HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC INPUT - COUCHMAN From: Dove,Elaine
To: Hurtado.Vera
Subject: FW: Proposed Variance and Planning Review 1042 San Juan
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 20214:04:25 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Elaine Dove,AICP, RLA
Senior Planner
C'kyol Iii"sf's7ICoiri111i11 YIWvelopi7wilIC p�1 IrRr7wifl
00 C eiklnnl�r1\IAly I Iii"Aliin, C:.A'0J"€,0
11. 71 f �,/3, 3,1_,C] I I /1 f a/"3, 3,1.111
�LhM� c al4X~<ze°a.c�r
7
USTI.N
� m
�I
1.
4
lli:Vm�Da°f'
I..I()N lRIA Ye 0UR P&S,"i,.
Nease note that aii City PUNic PUNICC (::bul7iter services wiii be per (7rrr" e by CityStaff ordine, or ..1"y(
V:&?Iepri(::bne ul fii fUrthier notice Reopening date Subject to change
From: Scott Couchman >
Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 20213:05 PM
To: planningcommision@tustinca.org
Cc: Dove, Elaine <EDove @tustinca.org>
Subject: Proposed Variance and Planning Review 1042 San Juan
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed project at 1042 San Juan,part of the neighborhood
surrounding Tustin High School.As a longtime property owner in this area,I've seen first hand how the antiquated
parking policies of the Tustin Planning Commission has inundated our neighborhood with street parking from multi-
family residential projects.The 1042 project is just the latest example of the kind of projects that have flooded our
streets and lawns with parked cars.
PROBLEM-The use of enclosed garages to satisfy the parking requirements of higher density residential units
further overloads already overloaded street parking. 80 years ago,garages were used to park cars. Today,garages
are used to store junk,operate home businesses,illegal bedrooms,game rooms,man caves, and exercise rooms.This
is particularly true in the multi-residential area around Tustin High School.
1042 SAN JUAN PROJECT-I reviewed the proposed plans for this project with Elain Dove,Tustin City Planner.
Building five new units at 1042 San Juan will add 15 to 20 new parked cars on our already overcrowded streets.
Each proposed unit will likely become home to multiple families,each with multiple cars. The garages are 90
degrees to a common driveway without any dedicated driveway space for each unit.The garages are too difficult to
access because of the narrow common driveway.As a result,the garages will be filled with anything but cars, and
the cars from these units will fill the guest parking,and then compete with existing neighbors for street parking.
RECENT EXPERIENCE-Look at the five new houses Tustin approved a few years ago at the corner of Utt and
San Juan. Like the proposed 1042 San Juan project,the Utt project required a variance.Two and three story single
family residences were crammed onto a small space.Unlike the 1042 proposal,two of the houses face San Juan with
short driveways at 1381&1391. One of these houses has what looks like a home business in the garage, and two cars
parked in the driveway. The other address has 2 cars in the garage and two in the driveway. They demonstrate both
high occupancy and alternate uses of the garages,but the 20'driveways still provide both houses with off-street
parking.The other three houses have a shared driveway (like the 1042 proposal)with difficult 90degrees turns(like
the 1042 proposal)to get into their garages. The 13742 garage has a race car stored in the garage, so their daily
driver parks on the street.The other two houses compete for the guest parking or park on the street. Difficult access
and no dedicated driveway,results in on-street parking.I attended the Planning Commission meeting for this project
and explained why this project would fail.That Planning Commission didn't listen.
MASSIVE ON-STREET PARKING PROBLEM-Drive down San Juan and see the bumper to bumper cars already
lining both sides of San Juan and Orange.We have a massive street parking problem all around Tustin High School.
At lam on street sweeper day,drive down Utt between Lance and San Juan and look at the cars parked on lawns at
13616-18 and 13620-22 Utt.None of these units can use their garage for parking because they're always blocked.
Drive down Green Valley and look at the new concrete pads that have RECENTLY replaced portions of front lawns
at 13652, 13672, 13683,and 13702.If they can't park on the street, and can't park in their garages,they pave their
lawns.Watch car owners standing near their cars in the street to move them long enough to avoid a ticket,just to
return them to the street.Look at the cars parked on Lance near Red Hill.The majority of those cars are Green
Valley overflow.More garages without dedicated driveways with easy direct access to the street means more cars
parking on the streets surrounding Tustin High School.
