Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNeil Sherman - (Item 12) From: Neil Mail To: Yasuda. Erica Subject: RE: Citizen Comments-Public Hearing Aug 17,2021 re:VTTM 17822 Date: Friday,August 13, 2021 7:46:49 AM Good morning Ms. Yasuda, I would like to address the City Council at this public hearing, and submit a expanded list of comments to be sent to them. See below for the comments to be submitted to the Council members. Please send me the link so I can address the council during the meeting. Thank you, Neil Sherman Information to be submitted to the the Council members: Mayor Clark, council members, and staff. My name is Neil Sherman. I am Board President for the Tustin Meadows Community Association. I thank you for this opportunity to provide comments to you as a representative a large residential community at the south end of the RHASP. Comments specifically regarding the proposed project at 13751& 13841 Red Hill Avenue that is on the agenda As most of you know, I have been tracking proposed developments along the Redhill corridor for the last several years. My community has, to a limited degree, already been impacted by the City's parking problems, through "parking creep" along Sycamore from Newport Ave., and increasing traffic through some of my community's streets, as cars drive through our community trying to avoid traffic at the Redhill Walnut corner stoplight during rush our. As I understand it, the RHASP was conceived as a integrated plan to beautify the Redhill corridor,while addressing potential parking and traffic flow concerns along Redhill resulting from the 500 additional residences allowed within the RHASP. As a result of your planning, you limited the maximum amount of additional residences to 500 new units across the entire corridor, and required a ratio of 2.25 on-site parking spaces for each residential unit added within the corridor. Unfortunately, the state has passed laws that allow developers to bypass the limits you set for development of the commercial/residentially zoned properties within the RHASP. Using the very low income housing bonuses, this developers project was able to add 20% more residential spaces or 23 additional residential units to just this property alone, see chart 14 in the presentation to the planning commission, and to reduce the City requirement of 2.25 parking spaces ratio to 1.42, see chart 16,by applying the state's parking allocation model not Tustin's. Now this project is the first one submitted for the corridor that the Planning Commission voted, by a 4-1 vote to move it forward to you for approval. None of their discussion addressed the potential impact across the corridor of this project being implemented by the other commercial/residential properties. Imagine if all the other Commercial/residential properties did the same thing, the maximum of 500 residential units perceived for the corridor will grow to 600 units,per the 20% very low income residential bonus. The added car traffic on Redhill that comes with the units will probably stress the EIR study that was conducted before, and which showed the area around the I5 was already a problem, and some cross streets may now also become an issue. Using the state parking ratio of 1.42, the total parking spaces required for a potential 600 units across the corridor would be 852, not the 1350 that would be required using the City's requirement of 2.25 for this area. That would be a deficit 498 parking spaces in an area that already has a parking problems. I know that the city has been studying the parking problems throughout Tustin. But, there isn't a approved plan yet. Also, I don't know that this study is even looking at the potential solution for accommodating the substantial residential unit growth that the very low income housing bonus can unleash on this part of the city. I believe the council also needs to look ahead and evaluate the potential impact that passage that this project might have on the total corridor. You should vote against this proposed project at 13751& 13841 Red Hill Avenue until the issues raised here are resolved,and the city has established a plan to prevent the RHASP from becoming a traffic blight to the city, instead of the beautiful corridor it is envisioned to be. While I have some additional concerns about the proposed plan, I will stop here because of time limits, but have included those comments in my written submission. Additional comments not addressed in the oral presentation: • Can the city limit the total number of residential units along the corridor to 500 including all residences including bonus housing? This could significantly improve parking and traffic issues. • Does the city also have a plan to distribute affordable housing units across Tustin, and not allow them to be concentrated in any one area,particularly one that already has traffic and parking issues? There are many areas to be considered outside the RHASP corridor,including Newport Ave, north of Irvine, East 4th St. West of Newport Ave., some commercial areas south of Eddinger and west of Redhill, as examples. • With respect the proposed project, Street parking on sweeper days opens up more problems for residents, including low-income housing families. They have to find an acceptable off-street parking location, or suffer getting a parking ticket. • While the developer used the Tustin parking space allocation for commercial units, are these adequate for commercial unit renters and their customers, given the lack of adequate residential parking spaces within the development. • Are the public plaza's safe areas because some may be along side car traffic that access the parking spaces within the complex. • Look at the Parking Management Plan, charts 16 and 17 and assess how realistic the proposed options are. • Increasing traffic on Camino Real and San Juan, and inadequate on-site parking, causes additional safety issues to Tustin High students, as these streets are used by students for entry and exit of Tustin High. • The Developer said they only contacted residents within 500ft. of the project, and interested parties. Because this project is only one on the Redhill corridor yet, they should have contacted everyone within 200 ft. of the total corridor and revealed the total number of units and parking space ratio. The renderings of the project show it is a significant improvement over the earlier one 2 years ago. But the enhanced resident units and reduced parking space per unit, if divulged, may have left a different impression of the acceptability of the proposed project. Thank you very much, Neil Sherman TMCA-Board President Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad