The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutITEM #3 SUPPLEMENTAL - PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEM #3 Public Comments Received As of February 26,, 2019 at 3:15 pomp mkoWi ,=Erica From: neil sherman <sherrn1940@hotmail.com Seat: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:00 AM To: Dernkowicz, Erica Subject: Planning commission hearing on Red Hill shearing Morning Erica, The following is-what I plan.to say at the hearing to mo rrow. Feel free to send m e your comments. Neil Planning commission hearing on ted Hill hearing When the City Council approved the change in zoning along Red Hill,they had specific ideas-ori wham they wanted to do to beautify this corridor a Io ng Red Hill.The council a Iso Iistened to concerns of the I ca.I residents,specifically parking, traffic congestion and the height of a five story building next to 1-2 story single family homes. The council cornpro rnised when they approved the re- oning.They[owe red-the maximurn freight of the buildings to,-5 0' ft.to 1*1mit the buildings to 4 stories.The proposed plan violates several of the items-the city wanted including: The plan has 5 stories and is greater than the 50 ft. limit the city wanted. The building will have 249 residences,almost 1 of the total allocated to the w'hole project.That doesn't equitably distribute the 500 residences among all the properties along Ped Hill, as the city envisioned. The set-backs of the building appear smaller than the city envisioned, limiting shrubbery and sidewalks that reduce the esthetics of Red Hill. The green play area in the project is significantly small than envisioned. And finally,the parkirrg spaces Is a major issue at about 1.6 per unit vs.the cities re uirement of:2.2 .This will.add t the existing parking problems the city is facing. As a result,we'applaud the planning commissions recommendation deny the proposed plan. Our concern is that, if this plan is approved it will signal all the other dual-use property owners that they don't have to adhere to the approved ening change requirements either Parking,traffic,wirl get worse acrd the esthetics of Red Hill will suffer. Thank you. Neil sherman Sent from my,*Pad WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN&S P r of a s. s i o rt a I C o r p o r a t i on M CHAEL S.DAUDT DIRECT DIAL:(714)415-1059 DIRECT FAX:(714)415-1159 E-MAIL:MDAUDTWSS-LA . o February 2 , 201 , VIAE-MAIL AND FIRST--CLASS MAIL John J. Flynn { Nossarnan LLP 1801 Ton Karan Avenue Suite.1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Re: Request for Continuance of February 26,2019 Hearing re DR 2017-01CITP } 2017-25/RAR 017-Ol and LLA 2017-01: Construction of Mixed-Use Project at 13751 and 13841 Red dill Avenue Dear Mr. Flynn, I am writing on behalf of the City of Tustin,whore this office serves as City Attorney. We are in receipt of your letter dated February 22, 2019 requesting a continuance of the February 2 , 2019 Planning Commission hearing on the 3.38-acre Red Dill mixed-use project ("'Project"). It appears that your client, Irvine Asset Croup, LL VA L Tustin Investors V, LLC (collectively, "IA ") hasn't provided you with an accurate account of thir interactions with City Staff. This letter is intended to dispel the inaccuracies in your correspondence. The notice provisions of Government Code section 990 are designed to ensure that an applicant has actual knowledge of a Bearing held on its application. There can be no doubt that IAA had actual notice oftheFebruary 26,2019 Planning Commission p ari , In accordance with state law and the Tustin City Code, notice of the hearing was mailed to each ower of real property within 500 feet of the Project site, inclusive,o the Project site itself 13751 & 1.3841 Red Hill Avenue,' Additionally,Four notices were posted on the Project site no less than ten days in advance of the scheduled hearing date.' To suggest that IAG's authorized agent and project applicant were somehow unaware of the February 26, 2019 hearing date is ludicrous. By letter dated December 21, 2018, enclosed, Senior Planner Erica Demkowicz notified Pamela Sapetto of Stto Real Estate Solutions and t Copies of the mailing-labels prepared for notice of the hearing aro maintained on file and will be made available upon request-. .2 Photographs ofthe four notices posted at the Project site notices per property)are maintained on file and ill be made available upon request. 555 ANTON BOULEVARD,SUTM 1200 N COSTA MESA,OA 92626-7670■(714)558=7000 N FA '(714)835-7787 WWW. SS-LW.OM 1388401.2 John I Flynn I February 2 , 2019 Wage Craig Swanson of IAC that the"anticipated hearing date before the Planning Commission will be in February 2019." On January 9,2019, Ms. I' enkowicz was contacted by Its. Sapetto by phone and reiterated that the: la►nning Commission would hear the project on February 2 , 2019. As a direct result of these notifications, IACD representatives have either net with or atern d to meet with City Staff, planning Commissioners, and/or City Councilrnembers in anticipation of this specific hearing date and well before the Government Code Section 65091 noticing timeframe. For the above-stated reasons,it is a mi characterization of the facts to assert that your client only recently learned of the scheduled hearing by way of a notice posted on the Project site and on the "Tustin Bu' Facebook page. City Staff does not administer the Tustin Buzz page, and did not post that particular notice. City Staff dict, however, provide additional public notice of the hearing date on the City of Tustin website, the City of Tustin Facebook page, and on Nextdooncorn. . Your correspondence asserts that IAC's review of the February 21, 2019 Staff Report recommending denial. of the project is the "the first instance that IAC has been provided the substantive basis on which the planning staff found inconsistencies between+the project and the Red dill Avenue Specific.Plan." This is demonstrably not true. As a preliminary matter,IAC was heavily involved in the development of the Specific flan. The City conferred with IAC when it -retained the consultant tasked with preparing the Specific flan;the City prodded I G with a draft Specific Plan during the Ian's development; I.AC provided comments on the Specific Plan, attended public workshops, and was present at the Planning Conunission and City Council meetings where the Specific Plan was discussed and ultimately approved. Therefore, IAC should be well aware of the plan's guidelines and minimum developm Ont standards. And City Staff has repeatedly notified JAG of staff's concerns regarding inconsistencies between the Proiect and the Specific Plan. In addition to direct conversations between City Staff and IAC representatives, City Staff has articulated its position in writing to IAC numerous tunes; By letter elated March 15, 2018, enclosed,,City Staff stated, "As we discussed and identified in the meeting on March 14, 2018, Staff has concerns about the residential allocation for the area north o the I- and the overall Specific flan area,provision of common and private open space, dedication of park land, provision of adequate parking., inclusion of pedestrian amenities and the overall architectural style and details proposed with the project." pg. 1 ; . y letter dated May 8, 2018, enclosed, City Staff wrote, "Implementing the vision of the Specific Flan