HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEMS DISTRIBUTEDSan Joaquin Hills Foothill/Eastem
Transportation Transportation
CorridorAgency AA996.CorridorAgency
Chair: Transportation Corridor Agencies - chair:
Fred Minagar Ed Sachs
Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo
Fact Sheet
TCA has a decades -long, proven track record of utilizing private sector, open -market, toll
revenue bonds — rather than traditional taxpayer financing — to successfully develop
transportation infrastructure solutions.
• To date, TCA has constructed 51 miles of roads representing 21) 1r, -co ni of Orange County's
regional highway system.
• As a result of TCA's innovative financing, $2 billion of infrastructure has been transferred to
California as part of the state highway system. In today's dollars, that number translates to
nearly $4 billion.
• TCA is in the strongest financial position of its 30 -year history and is taking in in
annual toll revenue.
• Since 2014, the Toll Roads' ridership has increased by nearly 20 percent.
• Record levels of customers continue using the Toll Roads daily, including 320,000 trips on a
typical weekday, 101 million transactions annually, and 1.3 million active accounts.
Both TCA corridors enjoy an investment grade bond rating of "A- "
TCA currently holds over $1 billion in reserves, which provides future flexibility in the event of
an unexpected economic downturn, the ability to contribute to regional mobility and the option
to pay down debt early.
• TCA has made every debt service payment over its 25+ year life and has never once
defat,lted on its debt service obligations.
• In addition to the Toll Roads (State Routes 73, 133, 241, and 261), TCA has successfully
planned, financed, and constructed 17 additional transportation improvement projects worth
over $115 million in the last 20 years.
• Orange County's population has grown from 2 million in 1981 to over 3 million people today.
As a government agency, it is our responsibility to plan and construct infrastructure to meet this
growth.
• That's why TCA spent the last several years engaging stakeholders across the region,
including working with environmental leaders, to solicit traffic relief ideas and develop a
community-based study of environmentally sustainable transportation alternatives
• Follow the South Orange County Traffic Relief Effort at GetMovingOC.com
125 Pacifica, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618-3304 • (949) 754-3400 Fax (949) 754-3467
TheTollRoads.com
Members: Aliso Viejo • Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods • Lake Forest
Mission Viejo • Newport Beach • Orange • Rancho Santa Margarita • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Santa Ana • Tustin . Yorba Linda
TCA History & Legislative Authority
As Orange County continued to experience population and economic growth through the 1970's and
1980's, the need to provide additional road facilities became evident. Government and business
leaders, along with builders, developers and property owners, sought ways to address funding for these
infrastructure needs in Orange County.
In 1984, the California Legislature passed AB 2431, which later was established as Government Code
Sec. 66484.3 that provided under the existing Joint Exercise of Powers Act (JPA) and the Marks -Roos
Act (which expanded JPA law), for the County of Orange and Orange County cities, which were
within designated areas of benefit, to form the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), for the
purposes of planning, financing, constructing, maintaining, managing and operating thoroughfares and
bridges. Government Code Sec. 66484.3 further allowed for the County and these member cities to
impose a development impact fee within that area of benefit that could be used by the JPA for purposes
of financing these transportation facilities.
TCA's powers and authority come from four sources: (1) the JPA Act, which generally authorizes the
formation of joint powers authorities; (2) TCA's enabling legislation, AB 2431, Government Code
Sec. 66484.3, which was specifically enacted and amended for the purpose of authorizing the County
of Orange and cities within the County, through the TCA, to take those actions necessary for the
construction of major thoroughfares in the County, including issuing bonds and imposing development
impact fees, (3) the El Dorado Toll Tunnel Authority Act; and (4) the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling
Act of 1984 ("Marks -Roos Act"), Government Code Sec. 6584.
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) and the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Agency (SJHTCA) were then established in 1986 by the County of Orange
and the respective cities. These JPA -wide development impact fees were to be combined with other,
traditional transportation funding to develop the necessary infrastructure. Those other state and federal
sources did not readily materialize.
Additional legislation was passed in 1987, SB 1413 and SB 1415, which further clarified the TCA use
of development impact fees, provided for tolling authority and established revenue bond authority.
SB 1435 and SB 1437 were passed in 1989, which provided TCA with authority to include certain
financing costs in setting the amount of the development impact fees.
All of these moves combined with the unique authority provided through various pieces of legislation,
proved to be a successful formula for the TCA's to finance the development and construction of the
toll road system seen today in Orange County.
San Joaquin Hills
Foottern
AAAk
Transportation
rans porta tion
Transportation
Transportation
Corridor Agency
Corridor Agency
Chair.Transportation
-
Corridor AgenciesChair
Fred Minagar
Ed Sachs
Laguna Niguel
Mission Viejo
TCA History & Legislative Authority
As Orange County continued to experience population and economic growth through the 1970's and
1980's, the need to provide additional road facilities became evident. Government and business
leaders, along with builders, developers and property owners, sought ways to address funding for these
infrastructure needs in Orange County.
In 1984, the California Legislature passed AB 2431, which later was established as Government Code
Sec. 66484.3 that provided under the existing Joint Exercise of Powers Act (JPA) and the Marks -Roos
Act (which expanded JPA law), for the County of Orange and Orange County cities, which were
within designated areas of benefit, to form the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), for the
purposes of planning, financing, constructing, maintaining, managing and operating thoroughfares and
bridges. Government Code Sec. 66484.3 further allowed for the County and these member cities to
impose a development impact fee within that area of benefit that could be used by the JPA for purposes
of financing these transportation facilities.
TCA's powers and authority come from four sources: (1) the JPA Act, which generally authorizes the
formation of joint powers authorities; (2) TCA's enabling legislation, AB 2431, Government Code
Sec. 66484.3, which was specifically enacted and amended for the purpose of authorizing the County
of Orange and cities within the County, through the TCA, to take those actions necessary for the
construction of major thoroughfares in the County, including issuing bonds and imposing development
impact fees, (3) the El Dorado Toll Tunnel Authority Act; and (4) the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling
Act of 1984 ("Marks -Roos Act"), Government Code Sec. 6584.
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) and the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Agency (SJHTCA) were then established in 1986 by the County of Orange
and the respective cities. These JPA -wide development impact fees were to be combined with other,
traditional transportation funding to develop the necessary infrastructure. Those other state and federal
sources did not readily materialize.
Additional legislation was passed in 1987, SB 1413 and SB 1415, which further clarified the TCA use
of development impact fees, provided for tolling authority and established revenue bond authority.
SB 1435 and SB 1437 were passed in 1989, which provided TCA with authority to include certain
financing costs in setting the amount of the development impact fees.
All of these moves combined with the unique authority provided through various pieces of legislation,
proved to be a successful formula for the TCA's to finance the development and construction of the
toll road system seen today in Orange County.
Finances
TCA is rated investment grade by all three major ratings agencies — S&P, Moody's and Fitch, has
record levels of customers — ridership has increased 20 percent since 2015 to 101 million annually,
$380 million in annual toll revenue and $1 billion in reserves.
As recently as this summer Standard and Poor's upgraded the bond ratings for both Foothill/Eastern
and San Joaquin Hills Agencies to A-.
Regarding the San Joaquin Hills corridor ratings increase S&P stated, "the road's market position is
strong, in our opinion. It operates in an area with a population that is road -network reliant; thus, its role
as a congestion reliever with surrounding free alternatives that are among the most heavily -trafficked
and congested in the country, leads us to believe that [it is] becoming a virtual requirement for drivers
who depend on time savings."
