the neighborhoods of tustin town center: a new ... - City of Tustin
the neighborhoods of tustin town center: a new ... - City of Tustin the neighborhoods of tustin town center: a new ... - City of Tustin
APPENDIX THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER: A NEW BEGINNING A S T R A T E G I C G U I D E F O R D E V E L O P M E N T
- Page 3: APPENDIX THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTI
- Page 6 and 7: APPENDIX
- Page 8 and 9: Neighborhood Retail Center: A Neigh
- Page 10 and 11: SOUTHERN GATEWAY POTENTIAL NEW DEVE
- Page 12 and 13: TOWN CENTER NEW BEGINNINGS CONCEPT
- Page 14 and 15: A.3 Traffic and Circulation Testing
- Page 16 and 17: LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION The la
- Page 18 and 19: CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNAT
- Page 20 and 21: SOUTHERN GATEWAY TRAFFIC EVALUATION
- Page 22 and 23: add additional traffic at the inter
- Page 24 and 25: WEST VILLAGE TRAFFIC EVALUATION A t
- Page 26 and 27: Nevertheless, a potential hot spot
- Page 28 and 29: TUSTIN TOWN CENTER CIRCULATION SYST
- Page 30 and 31: 1. El Camino Real & Newport (10/1/0
- Page 32 and 33: 9. Newport & McFadden (5/8/07) 10.
- Page 34 and 35: A.4 Financial Feasibility Analysis
- Page 36 and 37: A. Key Findings As shown in the Sum
- Page 38 and 39: Financing costs consist of such ite
- Page 40 and 41: D. West Village neighborhood, Site
- Page 42 and 43: Site 3 Alternative B Pro Forma Anal
- Page 44 and 45: TABLE A-3 SITE 3 ALTERNATIVE B CENT
- Page 46 and 47: TABLE B-2 SITE 9 ALTERNATIVE B SOUT
- Page 48 and 49: TABLE C-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FINAN
- Page 50 and 51: TABLE C-3 SITE 12 ALTERNATIVE B WES
APPENDIX<br />
THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER:<br />
A NEW BEGINNING<br />
A S T R A T E G I C G U I D E F O R D E V E L O P M E N T
APPENDIX<br />
THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER:<br />
A NEW BEGINNING<br />
A S T R A T E G I C G U I D E F O R D E V E L O P M E N T<br />
PREPARED BY<br />
FIELD PAOLI<br />
WITH KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES<br />
AND AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES<br />
PREPARED FOR<br />
THE CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY<br />
300 CENTENNIAL WAY<br />
TUSTIN, CA 92780<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE - SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
APPENDIX<br />
A.1 Glossary <strong>of</strong> Terms<br />
A.2 Development Thresholds<br />
A.3 Traffic and Circulation Testing<br />
A.4 Financial Feasibility Analysis for Key Opportunity Sites<br />
A.5 Implementation Strategies Exhibits<br />
A.6 Public Workshops<br />
A.6.1 Workshop #1 Materials<br />
A 6.2 Workshop #1 Public Comments<br />
A 6.3 Workshop #2 Materials<br />
A 6.4 Workshop #2 Public Comments<br />
A.7 Workshop Attendees<br />
A-1<br />
A-3<br />
A-8<br />
A-28<br />
A-48<br />
A-62<br />
A-72<br />
A-77<br />
A-95<br />
A-106<br />
Additional resource documents associated with <strong>the</strong> Town Center New Beginnings Project,<br />
(including copies <strong>of</strong> community workshop materials, presentations on alternative concept plans,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Refined Market Analysis) are available on-line at <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> web site (<strong>tustin</strong>ca.org),<br />
under Redevelopment, What’s New, and <strong>the</strong> Town Center New Beginnings project.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010<br />
THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A NEW BEGINNING<br />
v
APPENDIX
A.1 Glossary <strong>of</strong> Terms<br />
MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS<br />
Change <strong>of</strong> Use:<br />
Consolidate:<br />
Infill:<br />
Intensify:<br />
Streetscape:<br />
Changing <strong>the</strong> land use, intensification <strong>of</strong> development for a parcel <strong>of</strong> land,<br />
or consolidation <strong>of</strong> parcels.<br />
A combination <strong>of</strong> two or more parcels consolidated across existing lot<br />
lines to form a larger parcel for development. Larger parcels are easier to<br />
develop and <strong>of</strong>ten more efficient in layout than smaller parcels.<br />
The location <strong>of</strong> <strong>new</strong> development within an area with existing<br />
development. Infill can include renovations, <strong>new</strong> development,<br />
intensification <strong>of</strong> development, consolidation <strong>of</strong> development, and/or <strong>new</strong><br />
uses on a parcel that is located in a built area. Infill can meet short range to<br />
long term objectives for revitalization.<br />
Major improvements at a site that increases <strong>the</strong> scale and density <strong>of</strong><br />
development. Intensified development can include an increased number <strong>of</strong><br />
dwellings, increased building heights, replacement or alteration <strong>of</strong> single<br />
family buildings to accommodate multiple dwelling units, and/or a mix <strong>of</strong><br />
different uses.<br />
A combination <strong>of</strong> planting, amenities such as benches, pavement, and<br />
special visual treatments, which can occur on both sides <strong>of</strong> streets and<br />
within medians for <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> aes<strong>the</strong>tics and/or shade. Streetscape<br />
usually does not include <strong>the</strong> travel lanes <strong>of</strong> a street, but can include bicycle<br />
lanes, on-street parking, and crosswalks.<br />
MINOR IMPROVEMENTS<br />
Upgrade/Renovate: Upgrades are short- to mid-term objectives, whereas renovations are<br />
longer term. Upgrades improve existing building systems, structures<br />
and private landscaping to a higher standard for minor and moderate<br />
improvements. Renovations replace old materials with <strong>new</strong> ones, preferably<br />
with long lasting and environmental friendly materials (e.g. recycled and<br />
sustainable materials)<br />
USE DEFINITIONS<br />
Institutional:<br />
Mixed-Use:<br />
Public Use:<br />
A designation <strong>of</strong> land use for private uses such as churches and religious<br />
purposes, clinics, health facilities, hospitals, and non-pr<strong>of</strong>it activities.<br />