related to excellence in architectural design and provision of substantial usable common open space are part of the required findings [for the RAR]. In staff's opinion, the project is not substantially consistent with 1398401.2 John I Flynn ITI February 2 , 2019 a Page the uses (the proposed project is largely a presidential project — not naffed use with commercial development on the ground floor fronting Red Dill), design criteria (the proposed project does-not exhibit high-quality architectural design and site planning) and development regulations (the proposed project does not contain exceptional pedestrian amenities with public benefit)of the RHASP." pg. 2. emphasis in original); li By letter dated October 2 ,2018, enclosed, City Staff stated, "As has been identified and stated in prior City correspondence (letters dated 3/14118 and 5/8/18), City Staff has expressed concerns about the proposed project and provided infortnationiback to you relative to compliance with the Red Bill Avenue Specific Flan. The prior concerns about the provision of co mon.and private open space;provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian arnenities and architectural.style and details proposed with the project-remain with the revised project. The chosen-architectural style and color, palette,which rih pushes the building towards -an institutional lok, -does not . implement the vision of creating a. vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area. The flexible amenity setback provided i minimal with results in a.pa sive,area_that has limited { usability." pg. 2 ;"and a By letter-dated December 21,2018, enclosed, City Staff concluded, . - "Based upon staff's r view of the proposed project.and the R.. R. findings which include.use, design review, development regulations, Mended vision and equitable, f distribution, the'Director is unable.to mare the findings necessary to allocate residential units for the project and therefore will be recommending d nial.ofthe project.: Based on-the foregoing, as reiterated in many conversations between City Staff and your client's representatives, nothing.included in the Staff Report should have-come a -surprise to your client. } Lastly, it is incorrect to suggest that City Staff deemed the application complete solely to railroad IAG to -a bearing for denial- of the Project. To the contrary, City Staff reluctantly - teemed the Reation complete at the urging of IAG to move the Project forward to ` hearing. ,Even then, City Stas notification to IAC that the pplicatio' was deemed co plete asserts that.the submittal was not consisten't with the adopted Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in several areas and varianc s are required for the Project. (See 12/21/2018 letter, enclosed, pg. 1). . Only now Haat City Staffb s published its report recommending denial does.IAC seep to slow the entitlement process down. Nevertheless, Ci Staff is Willing to continue the public hearing on the.Project for t least � g one Planning -Comm*ssionmeeting to a date certain per your request and will ensure that Witten notice of the continued,hearing is provided to the Pro j ect property o�aer' authorized agent and C 1388401.2 John J. Flynn III February 25, 2019 Page h the applicant. City Staff will not,however,recommend n indefinite continuance absent a request from 1AG to withdraw the project outright or its notice of completion for the Project. Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN &SMART T Professional Corporation for MICHAEL S.DAUDT Enclosures 1. Fetter from City Staff to IAG,December 21,2018. 2. Letter from City Staff to IAG,March 15, 2018. . Letter from City Staff to IAC,May 8, 2018 (w/March 14, 2018 attachment) . Letter from City Staff to IAG, October 25, 2018. Steve Kozak, Chairperson.City of Tustin Jeff Thompson, Chairperson Pro Term Array Mason., Planning Committee Member Ryan Gallagher,Planning Committee l i mber AJ Jah,Planning Committee Member Matt-West, Acting City Manager David Kendig, City Attorney Lois Bobak,Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development 1388401.2 Letter from City Staff to IAG, December 21, 2018 i Corrununity DDepartment USTIN F 4&211....6k:Q' N I. December 21, 2018 Pamela Sa et# . ...,_ Sa etto Real Estate Solutions : One Parc Plaza, #600 PMB 313 NiSTORY Irvine, CA 92614 BUILDING OUR ruru# E HONORING UR FAST Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tourer, Suite.600 Newport Beach, CA 92669 ASL Tustin Investors LLC C Irvine Asset Group LLC 4990 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tourer, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92680 11 ASL Tustin Investors V LLC 900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60611 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DR 2017-016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CLAP) 2017- 1F EC«E T'I ►L ALLOCATION! RESERVATION ERVATION (RAR) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED,-USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a reprised application submitted in November rember 201 , requesting approval to c nstruct a proposed mixed-use development project with 249 residential units and 7,090 square feet of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the following project numbers: • Design Review e C 2017-016 • Conditional Use Permit(CLAP)2017-2 Residential Allocation Reservation(RAR)2017-01 Lot Line Adjustment L.t. 2917- 1 While your submittal is not consistent with the adopted Fled Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in several areas and variances are required; however,for the purposes of moving your project forward to hearing, this letter serves as notification that your application is considered COMPLETE', Pursuant to Section 6,6.1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan RHA P ; the Community Development Director is referring the project to the Planning Commission. The anticipated public hearing date before the -Planning Commission Will be in February 2019. In addition, please be advised that pursuant to Section 6.7.1 of the RHASP, a Development Agreement is required for the project, of which none has been submitted. Again for the purposes of moving your project to a hearing, your application is considered complete: 3010 Centennial day,Tustin, CA 92780 P. (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org DR 2017-006 CUP 2017-08 [December 21, 2018 Page Mixed-use residential is not allowed as a matter of right in the l HASP, but is instead allowed if'the Director can make the findings necessary to allocate the residential units. Similarly, a mixed-use housing development with affordable units is not untitled to residential units and a. density bonus (and/or waivers or concessions). Based upon staff`s reView of the proposed project and the RAID findings which include use, design review, development regulations, intended vision and equitable distribution, the Director is unable to make the findings necessary to allocate residential units for the project and therefore will b recommending denial of the project. We will provide you with a copy of the public hearing notice and report when it is available. Should you ,have any questions, please contact me at 71 573-3127 or by electronic mail at edemkovAcz@tustinca.org. Sincerely, . 