Foothill/Eastern System:
Outstanding principal is $2.4 billion.
Annual debt payments are well below annual projected revenues that assume only small 2%
inflationary toll rate increases and are scheduled as annual principal and interest payments
ranging from $109 million in 2018 to $225 million in 2039, staying flat through 2043.
Payments drop to $205 million in 2044 and remain at that level through the final maturity date
of 2053.
San Joaquin Hills System:
• Outstanding principal is $2.2 billion.
• Annual debt payments are well below annual projected revenues that assume only small 2%
inflationary toll rate increases and are scheduled as annual principal and interest payments
ranging from $107 million in 2018 to $186 million in 2040, staying flat through 2049.
• Payments drop to $152 million in the final maturity date in 2050.
Like most toll revenue bond financings that use their advance refunding opportunity several years after
construction, SJHTCA advance refunded its original 1993 bonds in 1997 and F/ETCA refunded its
1995 original bonds in 1999.
In 2013 and 2014, F/ETCA and SJHTCA, respectively, took advantage of the extremely favorable low
interest rates and refinanced the Agencies' debt. This refinancing structured the annual debt payments
to be much lower than the annual revenue projections. The refinancing created margins that protect
against future economic downturns and provided cash flow for future projects in its area of benefit.
Transactions and revenues have exceeded projections every year following the refinancing's of both
Agencies.
In 2013, the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) audit conducted by the
state treasurer's office concurred with TCA's decision to refinance its debt.
c� 600
0
6,1, 500
400
300
200
100
2 400
0
300
200
100
Series 2013C Junior Fixed Rate Bonds
Series 2013B Senior Term Rate Bonds
Series 2013A & Series 2015A Senior Fixed Rate Bonds
-- --Adjusted Net Toll Revenues
2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053
Series 2014B Junior Fixed Rate Bonds
Series 2014A Senior Fixed Rate Bonds
Series 1997A Senior Fixed Rate Bonds
Adj, Net Toll Revenues (no DIFs)
2019 2021
�S
2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041
2043 2045 2047 2049
TCA's bond principal has increased over time as originally anticipated in the initial finance
transactions because some of the bonds are capital appreciation bonds (CABs), which are commonly
used project -based finance tools that monetize anticipated growth in revenues.
While the majority of TCA bonds are current interest bonds, CABs are useful because they do not
require payment of current interest and are scheduled so that the interest adds to the principal and is
paid when the bonds mature. This allows for structuring annual debt payments that align with annual
revenues.
The use of CABs has always been well-planned in TCA financings. TCA's debt structures include
known amounts of interest and principal payments each year through the final maturity of all bonds.
There are no "balloon" payments in the very manageable annual debt payments.
TCA has utilized its 20 years of operating experience to structure the debt to match realistic revenue
projections that are only based on the natural growth in transactions due to the growing population and
the development that has occurred as well as planned development that has already been approved,
along with small inflationary toll rate increases. As a mature agency, TCA is now in a position of
financial strength.
TCA's innovative approach to financing thirty years ago enabled the delivery of billions of dollars of
infrastructure by issuing toll revenue bonds backed only by the tolls and DIFs collected rather than by
subsidizing with federal or state funding, or sales tax bonds. The vision of the leadership who formed
these roads in response to the exploding population, worsening traffic congestion and shrinking
government transportation funds has paid off.
Development Impact Fees (DIFs):
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are not unique to TCA. All new developments are charged DIFs.
Every government in California includes fees on development to fund the infrastructure necessary to
support that development. In some communities, DIFs are charged to fund parks, roads, affordable
housing and new school construction.
In 1986, TCA received the unique ability from the State legislature for its communities of benefit to
pool their DIFs to fund the transportation system infrastructure necessary to support the housing
development that was planned along the TCA's corridors. Each TCA Member City voted to impose
these DIFs as part of their requirements of new development within their communities because they
understood the regional nature of transportation needed to support their growing communities.
Governments charge DIFs once on new residential properties. Remodels do not generate additional
fees unless a new unit is added. Nonresidential fees are based on square footage. If nonresidential
properties are modified, only additional square footage generates a fee.
If a person's home within TCA's area of benefit was built before 1986, no DIFs allocated to TCA were
collected on that home.
Diagram of Capital Improvements
Completed
®/ All Electronic Tolling
IMToll Booth Removal,
Phase 1
Proiects
To date, TCA has constructed 51 miles of roads representing 20 percent of Orange County's highway
system. As a result of TCA's innovative financing, over $2 billion of infrastructure was deeded to the
State of California and is part of the state highway system. In current dollars that amount increases
substantially to nearly $4 billion. TCA does not own the roads. Caltrans owns the roads, and as a
result, Caltrans maintains those roads. Given the significant cost TCA incurred, it is worth repeating
that after the Agency planned, designed, financed, and built the roads, TCA turned the right-of-way for
the roads over to the State of California in fee title as part of the state highway system.
There are still significant investments that are needed by TCA to the existing system, independent of
any extensions. These include over 200 lane miles of toll road widening along with a number of
interchanges including the 241-91 Express Connector.
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Completed Projects
241 Banderas Bridge Overcrossing. - This project provided a new overcrossing of the 241 Toll
Road between Antonio Parkway and Santa Margarita Parkway. It was sponsored by the City of
Rancho Santa Margarita to provide improved traffic circulation within the City. The F/ETCA
contributed $1.22 million as its fair share of the project costs.
2. Santa Margarita Parkway On -Ramp Widening - The northbound on-ramp at this location
previously narrowed to a single lane prior to merging into the mainline. This project added a
second lane to the ramp to address high peak -hour traffic volumes, which also required
widening the 1,500 -foot -long Arroyo Trabuco Creek Bridge. The bridge was widened to the
Ultimate Corridor configuration at a total project cost of $11.57 million.
3. Arroyo Trabuco Southbound Bridge Widening. - During construction of the Santa Margarita
Parkway On -Ramp Widening project, the contractor was asked to price a similar widening of
the southbound traffic structure thereby allowing both northbound and southbound structures to
be widened to their Ultimate Corridor width at the same time. This would allow only one
disruption of the Arroyo Trabuco Creek below the bridge. The project was designed and
constructed including the addition of a second exit lane to Santa Margarita Parkway at a total
project cost of $8.52 million.
4. 241 northbound widening — One additional mixed flow lane was constructed in the median of
the 241 northbound from Arroyo Trabuco Creek to Bake Parkway. This project included the
widening of five twin northbound and southbound bridges to their Ultimate Corridor
configuration. The total project cost was $15.28 million.
5. 241 Tomato Springs Toll Plaza Third FasTrak Lanes — These lanes were added to address
increasing traffic volumes and FasTrak usage at this SR 241 location. Included was a
reconfiguration of the lane delineation between the toll plaza and the adjacent SR 133
Interchange to encourage FasTrak as the predominant toll payment method. The total project
cost was $3.11 million.
6. Landscaping Enhancements — Two separate contracts were designed and constructed/installed
on the 241 and 261 Corridors. These were completed at project costs totaling $5 million. Grant
funds of $750,000 reduced the Agency's net cost by that amount.
7. Toll Plaza Water & Wastewater — Improvements to the toll plaza water and wastewater systems
were completed at three mainline toll plazas on the 241, 261 and 133 Toll Roads, including one
new connection to a public sewer. The total project cost was $223,000.
8. 133 Widening — One mixed flow lane was added in each direction from I-5 to 241 along with
median guard rail for most of the 2.5 -mile project length. The total project cost was $5.39
million.
