HomeMy WebLinkAboutE-Comment-Gabriel (Item 8)From: noreplly(a aranicusideas.com
To: Yasuda. Erica; Woodward. Carrie; E-Comments
Subject: New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm
Date: Monday, March 3, 2025 9:21:05 AM
City of Tustin. CA
New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City
Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular
Meeting-6:00 pm
Guest User submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm
Item: 8. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO RELEASE A COMPETITIVE
C�7���:71:[H7i7: � _ ► ► ► _ : _ [�Z�7�::1 � _ yl�[�Zy�::r�:71�_���y�xill�[�l»_1:1
COMPRISED OF 11 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY Staff is requesting City
Council consideration and approval to release a competitive offering for Planning Area 10 of the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan comprised of 11 acres of City -owned real property pursuant to
the procedures recently approved by the City Council in Resolution 25-10.
eComment: Hello, I'd like to voice support of the city in sending this property to RFP, but
strongly suggest that any property being sold via competitive offering allow proposals of smaller
developments that require subdividing the parcel(s). A greater number of smaller investments
are less fragile and more adaptable long-term than a small number of large projects. Allowing for
proposals of smaller subdivisions allows for a greater diversity of businesses and developers to
come to the table. Large projects may benefit from economies of scale, but they are also subject
to greater long-term fragility because of higher O&M and less diversified risk. If a large property
is failing, it is very hard to redevelop the whole thing. If a small property on a large block is
failing, the barrier to re -use, re -develop, or upgrade that property is much smaller. The whole 11-
acre block doesn't live or die as one unit (like shopping malls that shutter because they can't
adapt their form without a huge transformative redevelopment). Smaller property sizes on a
block allow individual properties to thrive even if adjacent ones are failing and allow properties to
go through redevelopment without it being a mega -project. This is a similar issue we
encountered with the new Irvine Company at Tustin Legacy project. The first development
proposal failed 100% because the only option was 0% or 100%. Luckily the Irvine Company
appears able to deliver, but not many firms can deliver to that scale, and certainly nothing small
and local can. Perhaps allowing for many smaller developments in that tract would have avoided
the apparent risk of the entire first bidder's project failing. It may still absolutely make sense to
sell the property in its entirety to one bidder, and if that's the best option I support it, but we
shouldn't be requiring ONLY large many -acre projects. The first step to encouraging diverse,
anti -fragile development is to allow it. Thanks, Gabriel
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://tustin.granicusideas.com
Unsubscribe from future mailings