4 'of Erica H. Dem ou is , Al fa Senior Planner M Jeffrey C. Parker,City Manager Elizabeth Binsao , Director of Community Development ' Justina Wilikorn,Assistant Director of Community Development ent-Planning �This quasi complete appiioation Is the cutmInaVon of submIitais you have pcovIded with densities ranging rrom 39 dinar to 74 dinar. Letter from City Staff to lAG, March 15, 2018 i Community Development Department USTIN 0March 15, 2018 '.rc� . Parma Sapetto Sapetto Real Estate Solutions , :_ Ud One Park Plaza, #600 PMS 313 - Irvine, CA 92614HIS��. BUILDING UR FUTURE Craig Swanson HONORING OUR.PAST Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Arthur ulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 02660 v ASL Tustin Investor LLC t C Irvine Asset Group LLG 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 60 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017- 1610 DITIO AL USE PERMIT UP) 2017- 25/RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2017,01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA)2017-01: CONSTRUCTION F A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 1 751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised applitation, received on February 15, 2018, requesting approval to construct a proposed mixed use development project with 220 residential units, 7,024 square feet of retail commercial and 5,439 square feet of potential `flex" retail space at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the following project numbers: 16 Design Review D 2017-016 • Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-25 a Residential Allocation Reservation(RAR)2017-91 • Lot Line Adjustment(LLA) 17-01 The Community Development Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Government Cede Section 65943, this letter serves as notification that your application is considered incomplete. As was discussed and identified in the meeting on March 14, 20181 Staff= has concerns about the residential allocation for the area north of the 1-5 and the overall Specific Plan area, provision of common and private open space, dedication of park land, provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestrian amenities and the overall architectural style and details proposed with the project. Also at the meeting you offered to provide Staff�Mth a new refined project design and Planning Staff anticipates this meeting with the ap'plicant and project architect in the not- too-distant future to discuss site and elevation refinements for the project. Please also note that for the project to go forward the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan must be approved by the City or you will. need to. submit the applications independently to support your appl i catiorVproject. 0 Centennial Way,Tustin, CA 92780 P: (714) 573-3100 F: (71 )573-3113 40 www.custiiica.org D1 , 017- 'i O/CUP 2017-25/RAR 2017-01/LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14,2018 Page Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project,'Please do not hesitate to contact me at(714)573-3127, Sincerely, - Erica H. DernkowVicz,. AICD Senlor.Planner t C: Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsa k, Director of Corm Unit r Development Justlna Willkom,Assistant Director of Community Development :\ dd%CDD Staff(Curren t)\Erioa\Project Files%Conceptual Plan-Design Rev ev R 2017-016;CUP 2017-25;LLA 2017-02-.13751& 13851 Fled Hill Ave, liked Use)kC:orrespondence�Ltr;DR 2017-016;CUP 2017-25:13751&13841 Red Hill Ave;incomplete #2;3.1 .1a.doo a _ 4 { Letter from City Staff to IAG, May 8, 2018 (with March 14,, 2018 attachment) 3 Community Development Department TUSTIN .,rRM May 8, 2018yr . Pamela Sapetto Baetto Beal Estate Solutions rra.VkTM One Park Plaza #680 PIB 313v Irvine, CA 9281 k. : B U I L01 NG OUR FUTum Craig Swanson HONORING OU R PAST Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4080 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower,.Suite bog Newport Beach, CA 92860 WASL Tustin Investors LLC /o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 880 Newport Beach, CA 52660 SUBJECT: DESIGN! REVIEW (DFS) 1 - 1 lc [ DITIOI AL USE PERMIT BJP) 2017- 25/RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION VATION I Al 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame; . This letter is in response to correspondence dated April 19, 2018 regarding the above-referenced project. k -Ori March 15, 2018, the City sent a letter that expressed general concerns about the proposed project and stated that the application was incomplete. The format of the fever was follow-up correspondence to the meeting held on March 14, 2018 at City Darla about the same subject and project. At the March 14, 2818 meeting, Staff.provided a detailed discussion abut concerns with the project and stated that a comment .letter had been prepared to summarize the concerns (Attached letter dated March 14, 2018 . You, in tura, indicated that you did not wish to receive our comment letter and offered to provride Staff~with a new refined project design which you believed would address the City concerns; As a result, a more detailed letter was not provided at your request)in anticipation of submittal of a revised project design. Although you have shown modified plans at the various City Council Planning Commission briefings, to date, a revised project has not been submitted. In addition, the lied Hill Avenue Specific Plan HASP has not been officially adopted to allow the contemplated mixed use project,v�hich is the undedying reason why the application remains incomplete. To move the project forward you have the following options: 1 Submit a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change C in addition to your current application so that your project carp be reviewed and considered independently of the RHASP. [dote all prior concerns related to density, open space, parking, etc. remains and that environmental reView must be conducted independent and exclusive to your project site;or 2) Address all comments identified in the Larch 14, 2018 letter and the City will consider the project concurrently with the RHASP. 0 Centennial Way,Tustin, CA 92780 P: (714) 573-3100 • F, (714) 573-3113 0 www.rustincti.org DR 2017- 1 1 ISP 2017-251 FEAR 2017-01/LLA 2017-02 MIXED ED USE PROJECT May 81 201 Page With respect to your statements in the letter dated ApNI 19, 2013 regarding tyle allocation of residential units, conversions of commdfcial square footage to residential use is contemplated in the Specific Plan, however, such conv rsions can only take place once the 50allowed units have been allocated. The unit allocation is subject to meeting specific findings as part of the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) process. Implementing the vision of the Specific Plan related to excellence in architectural design and provision of substantial usable common open space are part of the required findings. In staff's opinion, the project is not substantially consistent with the uses (the proposed project is largely a residential project — not mixed use with commercial development on the ground Boor fronting Red Hill), design criteria (the proposed project does not exhibit high-quality architectural design and site planning) and development regulations (the proposed project does not contain exceptional pedestrlan amenities with public benefit) of the RHASP. Please submit a final proposal and we will take it forward. It Is anticipated that the Specific Flan will be beard before the Planning Commission and City Council when a draft is completed by the consultant. The City understands that you desire your application to e processed concurrently with the Specific Plan. As the Specific Plan is finalized 'and Program EIR completed, tentative public hearing dates will be set for the application and City staff will inform you once that information is known. . Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact rine a 71 573-3127. Sincerely, WWI *caH. ern owic , AICP Senior Planner F Attachments: City Letter dated March 14, 2013 CC: Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justina v illi om,Assistant Director of Community Development AddlcDD staff urrent)lEftaTrojeot RfleslDon plukal Pian-Design F vie IDR 2017-016:CUP 2017-25:LLA 2017-02;13751& 13851 Red Dill Ave.(Mixed Use)l orrespondenceUr;DR 2017-016;CCP 2017-25;13751&13641 Red Hill Ave;City Response;5,8.1 8.do Community Development Department USTIN V//-ryy S w Y .-FN March 14, 201 ; Pamela Sapetto � ?� Sapette Real Estate Solutions MSTORY One Park Plaza,#600 PMB 313 BUILDING OUR FUTURE Irvine, CA 92614 HONORING OUR PAST Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4009 MacArthur Boulevard, Bast Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 wASL Tustin Investors LLC C Irvine Asset Group LLC 4090-MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Sulte 000 Newport Beach,CA 92680 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DR 2017-0'l CO DITI NAL USE PERMIT (CUP) Ot 7- 2 1 Estl E TIAL ALLOCATION ESERVATI N (RAR) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LILA) 2017-01. • CONSTRUCTION t~ A a RES►IDEI TIALICOM ER IAL MIXED USE PROJECT AT 1 751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised application, received on February 151 2018, reguestina approval to construct a proposed mixed use development project with 220 residential units, and 7,924 sure feet of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. This request is identified by the following project numbers: • Design Review DR 2017-016 + Conditional Use Permit(Clap)2017-25 Residential Allocation Reservation(RAID)2017-01 0 Lot Line Adjustment LL 2017-01 The Communi#y Development Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Govern ment Code Section 85943, this letter serves as notification that your application,is considered incomplete. For your application to be considered complete, please address information,exhibits,and r atedals identified in the attached Exhibit A and the redlined pians. Please-also note that for the project to 90 forward the Red bili Avenue Specific Plan gust he approved by the City or you Wil[ need to submit the applications independently necessary to support your application/project. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 * P: (714) 573-3100 F: (714) 573-3113 www.tustinca.org DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-2 1R ►R 2017-011LL 2017-01 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT Mereh 14, 2018 Page Should you have an r.questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not Hesitate to contact me at 1 573-3127. Sincerely, riceH. Demi �-Icz, AICP N. , Senior Plainnr . F Atta t mbnts: . h1 i i ,--,C=m nts, Corrections & Potential Conditions Redlines'—Planning Jeffrey Parker;City Madager 'Elizabeth-Binsaei,.E ire for of Community Development Justina W111ko n•,-Assistant Director of Community Development ,s.1 dM•DP Staff urre nOWWPjeetFileslGonc ptual Plan-Design Rewle lDl 2017-016;CU 2017- ,LLA 2017-02,13751 8 13861 Red Hill-Ave.(MIxed U +e)k orresp nden slUr,DEQ 2017-016; UP 20 17- ;13751&1384 1•Red H111 X v1 , .1 .1 ,do EXHIBIT ~ COMM NEW MIXEID USE PROJECT 13751 &13kl RED HILL AVENUE COMMUNITY UNIT DEVELOPMENT T D Ai ` T i 1 A Following the third Planning CmmIs ion and'City-Council4olnt public workshop held on February 20, 2018, there were questions and corroe rs raised by the Planning Cmmi sloln and CIty Qouncll.about the overall pla N-In and vision. or the area as well as members f the public, As a:result and in accordance with the Cir,Manager and City Council direotlon, the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan has been placed "on.,hold"while ,the plan Is re-evaluated and addresses these-comments and concerns. f ' 1 +12 If you would lime to proceed with the submitted project Independently, then an application -for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change would need to be submMed in addition to _ the other entitlements that are being re u st d; along whin new environme.n(al study, l ou may submit the ne ess ry appllca Ions and: apply for both, however, "Issues-that • have been noted In prior Courn ii workshops and staff letters remain. As such, Staff woultl not wsupport -the request as the- project would -create spot zonIng and be . Inoonsistent with the General Plan. . 1.3 It Is envisioned In the draft Speck Plan that RealdenVal Alio tion Reservations would i be Wloc ted based- on superior prajects, As to the project -and the draft proposal, somehow the proposal has become more dense, less of a-mixed..use project and as such, the City Is not in support{of the unit efiocailon based on th6 proposed Residential Ailocatlgn Reservation (FEAR)findings: 1. .1 The project Is not substan ally consistent with the uses, d s!gn criteria, and- development nd-developm nt-regulations of the F HASP in that the project Is predominantly a } ti residential project with 220 unIts approx..65 duan with limited amounts of commercial square footago-arid re#all presence along Red HI-IL Additionally,,the • project does not comply With the minimum residential dvate and common open space requirernents, As a new project, the overall.design is not exoeptional In Its level of detail to create visual Interest, use of, high quality rnatedals or colors and does not promote the ped Wan environment at the ground level through wellAeslgned plazas, oourtyard , public art and/or the use of landscaping along the Red #hili frontage. Further the proposal dual � counts portions of the commercial square footage for open space as well as,a narrow required landscape setback and re Ired green lane. The project also dual counts open spaoe and the parking analysis I [hadequate (Ire, does not i consider residential,retail and west parking for the project), � 1.3,2 The project does not Implement the Asldn of the Spe iflc Purr related to excellence in architectural design, pi rovis46h-of substantial usable open space, provision Pf public art (which may consist of murals, sculpture, decoraatIv fou tains or other art deemed acceptable) to. adjacent pans ardor schools If appropriate, and pedestrian connections In that the proposed • mixed use development Is largely a residential development wfth only a toren amount of retail commercial on the ground level. As a result, It does not demonstrate excellence in design as a mixed use project vihft Is one of the r F i i i DR 2017v-01 /G U FF 2017-261 RAR 2017-01 IILA 2017-02 NEW MIXED ED USE PROJECT March 14p 201 Page main objectives of the Specific Plan. The proposed spawnlsh Revival . architectural style is a modem twist on the traditlonai, but does not exhlbfi ' sufficient pedestrian detalls and scale that help create a sense of place for the area whM is the vision for the area. els a vacant parcel sited at Red Hill and Ban Juan Avenue, a prominent