9. Windy Ridge FasTrak Lane Widening - The project added a third general purpose FasTrak lane
in each direction within the 241 -roadway median through the Windy Ridge Mainline Toll Plaza
from south of the Southern California Edison (SCE) wildlife undercrossing to north of the
Windy Ridge wildlife undercrossing, a distance of 3.0 miles. Widening the southbound SCE
bridge and the northbound Windy Ridge Wildlife bridge was also included in the project.
10. All -Electronic Tolling — In May 2014, the Agencies ceased collecting cash on the system. This
was a multi-year process that involved each of the departments within the TCA. All -Electronic
Tolling provides for license plate tolling for those that do not have a FasTrak account.
11. Wildlife Safety Fence Phases 1, 2A, and 2B — In FY 2016, Phases 1, 2A, and 2B were
constructed. This 6.4 mile stretch along SR 241 from the Chapman/Santiago Canyon Road
interchange to SR -91 has been completed and is expected to reduce the number of wildlife -
vehicle collisions on the SR 241.
12. Toll Booth Removal Phase 1 — After completion of the conversion to All -Electronic Tolling,
the remaining toll booths on the system were evaluated for removal. Construction of Phase 1
included the removal of the toll booths and related equipment on multi -lane ramps where traffic
passed on both sides of the existing toll booths. Schedule for future phases has not yet been
identified.
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Completed Projects
73 @ Glenwood Interchange Phase I — This project included the design and construction of
ramps to and from the north at Glenwood/Pacific Park Drive on the 73 Toll Road. Work was
performed under a design -build contract at a total project cost of $8.50 million. Just under $6.7
million was received by the San Joaquin Hills Agency in grant funding for the project.
2. Landscaping Enhancements — A contract was completed to enhance the landscaping at
interchanges along the SR 73, at a cost of $2.3 million.
73 Northbound Roadway Widening — This project added a fourth lane to the northbound
mainline in two locations: 1) from the former lane drop north of Aliso Viejo Parkway to north
of the Laguna Canyon Road entrance ramp, a distance of 2.4 miles, and 2) from the Catalina
View Mainline Toll Plaza cash lane merge, to the MacArthur Blvd. exit, a distance of 3.3
miles.
4. All -Electronic Tolling — In May 2014, the Agencies ceased collecting cash on the system. This
was a multi-year process that involved each of the departments within the TCA. All -Electronic
Tolling provides for license plate tolling for those that do not have a FasTrak account.
5. Toll Booth Removal Phase 1 — After completion of the conversion to All -Electronic Tolling,
the remaining toll booths on the system were evaluated for removal. Construction of Phase
included the removal of the toll booths and related equipment on multi -lane ramps where traffic
passed on both sides of the existing toll booths. Schedule for future phases has not yet been
identified.
Future Challenges
Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
and California State University, Fullerton's (CSUF) Center for Demographic Research (CDR)
highlight the problem we're facing. Based on their growth projections between 2015-2040, Orange
County's population will increase by 310,000 people, leading to the construction of 120,000 new
homes and the creation of 275,000 new jobs to support population and housing growth. Based on
these figures, additional transportation infrastructure will be critical to maintain Orange County's high
quality of life and economic vitality.
Ultimately, Orange County benefits from a variety of transportation resources such as federal and state
funding, and OCTA's M2 program, but because of the uncertainty attached to all public funding, non-
recourse toll revenue bonds provide the certainty that South Orange County needs to ensure significant
traffic improvements get built.
Orange County has always been on the forefront of finding solutions that meet the growing demand for
roadway capacity. The county has benefitted from this collaboration and utilization of multiple
funding sources. Elected leaders fought hard to create the TCA with the unique ability and
authorization to access private capital that could be used to the benefit of the public. These locally
controlled funds are in the form of non-recourse toll revenue bonds that are not backed by the
government or tax dollars. Through this financing mechanism TCA is able to provide additional
transportation options that otherwise would not be constructed.
241/91 Direct Connector
The 91 freeway is one of the nation's most heavily congested corridors. A partnership between
Caltrans, OCTA, TCA and RCTC is in the public's best interest as it would provide an additional
opportunity for drivers to bypass the general purpose lanes by connecting directly from one tolled
facility to another, which in turn eases the traffic congestion in the general purpose lanes.
Recent studies indicate that today nearly 40,000 vehicles travel through the 91 Corridor between
Orange County and the Inland Empire during peak commute times. By 2040, the daily number of cars
in that corridor during peak commute times is expected to increase to 50,000. That means we will
experience 20 percent more traffic than we do today. In addition, recently completed traffic studies by
Stantec show that travel time between Interstate 55 and the McKinley Avenue exit on the 91 would
decrease by 11 minutes in the general purpose lanes. Adding to that challenge is the fact that earlier
this year the U.S. Census Bureau reported that Riverside County ranked No. 3 in population growth
among large counties in the nation.
In addition to the increasing traffic, the safety benefits of a direct connection between the two facilities
must be considered as it would eliminate the need for vehicles entering the 91 from the 241 Toll Road
to weave across multiple general purpose lanes to access the 91 Express Lanes, which also causes
traffic to slow down. A direct connection will enhance regional connectivity, improve air quality and
reduce stop -and -go traffic between the Inland Empire and Orange County.
Recent actions by the three Orange County cities most impacted by the 91 congestion underscore the
value to both local and regional traffic the direct connector would bring. Anaheim, Orange and Yorba
Linda all passed resolutions in the summer of 2018 encouraging Caltrans, OCTA and TCA to continue
project progress and not delay future phases.
South County Traffic Relief Effort — Get Moving Orange County
With Orange County's population expected to increase by 310,000 more residents between 2015-2040,
resulting in an additional 210,000 homes and 275,000 new jobs, TCA is committed to identifying
solutions that will relieve traffic congestion through South Orange County.
In 2008, the California Coastal Commission denied a key permit for the previously proposed project
known as State Route 241 Foothill -South, which would have completed our region's toll highway
network by connecting the 241 Toll Road with Interstate 5 south of San Clemente. TCA appealed the
decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who decided not to overrule the California Coastal
Commission's decision. As a result, TCA was advised by the Governor's office to pursue an
agreement with the environmental coalition in opposition to that alignment to determine what could
and could not be done in terms of finding a solution to the regional traffic congestion.
In November 2016, TCA agreed to a settlement with the Save San Onofre Coalition. This settlement
agreement came after 15 years of litigation and involved 12 environmental organizations, the Attorney
General, the State Parks Foundation and the Native American Heritage Commission. As a result of this
agreement, TCA is now able to explore possibilities that deliver meaningful traffic relief for our
region.
In collaboration with Caltrans, OCTA, the County of Orange, and cities in the area of benefit, TCA has
led a robust public engagement effort to seek broad input in advance of defining traffic relief
alternatives to be further studied in detail through a formal environmental review. Through this
comprehensive engagement effort, the purpose and fundamental objectives of the South County Traffic
Relief Effort were established and defined with input and concurrence from local elected officials to
address north -south regional mobility in South Orange County and accommodate regional travel
demand in a manner that promotes the supporting objectives to:
Improve regional mobility by reducing congestion on I-5 during peak commuting hours
and weekends
Provide additional north -south capacity in case of traffic incidents on I-5
Enhance bike and pedestrian opportunities
TCA's planning activities for the South County Traffic Relief Effort are in accordance with TCA's
role as the sponsoring agency for the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require the study of a range of alternatives and a no -
build option in the formal environmental phase. During this phase, a detailed traffic analysis, as
mandated by the CEQA/NEPA process, will be conducted to determine the actual volume of traffic
needing to be accommodated. Ultimately, we are confident this analysis will provide a balanced
solution addressing community concerns and regional mobility.