TUSTIN DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE-Several years ago,the residents of the Tustin Historic District asked for a
parking permit program for street parking.The City approved a pilot program.When I asked to also consider the
area around Tustin High School,I was told there would be a community working group to address other areas.That
working group never happened.I call repeatedly asking to be apart of the program.I was told it wouldn't happen.
You seem to take care of parking issues in other parts of the City,then consider adding to the already unmanageable
parking problem in the Tustin High School area.
SOLUTIONS-If the City wants a solution,just look next door at 1052 San Juan. They have carports as well as
other easy access dedicated off-street parking for their residents.If the owner of 1042 wants garages,they must have
direct easy access and dedicated driveways for each garage.Dedicated driveways, easy access,open carports,one
on-street parking permit per residence,or similar programs are needed to eliminate the rampant abuse of street
parking.Then also enforcement of building standards requiring minimum green space.These are just a few
alternatives to the continued blight caused from overcrowded street parking.
CONCLUSION-Multi-unit residences without dedicated driveways for parking leads to more cars on the streets,
leads to more lawns used to park cars(with or without concrete pads),leads to blighted neighborhoods. Look at
Charloma and Macaw Cove,combined almost 50 failed garages. The antiquated parking policies for the City of
Tustin must change.Approving more zoning variances to allow more residential units with inadequate on-premises
parking is further destroying our neighborhood.For once consider our neighborhood like you've considered the
Tustin Historic District.You wouldn't allow this situation to occur in the District or Tustin Ranch.Why do you
continue to abuse our neighborhood?It's time to stop. Stop this Project.No more Utt/San Juan projects.No more
variances to fill our streets with more parked cars.None! Thank you for reading this far.
Scott Couchman
From: Dove,Elaine
To: Hurtado.Vera
Cc: Huitron.Irma; Reekstin.Scott
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Variance and Planning Review 1042 San Juan
Date: Saturday,February 6,20219:54:05 AM
Please see the most recent email from Mr. Couchman below. Please add this to the public
comments for 1042 San Juan Street.
Get Outlook for iCS
From: Scott Couchman >
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 20213:14:46 AM
To: Planning Commission <Plan ni ngCo m mission @tusti nca.org>
Cc: Dove, Elaine <EDove@tustinca.org>
Subject: Proposed Variance and Planning Review 1042 San Juan
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed project at 1042 San Juan,part of the neighborhood
surrounding Tustin High School.As a longtime property owner in this area,I've seen first hand how the antiquated
parking policies of the Tustin Planning Commission has inundated our neighborhood with street parking from multi-
family residential projects. The 1042 project is just the latest example of the kind of projects that have flooded our
streets and lawns with parked cars.
PROBLEM-The use of enclosed garages to satisfy the parking requirements of higher density residential units
further overloads already overloaded street parking. 80 years ago,garages were used to park cars.Today,garages
are used to store junk,operate home businesses,illegal bedrooms,game rooms,man caves, and exercise rooms. This
is particularly true in the multi-residential area around Tustin High School.
1042 SAN JUAN PROJECT-I reviewed the proposed plans for this project with Elain Dove,Tustin City Planner.
Building five new units at 1042 San Juan will add 15 to 20 new parked cars on our already overcrowded streets.
Each proposed unit will likely become home to multiple families,each with multiple cars. The garages are 90
degrees to a common driveway without any dedicated driveway space for each unit.The garages are too difficult to
access because of the narrow common driveway.As a result,the garages will be filled with anything but cars,and
the cars from these units will fill the guest parking,and then compete with existing neighbors for street parking.
RECENT EXPERIENCE-Look at the five new houses Tustin approved a few years ago at the comer of Utt and
San Juan.Like the proposed 1042 San Juan project,the Utt project required a variance.Two and three story single
family residences were crammed onto a small space.Unlike the 1042 proposal,two of the houses face San Juan with
short driveways at 1381&1391. One of these houses has what looks like a home business in the garage,and two cars
parked in the driveway. The other address has 2 cars in the garage and two in the driveway.They demonstrate both
high occupancy and alternate uses of the garages,but the 20'driveways still provide both houses with off-street
parking.The other three houses have a shared driveway (like the 1042 proposal)with difficult 90degrees turns(like
the 1042 proposal)to get into their garages. The 13742 garage has a race car stored in the garage,so their daily
driver parks on the street.The other two houses compete for the guest parking or park on the street. Difficult access
and no dedicated driveway,results in on-street parking. I attended the Planning Commission meeting for this project
and explained why this project would fail.That Planning Commission didn't listen.