A site that contains buildings with two or more types <strong>of</strong> land uses (not<br />
counting parking), even if segregated in separate buildings.<br />
Any use operated by a governmental agency or school district that<br />
provides direct services to <strong>the</strong> public, such as governmental <strong>of</strong>fices, fire<br />
stations, police stations, schools, and libraries.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-1<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Neighborhood Retail Center:<br />
A Neighborhood Retail Center is typically anchored by a grocery store or<br />
a drug store. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> smaller neighborhood <strong>center</strong>s may not have<br />
an anchor tenant and are comprised <strong>of</strong> shops. Tenants could include a<br />
c<strong>of</strong>fee house, a nail salon, locally-owned businesses and restaurants. A<br />
neighborhood <strong>center</strong> generally ranges in size from 30,000 to 100,000<br />
square feet, surface parked, adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway, and<br />
located on three to ten acres. These <strong>center</strong>s serve populations ranging<br />
from 3,000 to 40,000 and provide convenience due to <strong>the</strong> proximity to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
customer base.<br />
Anchor Store:<br />
A large store, such as a grocery store or department store, that is<br />
prominently located in a shopping <strong>center</strong> to attract customers who are <strong>the</strong>n<br />
expected to patronize <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r shops in <strong>the</strong> <strong>center</strong>.<br />
Amenity Open Space:<br />
An open space that is privately owned and maintained as part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
development but is accessible to <strong>the</strong> public . Certain restrictions, such as<br />
public access times, rules, types <strong>of</strong> allowed activities, may apply.<br />
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS<br />
Gross Scheduled Income (GSI):<br />
The total rental and o<strong>the</strong>r income generated by a project before vacancy and operating<br />
expenses are deducted.<br />
Net Operating Income (NOI):<br />
The gross scheduled income generated by a project<br />
after deducting vacancy and operating expenses but before paying debt service.<br />
Area Median Income (AMI):<br />
The midpoint <strong>of</strong> income distribution within a specific geographic area, whereas, 50% <strong>of</strong><br />
households earn less than <strong>the</strong> median income and 50% earn more. The U.S. Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates AMI levels for different communities<br />
annually, with adjustments for family size.<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> Service (LOS):<br />
The transportation LOS system uses <strong>the</strong> letters A through F, with A being best and F being<br />
worst. The Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO Geometric Design <strong>of</strong> Highways and Streets<br />
(“Green Book”) list <strong>the</strong> following levels <strong>of</strong> service:<br />
LOS Traffic Flow<br />
A= Free flow<br />
B=Reasonably free flow<br />
C=Stable flow<br />
D=Approaching unstable flow<br />
E=Unstable flow<br />
F=Forced or breakdown flow<br />
LOS At-Grade Intersections (Average Vehicle<br />
Control Delay)<br />
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection<br />
A ≤10 sec ≤10 sec<br />
B 10-20 sec 10-15 sec<br />
C 20-35 sec 15-25 sec<br />
D 35-55 sec 25-35 sec<br />
E 55-80 sec 35-50 sec<br />
F ≥80 sec ≥50 sec<br />
A-2 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
A.2 Development Thresholds<br />
CENTER CITY POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS<br />
Existing Conditions vs. a Comparison <strong>of</strong> Alternatives<br />
Site Use Existing<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
Opportunity<br />
Sites<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Locations in<br />
<strong>the</strong><br />
Neighborhood<br />
TOTAL<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Lot Size/Acres<br />
or Sq. Ft.<br />
DU/FAR<br />
Concept Plan<br />
Lot Size/Acres or<br />
Sq. Ft.<br />
Difference<br />
Residential Units 1 - - - 126 TBD 126<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 1 - - - 67,000 TBD 67,000<br />
Industrial Area (SF) 251,520 357,105 - - (251,500)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 251,520 357,105 0.7 67,000 TBD<br />
Residential Units - - - 380 380<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 119,373 399,969 - 160,000 473,529 40,600<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 16,321 32,290 - - - (16,300)<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 15,995 - 16,600 15,995 -<br />
Industrial Area (SF) 20,000 41,270 - - - (20,000)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 172,281 489,524 0.4 176,600 489,524 24,300<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 13,081 138,695 - 41,800 138,695 28,700<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 13,081 138,695 0.1 41,800 138,695 28,700<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 19,201 83,922 - 19,200 83,922 -<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 19,201 83,922 0.2 19,200 83,922 -<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 68,051 407,352 - 74,100 407,352 6,000<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 21,230 52,708 21,200 52,708 -<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 89,281 460,060 0.2 95,300 460,060 6,000<br />
Residential Units - 506 506<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 219,706 295,100 75,300<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 83,600 67,000<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,300)<br />
Industrial Area (SF) 271,520 - (271,500)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 545,364 1,529,306 0.4 399,900 1,172,201 (145,500)<br />
Residential Units 763 1,113 - 350<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 139,111 150,000 - 10,900<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 55,624 90,000 - 34,400<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 194,735 649,437 0.3 240,000 649,437 45,300<br />