Memorandum
To: City of Tustin City Council
From: Robert Stein
Resident at 14212 Quent Drive,Tustin
Date: October 16, 2018
Re: Comments to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Overall, the proposed Specific Plan looks very good.
However, four small lots within the specific plan area are directly adjacent to single-family
homes and deserve further consideration to provide development balance.The following
development restrictions for these four lots are respectfully suggested:
1. Restrict new development to a maximum height of 35 feet (the existing height restriction).
2. Maintain the existing rear setback requirement of at least 20 feet to allow for a 10-foot back
alley while still providing some protection to adjacent residences from noise and other
nuisances. (The EIR does not address noise issues for a 10-foot wide alley.)
3. Require screening trees equal to the height of proposed building.
4. Prohibit roof top gardens that would overlook onto the single-family houses.
ACTION: If these suggested changes cannot be analyzed immediately, can we have a
continuance with a subsequent meeting with Planning staff to explore options?
LFCSMDs
1 ryti
some Pmad Oounduy v i •)_v•)_v"
- c..,,,,.-6.1 } - -.4. •
PINE TREE
-0AMt
Q Ccmrtmdal-Auto L}" J.
0 f ? r'�
Ccmnvdal-F�a w �
o SingirgCar_ar ,' v� t
lin uuc.FmeJy a ddattlnl ;',;:-.'A.,,,
y i /�7,
TUf7Rl FLCJI i �(�/�.•h��Xx
j Q TinekimNPn'rJwticl SCHOOL 1.`f.-'`,•
-
I® m=
/NOME UFFN
IIII MVO
p 91140,:tQ VnrcN ( +4
. r
FFOa� ' Four small lots in the Specific Plan
IwANN --- area that are adjacent to single
, F.SMACK
SCH001. / family houses.
ia.)
-'-yhA
E 'yv tA+yam:
400
,.° [At o
,' .,fat ,.....1- -,- '--:,•- --. - - . ,
.. - . . ._ .. _ •
,F. ., _ •• Ur" :.,,, ....1,,,,
, .
••• ...a ': . '• ,
-. . .
S k)Arn-----------__
..- /I U
' —__ •
-0/________ . -
_......
ii
_
r:04 _ A"
, ...
. _ .
. . .
---ullopt,. ..- ,-.•:-A ..,, .. , _T
-.,,,,,,„-c- ‘1,•,‘'W-:7.,
.
. . . 4
. . ,,... „. . .
.--. 114.:\,7.-\'' 's2---14:.:7-.' .v.'''. :: ----:::: i ....'- ';'-''''-':111!1171-.7.;*.:17'77.-frv'k'::.!1,;L::--4-71-
4 do 7 i
4 — .•.
i ' `,;',I ' ':::-.1-"."-.7 -‘t 41.0.K.It-.\i..,;.,' -• let\ N -;L--7.
......, _ ,
_ ..,, n."‘ '1.?-`.;:•,;`,44.1. \ , ,,i. i : ,‘
.•'---.,,,;;,..-7 ..,-.,-7' , , p, k.' .
. ..
. ,, iiikrila.....,:lit, •...
'` .T.-;--,-;.v.,;, •
' ikrk,4=-1. ..or•,-. .:4.. imia.. 4.1.›./--4? 4 '• . ;"' - 1,,4. ,- 1 .';'
\,-- , , .
• . - •,, .,,..!,;;;.'-k4-1..-''' !-:1-_-: f•. - - -0261
_._ . •-
it
„, ,.,i.itE '•.-.e;.,:e. '
'',` '';‘,•• . . ..._____ -,±s'<‘1F-, •
,.-,4 ...; >47F4-4•ftf 44-ze...---11
Amara; . 4 • , ..,ax--„„ •
1 -. • :
'''',_,.. 45,y,1 •:._-_ -.• -- -•,.-,IN„ •,-. .
• .,- , •
_,_ ...
•.1•:•••'.....,., -,1-!..,,-,4--,:4,74:-1--.:,...A.4
'.1-7"11.••,•t
,-,;:7....'"'',.1 ' ,4,..,:-`..';''.7-4.jr: '''.....,,.-.,'• . '' .;,, :,45: ' '. .. ' .;,1±4.,:",krQ;
k..,,1 : ....
,.....: •`1'.4 • - ... r.;•• .--''''A\'.-- ••• i ,4.....--;, ,-,,. i,4?..pV- 1110404 alit.,1,;.;,,,,...,4161( .;4-4111110?-4.....-:;%':',:-
,41-,„•ts,,• . - •„4,44:- .. •."':''f'if,',... 4,,, ..: .:.-.,„.. ..,. ....,-.... ,•,•.!,.,2*,•, ,-,...,,.. , .) . ...
.:‘,
,..,.,...,:.,... ,„•,,,, ,• :„.,....,;_,,,:„,• • .,..4,,,p.• . _ ,. ,,„,„..il.Ri•-..„....,,• •, ...• 7 ... " ..... 14
..• - 14, 4:'s1 t• ..•• : ••-..-4.-44:.,14--,;,.. - , t4-4- . "• fi' ,- i-• 7 ?As-,li.„4,,,,.... -.. .•...
-r I ,:pe,---'•", .•.1 Rif_•--•---• - .... .. . • •
„.-,,,-z.,..?;.*.,.-,4 d ' -; •--' •. , -';'•i. ••s*--' •-'-' . 1'; • 4 / ' I,'/// =—1/ '' '''-'',i.v.z.ii ca :-...,- -!,.. • ----_ _. _ ,
t . '... ..;,;•-.:':,•,-i.'.,-r:7.., .., ',..f-" -,-/,.-., I,7/ _ /- . `-.-- - - I /-".•,. I '-.'•i4'.', ...- :., •.1-r. ' . , _______
_ .„,..,., ,„:,.. is... .,..: -1..... ., . -, t,,,,..-3 , . . ,r,-,-,--- f /7,' ' . '" 1 I / •r! .44..7.1.C-. I - ''
_
Lo.. i
;,:•:....t2r;.;.,,w4., :..i.i.,..... ..„..=,-...:::, •„...: ,. ,. ,,..,4,..•;..,,,,:,.. ..s....,...,,,,,.1,..„,..,.. / .
,-. .,t,...:•.-../.,40,-,..,..,.; • .• 1 .
,
, ...___. .
...,: .).,, ,•.,N.0,-:_, ....• ‘ . ,, , •
„64,..... _
•
.'-'••..V.b.,.'si4.:''1-o. . • • ' 34-• '?!'I/• ),...,.! ,-: ...„.•.'2, , .
--wri``•-•> '''' ' '"IP''-*.
- 44411.' . • 7- ' ___________,-
.
__- ..., _-
.-...-L., , , -' • -- ,k. 4,,,i',. .., ,.,,,,,!.-
- ',..„,-;....,-V‘f,. • . . ,..,‘ • '‘,... w .'...54 .-.41r.. .' .
• _----
--
'''': '.-?.- -' • " :..0.i,,- - , le rv-fi-f•- , ...71-
--..;t•••-‘:',..‘r.i.„,
.:./1A,14.-,;"•',.,4, .''''. .',. 4 ••,./-1- •-,--- • • .---. taI, •-•-....t .1.' i: i!,
.?.,4:1 s:
°5
,.,.-!*.- ;.,:,;„ , • ,: .--,-,,. ..-,,,, ..,-. 4, , .., ..:,,,i.,.. iii.
tiq
,
-.,-
.