MASSIVE ON-STREET PARKING PROBLEM-Drive down San Juan and see the bumper to bumper cars already
lining both sides of San Juan and Orange.We have a massive street parking problem all around Tustin High School.
At lam on street sweeper day,drive down Utt between Lance and San Juan and look at the cars parked on lawns at
13616-18 and 13620-22 Utt.None of these units can use their garage for parking because they're always blocked.
Drive down Green Valley and look at the new concrete pads that have RECENTLY replaced portions of front lawns
at 13652, 13672, 13683,and 13702. If they can't park on the street, and can't park in their garages,they pave their
lawns.Watch car owners standing near their cars in the street to move them long enough to avoid a ticket,just to
return them to the street.Look at the cars parked on Lance near Red Hill.The majority of those cars are Green
Valley overflow.More garages without dedicated driveways with easy direct access to the street means more cars
parking on the streets surrounding Tustin High School.
TUSTIN DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE-Several years ago,the residents of the Tustin Historic District asked for a
parking permit program for street parking.The City approved a pilot program.When I asked to also consider the
area around Tustin High School,I was told there would be a community working group to address other areas.That
working group never happened.I call repeatedly asking to be apart of the program.I was told it wouldn't happen.
You seem to take care of parking issues in other parts of the City,then consider adding to the already unmanageable
parking problem in the Tustin High School area.
SOLUTIONS-If the City wants a solution,just look next door at 1052 San Juan. They have carports as well as
other easy access dedicated off-street parking for their residents.If the owner of 1042 wants garages,they must have
direct easy access and dedicated driveways for each garage.Dedicated driveways, easy access,open carports,one
on-street parking permit per residence,or similar programs are needed to eliminate the rampant abuse of street
parking.Then also enforcement of building standards requiring minimum green space.These are just a few
alternatives to the continued blight caused from overcrowded street parking.
CONCLUSION-Multi-unit residences without dedicated driveways for parking leads to more cars on the streets,
leads to more lawns used to park cars(with or without concrete pads),leads to blighted neighborhoods.Look at
Charloma and Macaw Cove,combined almost 50 failed garages. The antiquated parking policies for the City of
Tustin must change.Approving more zoning variances to allow more residential units with inadequate on-premises
parking is further destroying our neighborhood.For once consider our neighborhood like you've considered the
Tustin Historic District.You wouldn't allow this situation to occur in the District or Tustin Ranch.Why do you
continue to abuse our neighborhood?It's time to stop. Stop this Project.No more Utt/San Juan projects.No more
variances to fill our streets with more parked cars.None! Thank you for reading this far.
Scott Couchman
Hurtado, Vera
To: Hurtado, Vera
Subject: RE: Staff Report and Design Review for 1042 San Juan
From: Scott Couchman
Sent: Monday, February 8, 20218:14 AM
To: Planning Commission <PlanninEaCommission@tustinca.org>
Cc: Dove, Elaine <EDove@tustinca.org>
Subject: Staff Report and Design Review for 1042 San Juan
City of Tustin Planning Commission. Thank you for another opportunity to provide community input on the proposed
General Plan revision and proposed construction at 1042 San Juan Street. I want to first thank the Tustin Senior Planner,
Elaine Dove for her cooperation and help in reviewing these proposed changes. I also want to thank the City of Tustin for
posting the notices at the location of these proposed changes. Without the sign postings, I would have never been aware
of this project and would have been disappointed to miss this opportunity for input. I also commend the property owner for
an aesthetically attractive project that coordinates well with the historical 1909 vintage house and its preservation.
Five years ago when the five residence Utt/San Juan project was approved over the strong objections of the
neighborhood, I felt the Planning Commission was arrogant and didn't listen to the community. The City Council listened,
but now we still have an intrusive eyesore in our neighborhood.