Residential Units 763 1,619 856<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 2 358,817 445,100 86,300<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 72,211 173,600 101,400<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,400)<br />
Industrial Area (SF) 271,520 - (271,500)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 740,099 2,178,743 0.3 639,900 1,821,638 (100,200)<br />
1 Originally Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. conducted traffic testing on two Concept Alternatives that proposed ei<strong>the</strong>r all residential development<br />
(Alternative A) or all <strong>of</strong>fice development (Alternative B) on Opportunity Site #1. The recommended plan would permit ei<strong>the</strong>r mixed use, a<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> residential and <strong>of</strong>fice development, or all residential use (287 units). Pursuant to <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong>'s Housing Element, adopted June 16, 2009,<br />
<strong>the</strong> site may be required to have a minimum <strong>of</strong> 126 dwelling units in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> is not able to meet State-defined objectives. Factoring in a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 126 dwelling units, a maximum <strong>of</strong> 67,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> Office Space can be built and still be within <strong>the</strong> traffic testing results conducted<br />
by Austin-Foust.<br />
2 Commercial Retail includes Service Commercial uses as well.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-3<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
SOUTHERN GATEWAY POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS<br />
Existing Conditions vs. a Comparison <strong>of</strong> Alternatives<br />
Key Sites Use Existing<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
Opportunity<br />
Sites<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Locations in<br />
<strong>the</strong><br />
Neighborhood<br />
TOTAL<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Lot Size/Acres or<br />
Sq. Ft.<br />
DU/FAR<br />
Concept Plan<br />
Lot Size/Acres<br />
or Sq. Ft.<br />
Difference<br />
Residential Units (DU) 13 1.43 9 175 3.49 162<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 1 28,747 75,827 - - - (28,700)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 28,747 75,827 0.4 - - (28,700)<br />
Residential Units (DU) - - - 23 - 23<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 10,076 55,914 - 15,000 55,914 4,900<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 10,076 55,914 0.2 15,000 55,914 4,900<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 26,726 112,514 - 23,600 - (3,100)<br />
Commercial Office (SF) - - - 23,600 112,514 23,600<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 26,726 112,514 0.2 47,200 112,514 20,500<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 41,140 170,319 - 34,300 - (6,800)<br />
Commercial Office (SF) - - - 34,300 170,319 34,300<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 41,140 170,319 0.2 68,600 170,319 27,500<br />
Residential Units (DU) 164 7.20 23 186 7.20 22<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) - - - 12,000 104,544 6,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) - - - - - -<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 4,528 21,780 - 36,100 103,136 31,600<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 23,086 - - - -<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 4,528 21,780 0.2 36,100 103,136 31,600<br />
Residential Units (DU) 177 384 207<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 111,217 109,000 (2,100)<br />
Commercial Office (SF) - 57,900 57,900<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 12,000 6,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 111,217 436,354 0.3 166,900 441,883 55,800<br />
Residential Units (DU) 1,854 2,209 355<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 106,194 130,000 - 23,800<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 75,000 215,000 - 140,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 181,194 820,703 0.2 345,000 762,433 163,800<br />
Residential Units (DU) 2,031 2,593 562<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 2 217,411 239,000 21,600<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 75,000 272,900 197,900<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 12,000 6,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 292,411 1,257,057 0.2 511,900 1,204,316 219,500<br />
1 75,827 is <strong>the</strong> combined square footage <strong>of</strong> parcels: 402-371-35; 402-371-37; and 402-371-38. 28,747 square feet <strong>of</strong> existing is<br />
an estimate, based on a total <strong>of</strong> 32,263 sq. ft. less 3,516 sq. ft. Carl's Jr.<br />
2 Commercial Retail includes Service Commercial uses as well.<br />
A-4 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
WEST VILLAGE POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS<br />
Existing Conditions vs. a Comparison <strong>of</strong> Alternatives<br />
Key Sites Use Existing<br />
West Village<br />
Lot Size/Acres<br />
or Sq. Ft.<br />
DU/FAR<br />
Concept Plan<br />
Lot Size/Acres<br />
or Sq. Ft.<br />
Difference<br />
Residential Units (DU) - - - 210 210<br />
12 Commercial Retail (SF) 42,890 176,694 - 50,000 262,026 7,100<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 42,890 176,694 0.2 50,000 262,026 7,100<br />
13<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 5,431 37,640 - 15,100 37,640 9,700<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 5,431 37,640 0.1 15,100 37,640 9,700<br />
14 Residential Units (DU) 44 1.71 26 24 0.95 (20)<br />
15 Residential Units (DU) 4 0.29 14 - - (4)<br />
Residential Units (DU) 1 164 18.35 9 240 18.35 76<br />
16 Commercial Retail (SF) - - - 6,000 24,000 6,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) - - - 6,000 24,000 6,000<br />
17 Residential Units (DU) 1 188 18.43 10 276 18.43 88<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
Opportunity<br />
Sites<br />
Residential Units (DU) 400 751 351<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 48,321 71,100 22,800<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 48,321 214,334 71,100 323,666 22,800<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong><br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Residential Units (DU) 2,396 2,396 0<br />
Locations in<br />
<strong>the</strong><br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 20,627 20,600 0<br />
Neighborhood Commercial Total (SF) 20,627 97,906 0.2 20,600 97,906 0<br />
Residential Units (DU) 2,796 3,147 351<br />
TOTAL Commercial Retail (SF) 2 68,948 91,700 22,800<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 68,948 312,240 0.2 91,700 421,572 22,800<br />
1 The number <strong>of</strong> units was calculated by multiplying (dwelling units/acre) x (75% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total acreage), recognizing<br />
redevelopment will necessitate development <strong>of</strong> internal streets and parks on each site.<br />
2 Commercial Retail includes Service Commercial uses as well.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-5<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TOWN CENTER NEW BEGINNINGS CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS<br />
Existing Conditions vs a Comparison <strong>of</strong> Alternatives<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Gateway<br />
West<br />
Village<br />
Neighborhood<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Opportunities<br />
TOTAL<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Opportunities<br />
TOTAL<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Opportunities<br />
TOTAL<br />
TOTAL<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Opportunities<br />
Use<br />
Existing<br />
Conditions<br />
Alternative A<br />
Changes Over<br />
Existing (+/-)<br />
Alternative B<br />
Changes Over<br />
Existing (+/-)<br />
KMA<br />
Absorption-<br />
Low 2008-<br />
2030<br />
KMA<br />
Absorption-<br />
High 2008-<br />
2030<br />
Residential (DU) 0 506 506 376 376<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 219,706 295,100 75,300 234,200 14,400<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 83,600 67,000 755,000 738,400<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,300) 0 (37,500)<br />
Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500)<br />
Residential (DU) 763 1,113 350 1,238 475<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 139,111 150,000 10,900 155,000 15,900<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 55,624 90,000 34,400 105,000 49,400<br />
Residential (DU) 763 1,619 856 1,614 851<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 358,817 445,100 86,300 389,200 30,400<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 72,211 173,600 101,400 860,000 787,800<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,400) 0 (37,600)<br />
Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 740,099 639,900 (100,200) 1,249,200 509,100<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt A) 127 378 251<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 177 384 207<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 111,217 79,700 (31,400) 109,000 (2,100)<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 0 23,600 23,600 57,900 57,900<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 11,700 5,700 12,000 6,000<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt A) 1,904 2,170 266 2,259 355<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 1,854 2,120 266 2,209 355<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 106,194 125,000 18,800 130,000 23,800<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 75,000 200,000 125,000 215,000 140,000<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 2,031 2,548 517 2,637 606<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 2,031 2,504 473 2,593 562<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 217,411 204,700 (12,700) 239,000 21,600<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 75,000 223,600 148,600 272,900 197,900<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 11,700 5,700 12,000 6,000<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 298,419 440,000 135,900 523,900 219,500<br />
Residential (DU) 400 524 124 751 351<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 48,321 56,000 7,700 71,100 22,800<br />
Residential (DU) 2,396 2,396 0 2,396 0<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 20,627 20,600 0 20,600 0<br />
Residential (DU) 2,796 2,920 124 3,147 351<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 68,948 76,600 7,700 91,700 22,800<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 68,948 76,600 7,700 91,700 22,800<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt A) 527 1,408 881 1,127 600<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 577 1,030 453 1,511 934<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 379,244 430,800 51,600 414,300 35,056<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 107,200 90,600 812,900 796,313<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,400) 0 (37,551)<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 11,700 5,700 12,000 5,992<br />
Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,520)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 704,902 559,200 (145,700) 1,227,200 522,298<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt A) 5,063 5,679 616 5,893 830<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 5,013 5,629 616 5,843 830<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 265,932 295,600 29,700 305,600 39,700<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 130,624 290,000 159,400 320,000 189,400<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 396,556 585,600 189,000 625,600 229,000<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt A) 5,590 7,087 1,497 7,398 1,808<br />
Residential (DU) (Alt B) 5,590 7,043 1,453 7,354 1,764<br />
761 1,141<br />
Commercial Retail (SF) 1 645,176 726,400 81,200 719,900 74,700 26,400 66,000<br />
Commercial Office (SF) 147,211 397,200 250,000 1,132,900 985,700 352,000 704,000<br />
Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,300) 0 (37,500)<br />
Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 11,700 5,700 12,000 6,000<br />
Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500)<br />
Commercial Total (SF) 1,101,458 1,144,800 43,300 1,852,800 751,300<br />