gateway to the specific Plan area, the project lack visual interest and attention to detail to create and foster the pedestrian environment desired, Additl nally, the project does not provide the required amounts of open space as stipulated In the Plan. IA3 The number of unKs requested is within--the thresholds established by-the Specific Plan's Program EIR In that there are a total of 600 residential units allocated for the Speeffic Plan area; 395 residential units are allocated for the area north of the 1-5 Freeway and 105 residential unl a for the area south of the 1=5 Freeway. While the proposed project is wlthin the threshold, the proj ct absorbs the rn ja*of available amts which leaves minimal remalning units for the area north. ` 1,14 The overall project does.not meet the flndings for Design Review outlined In Section 6.7.1 of the Red Hill,Avenue Spec Plan, 1.4 While the Specific Plan Is currently going through the environmental proce s, K the Plan • (s approved by the City, parkland is identified as.a de#iclency and mitigation fees may be applicable to the project. As proposed, the project applicant hays.indicated that they do ' not Intend to provide parklandfopen space or pay a parte land In lieu fee. 1.5 The submifted Response to Comments (RTC), In whiff the appiicar't Is to provide a writ ern response/explana on a t whir r why not the cl s comment or correction has ' or has not been addressed was incomplete. The RTC lacked dadty with some!terns not addressed'at all Le. item#'1. (I-v 1.171.1.6)and 1.5 while other Items Bead as though an Individual was to respond, ],ret no wdf en response eras provided i.e. Item,# 1,1Ol 1 a161 - 1,17p 1,181 1,191 1.20, Ul ('1.21.'1-1,21.3). Complete wdt en responses were only provided for Items#13, 1.15 and 1, , 1,6 REPEAT COMMENT! Ptease Identify and dimension all line types Including Propel lines, public fight-of-way, curb lire, easements, amenity setback area, exisong and proposed utility bones and existing uses On adjacent parcels on the pro posed site plan (sleet Aal,2 . Use colors to Identify the type of line, if necessary. Building recesses and po uts will also treed to be,d1mensioned on the site plan as well as each floor pram for each level (as measured from property line)to ensure that the bullding Is constructed as represented In the renderings, 1,6,1 REPEAT COMMENT:T: Identify all. laundry areas on each floor level (ass applicable). 1,7 REPEAT COMMENT:Please Iden fy the amenity setback area and anticipated activities whin this area-(1,9, outdoor dining, Iarndscaping, sea ng, plazas), etc. An enlarged flexible amenity setback plan or rendering)should be provided In addition to the site plan (Sheet A-4.2)which doesn't have this Informeflon IdentIffed, 4 DR 20'7- 6/0U 2017-25/RA_ 1 - l iLi.A2017-02 NEW !! D USE PROJECT March 14,4018 Pepe 1m8 REPEAT COMMENT:The revised plans do not pto de the min required am unt of private-and common open space per unit. In addition, the combined total,of both areas does not equal to the required 300 SF whlbh Ill'be specified in the RHASR P vate open space' per unit is 1e tha.n the required 100 SF and the common open space per unit is less than the required 200-8170 1. .1 As proposed, the pet spa and bike shop would be considered amenity areas. and 'therefore wald-be wurited towards the required cora ,on open space, The fitness and business center, however,,cannot be counted towards the required open space as they can be potentially converted to retail et future date, The proposed project counts these ateas tv icie which net In ` accordance wfth the Specific Plan. The designated OCFA Fire Lane with spots courts Js considered at requireflurn around area for public safety and { therefore cannot court towards the regt'lred open space. if children or adult • are users.of this area for recreational purpo es, there wlll be a conflict with emergency-vehicles. Please revise the open space calculation and remove th6 areas not considered common open space from.the computation. In order to -tae counted as open space, the open n space areas must be usable recreatlon c mmon5-open space Of r°residents. Open,.space and court ard� o ted In the commercial arras of mixed use must be accessible- o relWentea occu ahts and'visit r a d ca ct be cou to ow r s e r lred common open space. tandsceping-arid seating shah be permanently integrated Into all required common open spaces. Please revise Sheet A-1.6 with-changes to the proposed private and common open space and Include/label-the blue colored areas-shown on.this page, 1. .2 i evited Slee -1 4 Indicates ars Increased rear yard setback for the parkin lot from 1 -feet to 12-feet .e.. proposed dog run and! urban bistro garden). While.the setback is a nominal,increase,City staff continues to have concerns * about the actual usability of these areas and tete value It brings Ao.the project relative to common open space for the .residents. An increased setback between the Tustin HOh School and tho-adjacent residential continues to be re orrimended as a bier between uses. ' 1,9 S PAT;COMMEN : Please clarify the-gated area and Its operation within'the parking 4 .structure facing the alleyway. 'is this an "exit-only', rea for residents of the building? .Please clarffy. Adequate queuing lei not -provided for ai vehicular entrance from the l alleyway Into the structure, With the,resubm ttal, there was no written response to this Rem and/or reference to where,the revised information coutd be.found on this revised ; pians. .10 REPEATCOMMENT: Please identI f y troth OGFA turnaround areas on the dire baster Purr (Sheet Pw2 . Only.one tumar and area is noted adjacent to the existing alleyway, but the other one dff of'San Juan Is not mated., x i 1.11 P ea a Indicate the ptosed r umber of storage roue on each level and modify each floor plan summary. Modify Sheets A-2,11,A-U,A-2.39 A-2.4 and A-2,5, DR 20117.0 1 U P 2017-26/RAR 2017 11LLA 2017-0 NEW MIXED USE PROJECT March 14,201 . Page 4 IIJ2 Please revise the BuIldIng Summary on Sheet A-2.0 to accurately reflect the actual door area on each level, The square footages on Sheet.A., .o do not correspond with the square footages on each bullding level. 1.13 REPEAT COMMENT lo Gateway Signage; Per Chapter.5 of the i HASP# comer lots shall provide, as part of development projects, ars area for gateway monumentation, A corner talnular_shaped setback range- of 1&26 feet shall be provided for gateway rnonumentatlon, All gateway monumentatlon shall comply with TCD visual clearance requirements and is subject to review and approval: by the Community Developrnant Director. With the resubmittal, there was no preference to where the revised informatlon could be found on the revised p ns. The area-for,gateway monumen ation needs to,be Identified on the site plan and to triangular area noted with dimensions(SheetA-2.1), 1,114 The submitted Parking Demand:Analysls states that the parking ratio,for the proposed residential. Portion of the project is 1-.6 spaces per unit based upon.ars assessment of twelve 1 'other projects within Southern Cafilfo is eltles and ULI shared parking methodology. .The ULI shared parking methodology was also utilized for Jhe retail portion of the project and the potent/al conversion of 6,437 square feet of retail space t _ Mood service which.would tdgger a rna lraum parking,demand, The 1,6 ratio,of which the residential parking analysis was based upon, is not consistent with the parking requirements as specified In the proposed Spe lfil Plan. As a result, staff has concern that the cornbined parking redo'for resldentlal and c m erclal is too lour:and that the project Is.