The neighborhood surrounding Tustin High School has been a forgotten, ignored and abused area. The General Plan text
is specific to many areas of Tustin including the District, Tustin Ranch, the Historic District, even the R1 area of north
Tustin. Our area isn't even mentioned as worth including in the General Plan. We have a distinct and historical style worth
preserving and valued.
This project seeks to change the General Plan that was established based on extensive City and community input. There
needs to be strong justification to change it, and that's just not the case here. Our community deserved better
consideration than we received five years ago.
Proof of Publication - In light of the Proof of Publication notification, I will try to include everything objectionable in the
proposed project and staff report. The list is long.
First, I object to the entire process. While I appreciate the issues created by the pandemic, the stay at home order ended
weeks ago. All the big box stores in Tustin are open, all the churches are open, schools are open, all the restaurants are
open and some worked hard to make accommodations for the community. Only the City of Tustin locks their doors and
excludes the community. There is great value in having the community present in the Council Chambers.
I don't understand how Public Review ended January 27, 2021 when the report wasn't issued until three business days
before the "Public Meeting". The staff report is over 400 pages long and we're only given a few days to review and
comment. Five years ago, the Planning Commission acted like they didn't want our input, and now you're making it hard
for the community to be involved.
Conclusion -Proof of Publication. The Planning Commission didn't listen five years ago, and now you're making public
comment harder than necessary.
Prior Input- I provided a written response to this project in an email to the planninccommissiontustincavorq address
last week and copied Elaine Dove, the Senior Planner. That input was based on the information I had available at that
time. Please include it in the record. I will focus this input on the staff report item#4 received February 4, 2021.
General Plan Revision - on page 166, the staff report says "These two (2) properties are the only two (2) residentially
used properties on San Juan with a Community Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation". This is not accurate for
the following reasons.
1. The City of Tustin General Plan published on tustinca.org shows the three residential parcels closest to the
DCCSP and directly across the street from this project on San Juan Street are also designated Community
Commercial.
2. The two residential parcels closest to the DCCSP on the north side of Walnut St are also Community Commercial.
3. The one residential parcel closest to the DCCSP on the south side of Bonita St is also Community Commercial.
1
4. The three residential parcels closest to the DCCSP on the south side of Andrews St are also Community
Commercial.
5. There is a consistent, deliberate, planned use of Community Commercial land use in this neighborhood in the
"comprehensive General Plan Update".
Conclusion -General Plan Revision -on page 166-The proposed change to the City of Tustin General Plan is in no
way supported by the staff report. The report seems to imply the General Plan is an exception as it relates to this property,
when actually, it is just the opposite. A change would be an exception. The existing General Plan designation is specific,
deliberate, consistent, and correct! It would be inappropriate to change the General Plan from Community Commercial.
Element Goals and Policies - on page 167, there's a list of General Plan Policies this project is purported to support.
Many of them fail.
1. Policy 1.1: fails to mention these would be the only 3-story properties in the neighborhood around Tustin High
School except for the Utt/San Juan project the community fought and lost.
2. Policy 4.6: fails to mention the impact of overflow parking onto San Juan St.
3. Policy 6.6: fails to mention the proposed General Plan change would remove the buffer to the DCCSP.
4. Policy 10.3: fails to mention that the amenities like the open space, child play areas, and picnic table are private
and not open to the public.
Conclusion -Element Goals and Policies -on page 167- Many of the Policies listed as supporting the General Plan
are incomplete and fail to mention the elements of this project that do not support the General Plan. This project fails to
comply with many of the Policies listed, and does not support the General Plan.
Discussion -on page 171, the proposed project is compared to the five single family residences built in 2015 at Utt and
San Juan Streets.
1. Utt/San Juan Project-This project was fiercely fought by the community in the Planning and Council meetings. The
residents in this area objected to the project, in particular the high density and three (3)story structures. I attended those
meetings and spoke about the failures the proposed plan would create. The project was eventually approved, but two of
the structures closest to the adjoining properties were changed to 2 story and the third floors were reduced in size. It's
been more than 5 years, but that's my best recollections. The comparison in the staff report fails to reflect the fight over
this project nor identifies the failures and the successes of this project as it relates to the use of garages in multi-family
projects and the proposed project at 1042 San Juan.