1 Commercial Retail includes Service Commercial uses as well.<br />
A-6 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
OPPORTUNITY SITES - COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS<br />
FPA Neighborhood Concept<br />
Plans<br />
<strong>City</strong> Chart <strong>of</strong> Development<br />
Thresholds<br />
Protypical Testing (FPA) and<br />
Financial Feasibility Analysis<br />
(KMA)<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> - Opportunity Site 3<br />
Alternative A<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) No change/ Upgrade Existing 41,800 41,800<br />
FAR 0.3 0.3<br />
Residential<br />
DU/ac<br />
Alternative B<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) 25,000 20,000<br />
Comm. Office (sf) 45,000 40,000<br />
Total Commercial Office/ Retail (sf) 98,400 70,000 60,000<br />
FAR 0.8* 0.5 0.4<br />
Residential (DU)<br />
DU/ac<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway - Opportunity Site 9<br />
Alternative A<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) No change/ Upgrade Existing 41,100 41,000<br />
FAR 0.2 0.2<br />
Residential<br />
DU/ac<br />
Alternative B<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) 34,300 34,000<br />
Comm. Office (sf) 34,300 34,000<br />
Total Commercial Office/ Retail (sf) 68,500 68,600 68,000<br />
FAR 0.4 0.4 0.4<br />
Residential (DU)<br />
DU/ac<br />
West Village - Opportunity Site 12<br />
Alternative A<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) No change/ Upgrade Existing 42,900 42,900<br />
FAR 0.2 0.2<br />
Residential<br />
DU/ac<br />
Alternative B<br />
Comm. Retail (sf) 30,000 50,000 41,000<br />
Comm. Office (sf)<br />
Total Commercial Office/ Retail (sf) 30,000 50,000 41,000<br />
FAR 0.3 0.2 0.2<br />
Residential (DU) 168 210 40<br />
DU/ac 37 TBD 7<br />
Note: Different site size FPA vs. <strong>City</strong><br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-7<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.3 Traffic and Circulation Testing<br />
This report presents a preliminary traffic evaluation <strong>of</strong> potential <strong>new</strong> development in three<br />
neighborhood study areas in <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> referred to as Center <strong>City</strong>, Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and<br />
West Village (see Figures 1 through 3). The traffic evaluation includes a preliminary qualitative<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> two land use alternatives (Alternatives A and B) with changes<br />
in roadway circulation in select neighborhood areas and <strong>the</strong> potential impacts under existing<br />
conditions. The three defined neighborhood areas are evaluated separately. It should be noted<br />
that while <strong>the</strong>re are two land use alternatives in each neighborhood area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center,<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> combinations <strong>of</strong> alternatives both land use and circulation (i.e., Neighborhood Plan)<br />
could actually be paired that would affect <strong>the</strong> final development plan.<br />
ANALYSIS SCOPE<br />
The land use and trip generation for each neighborhood area will first be summarized along<br />
with information on any changes in circulation associated with <strong>the</strong> land use alternatives for each<br />
neighborhood. Next, available existing count data (average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and<br />
peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values) taken from various sources for <strong>the</strong> key<br />
roadways and intersections evaluated will be presented. Lastly, <strong>the</strong> potential traffic impacts will<br />
be discussed on <strong>the</strong> circulation system under existing conditions with potential hot spots/critical<br />
locations identified that would require fur<strong>the</strong>r and more detailed analysis at a later date.<br />
Hot spot locations can be identified in three ways in this report. First, hot spot locations are those<br />
locations that are likely impacted due to <strong>the</strong> project as defined by significance criteria and carried<br />
out in a quantitative analysis. Second, in addition to a more detailed analysis at a later date that<br />
would involve <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ICU methodology to determine project impact, certain areas will<br />
require a special traffic operations analysis. Those areas are designated as “Traffic Operations<br />
Hot Spots” and are locations where <strong>the</strong> standard ICU procedure does not fully depict <strong>the</strong> actual<br />
traffic characteristics. It should be noted that <strong>the</strong> ICU method <strong>of</strong> calculating <strong>the</strong> volume-tocapacity<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> an intersection assumes isolated intersections and does not reflect any queuing<br />
<strong>of</strong> vehicles that may occur between intersections <strong>of</strong> close proximity. An example <strong>of</strong> this close<br />
proximity effect occurs on Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at <strong>the</strong> I-5 interchange and <strong>the</strong><br />
adjacent intersections. Because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> closely spaced intersections, actual traffic conditions tend<br />
to be somewhat congested during peak periods even though <strong>the</strong> ICU values indicate adequate<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> service. Locations considered “hot spots” can also be sections <strong>of</strong> roadway where closely<br />
spaced intersections or side friction caused by numerous driveways degrade <strong>the</strong> performance<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> roadway compared to its <strong>the</strong>oretical carrying capacity (referred to as Operations Hot<br />
Spot). Third, “hot spots” can be intersections or sections <strong>of</strong> roadway that cannot be improved<br />
to <strong>the</strong>ir full standard because <strong>of</strong> limited space due to right-<strong>of</strong>-way or o<strong>the</strong>r physical constraints<br />
(referred to as Space Constrained Hot Spot). Space constrained hot spots can reach a V/C <strong>of</strong><br />