T----
• - -
: I •
a
..;:..•:,•:1.•.:'•1•7 7' ' . '-::' ..'' . 'i• S.'• • ": . ... •F.•I'i '. .'
I •S
--ii '
•
•
I I
• •
.,,P..'aa.•A. .. 1 , . ,,
,+
.; '••‘'• ', / -'' '• • ":'4. ' 4":4,11\;'!ii'ft:•''. . '•-•''••,.- '-' ''• i;•'.....a.• •__a-a.--
-,,,,.,0 4 • - , ,- . :,,..-•.4.-E.:42.,.. .10-, - •
. :
.. , -_-_ . --..." ,,..,.4.404,,- r• • -, -
',...i,:„.•;l'-',4: ._•,-'s ',',A=Z;d' ' •‘•,v,.• --7.7,.-,3•,,,t.-.1 ',,, ,.:,.. r;:,,.-.:.4•4 ;''------.
t''--'-1 '''',,y):::-. =-..".(..100.,''.'.;C .-- -1:4!.''' •:\.':.,,t14.:,,,,ty-.; -.""..1.c,-,- -...,' -;..-,L.,
--,',.-- .e(-',. A{1. 1''• Z• '• Zi,i,'• '' ,. '41' 1,,..,'' 1-,„ 1r:1".•‘y-,'''- 1%. - -
-- , •
''" ..0# , 4.., -•,A -.— : ' .-‘ -7,.,:'---- -1 •'. e. 1.. -.4111t,r1k.,•4 1'. ' '''
'A';'. -,-1`.'K7.:*-„,1,.• - 1, .• ..,4 -,,, - %,.....• ,......, .,,,,••
.•• . ,.
. %
. ----E.:- .,. ''''''\ . •• 1
__---
I - ---
I'
i
, 4--t. - .. - ,.. ,
-- • - t , .... 7,.. -- •,-,;.,1 ,, •-s :.•,..c..:• ,.•. ..4,11:4,-, . '......-. -.-- .- .,-,.. __--
,... .,- , ‘:„D.,•-, . ... --w-ss -t.t„. ,.f.• , - ,t. „;,., , •,,:r-'•••.,.!, 4k.-..7:-,--
- •'- •*'0 -4,.":1, ' 14.‘ eiP
i •
-,)• .-'._,'.`.-:',',,,t. C" '' : 4:- -W,Z:1VT, 0,•-.-'- • .• •• • • :, - ----- .,,-- -...,‘-- ;• . i
:\ 1
...•,;.!:„,...-..- ,..„ ‘•••;,, ...*.. „,,.,..• .,....
,,,4,•:- ."'..:-:- -' ';'-., -.. *Altig i. .' ,• • ?---- '
-,....„, ......„...,
• T-7'...• - -'7'.,:-'--
.,:':,..(--:' - ,f.** , . • :.;" • ,..:' ,',,,.'•• .• '-''.- '.
• fit' .
.... , -' , ..,„/ •-,....—.......*-,,,_,, 2.,1116'
--,,,,;•••••4"::-- ../..'41".-- ....;÷
(is •.-,... ..-' - - ----, ,...--•-_,,,--.-- -,_,.. 33' .'''..-i... .-'4466.'-,_: .j„.../.7_' "'-:-"" '
I. > ....--/-°.';•••*".-. -•"--- /
...-..f.,.....,'''-
,....------....,----- _---- -
-_,.....-
--e-k:
_----- -
.g/11 2,/q, ___L/1 : -.n
,
I......---.
...7 'e.", .,tc"licr.' ,:. 6/44 cc, -• ''''--•',- L c•'•
_,..rV: It•-.74.k*.t.V.,..F...7.0'g:21firr •'.3.-• :e' 'c . '''_!4•-•' -4 7.L.,'4 c
c•-"tcceir• t-C.• ......
--..- '..."..."."..**""*CIrjr..7..---.tc.-",-•,,
74,1"ft.t. .0.
. -
v
'''''' - --•ofin - ---f‘
. It...) ...)
_ ---or
,..
-,- . ;iltellt•• mi • 7===; \— s'. ,,,-,-,_ — ..4.----1 sa " •c',4,— •„s-- , . :" = , 11 .:
•,
''''Fli .' •• 1 'HO ‘r7 ''' 41*: ' ' ..)‘' g;',...L/ NNMINI:i. 4 • ._-, s'Ar,',
'..K. - , I Lak — ,'.-K 10. e. ;,,, _4•I-.• ,
1--• -. eV.r./J ' a .,'-- !-. - .----„- —
•_ -
„ - ,•..,. -....-•,,, -
---
,, . .,
7 ” :
• __
-:".,--_,4
e .., _
................... _ ,..... ....„-- -..----..„
. 4." _. -.................... --1.= -",.... '--- - ---.-_-L......-',,..Z......--::?........-....--....L..-:;,/r.''
•.t;.,...;.•....r, ',1,..71.il*.
..... '"---,..5.1...••:17:t.r.;r%;‘"rt;1' ''....Z1...------.------.1....‘-"'' Calti ,.," -........iiiif, ,` „ ,'IV , . ..o, “
ir-. e.
--:-.::--...1-,---*,....--, ..-,.....,.._._, ..,...,,,0,.i..y.,,, ,,o.a''..,...,V, 't,.., a,...:,‹•- . I I.1 ,,Airf5' • 4°Q' .' -',". .c:!,. "1 1::4-",•"i'.'.....1 .-. • :.r,'- - - - ' . J,4,_-*Ir.,: -
,"•%ti4 • .....,14, ,.• -. .cvfl : . „,;,- ....,..„ '.‘„,!: k\.7. cl""...ii c. .„, .ill ' 4 • :11t.t,-,Aoli
. .,...4r-..tin., . „• -,, _. - ,- :: . , ,.....---..-: - P • Milk, .!.. - . ' '''' '-' ' , l''' ' -" -->fr t-'. - ,f4r/ ''',i ; . .:'
• . -'. • • ' .. ' -,p.p.,,,,t,,,, -: --&--,4-4., -o• . -. 7 ;-.' '
. .— .
' *:t-•
* 11L_ JIF ...
:4- 4iLAm.
-1F jr lit. ,-- r
V..1' -..I.., .•,' e
. `
ar...................
--"':----....<:-------- .
--...___.... -----___ -.______ •
.• --,741;- •, , . -;*.."'''''''•,'"!'f'--'-,c!"'12'...:''-c.... - ---.-'-. '.-
,= '',:-.,7,_,, •,,,,..:-.,--.,.7:„.,....J.&,..1.1.-. -'- '''-'
Yasuda, Erica
From: Demkowicz, Erica
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:19 PM
To: Yasuda, Erica
Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth;Willkom,Justina; Reekstin, Scott
Subject: FW: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
FYI.
Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3127
From:Andy Wilson [mailto:acwilsonll@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:00 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@tustinca.org>; Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org>
Subject: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
October 16, 2018
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Mayor Murray, Honorable City Councilmembers and Ms. Demkowicz,
My family owns the land under the State Brothers shopping center on Red Hill Avenue between
Nisson Road and Mitchel Street, which is located within the area of the proposed Red Hill Avenue
Specific Plan. I am writing to propose ideas on how the Plan can be improved in light of the "Errata"
and "Recommendations" that the Planning Commission adopted on September 25, 2018.
1. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Sites.