2. Utt/San Juan Parking -The two houses facing San Juan Street have garages and dedicated driveways with easy
access directly to the street. As a result, the residents cars can be easily parked in the garage, or can be parked in the
driveway if the garage is used for alternate purposes. I proposed changing this project to rotate the two houses facing Utt
Street to have the same garage/driveway/street configuration. That proposal was ignored. As a result, any cars that don't
fit in those garages compete for the two guest parking places or are parked on the street.
In my previous email, I identified the huge problems created by excess use of street parking. I cited numerous examples
and the resulting blight.
The proposed project at 1042 San Juan ignores the benefit of dedicated driveways paired with garages, and replicates the
problem with garages 90 degrees to a narrow common driveway. Making the 90 degree turn into a garage is difficult and
generally requires a three-point Y turn. Most people don't make the effort. The end result will be more cars parked on the
street and increased blight in our neighborhood around Tustin High School.
3. Three Story Structures-The other primary issue is the pair of three story duplexes. The Utt/San Juan project that the
neighbors fought and lost, is now mistakenly being used to justify a pair of new three story duplexes at 1042 San Juan.
The neighborhood surrounding Tustin High School was originally developed with single story cottage style single family
homes and single story duplexes. That's still the predominant style in the neighborhood. Two story structures are the
exception.
A. All the properties on Utt Street are single story except the Utt/San Juan property the community fought and lost!
B. All the properties on the north side of San Juan Street from Red Hill Avenue to the DCCSP are single story
(including the Learning Center)with only four exceptions; the three story residence at Utt the community fought
and lost, one at 1111 San Juan Street and two smaller two story buildings; one behind 1071 San Juan Street, and
another behind 1281 San Juan Street.
C. All the properties on Green Valley are single story except one two story duplex, one single story house with a
two story structure behind it, one triplex with the second story structures at the rear of the property behind the
garages; and one fourplex with again the the two story structure at the rear of the property behind the garages. All
four of these exceptions are grouped together at the north end of the street.
D. Orange,Walnut and Bonita have more of a mix of single and two story residences. Still, original single story
cottage style houses dominate this area.
2
E. Tustin High School -The staff report suggests that Tustin High School somehow helps justify three story
duplexes. All of the buildings at Tustin High School are one or two stories. The gymnasium has a high roof for
obvious reasons. Nothing here compares or remotely justifies three story duplexes.
4. General Plan -The "General Plan Goal 4, Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential
neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion of non-conforming and disruptive uses."Any attempt to
characterize the neighborhood around Tustin High School as anything other than predominantly single story residences,
with very few two story exceptions, except for the Utt/San Juan project the community fought and lost, is misleading.
The three story Utt/San Juan residences are inconsistent with Goal 4, Policy 4.6. Likewise, a pair of proposed three story
duplexes also represent an intrusion. This must stop before this cancer is allowed to spread beyond the unfortunate
Utt/San Juan project.
Conclusion - Discussion -on page 171 -There is no justification at all in the staff report to support three (3)story
duplexes, except for the intrusion of the three (3)story units at Utt and San Juan Streets the community fought hard to
eliminate. Both projects fail to comply with the General Plan!
Conclusion: -on page 172, The staff report concludes "the proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area."This is incorrect for the four reasons previous detailed as well as the additional comments that
follow.
Land Use Application Fact Sheet-on page 177, item 6, Previous or Concurrent Construction Related to this Property,
sub item a. references unpermitted construction, and sub item b. references demolition of a "hobby room". I believe these
are both shown on page 185 in the plan view.
Just to be clear, this demolition wasn't a "hobby room", but involved an unpermitted duplex with two kitchens, three
bathrooms, 3 tool sheds, a two car garage and more!
This property has been a blight in our neighborhood for decades. This structure should have never existed. We've lived
with this blight too long. While this mess is finally gone, the property owner should not be rewarded by approving a
General Plan revision so they can build more duplexes that further intrude on the surrounding neighborhood! This
property was correctly identified for Community Commercial following extensive review by both the community and the
City. Obvious errors should be corrected, but not just because the owner of an abusive property decides they think 3 story
duplexes sounds better to them.
Conclusion -Land Use Application Fact Sheet-on page 177- "Hobby Room" reference is misleading and there is no
justification for a General Plan revision, particularly for property with an abusive blighted history.
Mitigation Negative Declaration -on page 201, The Orange County Fire Authority was identified as required approval.