1.00 (ra<strong>the</strong>r than a threshold <strong>of</strong> .90) in recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> limitations involved in making physical<br />
improvements.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> future with a more detailed study, a set <strong>of</strong> performance criteria will be utilized to identify<br />
future level <strong>of</strong> service deficiencies on <strong>the</strong> study area circulation system and also to define impacts<br />
and peak hour ICU values <strong>of</strong> significance. Traffic LOS is designated “A” through “F” with LOS<br />
“A” representing free flow conditions and LOS “F” representing severe traffic congestion. The<br />
intersection criteria involve <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> peak hour ICU values. The ICU ranges that correspond to<br />
LOS “A” through “F” are presented in Table 1. By practice, <strong>the</strong> ICU methodology assumes that<br />
intersections are signalized. LOS “D” (ICU not to exceed .90) is <strong>the</strong> performance standard for <strong>the</strong><br />
intersections in <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>.<br />
A-8 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Table 1<br />
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS<br />
Levels <strong>of</strong> service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r average control delay<br />
that is measured in seconds (HCM methodology) or intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values as follows:<br />
Average<br />
LOS Description Delay (sec) 1 ICU 2<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
D<br />
E<br />
F<br />
LOS “A” describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per<br />
vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and<br />
most vehicles arrive during <strong>the</strong> green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at<br />
all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.<br />
LOS “B” describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to<br />
20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression,<br />
short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than <strong>the</strong> LOS “A,” causing<br />
higher levels <strong>of</strong> delay.<br />
LOS “C” describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to<br />
35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair<br />
progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may<br />
begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase<br />
does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number <strong>of</strong><br />
vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through<br />
<strong>the</strong> intersection without stopping.<br />
LOS “D” describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to<br />
55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS “D,” <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> congestion becomes<br />
more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination <strong>of</strong><br />
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many<br />
vehicles stop, and <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> vehicles not stopping declines.<br />
Individual cycle failures are noticeable.<br />
LOS “E” describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to<br />
80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor<br />
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle<br />
failures are frequent.<br />
LOS “F” describes operations with control delay in excess <strong>of</strong> 80 seconds<br />
per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed <strong>the</strong><br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many<br />
individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also<br />
contribute significantly to high delay levels.<br />
10.0 .60<br />
10.1 – 20.0 .61 - .70<br />
20.1 – 35.0 .71 - .80<br />
35.1 – 55.0 .81 - .90<br />
55.1 – 80.0 .91 – 1.00<br />
> 80.0 > 1.00<br />
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.<br />
2 Source: Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP).<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-9<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION<br />
The land uses and trip generation for each neighborhood area and alternatives illustrated in<br />
Figures 4 through 9 are summarized in Tables 2 through 4. The highest Alternative A increase<br />
over existing, by approximately 35%, occurs in Center <strong>City</strong> whereas Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and<br />
West Village proposed land use changes increase around 20% and 5%, respectively. The trips<br />
generated by <strong>the</strong> land uses assumed in Alternative A for any neighborhood area indicate that<br />
it is less intense than Alternative B by as much as 15% on a daily basis as in <strong>the</strong> case in Center<br />
<strong>City</strong>. Alternative B can be intense by as much as 51% compared to existing and 29% and 15% in<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and West Village, respectively. There are three neighborhood areas (Center<br />
<strong>City</strong>, Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway, and West Village) each with two circulation plans that are referred to in this<br />
report as Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) and two land use alternatives (Alternatives<br />
A and B). The traffic evaluation carried out here for worse-case evaluation purposes uses <strong>the</strong> land<br />
use alternative with <strong>the</strong> highest trip generation (Alternative B) for each Neighborhood Plan under<br />
existing conditions in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Neighborhood Areas. However, it is likely <strong>the</strong> final development<br />
plan for <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center will be a combination <strong>of</strong> circulation (such as Neighborhood Plan) and<br />
land use alternatives for each Neighborhood Area presented in Figures 4 through 9 and Tables<br />
2 through 4.<br />
EXISTING CONDITIONS<br />
Figure 10 presents <strong>the</strong> circulation system within <strong>the</strong> study area. The existing ADT volumes<br />