-under parked. 1.16- The pity Is.I -the process of ardopfing an incl sl nary housing ordinance that will apply . OWde, A,copy of the proposed ordinance wasforwarded to the applicant. Once l adopted, residentiat rental products will. e required to either proAde ars affordable unit mix or,pay-a. fee In•lieu of providing the affordable housing., Please Identify how the proje t will comply with#his requlr ment. Street DeslgWfteet Par*lnpUndscapeNedlansIfteet Parking 1,16 REPEAT COMMENT: Exhibit 34 Within .the draft Red Hill Avenue specific plan t . RHASP illustrates the Conoeptual -Median dian Locat ns- along Red Hill Avenue. The conceptual medians propose ftetween San .loan street and El Camino Real need to be shown-on the sl(b plan (Sheet 1.2) within the-plan set, It Is unclear if this re lon was addressed,.and, Sheet A1.2 modified as Sheet A1.2 does not -con a in any oonosptual medians, tv REPEAT CoMII ENT: Please provide a cross section of the existing public right-of-war and..the proposed right-,of-war with the flexible amenity setback. { F r #t DR 2017-016/CUP 2017'25/RAR 2017-Ol/LLA2017-02 NEW MIXED USU PROJECT . . Larch 14,2018 Page Architecture 1.18 The proposed combination of green scr ens and public art" ni shown on,the rear of the parking structure do not adequately screen the parking garage or provide visual interest as viewedfrom the TusUn,Hlgh School and other public vantage points. Any proposed .public•apt reeds to be tho gh fully planned and designeds part of the overall architectural design— not as an afterthought, Alterna ave screening meth and/or graphic treatment needs 'to be further 'eva�l fisted and explored along the 'entire reap" • Mode of the:structure. Per Chapter 5 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian, design features-must be consistent on all elevatlons of the structure. All four elevaftons of the building are not treated equally relative to design features and details. 1,19 REPEAT COMMENT: Retail and commercial storefronts should utilize a bulkhead find avoid geneft full hel ht aluminum storefront systems. City Staff provided a similar comment during the preliminary review of the project. With the re ubm tial, there was no written response to this item andfor reference to where the revised Infor at(on could be found on the revised plans. n s ping 1.20 Per the RHASP (Chapter 3), adjacent future development shall expand upon the ' approved sire tscape character Wth -a palette that is complementary cit does not distract or dlsr upt, The Proposed palm tines_are not complimentary to. the parkway palefte and City staff reoorr mends they be removed and replaced. Based on the allowed pay trees please wise the landscape plan and modify the landscaping on the project site to compliment the parkway. Y PUbUC WORKS&ENGINEERING, s k Based on the.submittal, the n ineedn !D1vlslon bras the following oar ants 7'rao s�al�r General comments ' 3.1 Previous cornrrrents addmssed. 3,2 Main WoJecl amass an Red-HIII Avenue should consider seperatin ieftoturms and shags ■ thr right-eturns to reduce single lane queue on-site. Entry width could W reduced to 12' o allow for-1 'left-turn and 12'thruldght-tum exits. • 3,3 Was control delay approach to determine projects Impacts applied to both Caltrans d# ramp Intersections? It would be helpful to the reader-to show TAZ boundaries-in a figure, What is assumed for the project site under no"project conditions?Zero uses or currently . approved pian? y DR 1 -O I !CUP 2017.26/+ F 'I1 1 - L 2017-.02 NM-MIXED USE PROJEC March 1 ,20x8 age 3,6 Besides RHASPA what cumulative projects are assumed Le., Downtown Community Dore Specific Plan? Report speoffic comments is + 3. Page 2—Soand paragraph, second line: Remove`Y In Red Hill. 3,3 Page 3.—Correct Figure #2 reference to Figure 3. . 319 Page 8 -- Remove "Turning Movement""from heading and add "and average dally traf (ADT)"after PIVI peak hour. 3,10 Edge 10 — Second paragraph under Existing. Plus Prefect Traffic Forecasts: Add "and AD`S''after PM peak hour. .11 Page 10---last paragraph,If existing.volumes to from Red dill Plaza are based on counts were RHASP uses not assumed? 3.12 Page 11 First three paragraphs:Add'arid ADT""after PIVI peak hour. w 3.13 Page 12—Fourth paragraph:Add"and ExIstln "after Existing. y .3.14 Page 1 -"Third full.paragraph:Add`with and without the pro]act"at the,end, 3.15 Page 13—IderntVy"net's traffic, 3.16 Page 1 —Third full paragraph;Add"with and without the project",at the end, k ■ 3.17 Page 16 oft Add as the f th buli t, Subjqctlo review and approval by the City, provide a striping plan. on Iced Dill Avenue and signal plans and specifications for the signal IP installation at Profen Driveway 1. 118 Page 18l Table 18-and in "Summary of Findings and F ecommendartians" — Remove reference.to protectiveperissive left--turns and focus the discussion on the Improved ti oonditions with protected left-itums. ,19 Starting with Figure.4: Global change for San J warn suffix to'ST. Parking Study: General ref 3,20 Experience In City does not support the empirical data presented- In the report regarding less need than requlr d by City Code-for parking. , Repanl specific domments , 3121 Page 3—First paragraph: Identify the number of spaces required by the City Code I _ DR-2017%01 COUP 2017"26 RAR 2017-01/LLA 201 NEW MIXED D USE PROJECT March 1 r4,2018 Page 7 . ConceptualSite Plan 3.22. As with any entry gate, queuing area Is required on the project site and not in the alley.`.herefore the gate at the alley,should be for emergency or exit only as there is not enough room for an entry queuing.Queuing Is discouraged In the public alley. F. 3.23 Signals for mein entry on Red Hill Avenue will be condltloned on the project. Show easements for signals and'equipment on.current site plan. Prior to Issuance of any permits o6 the project, signal pians need to be submitted, These signeI vAll benefit Iced:bill Plaza as It will be the' a t leg of this In ersectl n, Wherefore-tine applicant -may wish to pursue a fair share contribution or,reimbursement om-tire-owners of. Red-HI11 Pia a. (2nd Request) 3.24 Remove decoritive pavers from.the public dg ht-of-way. Or,=ate applloaInt shall enter Into an agreement with -the City of Tustin for the maIntenance of the decorative pavers. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing .the agreement khlblt(s) and-the City Attorneys cost for preparing the agreement. 3 25 ftmove the extra. northerly -handicap ramp proposed on Red Fill Avenue and . , provide an angled.crosswalk at:the north side of Red Hill Avenge, . 3.26 REPEAT COMMENT:The dri ewa r approach on Red Fill Avenue shall be designed . and constructed per the City. of Tustin Standard 210, modified to. have suffi anF. width to accommodate the required travel lanes and -foot radius curb retains to be dornpa4tible with current or future traffic signal In3tallation, • 3.27 All proposed I required public Improvements, inclrlding but not limited.to ADA ramps, cross walk, traft signal pole- & equipment oebinet at project entrance/ Red Hill Avenue, '.Inch oft, and,etc, shall be shown on all applicable plans Including site plan, conceptual renderings, 3.28 The prop sed wastricr mo um nt sign wall sh ill be designed and constructed o the private property. 