HomeMy WebLinkAboutEric Higuchi - Item 12From: 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 31, 2025 11:21:40 PM
City of Tustin. CA
New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City
Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular
Meeting-6:00 pm
Eric Higuchi submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Regular Meeting of the City Council/Closed Session-4:30 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm
Item: 12. FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2022-0002 — THE JESSUP
AT 17802 — 17842 IRVINE BOULEVARD A request for the first amendment to Development
Agreement 2022-0002, an agreement between the City of Tustin and Tustin 40 Development
LLC (Property Owner) for "The Jessup" residential project. The proposed amendment is a
request to eliminate the Property Owner's requirement to pay the Voluntary Workforce Housing
Incentive Program In -Lieu Fee ("In -Lieu Fee"). On July 9, 2024, the City of Tustin Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed request and adopted Resolution No. 4492,
recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1544, approving the first amendment
to Development Agreement 2022-0002. On September 17, 2024, the City Council held a public
hearing to consider the Property Owner's requested amendment to Development Agreement
2022-0002. The City Council's motion failed due to a 2-2-1 vote (Attachment 3). The Property
Owner is now requesting that the City Council reconsider the matter and adopt Ordinance 1564,
approving first amendment to Development Agreement 2022-0002 (Attachment 4).
eComment: I am supportive of the amendment to the Development Agreement with Intracorp.
The City of Tustin's inclusionary housing requirements are some of the most onerous in the
County and have been delayed and/or prevented the development of for sale housing in the
Downtown and Red Hill Specific Plans. Jurisdictions such as Anaheim and Costa Mesa have
recently passed inclusionary housing ordinances but have exempted for -sale housing from the
requirement to provide on site affordable housing. By providing on site, affordable for -sale
housing, Intracorp has done more than it's economic fair share of addressing the housing crisis.
Further, the City and the developer would both be better off economically if we had exempted
Intracorp from providing onsite affordable housing and had maintained the requirement to
provide an in -lieu fee. I am very encouraged by the recent changes at the City, but we still need
to review past policies and consider the recent mistakes we've made as we've attempted to
address housing affordability and economic development in our existing specific plans.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from httos:/ftustin.aranicusideas.com
Unsubscribe from future mailings