are illustrated in Figure 11 and <strong>the</strong> select key intersections evaluated are shown in Figure 12.<br />
Drivers are more likely to perceive traffic problem at intersections ra<strong>the</strong>r than roadway segments,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> intersections using peak hour data is <strong>the</strong> main emphasis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evaluation given here. The ICU values for <strong>the</strong>se intersections are summarized in Table 5. As can<br />
be seen here, all intersections are operating better than <strong>the</strong> acceptable level <strong>of</strong> service “D” (ICU<br />
= .90) with LOS “C” or better (ICU = .80 or below). The worst performing intersection with a PM<br />
peak hour ICU <strong>of</strong> .71 under existing conditions is Pasadena Avenue at McFadden Avenue.<br />
Future conditions that are not analyzed here but could affect travel patterns include <strong>the</strong> extension<br />
<strong>of</strong> Newport Avenue from just south <strong>of</strong> Sycamore Avenue to Edinger Avenue which will particularly<br />
affect traffic on Newport Avenue in <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway. To what extent will be <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong><br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r study at a later date.<br />
A-10 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
CENTER CITY TRAFFIC EVALUATION<br />
For <strong>the</strong> Center <strong>City</strong> Neighborhood Area, a traffic evaluation was carried out for <strong>the</strong> two<br />
Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) on existing conditions assuming <strong>the</strong> vacation <strong>of</strong> El<br />
Camino Way south <strong>of</strong> El Camino Real. The intensity <strong>of</strong> land use Alternative A for Center <strong>City</strong><br />
is only 32% in <strong>the</strong> AM peak hour and Alternative B slightly more than doubles in <strong>the</strong> AM peak<br />
hour compared to existing. The doubling <strong>of</strong> trips will likely trigger significant impacts to <strong>the</strong><br />
intersections analyzed in this area even though <strong>the</strong>y are currently operating at most LOS “B.”<br />
Any land use combination selected will likely cause adverse traffic operation hot spots in <strong>the</strong><br />
area if <strong>the</strong> trip generation is higher than land use Alternative A. In addition, <strong>the</strong>re are operational<br />
issues that will need to be addressed by both land use alternatives which are discussed in <strong>the</strong><br />
next paragraph regarding operations hot spots.<br />
The potential operations hot spots that will occur in ei<strong>the</strong>r land use Alternative A or B in <strong>the</strong><br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Neighborhood are <strong>the</strong> I-5 interchange ramps and El Camino Real intersections<br />
along Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. With a high level <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> LOS “B” at <strong>the</strong><br />
intersection El Camino Real and Newport Avenue <strong>the</strong>re are no capacity issues expected in <strong>the</strong><br />
neighborhood assuming LOS “D” as being acceptable. However, <strong>the</strong>re are potential operational<br />
issues at intersections that could occur during <strong>the</strong> peak hour. The movement most affected by<br />
project traffic is <strong>the</strong> left-turn at Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue going away from <strong>the</strong> I-5<br />
Freeway at <strong>the</strong> intersection with El Camino Real. Currently a challenge today due to <strong>the</strong> closely<br />
spaced intersections, <strong>the</strong> left- turn lane on Newport Avenue to El Camino Real currently cannot<br />
accommodate <strong>the</strong> existing left-turn volume <strong>of</strong> 247 vehicles in <strong>the</strong> PM peak hour with a pocket<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 125 feet. To properly store <strong>the</strong> left-turning vehicles without impeding through<br />
traffic, a pocket length <strong>of</strong> 250 feet is required to accommodate <strong>the</strong> volume which cannot be<br />
CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-11<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A<br />
CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B<br />
A-12 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Table 2<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – CENTER CITY LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY<br />
AM Peak Hour<br />
PM Peak Hour<br />
Land Use Amount/Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT<br />
Trip Rates<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) TSF .61 .39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 42.94<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01<br />
4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) Room .16 .29 .45 .25 .22 .47 5.63<br />
6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) TSF .81 .11 .92 .12 .85 .97 6.97<br />
Existing<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 763 DU 76 313 389 305 168 473 5,074<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 358.82 TSF 219 140 359 657 682 1,339 15,408<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 72.21 TSF 98 14 112 18 90 108 795<br />
4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 230 Room 37 67 104 58 51 109 1,295<br />
6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) 271.52 TSF 220 30 250 33 231 264 1,892<br />
TOTAL 650 564 1,214 1,071 1,222 2,293 24,464<br />
Alternative A<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,780 DU 178 730 908 712 392 1,104 11,837<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 445.1 TSF 272 174 446 815 846 1,661 19,113<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 106.6 TSF 145 20 165 27 132 159 1,174<br />
4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 177 Room 28 51 79 44 39 83 997<br />
TOTAL 623 975 1,598 1,598 1,409 3,007 33,121<br />
Changes over existing -27 411 384 527 187 714 8,657<br />
% changes over existing -4.2% 72.9% 31.6% 49.2% 15.3% 31.1% 35.4%<br />
