that you received contains the errata changes that the Planning Commission has recommended. The Staff's recommendation is the same as the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. The discussion regarding casualty and non -conforming structures did not result in the need for any errata to the Plan. The Tustin City Code would apply if a building was destroyed by an Act of God or if changes are desired to a legal, non -conforming building. Newly constructed buildings would need to meet the development standards in the RHASP, but there is no requirement that all buildings be constructed along the frontage of Red Hill Avenue. The Commission acknowledged the concerns expressed on this by referencing them in their recommendation for consideration by the City Council. As recommended by the Planning Commission, a parking management plan would be required in conjunction with all mixed use projects as part of the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) process. The requirement would not apply to shopping centers. Once the staff report is completed and finalized, by the end of next week, I will e-mail you a copy for your reference and use (and others on this e-mail, if desired). The report and agenda will also be posted on the City's website, which is standard practice, next week. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Bruce Heathcote [ Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 5:54 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica < ; Jenson, Kathy < Subject: RE: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Erica, What happened to the errata changes we negotiated... are they merely "suggestions to the council"? What are the specifics of the parking? Does it only apply to the residential component? Is there an update Draft of the Specific Plan. What version is the city council considering? Can you provide more specifics on the staff "Recommendations"? Bruce Heathcote Senior Vice President Lee & Associates I Irvine LEE & ASSOCIATES TES COMMERCIAL, REAL ESTATV SIERVICFS Heathcote Group License ID 904560 9838 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 No warranty or representation is made to the accuracy of the foregoing information. Terms of sale or lease and availability are subject to change or withdrawal without notice. From: Demkowicz, Erica < Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 4:43 PM To: Adam Foster < ; ajernegan < ; Alice Houseworth < ; bluemoon < ; bluepacific< ; clan < ; jojo < ; jomurillo < ; julia < ; kit < ; kymberly < ; lara < ; last < ; laura < ; mdelumba < ; mercedes < ; mhtaylor < ; Michael Hubman < ; Mick Meldrum < ; Mike Abel < ; Mike Cannan < ; tbone < ; Tom O'Meara < ; trist < ; will < ; wilson < ; wright < Subject: RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Attached is the public hearing notice for the upcoming City Council hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2018 regarding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. If you should have any questions, please contact Erica H. Demkowicz at (714) 573-3127 or or Scott Reekstin at (714) 573-3016 or Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 Demkowicz, Erica From: Dat Nguyen < Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:07 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red Hill Ave Specific Plan - Tustin Hi Erica, I left a message on your phone and have summarized some questions for you. Hopefully you can answer if applicable at this time. My wife's dental office (99 cent store block) is on the corner of walnut/red hill ave. It looks like that block will now be affected for the specific plan. I did not see this area included on the 2016 map. Can you let me know when this project might be expected to begin? For the block in question, will there be only street improvements? What else? Will there be parking lot improvements? Will ATT finally put high speed internet for the business complex there? (currently only DSL) Are there any negatives to this project besides the obvious traffic slowdown during construction? Thank You for your time! Dat Nguyen This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Pathway archives and monitors outgoing and incoming emails. This message may be produced at the request of regulators or in connection with civil litigation. In the United Kingdom, Pathway is represented by its subsidiary, Pathway Capital Management (UK) Limited; registered in England; No. 5531075; registered office: 15 Bedford Street, London WC2E 9HE. Pathway Capital Management (UK) Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. In Hong Kong, Pathway is represented by its subsidiary, Pathway Capital Management (HK) Limited; registered in Hong Kong with company number 1705474; and regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission; business address: Level 8 Two Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong. Demkowicz, Erica From: Tom O'Meara < Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 5:12 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Willkom, Justina; Demkowicz, Erica; Reekstin, Scott; Tiscareno, Vera; Craig, Jerry Cc: Mike Abel ( ; 'Bruce Heathcote'; Howard Abel; Robert Jarrard Subject: RHASP Item Hi Elizabeth: Thank you for your time yesterday. An item we are still having heart burn over is in the event of an insured building casualty within the RHASP where more than 50% of the building's replacement value is destroyed I cannot rebuild the building in the same approximate location. I understand that the building will need to be rebuilt to current construction code and per the development standards and architectural elements of the RHASP. However, if a casualty occurs and I'm required to be constructed per the RHASP design criteria then it will require me to relocate the building up front, along Red Hill Avenue. This requirement would put us in direct violation of our existing leases, lender requirements, shopping center CC&Rs and creates undue legal and financial burdens. Could we look at a carve out in the RHASP whereby, in the event of an insured building casualty, we can rebuild the building at approximately the same location where it currently sits? This is especially important to our ownership as we own a single tenant 26,00o SF building which we will be re -tenanting in the next few years. If I cannot offer prospective tenants a concrete right to rebuild then I will not be able to find a tenant to occupy and invest in our building. Could you please provide the Planning Commission a copy of this email tonight? Perhaps we can discuss at tonight's meeting. Regards, Tom O'Meara ICI Development Company, Inc. This email may contain material that is confidential or privileged. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, reliance or distribution by others, or any forwarding or copying by means, without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Demkowicz, Erica From: Tom O'Meara < Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:40 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica;. Robert Jarrard; Mike Abel; Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Willkom,lustina; Reekstin, Scott; Craig, Jerry; Tiscareno, Vera Subject: RE: RE; Second Revised Attachment F - Errata List for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Thank you, Erica. A quick question along the lines of your most recent strikeout edit to section 4-6. Could you please confirm if my understanding is correct? 1) When remodeling an existing non -conforming structure and the remodel cost exceeds fifty (50) percent of the structures assessed value this will only trigger the application of the development standards in Table 4-3 and NOT require conformance with the RHASP design criteria? Correct? Thank you, Tom O'Meara ICI Development Company, Inc. This email may contain material that is confidential or privileged. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, reliance or distribution by others, or any forwarding or copying by means, without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. From: Demkowicz, Erica < Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:15 PM To: Tom O'Meara < ; Robert Jarrard < ; Mike Abel < ; Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth < ; Willkom, Justina < ; Reekstin, Scott < ; Craig, Jerry < ; Tiscareno, Vera < Subject: RE: RE; Second Revised Attachment F - Errata List for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Please note the staff has made some additional changes to the Errata List that I e-mailed to you this morning. There is some additional language that will be removed from the document in Sections 4.6 and 6. It is shown in strikeout with a line through it. Please see attached. Regards Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: Demkowicz, Erica Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:29 AM To:' < Robert Jarrard < Mike Abel < Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth < ; Willkom, Justina < ; Reekstin, Scott < ; Craig, Jerry < ; Tiscareno, Vera < Subject: RE; Revised Attachment F - Errata List for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Good Morning Everyone, Please find the attached revised Errata List, which is Attachment F of the Staff Report for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 By my recollection it has taken about ten years but Red Hill Plaza is now at full occupancy. Across Red Hill Avenue from Red Hill Plaza is the only open land available. This is not really large parcel. I think that is too small even considering the Coldwell Banker Property to base all of the grandiose plans contained in the Specific Plan. The idea of a five story building on that property is an abomination. It will block the horizon and the sun. The increased human density of residential units in this position in an area that is already crowded iiWso not warranted. Please consider holding the height To two stories and setting it well back from the street. Parking in the residential and apartment areas around San Juan is already an impossible situation. Increasing the human density in this area will only make the parking situation worse. You should examine the traffic situation on a school morning at Vee Elementary. The idea of creating residential permit parking in these areas is another abomination. We don't need that kind of government supervision in our neighborhood. At the last meeting about 90 percent of the speakers who were not already boosters of the plan expressed negative opinions of it. At the last meeting someone expressed that the appearance of homeless people as a reason to up develop the area. Up development is not any way to address homelessness. Let's remember that homeless people are our human brothers and sisters not cattle to be shunted about on sight. Everybody has to be somewhere. In the gospel Christ calls the less fortunate the least among us. Public comment by: Michael Hubman Demkowicz, Erica From: Pam Sapetto < Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:30 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Cc: Craig Swanson; Andrea Maloney; Mary Coffee; John Nielsen Subject: Red Hill Corridor Specific Plan - for the