3.29 Conditions of-approval will disclose.that ori-street{parking and the's uthbound right- . turn lane along Red,Hill Avenue Is temporary until such time the space-Is needed for roadway widening. The{-applicant shall -install signs (sign and Dations shall be revi wed'&approved by the City)stafing No paving 6prn-7.am, 2 Hour parking 7 t - pM, 330 Any-proposed monument signs shall comply with the City of Tustin Guidelines for b terrnining Sign Location Visual Clearance and Pubtlo Safety Areas. The proposed monument sign,at the cornier of Red "HIii Avenue and San Juan Street shall be designed and constructed entirely on private property. The most current Federal Arne can with Disablillies Act (ADA) requIrernents shall be -mat at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. i 017 16/CUP 017- 5RAR 017 11LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED D USF.PROJECT March 1 , 0 1 Page U1 Based on the fled Hill Avenue Streelseape and Median Feasibility Study from Bl Camino Real to Bryan Avenue (CIP 70209) dated September 10, 2012, the applicant shall be responsible for fair share cast of- Red Hill Avenue landscape median project(50%). 3.32 A prof of withIn the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area T would require speeffic conditions of approval and these are enclosed mfith this letter for your reference, Preliminary Water Quality,Management Plan: 3.33 if any major changes are made to the plans or the development during entitlement processing that may affect the strategy or approach to the BMP layout, grades or required setbacl , the Preliminary WOMP plan set may r qulre additional review attentloh and revlslons to be considered In :the final WQMP as heeded for conformance, ` y Note: The letter Is a compilation of the C ty'a review of the above-roferenced project and should not be considered a ha s i e w b respect to comments. Addillonal comments may be forwarded by Staff 09 a reset of Adere reviews, revisions to the Red Hill Avenue Speolflo Plea which Is In the process of baing finalized and upon addfilanal materials.and'Informatlon that Is reque ste d.and submifted Please In l de all re Ones with the resubmiffal. a Letter from City Staff to IAG, October 25, 2018 a Community Development Department x { Z t W r, ; d - October 25, 201 Pamela Bapetto 5 Sapetto Real Estate Solutions One Farm Plaza, #600 PMB 313 *} ! isiro tY Irvine, CA 92614 BUILDING OUR FLaI"ULE HOMO RING OUR PAST Craig Swanson Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Shite 600 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 IASL Tustin Investors LLC C/o Irvine Asset Group LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 ,Newport Beach, CA 92660 8UB,JECT: DESIGN' I EVIEW (DR) 2017,016/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . UP 20'17: /1 ESIDENT1AL ALLOCATION I RESERVATION (RAID) 2017-01 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-01: CONSTRUCTION of A MIXED ED U PROJECT AT 13751 & 13841 RED HILL A E l E Dear Sir and Madame: Thank you for submitting a revised application, received on September 26, 2019, requesting approval to construct a revised proposed mixed-use development project with 249 residential-apartment units and 7,024 square feet-of retail commercial at the above-referenced address. The following project numbers identifies this request: • Design Review(DR)2017-016 • Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2017-25 Residential Allocation Reservation(RAR)2017-01 . 0 Lot Line Adjustment(LLA)2017- 1 The Community Devaloprnent Department has reviewed the above-referenced application, and in conformance with Government Code section 65943, this letter serves % s notification that your application is incomplete. On October 16, 2018, the City Council approved the Program EnviroamentaMl Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and introduced for first reading, draft Ordinanrce 1498 in which to adopt the Fled Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). A second.reading of Ordinance 1493 W11 take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Shpuld the City Council-have Its second reading, the r HASP will be officially adopted and effective 30 days thereafter. The F HASP considered by the City Council has provisions inrhli h your project is not consistent. Briefly,the list below identifies your projects inconsistencies and/or deficiencies. 1. Revised project description, development application, Parking Demand Analysis and Traffic Impact sturdy reflecting current submittal; 00'0 ntennial Ufa ', Tmtin, CA 92780 • : (7"14) 573-31 o( 1*: (714) 573-3113 • wwwr t sfinca,or DR 2017-016/CUP 2017-25/RAR 01 -011LLA 2017-02 NEW MIXED ED USE PROJECT October 25, 2018 Fuge . Reprised, project design with a maximum of four (4).stories and 50 feet for both building and parking structure per the lied Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP); 3. Paring Management Plan per the RHASP; 4. Updated will serve letters from all utility companies (specifically including CSR&R) who will propride service to the project; . Re-approval of Fire Master Plan noting sports courts in OCFA fire lane off of San Juan Avenue; and . Revised open space and affordable housing calculations should the number of units be reduced In accordance with the maximum um -story building height. As has been identified and Mated in prior City correspondence (letters dated 3/14/18 and 5/8118), City Staff has expressed concems about the proposed project and provided information '.back to you relative to compliance with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The prior concerns about the provision f common mon rid private open space, provision of adequate parking, inclusion of pedestd n amenities and architectural style and details proposed with the project remain .with the revised project. The chosen architectural style and color palette, which pushes the building towards an institutional look, does not implement the vision of creating a,vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area. The flexible amenity setback provided is minimal which results in a passive area that has limited usability. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at(714)573-3127, Sincerely, Erica H. Derni o is , AlvC Senior Planner CC: Jeffrey Parker, City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Justin W i11korn,Assistant Director of Community Development AUMCDD Staff( urrent)lEri a\Projeot FileslConeeptuafl Plan-Design evie IDR 2017-018;CCP 2017-25:LLA 2017-02-.13751 13851 Red Hill Ave.(Mixed U e)l orro ponden eUr;Df 2017-016-,CUP2017-25;13751 13841 Red dill Ave:incomplete; 10.2 4181 doc ` ATTORNEYS AT LAW f T6...O,N SA-MAN LLP 18101 Von Ka rman Avenue S Suite 1800 Irvine,CA 92612 T 949.833.7800 4 F 949,833.7878 VIA EMAIL John J.Flynn III D 949.477.7634 jf1ynn@nossaman,,com L Refer To File#:601968-0001 February 22, 2019 Uatthew S. West Elizabeth A. Binsack Acting City Manager Director of Community Development - City of Tustin 4 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 Citymanager@tustinca.org EBinsack@tustinca.org David E. Kendig, City Attorney City of Tustin c/o Woodruff, Spradiln, and Smart 555 Anton.,Boulevard, Ste, 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 dkendig@wss-law.com R%�- Request for Continuance of February 26, 2019 Hearing re DR 2017-0161CUP 2017-25/RAR 2017-011 and LLA 2017-01: Construction of a Mixed-Use Project at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue Dear Messrs. West and Kendig, and Ms. Binsack: We represent Irvine Asset Group, LLCANASL Tustin Investors V, LLC (collectively, "IAG") with respect to its.future 3.3 acre Red Hill mixed-use project.