Attachment Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan and Surrounding Uses. Actually, the Proposed Site Plan and Surrounding Uses
is Figure 5 on page 207. The surrounding area portion of the figure shows the garages at the Macaw Cove property as
carports. This is a critical error as they relate to the Fire Authority review process. Carports are typically used to store
motor vehicles, usually cars and motorcycles, which could represent a minimal fire hazard. Since these are actually
enclosed garages with garage doors, they are currently being used to story everything except cars. Some are packed tight
with flammable material, others are used as family rooms, home based businesses storing chemicals, and other
potentially highly flammable material.
I rented a garage to a tenant that used it to store household items and a motorcycle. Unfortunately, he also stored large
quantities of gasoline for his motorcycle. Enclosed garages represent a much higher fire exposure than carports.
Conclusion -Mitigation Negative Declaration -on page 201 -Any Fire Authority review based on this report is
inadequate. If the Macaw garages were unapproved changes to what was original approved as carports, the City of Tustin
Code Enforcement should investigate. Likewise, if the garages on Charloma Street were also originally approved as
carports, Code Enforcement should investigate these also for the same reasons.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: -on page 209-
1. Land Use/Planning is not indicated on the checklist. This is a significant omission because the arguments for
changing the General Plan fails for a number of reasons previously detailed.
2. Transportation/Traffic is not indicated on the checklist. This is significant because of the impact of additional cars
parked on already over crowded neighborhood streets. On page 211, C. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of
Infill Projects: 2) "All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts."
The staff report says the 6 proposed residential units will be rented. Fair House Authority considers full occupancy
to be 2 per bedroom plus one. A 3 bedroom unit therefore could house 7 residents. If they each have a car, 6
residences would mean 42 cars. If they use garages for alternate uses as has been identified as probable, 42
3
additional cars would be parked on the streets surrounding Tustin High School. Even considering a portion of this
quantity, the already overloaded parking detailed in my previous email, makes the cumulative effect significant.
Conclusion -Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: -on page 209. Several additional items on the checklist
have been demonstrated to require Mitigation. This portion is incomplete and can't be eliminated without substantial
revisions to this project.
Summary- I've worked hard to understand the complexities of a 400+ page document in a very compressed timeframe.
I'm excluded from personally participating in the process by the City's reluctance to allow reasonable community input.
I've identified numerous discrepancies and cited various reasons why this project would fail the residents living around
Tustin High School. There is no reasonable justification for changing the Community Commercial designation for this
property. The General Plan is consistent, specific, and the result of extensive community and City input. The residential
plan proposed by the property owner fails to address the cumulative effect of the additional cars that would be parked on
the already overcrowded streets in this neighborhood. The arguments for three (3)story duplexes are built on false and
misleading information. The only reasonable conclusion is for the Planning Commission to deny both the requested
General Plan change and the Design Review.
I've personally experienced the benefits of carports in rental environments. Almost 50 years ago I lived in an apartment at
12842 Newport Avenue, Tustin. There were dedicated carports for each unit and additional parking for residents and
guests. The same carports are still in use today. No stored junk, no alternate uses,just cars parked on the premises.
Carports don't result in alternate uses. 45 years ago, I personally experienced alternate uses of a garage when we
purchased our first house on Cloverbrook in Tustin. The previous owner had constructed an illegal room in half the
garage. The first change I made when we moved in was to remove the room. 20 years ago I personally experienced
unpermitted second units when I bought property in the Tustin High School neighborhood with a substandard rear unit. It
took over a year to obtain a permit from the City to remove the offending structure. I enjoy the neighborhood around
Tustin High School and I'm interested in seeing it prosper.
Take some time. Walk around our neighborhood surrounding Tustin High School. Recognize the history and value of our
neighborhood. Recognize the abuse our neighborhood has endured from Planning Commissions and absentee property
owners that only saw us as a place to make money, and not a place where homeowners and responsible renters live. Too
many property owners have decided to tear down what's here and replace it with intrusive, inconsistent, structures that
don't blend with the existing neighborhood. It's time for the abuse to end. We have a style worth encouraging and
preserving. We are more than a shortcut between Redhill and Newport. This is not the last infill project for our
neighborhood. We have value as part of Tustin. Please try to see us and hear us this time.
Thanks for reading this far.
4