The current draft of the Plan places an unfair burden on non-conforming uses, buildings, and
sites. Paragraph 4.6 of the Plan provides in part as follows:
"Existing uses shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards in
the RHASP, subject to the provisions of TCC Section 9273, Legal Nonconforming Structures
and Uses. 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 criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required."
1
Existing TCC Section 9273, which is referenced above, becomes unfair when applied in conjunction
with the Plan, especially for centers with small shop spaces. It is important for centers to have
flexibility to change the use of small shops so that the tenant mix can meet the changing needs of
local residents. Currently, the use of a small shop can change to a more intense use without an
undue burden. This flexibility, which exists for centers along Red Hill, will be lost with the adoption of
the Plan, which makes existing centers "nonconforming." To become "conforming," the Plan requires
compliance with conditions that impose a significant financial burden on the center. This will result in
small shop uses not changing and becoming stagnant.
The Plan even goes so far as to state that "re-tenanting" will trigger the need to comply with the
Plan. Re-tenanting routinely occurs when small shop tenants sell their businesses, or retire, or go out
of business. A change in tenant is not a valid basis for requiring conformance with the new
regulations; that provision alone likely renders the Plan unconstitutional.
The Plan's new regulations and design criteria only make economic sense in the context of new
residential development as portrayed in the Plan's architectural renderings. Paragraph 4.6 should be
amended or clarified to provide simply that the Plan's new regulations and design criteria only apply
to new residential development. I believe that such a simplification would remove any objections or
concerns regarding the issue of nonconforming uses.
2. Traffic and Circulation Impacts.
The environmental impact report supporting the Plan includes a traffic study. The study appears to
be incomplete. It does not attempt to analyze potential impacts on the roadway segment of Red Hill
Avenue that extends under the 1-5 Freeway between El Camino Real and Nisson Road. It also does
not analyze the potential impacts on other important roadway segments in the project area. For
example, the study fails to analyze any of the segments of the streets that cross Red Hill Avenue in
the project area, such as San Juan Street, El Camino Real, Nisson Road, Mitchell Avenue, or Walnut
Avenue. The environmental impact report should be revised to disclose these impacts before the
Plan is adopted.
The Planning Commission adopted an Errata requiring an equitable distribution of the 500 residential
units within the Plan area such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. Under
that Errata, each parcel is entitled to a proportionate share of the 500 units. The validity of the traffic
study depends on whether the study assumed that the residential units would be distributed among
each parcel as envisioned by the Errata. That does not appear to be case. The study should be
revised or clarified to reflect the requirements of the Errata before the Plan is adopted.
Sincerely,
Andy Wilson
2
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER BIR
October 16, 2018
Mayor Al Murray PRESIDENT
City of Tustin MIKE GARTLAN
3000 Centennial Way OCT 16 2018 KB HOME
Tustin, CA 92780
VICE PRESIDENT
-r.+:; RICK WOOD
CITY Or*I'-- J TRI POINTE HOMES
Re: Item 8—Redhill Specific Plan - TREASURER/SECRETARY
SUNTI KUMJIM
MBK HOMES
Dear Mayor Murray,
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I write with PHIL BODEM
concerns about Item 8: The Redhill Specific Plan. The majority of the plan offers
exciting updates to an area of the city in need of revitalization but several TRADE CONTRACTOR
recommendations
VP.
`' ALAN BOUDRUDREAU
recommendations from Planning Commission stand to jeopardize the hard work done BOUDREAU PIPELINE
CORPORATION
in bringing this proposal forward.
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter MARK HIMMELSTEIN
(BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 member companies NEWMEYER&DILLION,LLP
employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. Our MEMBER-AT-LARGE
mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable PETER VANEK
communities.
FOREMOST COMPANIES
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
As such, we are concerned to see height reductions, demands for enhanced parking SEAN MATSLER
despite current building trends, demands for parkland beyond existing protections MANATT,PHELPS&PHILLIPS,LLP
and an ill-defined directive regarding the distribution of the Residential Allocation EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Reservation units. These further hurdles come on top of the recently approved STEVE LA MOTTE
Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that will apply to the construction of these units.
If housing is desired in Tustin, placing extreme burdens on production will directly
and adversely impact your stated goals. To suggest housing will be part of the Redhill
Specific plan and then make production exceptionally difficult to finance is not a
productive path forward. Please keep in mind the impacts of government mandates.
We ask that you proceed without the Planning Commission recommendations and
adopt the Redhill Specific Plan and Residential Allocation units.
24 Executive Park,Suite 100
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Irvine, California 92614
Respectfully, 949.553.9500 f biaoc.com
.ate
Steven C. LaMotte
Chapter Executive Officer
Irvine Asset Group, LLC 2018
cay CL i :<'S OFFICE
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Tustin — - -
Sent via email LD
: ,8
October 15, 2018
G` :
RE: RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN C
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
First and foremost, we would like to commend the City Staff for bringing forward for your
approval the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. We support the plan as recommended to the
Planning Commission by City Staff and would urge your approval of this plan to encourage the
redevelopment of the specific plan area, which in some areas has experienced significant
degradation. The adoption of this plan will serve as a basis for stimulating new development,
which will benefit the City and the Red Hill community. Leaving this area as is without any new
planning to promote the redevelopment of this area will only lead to further deterioration.
We urge you to adopt the original staff recommended plan as submitted to the
Commission. This plan creates a more flexible basis for the city to make decisions regarding
new development. It imposes a discretionary review process, which allows the city to look at all
projects individually as they come forward, and to determine their suitability according to their
location and site conditions.
The Planning Commission recommendations to the Council, for the most part, remove some of
that flexibility:
1. We believe the Planning Commission recommendation to further reduce the height limit
for the mixed-use projects are not merited. We recommend the height restrictions
remain as currently described in the Specific Plan, which refers to a maximum of 4
stories and 5 stories with additional setbacks subject to specific criteria and additional
setbacks.
2. We believe the Planning Commission recommendation to require even more than 2.25
per unit for mixed use projects (in only the Specific Plan areas) is without merit and
without any factual analysis to promote a higher parking standard. However, we agree
that a Parking Management Plan for projects within the Specific Plan area is a good idea.
3. The Planning Commission is recommending in the allocation of the 500 Residential
Allocation Reservations units, the City shall consider an equitable distribution within the
Specific Plan such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. We
find these criteria to be vague and hard to interpret at the very least. It would not make
sense to allocate units to properties with no opportunity (due to size or interest), to
provide "mixed-use" projects as provided by the Specific Plan. The units should be
allocated as applications are submitted so that the plan actually works to encourage
redevelopment. The plan has a provision to convert commercial square footage to
mixed use with residential should more units be suitable to implement the goals of the
specific plan. We support making no change to the Specific Plan as originally submitted
to the Planning Commission by city staff.
Lastly, we have a concern with the recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure
14.12-1 of the Specific Plan EIR, which addresses the Park Land Dedication or In-lieu fee.
The Mitigation Measure provided in the draft DEIR released in January 2018, would have
required, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation of$3,644,444 per acre, approximately
$24,000 a dwelling unit, an amount that would make any development project infeasible.
According to the staff report released on September 25, 2018, 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), and 2.25 average persons per DU, and $2,500,000 of park
land value.
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 for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in that 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. We have reviewed the population generation rates for a
number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per
dwelling unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend
that a flat per unit fee be provided for the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du
per acre at no more than $8,000 per dwelling unit for all base dwelling units.* Also, we request
the fees collected be used for park improvements in the vicinity of the specific project and
within the Specific Plan.