Administrative Record, Attachments: Park Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Revised Mitigation Measure.pdf Importance: High Dear Erica: We are re -submitting our memo from August 13, 2018 which outlines our position . regarding the imposition of Parkland fees for the Red Hill Specific Plan area. We would appreciate this memo and email being distributed to the Planning Commission as soon as possible since it is for tonight's hearing. While the developer appreciates the staff's consideration of changes to the fee ordinance to make it less burdensome, the ordinance still suffers from all the same legal issues, and is still overburdens projects in Red Hill Specific Plan. The multiplier remains too high to reflect actual unit occupancy, resulting in Specific Plan developers providing a subsidy to address staff's belief that there is an existing deficit of parkland in the City, for which the developer would not be legally responsible. Thank you for your assistance Pamela Sapetto Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc www.sapettorealestate.com 1 SAPETTO REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. August 13, 2018 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin Sent via email RE: Public Hearing of August 14, 2018, Agenda Item 5: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 Recreation Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We have been discussing with City staff the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 requiring the Park Land Dedication or In -lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft EIR would have required a fee that, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation, would have totaled approximately $3,644,444 per acre or $24,000 per dwelling unit, which is an amount that would make any development project infeasible. According to the staff report released on August 10, 2018 for the Red Hill Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the Mitigation Measure has now been revised and indicates that a Park Land Dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population, consistent with the Quimby Act, is required for all projects within the Specific Plan. Further, for projects with density of greater than 25du, the Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit will be determined by the Community Development Director based upon product type. (See Attachment A.) We appreciate staff s willingness to address our concerns, however, this revision does not provide the information needed for a developer to determine with sufficient certainty the feasibility of a project proposed within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the revised Mitigation Measure provides no set fee amount or calculation parameters for projects with densities greater than 25 du per gross acre. We have reviewed the population generation rates developed by a number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend that a per unit fee be provided by the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du per acre at no more than $8,000 per base unit (as defined in the recently approved City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance No. Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc • One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313, Irvine, California 92614 - (949) 252.0841 www.SapettoRealEstate.com - RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 2 1491), and that the measure should require that fees collected pursuant to the Mitigation Measure be used only for additional park land or improvements to existing parks located in reasonable proximity to specific residential project paying fees, and within the Specific Plan area. Further, we request that the Parkland Mitigation Fee should only be imposed on the basis of "base units" because it is not clear pursuant to the existing Mitigation Measure text whether the City intends to require payment of the fee imposed for bonus units provided to projects receiving a density bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) as an incentive to provide affordable housing units on-site or offsite. California Density Bonus Law encourages development of affordable housing via a package of incentives, including density bonuses and project concessions, that are intended to make development of affordable housing economically feasible. To the extent the City intends to _calculate the Parkland Mitigation Fees for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in a manner that allocates a fee to these incentive bonus units provided under state law, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Density Bonus Law and burdensome for projects that would otherwise help the City achieve important affordable housing goals. We believe that in order to encourage the development of much needed housing, (and affordable housing) in the Specific Plan area, which is in need of revitalization, the City should provide incentives to builders. Exclusion of bonus density units from application of the Parkland Mitigation Fee is one of the best ways for the City to assure that developers attain the full benefit. of incentives provided by state law to encourage development of housing. We sincerely appreciate to your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 1.3, 2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing Text: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Tattle 1-1. MidgationWonitoring Requirements N2'�4_ .H..,l s $ t:;' ,j?x .: Sx� € ti �Ctf '�1 tSfStl i�1C:StaeWatd�-C ii1 aM aswe�M'itaaespomi6i�a'.*<,_ MM 4.12.1: For residential protects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to the issuance of community Development Code (Amide 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the Building Permits Department— Planning & issuance of building permits a0pil4ants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park Zoning Division fee, on a -per unit basis, reflecting the value:of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be. based. upon the fair market value of the amount of iandwhich would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for land Dedication: The. public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usablepark land per one thousand (1,606) potential population tie devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the nuMber of proposed dwelling urjitsby the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit .OJ, , 3.39 .0102 7.1.15 285 -{0086 '-15.145 .2.24 - -;0067 25.1 & Above As determined by CDDTo be calculated to based upon proposed achieve'three (3) acres/ product type 1,O0o population Mobile Home Parks 2:24 .0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be Used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three. (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000} persons. Recommended text: Delete 4th row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised tab mandating: "Projects proposing a Residential Allocation Reservation of base units that result in a density of 25.1 du per gross acre or more shall pay a Parkland Mitigation Fee of $8,000 per "Base Unit," as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." Demkowicz, Erica From: Pam Sapetto < Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:30 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Cc: Craig Swanson; Andrea Maloney; Mary Coffee; John Nielsen Subject: Red Hill Corridor Specific Plan - for the Administrative Record. Attachments: Park Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Revised Mitigation Measure.pdf Importance: High Dear Erica: We are re -submitting our memo from August 13, 2018 which outlines our position regarding the imposition of Parkland fees for the Red Hill Specific Plan area. We would appreciate this memo and email being distributed to the Planning Commission as soon as possible since it is for tonight's hearing. While the developer appreciates the staff's consideration of changes to the fee ordinance to make it less burdensome, the ordinance still suffers from all the same legal issues, and is still overburdens projects in Red Hill Specific Plan. The multiplier remains too high to reflect actual unit occupancy, resulting in Specific Plan developers providing a subsidy to address staff's belief that there is an existing deficit of parkland in the City, for which the developer would not be legally responsible. Thank you for your assistance Pamela Sapetto Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc www.saDettorealestate.com SAPETTO REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. August 13, 2018 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin Sent via email RE: Public Hearing of August 14, 2018, Agenda Item 5: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 Recreation Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We have been discussing with City staff the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 requiring the Park Land Dedication or In -lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft EIR would have required a fee that, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation, would have totaled approximately $3,644,444 per acre or $24,000 per dwelling unit, which is an amount that would make any development project infeasible. According to the staff report released on August 10, 2018 for the Red Hill Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Mitigation Measure has now been revised and indicates that a Park Land Dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population, consistent with the Quimby Act, is required for all projects within the Specific Plan. Further, for projects with density of greater than 25du, the Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit will be determined by the Community Development Director based upon product type. (See Attachment A.) We appreciate staff's willingness to address our concerns, however, this revision does not provide the information needed for a developer to determine with sufficient certainty the feasibility of a project proposed within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the revised Mitigation Measure provides no set fee amount or calculation parameters for projects with densities greater than 25 du per gross acre. We have reviewed the population generation rates developed by a number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend that a per unit fee be provided by the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du per acre at no more than $8,000 per base unit (as defined in the recently approved City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance No. Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc • One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313, Irvine, California 92614 • (949) 252-0841 www.SapettoRealEstate.com RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 2 1491), and that the measure should require that fees collected pursuant to the Mitigation Measure be used only for additional park land or improvements to existing parks located in reasonable proximity to specific residential project paying fees, and within the Specific Plan area. Further, we request that the Parkland Mitigation Fee should only be imposed on the basis of "base units" because it is not clear pursuant to the existing Mitigation Measure text whether the City intends to require payment of the fee imposed for bonus units provided to projects receiving a density bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) as an incentive to provide affordable housing units on-site or offsite. California Density Bonus Law encourages development of affordable housing via a package of incentives, including density bonuses and project concessions, that are intended to make development of affordable housing economically feasible. To the extent the City intends to calculate the Parkland Mitigation Fees for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in a manner that allocates a fee to these incentive bonus units provided under state law, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Density Bonus Law and burdensome for projects that would otherwise help the City achieve important affordable housing goals. We believe that in order to encourage the development of much needed housing, (and affordable housing) in the Specific Plan area, which is in need of revitalization, the City should provide incentives to builders. Exclusion of bonus density units from application of the Parkland Mitigation Fee is one of the best ways for the City to assure that developers attain the full benefit of incentives provided by state law to encourage development of housing. We sincerely appreciate to your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing Text: Red HIII Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Mon ftoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1..Mitigation Monitoring Requirements rl i i 4 V{ 5 a { - 4 i {✓4 �f 4t `a}4.aS 4 }S * ' Z \ 4 _r,-„itrtl}�.. MM 4.12.1: For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to the Issuance of Community Development Code (Article 91 Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the Building Permits Department — Planning & Issuanceof building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park Zoning Division fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for land Dedication: The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit In accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross AcreDwelling Unit Dwelling Unit _ 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2,9S .0086 1511.25 2.24 .0067 25.1 & Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three (3) acres/ roduct t 1,000 po ulation Mobile Home Parks 2,24 ,0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. Recommended text: Delete 4' row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised tab mandating: "Projects proposing a Residential Allocation Reservation of base units that result in a density of 25.1 du per gross acre or more shall pay a Parkland Mitigation Fee of $8,000 per "Base Unit,” as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Planning Commissioners, RECEIVED AUG 28 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMH%-f BY; I live adjacent to the Red Hill Specific Plan area. I am writing to urge you to make the two modifications, set out below, to the current version of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. First, the height of buildings on the north side of the freeway need to be limited to three stories, just as those on the south side are. The area north of the freeway, along Red Hill, is a community of single family residences, lower density apartments, a park, and a school. The addition of a commercial/residential mix along the north side of the freeway would be fine, but the visual impact of huge, looming five story buildings would be jarring and not fit well with the rest of the area. Second, high density housing will provide too much automobile traffic in the area. The corner of Red Hill and EI Camino is already, according to the Tustin Police, one of the worst intersections for accidents. In addition, the auto pollution (emissions + brake dust) create microparticles that are unhealthy to children's lungs—and Tustin High is right next door. Apartments are fine, but please make them low density to conform to other apartment concentrations in the area and limit traffic. If Caltrans widens the freeway, there's already going to be more air pollution (electric cars are only slowly catching on). Finally, I have some suggestions: Please make the sidewalks wide enough for multiple people to walk side by side and two wheelchairs to pass, and also mandate bike lanes. The sidewalks in the older part of Tustin are generally too narrow, as are the bike lanes down Bryan. Pedestrian -bike conflict on the sidewalks happens all the time and accidents have happened. And the trees for the Plan area—please no more magnolia trees or messy carrot wood trees! Magnolias consume too much water; they have surface roots the heave sidewalks, invade sewer systems, and crack slabs. Magnolias are found throughout parks and public places in the Deep South where it rains a lot, but they just don't work here. They shed leaves year-round, making a mess on sidewalks here. (The leaves when dry are very slick. They form layers and slide against each other, making a walking hazard for elderly people). Chinese Pistache (which are planted near the Specific Plan area, on Lear Lane) consume less water than magnolias, and don't heave sidewalks with surface roots. They have miniscule scarce flowers in summer, the leaves turn a beautiful gold in October and they shed leaves only for about 6 weeks in November and December. They leaf out again in the spring to shade the area. These trees would save the city maintenance money and look a lot better than the scrawny drought -starved magnolias currently planted along Bryan Ave. Next, a company called Carbon Cure makes concrete that is injected with carbon dioxide, making it stronger and longer -lasting that conventional concrete for city infrastructure. That would save the city money in the long run too. And could we require solar power and backup batteries for all buildings? It would be great if the city was in the forefront of progress for a change instead of dragged kicking and screaming from the past into the present. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, Beverley Laumann August 28, 2018 Mayor AI Murray Honorable Members of the City Council Chairman Austin Lumbard Honorable Members of the Planning Commission Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan y1�i p AUG 28 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT B l; Thank you for letting me speak at the Planning Commission Meeting on August 14th and I look forward to the next meeting on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. I am actually in favor of mixed land use within the Plan's boundaries. However there are some things that would need to change before I could fully support the Plan. • Restrict developments or projects to 3 stories or 30 feet in height. o Developments higher than that do not reflect the nature of the surrounding land uses. o Even with stepped setbacks taller developments would create a canyon like feel. ■ No one has developed a virtual 3-D model showing the visual impact to a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver traveling along Red Hill Avenue. ■ The only exhibits shown are the possible street widths with bicycle or pedestrian paths without the adjacent 5 story buildings. ■ In addition, all the photographs appear to be taken with a wide angle lens which distorts the perspective by making the space look larger. The photographs should have been taken with a 50 mm lens (considered to be what the human eye sees) and at the appropriate height of a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver of a standard vehicle. o Taller developments could funnel Santa Ana winds down Red Hill Avenue. o Residents who purchased their homes that border the Plan area envisioned that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. • The overall residential density needs to be reduced in the plan to the R2 and R3 of the surrounding properties especially when combined with 325,00o square feet of commercial uses. o The increased density will affect the lifestyle of current residences and business by increasing traffic on an already congested Red Hill Avenue. o Do not allow the transfer of 105 residential 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. o The General Plan Goal 1, Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density quality ofTustin's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family Demkowicz, Erica From: Victoria Kim < Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:14 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red hill specific plan Hi Erica Thank you for your presentation of the Red Hill Specific Plan at Planning Commission in August. I am new to Tustin and I've heard of the proposal for Red Hill. My only concern is the traffic congestion- a few people had mentioned parking at the meeting but what about the traffic, especially to 1-5 south? It is the only entrance to that highway in that area; Newport doesn't have one. The cars taking the freeway already back up and there is only one lane going unto the freeway. I saw that there is a traffic study done - with the increased density I'm afraid that there will be an increase of the number of cars and thus congestion on that road. Thank you, Victoria Demkowicz, Erica From: TustinPlanning Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:39 PM To: L Ka h rs Cc: Demkowicz, Erica; Reekstin, Scott Subject: RE: Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Leane, The City is in receipt of your e-mail and it will be added to the public record. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin - Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3127 From: L Kahrs [ Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:42 AM To: TustinPlanning Subject: Red Hill Specific Plan Dear All: I attended my first Planning Commission meeting last night, August 14, 2018 and found it fascinating. I have been a resident of Tustin Meadows for over 20 years. Thank you for all of the work you do and the difficult decisions you must make on a regular basis. I did not speak at the meeting, I just wanted to observe the proceedings. I understand that the commissioners are still interested in getting resident input on the Red Hill Specific Plan. I hope this is the correct email address to use to send comments. My first comment is regarding parking. Yes it is bad - right now it is bad. I don't like the piecemeal 'solution' of requiring permitting in any of the neighborhoods. Permitting just pushes the problem over a block or two. Residents have already shown that they won't need/want fewer cars because of parking problems. The parking issues have already spilled over into Tustin Meadows as people leave their cars here for days and get rides to their apartment buildings nearby. Everyone seems to agree that Tustin currently does an inadequate job of requiring enough parking spaces in any of the local shopping centers either. If anything parking space requirements should be increased, not decreased. Its no wonder that many people prefer to shop online and order take-out delivery rather than battle traffic and parking problems. How will any mixed-use businesses find customers if there is nowhere to park? Please reexamine the mixed use properties in Old Town Tustin. It took years to get those sold and even now many of the lower level businesses sit empty or unused. I was really dismayed at the dismissive attitude of the experts Tustin hired to come up with a plan. There won't be any new parks in an already open space deficient area. They agreed that traffic will be worse, pollution will be worse, noise will be worse. What will be better? It might be prettier??? I don't like that trade-off at all. There was no discussion regarding if any of this will be affordable housing either. One of the charms of Tustin is that it is more integrated then many of the surrounding communities. We need to at least try to keep Tustin affordable. Thank you so much to Dr. Moore who spent some time researching plans by Caltrans to expand the 5 freeway through this area. Our hired 'experts' didn't address that issue at all. The expansion will clearly cause more issues with traffic flows on Red Hill and parking on Nisson. Please consider the bigger picture of these plans. The shopping center owners also made great points against the Specific Plan. Unless the city plans to take control of the properties entirely, or somehow subsidize them for their lost rents during transition/construction how could this possibly be implemented? Are these owners in a financial position to implement these plans even if they wanted to? I sort of doubt it or they most likely would have made improvements to their properties already to try to attract higher rents. Thank you for your kind attention, Leane Kahrs SAPETTO REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. RECEIVED AUG 1A 2018 August 13, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: - Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin Sent via email RE: Public Hearing of August 14, 2018, Agenda Item 5: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 Recreation Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We have been discussing with City staff the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 requiring the Park Land Dedication or In -lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft EIR would have required a fee that, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation, would have totaled approximately $3,644,444 per acre or $24,000 per dwelling unit, which is an amount that would make any development project infeasible. According to the staff report released on August 10, 2018 for the Red Hill Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Mitigation Measure has now been revised and indicates that a Park Land Dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population, consistent with the Quimby Act, is required for all projects within the Specific Plan. Further, for projects with density of greater than 25du, the Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit will be determined by the Community Development Director based upon product type. (See Attachment A.) We appreciate staff's willingness to address our concerns, however, this revision does not provide the information needed for a developer to determine with sufficient certainty the feasibility of a project proposed within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the revised Mitigation Measure provides no set fee amount or calculation parameters for projects with densities greater than 25 du per gross acre. We have reviewed the population generation rates developed by a number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend that a per unit fee be provided by the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du per acre at no more than $8,000 per base unit (as defined in the recently approved City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance No. Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc • One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313, Irvine, California 92614 • (949) 252-0841 www.SapettoRealEstate.com RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 2 1491), and that the measure should require that fees collected pursuant to the Mitigation Measure be used only for additional park land or improvements to existing parks located in reasonable proximity to specific residential project paying fees, and within the Specific Plan area. Further, we request that the Parkland Mitigation Fee should only be imposed on the basis of "base units" because it is not clear pursuant to the existing Mitigation Measure text whether the City intends to require payment of the fee imposed for bonus units provided to projects receiving a density bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) as an incentive to provide affordable housing units on-site or offsite. California Density Bonus Law encourages development of affordable housing via a package of incentives, including density bonuses and project concessions, that are intended to make development of affordable housing economically feasible. To the extent the City intends to calculate the Parkland Mitigation Fees for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in a manner that allocates a fee to these incentive bonus units provided under state law, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Density Bonus Law and burdensome for projects that would otherwise help the City achieve important affordable housing goals. We believe that in order to encourage the development of much needed housing, (and affordable housing) in the Specific Plan area, which is in need of revitalization, the City should provide incentives to builders. Exclusion of bonus density units from application of the Parkland Mitigation Fee is one of the best ways for the City to assure that developers attain the full benefit of incentives provided by state law to encourage development of housing. We sincerely appreciate to your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigafion Measure 14.12-1 August 13, 2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing Text: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1. MRigatkm Monitoring Requirements r MM 4.12-1: For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development Code (Article 91 Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the Building Permits Department— Planning & Issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park Zoning Division fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, - according to the followingstandards and formula. Standards and Formula for land Dedication: The public Interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimumamount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: ' Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2.95 .0086 15.125 2.24 ,0067 25,1 & Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve. three (3)acres/ product tWe 1,000 population - Mobile Home Parks 2.24 ,0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. Recommended text: Delete 4th row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised tab mandating: "Projects proposing a Residential Allocation Reservation of base units that result in a density of 25.1 du per gross acre or more shall pay a Parkland Mitigation Fee of $8,000 per "Base Unit," as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES August 9, 2018 Via E-mail Mayor Al Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Members of the City Council Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan E-mail: RECEIVED AUG 1' 0 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: Dear Mayor Murray, Chairman Smith, Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms. Demkowicz, Lee & Associates represents Richter Farms Trust, the owner of Red Hill Village shopping center (99 Cent center) located at 14511-14601 Red Hill Avenue. We appreciate the city's desire to improve the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. However, we are opposed to the plan as currently drafted and believe it will result in the exact opposite of the intended objective. Some of our reasons are listed below: Forced Obsolescence and Blight: Paragraph 4.6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Parcels states in part; "When land uses intensify or change (including re -tenanting of existing commercial spaces), existing structures or sites are modified by more than 50% of their existing square footage, additional square footage, or new development is proposed, conformance with the regulations and design outlined in the Specific Plan will be required". This provision would force a landowner to comply with the new guidelines whenever they re - tenant a commercial space. A change in tenancy occurs on a regular basis. If not allowed to re -tenant, a shopping center owner would be forced to leave a space vacant, perhaps board up to avoid vandalism and crime. Nearly every new tenant requires more than 50% of the space to be renovated with new tenant improvements. Frequently a highly desired national quality tenant will require upgrades to the fagade which would not be allowed under the RHASP. This forced obsolescence would occur of the next few decades before the buildings and existing long-term leases expire wherein the value of the shopping centers would be the land value only and permit the development as proposed in RHASP. This would also force out all of the "Mom and Pop" convenience store merchants who rely upon existing centers to provide reasonable rental rates. Customers, many of whom have enjoyed decades of convenience to their favorite stores and restaurants, would be forced to shop elsewhere. The shopping centers currently for the most part are 100 percent leased. Lee & Associates - Irvine, Inc. A Member of the Lee & Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID# 01044791 / 9838 Research Drive / Irvine, CA 92618 Office: 949.727.1200 / Fax: 949.727.1299 August 9, 2018 Page 2 Unfair Burden: Paragraph 3.2.1 Mixed Use states in part; "Freestanding commercial/office uses will likely continue to be the dominant pattern within the Specific Plan area, as many parcels are too small to accommodate the parking, common open space, and pedestrian -oriented requirements outlined in the Development Regulation and Design Criteria in an integrated mixed-use development." This correctly identifies that all of the smaller "freestanding" commercial properties along this proposed corridor would not be able to comply with RHASP set -backs and improvements leaving the entire cost and land dedication burden upon three shopping center owners (Red Hill Village, Stater Brothers Center and Red Hill Plaza). In order for these three owners to comply, it would require that their properties be reduced to land value wiping out 2/3`ds of the current value equating to tens of millions of dollars in losses. We ask the question: Who is going to pay for all of the overhead utilities going underground for the non -center properties? Will they go underground at the shopping centers, then pop up in