HomeMy WebLinkAboutEcomment - Brian Nguyen (Item 11)From: Maldonado, Jorge
To: Smittle. Alexa; 6arma,n. Raymond: Eastman. Jay; Yasuo,. Erica;
Subject: FW: Cypress Grove Residential Project Public Comment Questions
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 5:03:50 PM
Attachments: imaae.ono
Exh. SA - Final EIR. Response to Comments. MMRP.pdf
ge9ot.png
Importance: High
Jorge Maldonado
` Senior Planner
,�— Planning Division
TJc I wry: Community Development
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA
92780
P: 714-573-3174
I will be out of office beginning November 14 and will return on December 1. For questions during these dates, please contact TustinPlanning(aTustinCA.org.
From: Brian n <
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:53 PM
To: Maldonado, Jorge <JMaldonado@tustinca.org>
Cc:
Subject: Cypress Grove Residential Project Public Comment Questions
Mr. Maldonado,
My name is Brian Nguyen, a homeowner in the neighborhood south of the proposed site.
Since the site will be rezoned to PCRES, the best comparable development standards for the site is the two developments of Park Tustin (132 units) and Quail Meadows (101
units) to the east of the site.
"Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9244, the Planned Community (PC) District Zone does not have prescriptive development standards; rather, the Project would establish
custom development standards (such as setbacks, scaling, height transitions, etc.) as part of the development plan, including supplementary text materials. The proposed
development standards with which the Project would comply would be compatible with the character and quality of existing surrounding uses, which would be ensured through
the City's design review and plan check processes. Therefore, the Project could result in a visual change from existing conditions but would comply with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality and would not result in an impact to visual character pursuant to CEQA. As such, the Draft EIR is not required to further analyze
impacts related to visual character."
1. Therefore, to be consistent with Section 9244, Cypress Grove should comply with the existing development standards of the PCRES and the character and quality of the
existing surrounding uses. Park Tustin and Quail Meadows are two-story residential condo/townhome developments with a significantly less dense land to building ratios.
Cypress Grove is currently designed for 145 units, based on the land to building ratio of Park Tustin and Quail Meadows, Cypress Grove should have only 91 or 115 units.
2. Park Tustin and Quail Meadows have less units than the proposed 145 units, but each development has multiple entrances/exits into their developments either along
Yorba St or Vandenberg Ln. This is a traffic issue under CEQA
3. As you can see, there are over flow parking along the south side of Vandenberg Ln due to inadequate parking needs. Assuming Park Tustin and Quail Meadows were
developed based on the parking regulations, this means the regulations (General Plan Standards) are inadequate and the current allocated parking for Cypress Grove being
more dense would lead to spill over parking into the neighborhood based on this comparable substantial evidence. (Comment A2.1) One might counter this point by
saying the parking is due to the commercial or office development to the north, but as you can clearly see the commercial site has ample parking, and the office has a
dedicated parking structure.
Possible Solutions:
See comparable developments in the neighborhood:
4. 1) Carriage Square: This is development east of the subject site along the south side 17th Street. This is a one story development, and based on its land to building ratio; the
subject site could be developed with 32 units and be compatible with the surrounding uses.
2) California Crossing: This is a development continuing east on the north side of 17th street. This is two-story development and based on its land to building ratio; the
subject site could be developed with 50 units and be compatible with the surrounding uses.
Conclusion: There is an error in the EIR not taking into account existing surrounding comparable development standards based on the new rezoning and analyzing if those
existing standards are adequate. As the site will be rezoned to PCRES, at least minimally the subject should adhere to the existing development standards, not create new
standards that are not compatible with the neighborhood.
Question:
1. Why did allow a three-story residential development on a PCRES zoning while every PCRES site around the subject is only two-story?
2. With the substantial comparable evidence, how will the development ensure that there won't be traffic/parking issues?