It is not clear whether the City intends to include bonus units for projects receiving a density
bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) in any calculation of an
applicable Parkland Mitigation Fee imposed under the Red Hill Specific Plan. 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 projects to include population increases allocated to these bonus
units, 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.
4000 MacArthur Blvd. I Suite 600 I Newport Beach,California 92660 I Phone 949.783.4123
We believe that in order to encourage development of much needed housing, (and affordable
housing) in the Specific Plan areas and areas which are in need of revitalization, the City should
provide incentives to builders. A reduction in fees is one of the best ways the City can provide
incentives.
As a property owner and a Stakeholder in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, we appreciate
the opportunity for us to comment on the Red Hill Specific Plan, and especially the City efforts
to create a plan to stimulate the revitalization of the Red Hill Specific Plan area.
Sincerely,
Craig Swanson
Irvine Asset Group
* Base Units, per the City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance
4000 MacArthur Blvd. I Suite 600 I Newport Beach,California 92660 I Phone 949.783.4123
Demkowicz, Erica
From: Susan Eilenberg <susan_ei@pacbell.net>
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'; 'dan';
'Dan Gwaltney'; 'Dat Nyugen'; `David Larson'; 'dmc26'; 'Don Sodaro';'donna';'Donna ';
'drkvarnstrom'; 'edelpizzo';'frank'; 'frankb'; 'gcsutd'; 'greg'; 'Howard Abel'; 'ipost '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: Completed
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<EDemkowicz@tustinca.org>
Sent:Thursday,October 4,2018 4:43 PM
To:Adam Foster<adamfoster17@hotmail.com>;ajernegan<ajernegan@hotmail.com>;Alice Houseworth
<alice@houseworthdesign.com>; america<americadarlene@gmail.com>; andrea<amaloney@cox.net>;apine
<apineimondi@aol.com>;Austin Lumbard<austinjlumbard@gmail.com>; bluemoon<bluemoon_artist@yahoo.com>;
bluepacific<bluepacificmoon@sbcglobal.net>; Bob Jarrad<bobjarrad@gmail.com>; Brad Losey<bmlosey@att.net>;
Bruce Heathcote<bheathcote@leeirvine.com>; cabtguy<cabtguy@gmail.com>;christy<christyrose507@att.net>;
chukbacca<chukbacca@gmail.com>;Claudia Quezada<jayymeeZ3@icloud.com>; cristina <cristina.ruiz@dellcorp.us>;
cshucker<cshucker@yahoo.com>; dan<danyar3030@gmail.com>; Dan Gwaltney<dgwaltney@pdlcorp.us>; Dat Nyugen
<datnonstop@outlook.com>; David Larson <hbskaterguy@hotmail.com>; dmc26<dmc26casupanan@yahoo.com>; Don
Sodaro<donsod@aol.com>; donna<donnakarlen@yahoo.com>; Donna <donnak.eisler@gmail.com>; drkvarnstrom
<drkvarnstrom@gmail.com>;edelpizzo<edelpizzo@gmail.com>;frank<frankeley@sbcglobal.net>; frankb
<frankb654@aol.com>;gcsutd <gcsutd@gmail.com>;greg<greg.sullivan@cbre.com>; Howard Abel
<luckyhwrd@aol.com>; ipost<ipostage@gmail.corn>; 'think<ithinkdoo@yahoo.com>;James Armistead
<jarmistead@ffres.com>;jenx<jenx.tran@gmail.com>;Jerry Amante<jerry@fsbcorestrategies.com>;jessie
<jessiem09@gmail.corn>;Jim Burke<jburke@safeglow.com>;johnm<johnm@sbcglobal.net>;Johnson, Eric
<EJohnson@tustinca.org>;jojo<jojos119@hotmail.com>;jomurillo<jomurillo55@gmail.com>;Jon & Marty Peters
<Jpmpr3@juno.com>;Joseph<joseph.lp.chen@grnail.corn>;jruano<jruano@ffres.com>;julia<julia@sabotin.com>;kit
<kitsampson2003@yahoo.com>;kymberly<kymberlyrogers@gmail.com>; lara <lara.basicblack@hotmail.com>; last
<lasti48@aol.com>; !aura<laura.stearns@crowncastle.com>; mdelumba<mdelumba@hotmail.com>; mercedes
<mercedeshaina@aol.com>; mhtaylor<mhtaylor@juno.com>; Michael Hubman<michaelcirclewider@yahoo.com>;
Mick Meldrum<mmeldrum@icidevco.corn>; Mike Abel<MAbel@lee-associates.corn>; Mike Cannan
<mcannan@calpacifichornes.com>; moore<moore_toby@yahoo.com>; nhrousey<nhrousey@gmail.com>; norm
<normbarou@sbcglobal.net>; norm <norm@vdr.com>; norma<norma.flink@hotmail.com>;onemead
<onemeadman@yahoo corn>; perez<perezjuan556@aol.com> polly<pollycrkr3l@yahoo.corn>; psapetto
<psapetto@sapettorealestate.corn>; ruth<ruthmccort@att.net>;Saldivar, Krys<KSaldivar@tustinca.org>; smedina
<smedina193@yahoo.com>; Steve Silverstein<Kickout215@aol.com>; susan<susan_ei@pacbell.net>;Swiontek, Ryan
<RSwiontek@tustinca.org>; tbone<tbonedelux@sbcglobal.net>;Tom O'Meara<tomeara@icidevco.com>;trist
<tristhtru@msn.corn>;will<willcel@sbcglobal.net>; wilson<thwilsonl@yahoo.com>;wright<wright.6@sbcglobal.net>
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 edemkowicz('tustinca.org or
Scott Reekstin at(714)573-3016 or sreekstin@tustinca.org.
Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP
Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin,CA 92780
(714)573-3127
2
Demkowicz, Erica
From: Sonia Carrera-Vanek <sonia@westinfinancial.com>
Sent: Monday, October 8,2018 9:54 AM
To: Demkowicz, Erica
Subject: Concern on Traffic and parking!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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 El Camino Real is a problem. Please how is the city dealing with the impact in
old town?
Sonia Carrera-Vanek
Westin Financial Corporation
230 So Prospect Ave
Tustin,Ca.92780
PH:714-734-1865
Fax:714-731-6511
1
Demkowicz, Erica
From: Binsack, Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:20 AM
To: Willkom,Justina; Demkowicz, Erica;Reekstin,Scott
Subject: FW: Redhill Specific Plan
From: Pamela Sapetto <psapetto@sapettorealestate.cam>
Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 5:45 PM
To:Al Murray<AlMurrayTustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Redhill Specific Plan
Hi Al,
I thought it would be helpful to give you a quick summary of the issues regarding the Redhill Specific Plan:
1) Primarily,we support the Plan as recommended by staff to the Planning Commission. We have some concerns
regarding the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council
2) Height:please keep the height restriction as described in the original specific plan which limits stories in
accordance with specific criteria but does not incorporate the additional restriction of 50 feet.
3) Parking: please to not further increase the required parking ratio. This recommendation has no factual analysis
to justify it. We do agree with the Parking Management Plan for projects within the Specific Plan area however.
4) Residential Unit Allocation: please do not decide on distribution of units at this time as it is impossible to predict
which parcels are best suited for development of mixed-use. Allocation should be decided as applications are
filed to provide incentives to builders.Again,we recommend to make no change to the plan as it was originally
submitted to the Commission
5) Parkland Fees: We recommend a flat per unit fee for projects of$8,000 per unit for all base units(not bonus
density units allowed under the Workforce Housing Ordinance). This is more consistent with surrounding cities,
as well as the population generation rate of these mixed use projects.