the non - center commercial properties? By having only three properties eventually improved along the corridor it would look more like a smile with missing teeth than the pedestrian friendly environment RHASP envisioned. Not My Tustin: Paragraph 1.1 Executive Summary states in part; "The RHASP provides for an additional 500 dwelling units and an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses as a threshold of development intensity." This increased "intensity" would require as stated in RHASP 4 and 5 story buildings on the three shopping center parcels. I have lived near Foothill High School in North Tustin for over 30 years. On a daily basis we enjoy shopping and dining in Tustin primarily for convenience but also for the quiet charm that Tustin has been famous and envisioned by Columbus Tustin over 150 years ago when he and his partner purchased 1,300 acres from Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. We have enjoyed for the most part single story buildings with our children participating in the Tiller days parade. This proposed increased density would increase traffic, pollution and population. All of which is contrary to what we Tustin residents have grown to enjoy. This RHASP plan may work on vacant land such as the District but not in our existing neighborhoods. Viable Alternative: We welcome the plans to increase street median plantings and partitions such as currently provided in the southern portion of the plan area. Also, nicer bus stop and sidewalk areas could be provided. If a parcel becomes vacant, such as the parcel to the West of Red Hill Plaza, then I would suggest a Mixed Use overlay that could be obtained through the Conditional Use Permit process where each project could be evaluated on its own merits. Then at that time and place, residents and governing agencies could evaluate and potentially allow greater densities than what are currently allowed. Conclusion: Although our above concerns do not address all the issues, we believe the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan as. currently drafted is without economic foundation, putting the primary cost on three owners. The Plan is contrary to the Tustin charm and destined for failure. We hope the city will not adopt this plan. Best regards, Bruce Heathcote L EE Si ASSOCIATES® COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES August 9, 2018 Page 3 Principal cc: Richter Farms Trust L&EE & ASSOCIATES® COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES ue,MKOWICZ, trica From: Kristen Nesselrod < Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:10 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Redhill Plan feedback- Re: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Erica, As a resident of Tustin, just off 1st Street near Redhill, I have some big concerns regarding the Redhill Ave Specific Plan. In particular, for the proposed 4-5 story high-density housing. That level of density is much greater than that of the surrounding areas. The neighborhoods nearby area all 1 to 2 story (with the exception I think if the development near the freeway by the corner of EI Camino). The smaller streets and older infrastructure are not meant to handle the increase in traffic (especially with the proposed "1St street diet." A 4-5 story level of density is seen over in the newer developments of The District where new infrastructure is created to manage that level of density. Furthermore, 4-5 story developments would impact the sight lines of the neighbors and change the setting of the surrounding areas. Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any propositions for green spaces or walking paths. Please let it be known that I wish the city to preserve the vanishing character and charm of our neighborhood. I feel a collaborative approach that respects the voices of people who live with the impacts of decisions is the best way to go about this. Maybe the 4-5 story proposition is in "shoot for the moon" style, but 2, maybe 3 stories max would be more appropriate. Please don't sacrifice my/our neighborhood for the benefit of for-profit developers. Sincerely, Kristen Nesselrod From: Demkowicz, Erica < Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:18 AM To: Cc: TustinPlanning Subject: FW: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Kristen, Please feel free to e-mail me with any comments or feedback regarding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. My e-mail is Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin - Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way ,/ 1'+1 J/J-JiL/ -----Original Message ----- From: Tustin Planning Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:11 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: FW: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Please see below regarding Red Hill SP. -----Original Message ----- From: Kristen Nesselrod [ Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 11:33 AM To: TustinPlanning Subject: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hi, Just saw the Facebook post about the public meeting on the proposed Redhill Ave development plan. Can we, if so where, send feedback/comments, if we are unable to attend the meeting? Thank you, Kristen Nesselrod Sent from my iPhone. Please forgive typos & strange auto corrections. Thanks. Rut I . 6N & TUOKF-R. l -LP March 16, 2018 .ME'�MAIL AND: FEDERAL EXPIYESS' 'rvi...Katheleing 4nson AECENEP MAR 19 2.018 OMMUNny OeVeLOPRENT BY# ' Smith and d' Mayor Al; orrayon chalfthaft*ydersmi he lt�, Planning Coinmiss' RonoijWe t4em6et�, of City'Couticil -Honorable Members of t Plan Loa City City 1. it f Y of Tustin Y 9. u0n, Centennial .3 _"(�Woj W,- - W a y, y Tustin, CA 92"780 'Ng , t1ft) Ck 92780 E mail: Erica .1 J e mkd Wic S; ent6r,fle(O.ifei; City i,yoq, gda a 300 Ce"ti-11'e- FWy . TustiniCA.L9210 I matt: PIA . 9-maik Dear Mayor _Ml' Ch S -0th Honorable C. Council M, embers and Planning 4"yi i,_ 4M. -AR J AM Comiiiissoners.an �K" Toi6f,.LLP- represents WTM. Tustin Inve_s oLPand take Union In Ve. stors, LP With regard to the Property, interests located at 138$2 RO Hill Avenue, I in Tustin,, per'iflie' — Y-1 ..k. u a-n his been roques, e dit'o- submit these ese c'ommetts and cueseoas regarding arding pro ed Red Hi I Avt ue Spectfie:P dft( PO0 lc;Plan"') and its potential effects on our clients" property uterests the-oWndrs oftheadjacent properties 13213822 118J2 u, 1574 .104 ven tofta I'Mayfl. Proo e tt.65, L.P., and Howard L., -Abel Tt i ed In this T�otoe6fthe,HoWaroL.,�Abe,iF'ainilytii�t'have cq nts con ain . the property are referred to 1 n- this letter M the "Property letter; Together, rop roperty, wners; or the Inanutshellwhile-thePto' rt 0 applaud the C effort to enhance the Red Hill _pe, y wners it3els *d aeOlidtios, and a�xesObiti he Owners ate greatly concerned that the Specific AVentie'co M� orS tyi Plan of whom and -Whtn,; and (j) I � a will 0) create . as to what will be, expected, ov ea MY pi t ry efforts to up mmereidlebusinesses on the west side of volunia &41�, the Rod Hill, Avenue beNeea'fl- CiffiiftoleM and San Juan, Street. The Owners are concerned that the Specific Plan, as dfafted may actually itnodder the goal of improving, the shopping, dining d .0g. an colit lncrciol setvices options for Tustin residents: The Owners have a vested interest in advancing Rutan 6 Tucker, LLP ,j 61 ! Arwtoh sivij sulte 1400, Costa Mesa,, CA 0626 00 Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA, 626,28-1060 1 114,641-510.0 1 Fax 714-646,9036 11010t9333-031 'Orange County I Palo Alto 1 www:rutan,dom*6008 ma7ur etu�ntre; iza Mayb.k At TV Wf AY andHanerable G ty Ganneil MOinbcrs Gl ilrmari> y er mi anc t Oner it le Pl n»ing Cotrurussiaia rs �r�a Detrik4wrGz, ��nior I'lannnr 1aGh :16,A Pago. 2 Chapter,6 has an� ,add tiarlal de crip6 —cif what wl, trigger the 00011000tH of the view Spcific Plan standards. page, 6=1 says that existing uses "shall he parm�#ted.te cairtinue and need t1bZ eoniply Witn;,the new stardars*;btct t4:�atupltac� withC.><ty bode Section =9273. It .gars 0,10:0,. ,hat, when `land uses ,into ns�fy or change, existing strixcture are: mndl tt, additional i fihis liarrnpli as contains typ�grahicel .rrpr., 'Thi ioereiice t650.1 shoutd be 5.1.3. i{51.0189J��Ji iiW ,J u VIM..9 374 RU T A N 14YO PPM4.4 O.Tropm i,00� .. 1 --'; - f with , 60A� "gi 14 and design c�itena '014id' -M—this -Specific -Pian: U-ul �0yttently rdfersWfinmp ` (b t, have n be :p� 1"i;,�fidvde:,V-eIPp-lfi n't �Ojct es 6 5''t-6 The bwne�s ufw- tioi - i 11.01f, a W b- lb gmo.M ut' us �-".`esspx -re-7 make it. 66-- that, l, i & '. , rAti, U-PrOY w-11, std pq- 9 . JR0 of -,u tt- t ti, t , I!- tOlwing an, X -J4, & permitted use � -ft ww.4t&xdatdsi; 4. V IPA.- 004- . O; Tn such situations, the bruld�rig is e a" Iti V. t-d' , . , s" ar-O-vot th i6t: � do VIM - I ti ex gi.entitle""tilt w (00 cation'; td ig, will 'be cost me , ti, -Proohlihif thingy- 't WA t ft 61 -end t6WI(if i dead td` build kh adati �a 6 1 g van M f, - c ty ug n -t bi-M' th -0 isrepeir n, Vub, d bight li. A 0 a or q�- 1.1 ;m residents s'..Or, e, V X£, :when felna vacate; iw Puq er ''buil y 'with 'h' 0 Topi what t ie 'I wo lll� 'to ac ley 4 .t -hi eq �.y lot I e q -0 propo.,s� : r (d r ta, fV f4m uses is wt,m te'wandthe Policies. are'ffitc'rh all --f Th d"t—OcOthe desires6fTtr84tilsiosfd6ti%, .y incoA4iste e po cles. o i, r� A Tabld 4. lon '4ge, 4w3,5, �qs X19 W,6 column 'oV next to th Drivc4hm category o anwSts 11 S -W3 I I -M 1463116118 375 Aury,`N X tUGI(C11� k4F #1 of ear us e ether: tn.ar C it as: ' - dr�ii �c ar C C..o on lly 'ormitte 1� �rbqu st that a' ' fi p a00d o olu' ft �w, #tett tq #die Unve :`I'hru category; _.��##es `th ,�rolxfetatn radri�e �t�t� b�tfis Xs rt e�oitrg� Yn the £:' gig tt' ?itt t �dn 6 l Yaght "0 MS S; Uniexgroon_ ing Overhead Cltilititnes ttarota�s�-nodi f3U6074S 3 0340,1S 376 ayTAN hU1�AY TUCMCA,T.tf+ Mayax° AlMu tray, and li tiorable city Council. Mbcnbers Chairman Ryder Srnitk and onorkto i'latlttin 00inmiasi0ners Erica Dernkowax, Senzor�'1`�nner' Marek i, 201 Page .5 6 'Parking. The 'SpeGi do an'lti iicates''that each parcel m ist be;s0 parl�ed, For larger shQpping centcxs with rnut'tiple parcels, such as tllcsa that"extst on the cast sIie of Reil"till Avenue, parking requirements are 'typically :satisfied .thr'etrgh `.tie use of Reciprocal Easement Agr omerits . This makes: sense iu ee tie goads is eucouxage eustatners to visit a$ .tea" b-404440$ as ;possible "during a. M slop We re ues 'that tfiie"text of the -Specific F';Ian expressly ackncSWielga till permit the lase rifAs,.to bticige parcdls together dor reGiprocai,parrking; 1n a ddition, it must. be rertreinbered that. space is finite, and Mposit g regulre40r.t upon requireniertt. is zero -slim game Lana u:se for l ndsc�ping artd right of �+a r cart ofi be used dor. pate, og. Gwen that the Citi wbuld "itke to a-cciutre ap addit' if 16 feet'along Red W A` fi'' `sit' sone pcit t in the f4W, , my cheats -,Quid like assuradees that; pursuant to Tustra Municipal Cade' Se ttou 92'7 (t), if .parking spaecs are to t, the .resW g harking uoittlitioa will lie cQz siderecl exempt from Ehe ttyts'"�nonconfib, use`xeguiattow. 