("Project") in the City of Tustin ("City"). By this letter, IAG requests a continuance of the scheduled February 26, 2019 hearing on the Prolect. For the reasons stated below, IAG,objects to the currently scheduled -hearing because it was improperly noticed and,because IAG believes that the anticipated denial of the Project is based on 'inaccuracies and false information presented about the Project. As an initial matter, IAG was only recently made aware of the scheduled hearing by way of a notice posted at the Project site and on the "Tustin Buzz" Facebook page. It goes without saying that this notice falls well short of that required under the State Planning and Zoning Law. Government Code section 65905, subdivision (a), specifically requires that a public hearing held on "an application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance [or] an application for a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit" be noticed `pursuant to (Government Code] Section 91." (Gov. Code, § 65905, subds. (a), (b).) Government Code section 65091, in turn, requires that"(n]otice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property. . . ." (Gov. Code, § 65091, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added".) Notice must also be mailed to the owner's duly authorized agent and the project applicant. (ibid.) Further, notice r i Matthew S.West Elizabeth A. Binac David E. Kendi . February 22,2019 Page 2 + must be rnaiied to each owner of real property within 300 feet of the real property subject to the hearing. (Ick., subd. a . No such notice was ever provided. Accordingly, IAG respectfully requests a continuance of the February 26, 2019 hearing at least until proper notice is provided. For the additional reasons identified below, however, IAG believes that the hearing should be continued indefinitely to afford IAG and the City an opportunity to meet and confer about outstanding issues regarding this Project. + i We are now in receipt of the City's February 21, 2019 Staff Report t recom ending denial f the Project. This is the first instance thatIAG has been provided the substantive basis on which the planning staff found inconsistencies between the Project and the Fled Hill Avenue Specific Plan. On December 21, 2018, City planning staff sent IAG a letter informing IAG that its application for required permits for the Project was incomplete for at least two reasons but, nevertheless, "for the purposes of moving [IAG's] project forward to a hearing," the application t was being deemed complete. One of the stated grounds for an incomplete application was that the Project"is not consistent with the adopted Fled Hill Avenue Specific Plan HASP in several areas and variances are required." The City has provided no direction regarding purported inconsistencies, despite.numerous requests for such information. Moreover, er, deeming the alleged incomplete application complete solely to railroad IAG to a hearing for denial of the Project denies IAG the opportunity to correct any purported d ficiencies in its application. For this reason, the city should continue the scheduled February 26, 2019 hearing and work with IAG to address unresolved issues. Additionally, IAG requests a continuance of the hearing because it is apparent that City staff's recommendation for denial of the Project is the result of material inaccuracies set forth in the February 21, 2018 Staff Report, the December 21, 2018 letter, and postings in the "Tustin Buzz" Facebook group. IAG will endeavor to provide substantive responses to these inaccuracies in a follow-up letter responding to the Staff Report. However, given the fact that IAG Inas nearer been trade aware of the purported bases for denial of its Project despite multiple good-faith attempts to work with City staff to identify issues and given the timing of the release of the Staff Report, IAG requests a reasonable continuance to provide substantive responses. Such a continuance is necessary to-ensure that IAG is being_afforded its due process. . For the above-stated reasons, IAG hereby requests a continuance of the February 26, 01 hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you wound life to discuss this 'natter further. F } J. Flynn III Nossaman LLP JJF: rt a i 7 i 4 Y Matthew S.West t Elizabeth A. Biznack Devil E. } endi February 22, 2019 Page } Stere Kozak, Chairperson Pro Tera, City of Tustin Planning Cor i sibn (via courier) } Jeff Thompson, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) � Amy Mason, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) Ryan Gallagher, Commissioner, City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) --AJ--J °,-C mi sior r,I City of Tustin Planning Commission (via courier) } t i r t e' r 7 t i r S i t f i L E c 4 r i F 1 5 RECEIVED 2019 F �f 1 cOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPS` t� i 02/26/t 19 2:45 PM FACEBOOK John Nielsen I or those that are interested,the project on Red Hill Planning Commission hearing has been postponed. \VI I I ii;it be held tomoffow night. Julie Crowell,olid Nielsen where can I find that info? Q !r Theresa Ferrari C ha r i t%7 1 just cal I ed the City to verify and the woman who answered the phone says it's still listed as the third item on the docket, and she hasn't been made aware of any postponement_ John Nielsen It will be a continued item.The City has notified the Developer that they will continue the item at the Developers request.This happened yesterday. I John Nielsen It will still show as an agenda item because they'cannot take it off at the last minute but will be continued. Mom likely re-scheduled to March or April. Ifyon want to waste your time,your Choice. 0 Darcie Cancino John Nlelsen maybe people don't consider attending city council/planning meetings a"'waste of tini.:." No neil,d to be snarky. Annie Christian Streak Thanks for being so respectful.and infer alive to many who are not... Theresa Ferrari Charity Thanks to a certain employee(0)at the city for seeing my message,calling me,and updating me with info regarding tonight. . Jolui said, the meeting will still take place,but the topic of the proposed building has been pushed back and does is awaiting a new meeting date. Ah JohnCraray It leaves a bad impression.that the fomier mayor is trying to push people to approve a project when he W has a financial stake in one of the properties on the red hill project. Corporate monopolies like the Irvine company and the people who worked for them do more for increased rents then the supply issue. Whilc the project itself is not on the schedule anymore there's still the demolition and merging of the real estate company to the empty lot of land. Darcie Cancino John Garay could not agree in re. Full disclosure and transparency is essential. NEXTDOOR.COM John Nielsen Columbus Sqtiare-R Lttllo The Plaitinno Commis.-,im) Pi.1WIC Ia.� 1C� . ti dll ' 11,11wkl lo 'I"lollict, diii'L. til I �A(11)0`-, 1V(JL1C,,-- happencd yestcrday,��ill Mill zsho�\ kill Id,1 ov A')ril.