Thanks Al.
Pamela Sapetto
Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc
949-252-0841
714-815-7771 cell
One Park Plaza,#600 PMB 313
Irvine, CA 92614
www.sapettorealestate.com
Demkowicz, Erica
From: TustinPlanning
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:51 PM
To: Tiscareno,Vera; Demkowicz, Erica; Reekstin, Scott
Subject: FW: Redhill corridor planning meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Tustin Planning
P:714.573.3140
F:714.573.3113
From:eeeloe@sbcglobal.net<eeeloe@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday,October 15, 2018 4:21 PM
To:TustinPlanning<TustinPlanning@tustinca.org>
Subject:Redhill corridor planning meeting
Tustin Planning Dept. Qq
We are not able to attend the public meeting concerning the Redhill Corridor due to a
family emergency. Please accept this email as our input.
We applaud the city planners for their concerns about our city. We favor any
improvement. We worry about the proposal for more narrow traffic lanes, islands and
reduced parking standards.
Lane width: Drivers do not stay in their lane with present standards. Making lanes more
narrow will increase the risk of traffic accidents.
Islands: Islands would help manage traffic and enhance the visual appeal of the
roadway. However, apartment access must be considered. Cut through traffic from
Redhill and Walnut via Copperfield Dr. is already a problem without islands. It will be
worse unless apartment access through the islands is facilitated. Anything to mitigate the
cut through via Copperfield Dr would improve the quality of life on Copperfield Dr.
Parking: Parking is already a problem in Tustin. More parking rather than less is
required. The Southside streets; Nisson, Mitchell, Sycamore, etc are bumper to bumper
resulting in a ghetto appearance. We think fee based parking structures that provide
shuttle service should. be constructed. Apartments and houses that have more cars than
parking would be required to park in these structures and pay the fee.
Thank You for your consideration.
Ed and Sandi Eloe
Sent from my Verizon ASU.S tablet
2
City of Tustin-Municipal Government
Published by Stephanie Fuentes Naiera•
October 8 at 9:21 AM•
Red Hill Specific Plan Public Hearing scheduled for October 16,2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council Chamber,
300 Centennial Way,Tustin
NEXTDOOR.COM
Red Hill Specific Plan Public Hearing October 16,2018 at 7:00pm in the City Council
Chamber,300 Centennial Way,Tustin (City of Tustin) I Nextdoor
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Tustin,California,will conduct a public hearing on
October 16,2018,at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,300 Centennial Way,Tustin,California.The City
of Tustin encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process....
2,971 47 646
People Reached Engagements Cicks
Borst Po-,c
8 Comments
3 Shares
9PA Abranko-Ferrando,Karen Rosas and 7 others
46City of Tustin-Municipal Government
Like
CommentShare
Oldest
Comments
Greg Vaughan This is such a bad idea for the city.You want to make Red Hill look like Jamboree in Irvine!
4
Manage
Like
• Reply Message 1
i
Gwen Ferguson I am totally opposed to this zoning change and the planned 500 units in 4 and 5 story buildings.
This monstrosity would further impact already overcrowded Red Hill and disrupt traffic flow in south Tustin.
I object and request a revision to much lower building height and lower density.
Gwen Ferguson
5
Manage
Like
• Reply Message 1�.
Kristin Beneker Warren That is just absolutely ridiculous
2
Manage
Like
•Reply• Message lw
Flossie Winegrad Friedman Anita Pine Imondi are you going?
Manage
Like
• Reply• Message I
David Williams This sounds like idiocy.It is already crowded enough.
4
Manage
Like
Reply• Message• 1)A
I
Miles T.Madison Is the city that dim?MORE housing,LESS parking?Do I need to explain this?How about you
stick with the plan and stop adding more high-density housing.
How about putting a sidewalk on Edinger between Kensington and Jamboree Plaza?All day I see old...See More
4
Manage
Like
• Reply• Message I w
MarvAnn Hare Please post the plan pdf
Manage
Like
• Reply• Message l.+
MarvAnn Hare Ah jeez walk away! Cute!
Manage
Like
Reply• Message 3d
Yasuda, Erica
From: Blankenhorn, Regina
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 9:50 AM
To: Yasuda, Erica
Subject: FW: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Don't know if you got this before last night's meeting.
Cordially,
Regina M. Blankenhorn
Direct: 714-573-3012
From:Andy Wilson <
Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:00 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@tustinca.org>; Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org>
Subject: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
October 16, 2018
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Mayor Murray, Honorable City Councilmembers and Ms. Demkowicz,
My family owns the land under the State Brothers shopping center on Red Hill Avenue between
Nisson Road and Mitchel Street, which is located within the area of the proposed Red Hill Avenue
Specific Plan. I am writing to propose ideas on how the Plan can be improved in light of the "Errata"
and "Recommendations" that the Planning Commission adopted on September 25, 2018.
1. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Sites.
The current draft of the Plan places an unfair burden on non-conforming uses, buildings, and
sites. Paragraph 4.6 of the Plan provides in part as follows:
"Existing uses shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards in
the RHASP, subject to the provisions of TCC Section 9273, Legal Nonconforming Structures
and Uses. 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 criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required."
Existing TCC Section 9273, which is referenced above, becomes unfair when applied in conjunction
with the Plan, especially for centers with small shop spaces. It is important for centers to have
flexibility to change the use of small shops so that the tenant mix can meet the changing needs of
local residents. Currently, the use of a small shop can change to a more intense use without an
undue burden. This flexibility, which exists for centers along Red Hill, will be lost with the adoption of
1
the Plan, which makes existing centers "nonconforming." To become "conforming," the Plan requires
compliance with conditions that impose a significant financial burden on the center. This will result in
small shop uses not changing and becoming stagnant.
The Plan even goes so far as to state that "re-tenanting" will trigger the need to comply with the
Plan. Re-tenanting routinely occurs when small shop tenants sell their businesses, or retire, or go out
of business. A change in tenant is not a valid basis for requiring conformance with the new
regulations; that provision alone likely renders the Plan unconstitutional.
The Plan's new regulations and design criteria only make economic sense in the context of new
residential development as portrayed in the Plan's architectural renderings. Paragraph 4.6 should be
amended or clarified to provide simply that the Plan's new regulations and design criteria only apply
to new residential development. I believe that such a simplification would remove any objections or
concerns regarding the issue of nonconforming uses.
2. Traffic and Circulation Impacts.
The environmental impact report supporting the Plan includes a traffic study. The study appears to
be incomplete. It does not attempt to analyze potential impacts on the roadway segment of Red Hill
Avenue that extends under the 1-5 Freeway between El Camino Real and Nisson Road. It also does
not analyze the potential impacts on other important roadway segments in the project area. For
example, the study fails to analyze any of the segments of the streets that cross Red Hill Avenue in
the project area, such as San Juan Street, El Camino Real, Nisson Road, Mitchell Avenue, or Walnut
Avenue. The environmental impact report should be revised to disclose these impacts before the
Plan is adopted.
The Planning Commission adopted an Errata requiring an equitable distribution of the 500 residential
units within the Plan area such that no one parcel receives a disproportionate number of units. Under
that Errata, each parcel is entitled to a proportionate share of the 500 units. The validity of the traffic
study depends on whether the study assumed that the residential units would be distributed among
each parcel as envisioned by the Errata. That does not appear to be case. The study should be
revised or clarified to reflect the requirements of the Errata before the Plan is adopted.
Sincerely,
Andy Wilson
2