7 Pet'mitked li nd i Uses. As notasi abode, because "1Vilxed Use" 'ls used .to describe atl. `the pdvate property wtthih the specific plan, my eliebts v auld ens ut [ace that freestaad�og retml Wilt re soon a perrn.itted iand'use in this,aread the bciildings ,m in the shopping center on the east sl le.Qf l ed fixl :; Avenue will tttit`becotne nanwcQnorming tscs. We tiate;that grocery stores sire fiat q pre sly , dent�fied ri. ibte 4� 1.; 1�Vc requesti that y¢ make ttletn apern�iikted.use° 8. Pu�ilic Inipraveni�nk� and _Dec�catiaus on page 3�7, there is a reference'to `<dedicatiens" as " developtnent pr c.. are processed; to abtain.the ill 12gfoot right-af way" Vl�e vtroutd Il a elafficatlon that.s nipl re tenant►ug an eic sting.structure with standard than itnprdWrneuts1w.1 not.trigger.this abl gatian. in addikQn, we vtould;ril�e assurances that the referenced traffic §ignat wilC b the al�ga�tlon of the neW resfdenbaldlevel.atieieint:; What is the `°new private d`evelapchent" (page 3=20) that will have to tnstall(or bond) f sidewalks and anew landscape �mlirav meats bet reet� the praperky iine an the cuirCi Again, this: o� ltgaticn. should nat be triggered by the rcaccupa6,1 of an eictsti#ig`b"uilding t1010183134631: u*04sa o4vivis 377 ff nvi;M�aTut�(cM,i4r C. A :water line u gkade :froth G" to 12" is !slzowttaloixg the portln>!x of Red l 111 Avenue ain. frottt Qf my,c�Xetlts' property.an.E�hbit � 12 o>�,la�ge �N36 Pl�a�e confirm that the.respotistbiltty ';, 1 o t is upgrade 111 rpt w th Ih res dentl Pper� 9,icxstiiug Spop xng Catxteir, Agreements aha Lbixg Term hese W ere Aho, Cwa r$ bf`th fed 1=Ti11'P s a. happl g center p rchase e r e�rCS S.i they: egilired the p#aperty subjeot to the exYsting shopping center CCBcRs, easements end leases `fihese documents 4X .."al �n t. -men wh bh are recorded on ttt�e properly and dlc�te how the property can psed� where de elbpiiaent ca p accur and what tyties of'-tenant°uses can take 141ace, ieca> ded �&Rs an this $hopping Centeri,ate petpat�ial Md fiatltia and atl of the ncne#"its, ri ltS and: ' zesirictioris c111e 1 for ia► the oeuixie is have dee conveyed to tl>e neighboring OVMROrs A the �hopplhgcehtertenants thrtgh guarantees xii theileases, all a#`vtirhich are staggered and lbrg trtn iii atulrea The nevv �� PCO Id, Plat► ra alres .�11, fro eit �n the lart to beeofiie �i�ed Use P p p y;:w�; however, :the recorded CC&lts and -long term leases on this property prehitilt any kind of .mined usa der�elaptnetat from occtxrring. This puts the ,owner In a bind,n alae hind,_ they are not permitted to doelap mtl�edyuse Qn site due'to the Tang term worded .OR ocritiiepts; :dn the other hand, the pec is riiari renders their existing k"xld ags as legally _non Pot iffiIng and Nigger a eactie�iis and eo t hti>?det ;that xrialte it 1�£easible fo> the .Owners to sutiply tommodel.a, stbtefront Or re=%Want ane unit It does not appear'that ariy of.the recorded &R b trderis' u ,on the , o tl�e long term nature of the tenant leases we>ve taken tato accautl<t the drafting of oils Seclixc f lata `xhxs Specific T'lan, rather thanpromotxn investment tp the corn#nnity, is sa.:restrictive wtb the cxisturg uses that it, proyerlt the O wr►ers t`rem investing .v7 them; assest anI actually to the corilrgy, promote vacancies ata -ado, btit�-'I`his is not�ut an issue •for Ah, lied Hilt Plaza shopping Center: Then underlying issues ai`e pertinent to all)of.the shbppii�g centers irfudod!ithin the Seclfic plan area. a ,r 1ik' oxxcerins Regarding Res rtential Dsvelopineilt on North 5Wt. of -ke. Hill Moot `T'he parkipg rectuiren tits, for the proposed residential arses at this taCarion appdr low:. a There is a serious 60606M hat the shopping center:parking area will.be Use residents, patticularYy if nrid block trarfic signal is i istallerl, .Parking at`Red i ll Plaza is for the exeluislye lyse of aCrstomer$ oily, snot fox overnight parking, 'aa Is sub�eot to.thv IVCy:cllerlts have had this Issue at=other_�►roperties and it becomes a nuisance for- th.e -owt ors of the property, as we11 as :f'or the City �w6 ,ulttarately receives e m,ajoity of'the, towed ear coiiiptaiats. VV'hat fan be done to } AW00"' ,491. 13Q36J48 n�fl3ri ul 378 RUT, , NOW. z Kd�,'ua M#Pr Al d Honorable City Cou&ll iYS bets airman Kyder Sutith a mrable Plartg CommissYonet Erica Dnlcziwicza Se>xott planner �S�rcli,7.�, x(518_ 1. lY�isceYlan�c�us::G�ax��a!�pns , Please qo�n rm that tkxe ae�exaa peg la�kne>At St,a vds 4starti g ti<�id=r ad down Vin. gage 4 15d tof for:mied use projets only; • 'The_ftcad ug and lands'ty�e deseriPtoos;on'I'ab[e.4 4 otlpage=�� ara t�nol+�ar�Og ri . yQ :aotifirirl whether. the Now.-Resder�tiat" is rtEtentie to include, Comtterciat dee onoierit tllat:s rloi part`bia ifiied �1se prnjebt2' We aip> eciate the opportunity td, ca><nliier�t an a Specific Pian tatty WO :ta>< staff t'or talUilt�i a t>riiie to meet to itisauss Chis;tter;. 1F lias$ile,e would tike to schule a 1us�ther> m�eeo dues fhe eoneerils excixcssecl `in txs.letter piease;ot#y bothi� and my .liex lts o£ ait %ittit�gF heiidcxg'and aCtatls regarding thepecil_iPlan 114101685$�l03 12060148:3 034019 379 uj O r nU Ln C CL CL) 0 N I� 00 N .a N N I-1 O In O to O to r c A O fiy �df P,. 9�X, GsP O�. 9d6 �P ti ods/ 2P �y ops, �g _ _ Or d,7 gP G. P A o11- Pf, Gr . a Sd f PG SP Zt-. rs OPGP,o s�P� aA d r�>>e910 d 4Gd�� A L r0.0 19 L O� Ps d� LR Pod/� �O F P P OPf 0 rJ� 190 uj O r nU Ln C CL CL) 0 N I� 00 N .a O N N W D � r+ ; r+ v m D (D i D V) v cn 0 D � (D 4 CD m Q Q1 rt CD CD Ln r—F rD i i I ID O — (D I 7 3 fD fD CL h O cu3 m 3 � � I Last Updated 10/4/2018 2:55pm Next Door Sandra Norby , -5d ago ht �//www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate.asp afffaffm €:- i_, r Sandra Norby , -5d ago and this r Sandra Norby -5d ago ih://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate.asp Jim Williams , -5d ago Sounds like they want to mess up Red Hill also. You talk about a traffic nightmare. 0 Jim Williams , -5d ago What's up with these proposals. Am i missing something know more money because of taxes. Shane Darlington -4d ago I put a Post about this BS back in June. Np Catherine Reynolds , -4d ago Wow, I didn't know about the Redhill change too! But it said they don't plan on changing this amount of lanes so I guess the 71 bus will still be able to come down? This is crazy! I didn't know they were going to build more houses but it shouldn't be a surprise. There's already housing being built on 6th. Street too! me Karol Williams , -4d ago But still not enough parking any where. It doesn't take a brain surgeon Penni Foley , -5d ago Neighbors, please take notice of the information in the yellow box. Four to five story residences with 500 residential units with shared or reduced parking. I am reminded of a time more than 20 years ago. I was secretary to the Community Development Director. It was a time when Tustin Ranch was building out. I decided to actually read an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). I came across the traffic concerns and the answer to everything was that the issues would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. I asked the Director how you mitigate traffic to disappear. His reply was that ou don't, you just add more lights to control the traffic. Jim Williams , -5d ago That was a stupid answer huh. Add more lights. This is all we need four to five story residences. They want it to look like what there building down on Jamboree. More traffic wonderful. 4 T- PI o.• Penni Foley , Tustin Meadows -4d ago Problem is, that is the solution to the traffic issue. I thought he was joking, but he was serious. Emil Geris , -4d ago This project is disaster to the area More Traffic , parking problems to all residents around , if one of these 500 units can't find a spot he will park in front of my house , all streets around will be like a parking lots. I can't believe such this project in Tustin . How and what this developer do to get such this project to a level of public hearing , ohh yes money talks ... Brian Miller , -4d ago Hmmmm... the city conveniently edited their attached document to remove more than a page of details containing Camino Real. A far lesser, but real concern is the that the development that has been proposed has ZERO consideration for any surrounding architecture (it looks like Irvine puked an apartment cube into vintage Tustin) Frankly I'm gobsmacked that the city has allowed this to go this far. I can't imagine us lowly residents being able to tell the city council what we want will do any good when the big money developers are seemingly the only ones they will listen to. Julie Crowell This b Julie Crowell They had a few input meetings last year at the Rec center. My concern was traffic and all the new "stack a homes" with no affordable housing. Stephen Ramm 500 "dwelling units" and 325,OOOsq ft of commercial space. That's a fairly large project. Hey, at least they determined that they won't "destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature." G9 I can't believe they think this is a good idea. Chuck Rogers I file this into "City Reacting" as opposed to "City Planning." My wife and I as well as a handful of our neighbors went to some of the meetings seeking community input ... we quickly realized that they were only seeking input that was in favor of the proposed development. This is not the district, the only way this won't stick out like a sore thumb is if they bulldoze the surrounding residences... and even then it will be a white elephant. Stephen Ramm Chuck Rogers and I thought Tustin was better than that. Isn't the development next to the 5 bad enough? Chuck Rogers Stephen Ramm Tustin WAS better than that ... I don't mind that they went the sterile master -planned route at the District; Pre -District Tustin has so much more character in it's architecture. W Stephen Ramm Chuck Rogers exactly ... I'm sure they spend their nights wondering how they can demolish the old houses with yards and build multi -story condos in their place. Karen Kohler It's not a very thought out plan but then again not a very detailed plan. It doesn't take into account for the traffic impact it creates and the rise in housing costs it will create by building 4 story Units nor the impact on residents who live in the area. Its disappointing that the city council is even considering this. N Stephen Ramm I agree ... 325,OOOsq ft of commercial space is a lot and will generate a lot of traffic both from employees and customers. Then add in 1000 plus people living in the new 4-5 story "dwellings". Karen Kohler Stephen Ramm I totally agree that Redhill needs a facelift and that area especially but this proposition is just too large. Chuck Rogers Krys Saldivar (public works manager) once replied to my concern about the street light timing stating the "signal system has been functioning to its potential"...to it's potential! It makes me giggle even still ... and they want to add another traffic light a half block from the system of traffic lights that are about 5 car -lengths apart from one another V Jeff Gallagher They have an upcoming meeting on what they are calling the Redhill Specific Plan. Chuck Rogers This is one of the last meetings... it's been years in the making ... only a miracle will stop this now. Jeff Gallagher Chuck Rogers, you can thank Jerry Amante and his wrecking crew. Guy Ball You can kiss the Tustin fireworks display goodbye if they build a ton of condos/apts on that property! And good points on the 5 fwy access. I guess all the decision makers (city planner, manager, etc. ?) and regular planners in the city live in other cities. (And do our current council have any input on this process?) Diane Triantis The current city counsel seems determined to overbuild and turn Tustin into an overpopulated traffic nightmare. They all need to be voted out. The planning commission is just as bad. E Kristen Dalen Freeman Such a devastating thing to do to the beautiful community of Tustin. Unbelievable. They just want BIG government. And fill their pockets. Guy Ball We need to let our "elected" officials know this - as well as the planning people. I will be sending out some emails as soon as I really review the online content so I can comment with some facts. In reality, the Redhill area needs help. But overbuilding isn't the way to do it without negatively impacting our city. It was bad enough what they jammed into the District area. Now, they want to super -populate the older part of town. Does anyone remember what happened in Santa Ana during the 80s when they did the same thing? (I'm talking about overcrowding, zero -lot line, minimal parking, and no greenbelts.) While our condos are "prettier," the issues with parking, traffic, and change of city character are the same. We don't need to be LA and can fight this stuff. BUT we all need to voice our opinion early. (Kinda what we did a bit with the stupidity on 4th St. And even that we really didn't win.) Karen Kohler Not to mention the over burden on our sewer ysystems and power grid. Z.&A http://www.tustinca.org/civicax/fileba nk/blobdload.aspx... V Julie Crowell Stephen Ram holy crap) l Wonder if they sold. How sad. 69 Stephen Ramm Julie Crowell I know ... I couldn't believe it when I saw it outlined. I always thought it was sad that Red Hill is basically right on the front doorstep but tearing it all down to put up apartments or whatever is just wrong. VAR -111; Julie Crowell Please please please we have to fight this. Coming from Costa Mesa, it is now a 4-5 story town with way too much traffic and no affordable housing. We were pushed out because rent was so high. So much development and no places to park. They built so much that with the problems it created, some dwellings still are empty. There's no demand. Just rich developers flipping the lots. We can't let that happen to Tustin. Julie Crowell August 14th at 7pm city council chambers. WP Karen Kohler The only positive is that it would clean up the �"hh�otel" area on EI Camino. Other than that, I see no benefit. V-3 Julie Crowell Uh, no. Have you driven by the new dwellings in Costa Mesa? Y31 Julie Crowell That's what was promised by council. It would "clean up" the city. It's only displacing long term residents from the community. Super sad. Julie Crowell Sorry. Didn't mean to laugh, its just not what happens. Those are two different issues and need to be addressed as such. Karen Kohler Julie Crowell I live in this specific area. I am completely opposed to this. Look at what the District looks like ... ugh ... Julie Crowell Karen Kohler totally. Karen Kohler Julie Crowell I guess we will all have to show up on the 14th. Julie Crowell Costa Mesa has these 4-5 stories EVERYWHERE and the drug addicts still there. They just also built a new library and it won't clean up that problem either. r Julie Crowell Karen Kohler yeslI NEW POST! I I Ok folks lots of mis-information going on about the proposed project on Red Hill across from Big Lots. Fust, 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. Comments 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 AM new Del Taco. WO 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. 11111W Al ChristyLee Lee May I post this on Nextdoor, please? 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 (I-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. Darcie Cancino Thank you! I recall reading that as well. ChristyLee 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. Derek Mannion I would love to have a new Skating Rink in Tustin!!! The District would be a perfect place for one. It would have to have a maple wood floor of course. vv0 Amy Bui Hey there's a bowling alley at the district! 60 Jonathan Land 000000hhhhh no. We don't need any more of those roller derby troublemakers around. Derek Mannion Jonathan Land Roller Rink, I Said Roller Rink!!! Young Man!!! Jonathan Land Aw c'mon! Next the youngsters will wanna play POOL! ChristyLee Lee Amy it has been so long since you kids have been around I forgot about that one! So glad you are doing so well my friend. I miss all of you. Brett Olivier If your looking at plans for a new development in Tustin maybe less is more! Jill CrussemeyerJill and 104 others joiner! Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome into your community! Darcie Cancino no they don't (DO. I lived in Eugene during the first wave of CA migration and the locals weren't happy about what it did to housing costs. Andrea Chang Jill Crussemeyer I lived in Eugene from 1995 to 2009. Never felt unwanted as most people there were transplants rom here or elsewhere. I wouldn't go back though. Too liberal for me. Adriana Medina My dream home is waiting for me in Texas!!! I can't afford anything but a closet in California! Natasha Bhagat As someone who's spent 50% of life in Portland, 50% here, I can agree that there are more Californians than ever there, but "Californian" is still a dirty word, mostly because of the following: Don't bother moving there because property value and rent is nearly equal to Tustin now, mostly because of "the Californians" overpaying for everything Cher NB Most likely Vancouver. No state tax and 5 min over the border to Portland is no sales tax. Natasha Bhagat Cher NB - True, there are still deals to be found in Vancouver i Kathryn McGovern Tapie I have clients who just moved to Vancouver and love the easy lifestyle. I lived in Roseburg OR for 5 years and never felt like I wasn't wanted. I'm still very close to most of my friends from there. It's all in what you do when you go there. Just settle in and be a good person. We've been checking out Vancouver to retire in. Jonathan Stone For those of you interested/concerned about development in Tustin, I highly recommend you attend the Business and Economic Development Council monthly meeting. Hosted by the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, the meeting is relatively informal with presentations from the City on ongoing work and frequently from larger stakeholders in the community (often Marketplace and District management). There's a lot to be learned by attending and many of the questions offered in this thread (parking, congestion, water, etc) are addressed candidly. It's generally referred to by its cryptic acronym but is held at the Community Center in the Marketplace (the old Edwards theater) on the second Thursday of every month. http://business.tustinchamber.org/.../bedc-meeting-09-13... Manage BUS IN ESS.TU STINCHAMBER.ORG BEDC Meeting w 1� Kris McCue Where exactly do you think the money comes from to beautify your home town? Development needs to happen. And the city's terms of development can force the developers to pay all of the costs to put in more landscaping. It'll clean up that entire block end to end, fix the sidewalks, get rid of abandoned buildings, add trees, increase city revenues to fix other problem areas within the city, add jobs in both construction as well as the businesses in the area. If it takes me 5 more minutes to get down the street, so be it. The city will probably get upwards of $2M just in permit fees. I drive Red Hill every day and rm all for this happening. It's long overdue for a facelift there. Chris McCrar% Agree to Disagree that this needs to happen. Kris McCue Needs to happen.. Tustin looks like crap there. Maybe you like busted sidewalks and poor landscaping, abandoned buildings, and run-down shopping centers but I certainly don't. a maximum of 55 gallons per person per day, indoor and outdoor use. So it makes perfect sense to keep adding high density housing - G) (sarcasm) Darcie Cancino Jill Crussemeyerhttps://www.pacificresearch.org/new-pennanent- state.../... Manage PACIFICRESEARCH.ORG Pacific Research Institute I New Permanent State Water... Jill CrussemeyerX11 and 104 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks Give thein a warm welcome into your community! Darcie Cancino didn't know this had become law. Smack in the face for residents that have lived here for years to make CA an amazing place to live. Diane De Vaul I thought that didn't pass. Darcie Cancino Diane De Vaul Brown signed the two companion bills into law on May 31 MWQ Diane De Vaul I am glad my exit plan is going into action. California will always be in my heart. But I won't be in California. Darcie Cancino Diane De Vaul me neither. I have maybe five more years here, depending. Hopefully not much further out than that. kii John Nielsen Did your traffic planner friend tell you that daily trips decrease when you go from commercial/retail to residential? Marcia Bartosik Moreno John Nielsen The stats from the planner as well as a civil engineer are based on residential units. Emily Martinez We are in a housing shortage. We need new developments. Sorry. It's part of living in urban/suburban areas. I'm hoping with more housing it will help with the rising cost of buying/renting in OC. With the housing shortage landlords and developers can demand more, because people are willing to pay it. Maybe some of thein will be in the "affordable" range. Julie Crowell https://voiceofoc.org/.../oc-one-of-least- affordable.../ Julie Crowell New development can opt out of having units that are "affordable" by paying a fee. That fee goes into a pool of money that is not regulated. Julie Crowell So they will most likely opt out from the get go. Yay us. Jill Crussemeyerfl/ and 104 others jointed Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks Give them a warm welcome into your environment when we moved here. The state's natural resources are completely mismanaged, and we've put no money into roads and other infrastructure, despite constant tax increases and bond resources. Chris McCrary We do not need more housing. There's enough people here already. Chuck Rogers John Nielsen Even if there are 250 studios you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be two people on average with two cars per unit. The fact that the city is considering ANYTHING that might have yet another traffic light is absurd. The city can't get the timing on the current lights right and they haven't been able to do it in the decade rve lived here. Before ANY significant housing like this is considered the freeway access must be redesigned... According to Krys... ifs working to it's potential... how cute, and sad. Lastly, This size development fits right in at the district. it will forever stick out like a sore thumb in this area. Just like the behemoths on random streets in Fullerton. I'd attend tonight's meeting, but after attending so many other city meetings rve come to realize that the council has turned a deaf ear to the residents. Please know that I won't be supporting any of the city council next election and I would fully support any recall efforts. Julie Crowell QLysame! And know that the developers will have people speak out in their favor. I've seen it happen' ' oowish I could attend also but I'm with my little Mary Rizzaro Yup Delia Falls Unfortunately all politicians, even the ones working on a small, local level, are most interested in keeping their campaign contributors happy rather than their constituents. 0 John Nielsen Chuck, What do you propose in a neighborhood where the apartments and duplexes in the area were built in the 60's and 70's with continual deferred maintenance continue to deteriorate and age in place. What usually happens to those types of neighborhoods is that crime increases. I want to see that neighborhood upgraded, and the only that happens is by giving landowners and developers incentives to build new. Chuck Rogers John Nielsen, I respect your point of view and I get that affordable housing is certainly needed. I also appreciate that developers may need incentives to build what the city wants (as opposed to what the developers want). Frankly, I live a half block away; the area definitely needs love (that being said most of the crime seems to come from Key Inn not the aging apartments) I was watching last night's meeting. One of the staff was referring to mixed use parking and when it's managed well, it works well. We need the city to protect the residents from future mismanagement; we can not presume that the businesses that lease in that center will close at 5 when folks get home from work or that management will be willing or able to prevent the parking plague at nearly all the condo complexes in Tustin. The challenge with virtually all of the proposals that I saw at meetings long ago was the traffic issues, parking and design. There have got to be better uses for that land that will not add another signal in the less than half mile stretch and dump hundreds of cars at the end of the funnel with a tiny hole (the onramp to the freeway). The planner referencing Up last night presented a perfect picture of what we all see, virtually everything in that area is single and two story housing - anything taller will be out of place. I am a little curious sometimes if all of the community meetings and meetings seeking input are just for the legality of it all. When I attended the meetings at the high school and community center last year my neighbors and I felt as though the only input that was being absorbed was the input that the developers could spin to use to their advantage. Thanks for responding - it was a pleasant surprise. :) Chuck Rogers I'm sure that's true; but if all the city is getting from CalTrans is lip service in the way of poor timing of lights, it's irresponsible to make it worse by overpopulating the area Marcia Bartosik Moreno Agree with you 100% Chuck. Darcie Canino I actually wouldn't mind a reasonably sized housing development, maybe two stories, with ample parking. But these five story monstrous projects are another sort of eyesore, notwithstanding all the adverse community impacts. Or it would be awesome if TUSD could buy the property. THS's parking lot is woefully undersized. Tina Weirens Craig Weirens Joan Cumbo I've been to many council meeting for this city for over 20 years one thing I've learned is that every time you think that voicing your opinions they have already made up there minds and there is nothing you can do to change there mind on their vote W-�, IrA Julie Crowell Ding ding dingAVO John Nielsen Not True Amanda Barringer What kind of development? Is it rental properties or privately owned units. That will make a difference in how it is received. We don't need more rental property in that area. Do we know how the price range of the units? Rita Schrank And yet the proposed senior facility on Newport near 17th where there would really be less cars is denied. Marcia Bartosik Moreno Rita Schrank: http://www.foothillssentry.com/oc-planning- commission... FOOTHILLSSENTRY.COM OC Planning Commission approves compromise plan... Rita Schrank Marcia Bartosik Moreno I didn't know this. Thanks for the info. ChristyLee Lee Maybe we should put back the other on-ramp that was on Newport? Kenzie Morrow Bosma Off topic (sort of) but does anyone else see an AMAZING amount of people running the red light at the 5- S Red Hill offramp? I mean, as we make the left tum ON to Red Hill from the freeway off ramp the traffic going south runs the red. It's crazy how many times I've almost been hit and I don't understand why? This new proposal sure won't help that aspect 0@ ��I John Nielsen I have made that walk many times over the years ChristyLee Lee John I am not surprised my friend. So you know the temperature is so much cooler there because of the trees. We are quite lucky that we do have parks and trees. We do need more groves. C� John Nielsen I knew Matt Nisson for several years and he was kind enough to let me into his Orange Grove. place has always been a landmark to me. ChristyLee Lee John me as well. I met them when I fust lived here in tustin in the 80's. Their peacock got out and running around Redhill. Thank you so much for being involved. We are lucky to have you as part of our community. Cherie Bennett Seiler Just what we need, more cars and traffic. Guy BaI110 John - How is this Tustin city illustration not the wrong information you're claiming? Have you ever driven through Santa Ana to see all the wonderful high-density housing they put in the city (during the'80s and'90s) that are now slums? Can't happen here? Well that's what the SA Council said back then too. Sometimes people in power don't learn. Ask Scott Reeksten, on the Tustin staff, how bad Santa Ana was during those years. I lived there trying to fight the blight and overcrowding and failing neighborhood values (as a resident) while he worked for their neighborhood improvement office. (We lost and we both moved out of the city.) Manage [NMSS (�ILu11141CStlM-IIN M1Mnw FwlLtl Li hwM/ Mitch DeBenedetto Isn't Scott Reeksten part of the problem here? Chuck Rogers The problem is the fact that the council is only listening to folks with too many letters after their names; they can study stats and find great solutions on paper. A mechanic once shared his experience with me ... his experience was the higher the degree the less common sense remained. I tend to agree. Mitch DeBenedetto "proclaiming themselves to be wise, they became fools instead" Marcia Bartosik Moreno The truth of it is that the developers have the eats of the staff and council. I'm not suggesting anything illegal or inappropriate is going on, it's just that access is easier for them. Most residents don't make appointments with staff or council members so guess who gets listened to? By the time a project gets to public meeting its pretty much decided. As Chuck Rogers said, the developers have the money and staff to fund studies which look great on paper and staff and council buy into it. John Nielsen Guy trying to compare Tustin and Santa Ana are like apples & Oranges the will have to board up vacant units making the blight worse. I don't understand what Tustin Planning Commission is thinking. Yes, it would be great to beautify the area. Did you know that they 'forgot' to even consider Caltrans plans to expand the 5 and its impact onRed Hill? There is a major issue with big picture planning... Kathryn McGovern Tapie Did they discuss the downtown area. Last I heard they wanted something like the Anaheim Packing District to go in there. -Sandi BeeSandi and 102 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome into your community! N00000! Kathryn McGovern Tapie Yesssssssss Bryan Biehl No thanks.... go build in another city �J Danielle Murray Stop building!!! No more residential housing needed. Bobby Espinoza Not according to Tustin Legacy. roar� �v. tH�N %Y40? qe .aor 7+pw,g Sandi BeeSandi and 102 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome into your community! The District is already crowded and traffic has increased in that area.The buildings are hideous. I hate to be a NIMBY, but overcrowding is not what we want in Tustin. 1-4 Darcie Cancino I just drove down Katella between the 5 and State College and was shocked at all the huge new apartment buildings. They are awful looking but more suited for the area. NOT on Red Hill in Tustin. But the cumulative impact of all these thousands of new units has to be devastating to traffic and already scarce natural resources. Brett Olivier Are they talking about The District or Old Town? Leane Kahrs Neither - Red Hill Brett Olivier It would be nice to have a master plan for Old Town. Tired of looking at dirt lots around Old Town. Kathryn McGovern Tapie Pm referring to Old Town with the Packing House type area. It would help the business's in old town a lot getting people down there spending money and supporting all the local business Sandi BeeSandi and 102 others joined Tustin Buzz within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome into your community! But, it would completely destroy the feeling of Old Town. A Alexandra Araiza OMG please vote no, parking out here is already Y a nightmare! g)G-� =-*J -i 0 Sandra Martin Norby Tustin Buzz Sandra Martin Norby Teri Holstein Luke Lea Lukas Anne Miller Lukas s Anne Miller Lukas OMG This is absolutely INSANE. They don't have enough building at the District? They are totally ruining Tustin. We can't drive on the roads now. It's horrible. Certainly not the bedroom community we moved into 35 years ago. It is s000 very sad. 609 F- Gwen Ferguson Please click on "Public Hearing" above for info about a new 500 unit 4-5 story housing development proposed on Red Hill near Tustin High. Speak up if you're concerned. The hearing is August 14. "I strongly oppose the proposed number of stories and high density. Red Hill is already heavily impacted with traffic and would become a quagmire if this plan is approved as is. Please don't let developers ruin this area. I suggest a two story maximum height, which used to be Tustin's policy, and lower density, or a different use." Gwen Ferguson 48 year resident of Tustin Karen Kohler Absolutely No. This not good for Tustin and especially those who live in that area. The impact is too huge for anything but driving residents out of Tustin. 49@ Stuart Jackson Tustin isn't Santa Ana for a very good reason. There's already a planning process for zoning variances on a case- by-case basis. If this is to make the on-again/off-again assisted living project at 13800 Red Hill Ave. let them pay for it for their project instead of opening the door to other developers because of Karen Kohler Sounds like it's just added housing. No mention of assisted living. Stuart Jackson There were some assisted living units with the senior housing development. Who ever buys the land/project would have those approvals grandfathered in