Alternative B<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,614 DU 161 662 823 646 355 1,001 10,733<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 389.2 TSF 237 152 389 712 739 1,451 16,712<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 860 TSF 1,170 163 1,333 215 1,066 1,281 9,469<br />
TOTAL 1,568 977 2,545 1,573 2,160 3,733 36,914<br />
Changes over existing 918 413 1,331 502 938 1,440 12,450<br />
% changes over existing 141.2% 73.2% 109.6% 46.9% 76.8% 62.8% 50.9%<br />
Abbreviations:<br />
ADT – average daily trips<br />
DU – dwelling unit<br />
ITE – Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual – Eighth Edition (2008)<br />
achieved because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> close proximity to <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound on-ramp. The same movement<br />
on Red Hill Avenue at El Camino Real presents more <strong>of</strong> a challenge even with two left-turn lanes<br />
because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> signals at <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound ramp intersection that are approximately 130 feet<br />
away. Although no data is available to make a definite determination, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice in Alternative<br />
B will likely create a hot spot at El Camino Real/Sixth Street intersection with a potential need<br />
to improve/provide northbound left on El Camino Real and eastbound right on Sixth Street.<br />
Should <strong>of</strong>fice be desirable <strong>the</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r land uses in <strong>the</strong> area would need to be reduced<br />
accordingly so that overall trip generation is less than Alternative A.<br />
A proposed vacation <strong>of</strong> El Camino Way is identified under Neighborhood Plan Alternatives A and<br />
B. The vacation would not be an issue provided <strong>the</strong> current access is not completely eliminated<br />
and is relocated and o<strong>the</strong>r access driveways are built and/or modified.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-13<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
SOUTHERN GATEWAY TRAFFIC EVALUATION<br />
In Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway, On an average daily trip basis <strong>the</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> land uses over existing<br />
for land use Alternative B increases by as much as 29% with more residential, retail and <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
uses and 20% for land use Alternative A with additional residential and <strong>of</strong>fice uses. The ADT<br />
generated by land use Alternatives A and B, 28,464 and 30,786, are not that different and would<br />
result in moderate increases in traffic <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evaluation here will be on <strong>the</strong><br />
circulation alternative (i.e., Neighborhood Plan Alternative A or B). Any land use combination<br />
selected will not likely cause adverse impacts provided <strong>the</strong> trip generation are not higher than<br />
land use Alternative B.<br />
With <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> data, no definite determination can be made but it is likely that <strong>the</strong> change<br />
<strong>of</strong> retail to residential (even if mixed-use) in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rnmost portion <strong>of</strong> Neighborhood Plan<br />
Alternative A will impact Newport Avenue at Mitchell Avenue intersection and Newport Avenue<br />
at <strong>the</strong> I-5 southbound <strong>of</strong>f-ramp intersection particularly during <strong>the</strong> PM peak hour which today has<br />
a high right-turning volume from <strong>the</strong> freeway ramp. Additional trips from both Center <strong>City</strong> and<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway will be contributing to this ramp intersection.<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternative A in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rnmost portion <strong>of</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway includes a<br />
proposal to ei<strong>the</strong>r cul-de-sac or partially close <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn portion <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue where<br />
it currently connects to <strong>the</strong> Sycamore Avenue ramp to <strong>the</strong> SR-55 Freeway, and <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
vacation <strong>of</strong> Bliss Lane and Altadena Drive west <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue. The potential vacation <strong>of</strong><br />
Bliss Lane and western portion <strong>of</strong> Altadena Drive in <strong>the</strong> event that lot consolidation is possible<br />
will pose no significant traffic impacts as <strong>the</strong>se are local serving roadways. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />
effect <strong>of</strong> potentially severing <strong>the</strong> connection <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue would<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING<br />
A-14 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-15<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
add additional traffic at <strong>the</strong> intersections <strong>of</strong> Newport Avenue at Walnut Avenue and Walnut<br />
Avenue at McFadden Avenue but no capacity issues are expected since <strong>the</strong> current LOS at <strong>the</strong>se<br />
intersections is “A.” It is likely that with Alternative A and an increase <strong>of</strong> around 20% daily trips in<br />
<strong>the</strong> area due to <strong>the</strong> land use changes as well as closure <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue<br />
that <strong>the</strong> intersection with <strong>the</strong> highest existing LOS (LOS “C”), Pasadena Avenue at McFadden<br />
Avenue, may experience higher LOS due to additional through traffic along McFadden Avenue.<br />
The addition <strong>of</strong> residential units and increase in traffic along Newport Avenue due to increased<br />
land use intensity and <strong>the</strong> closure <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue may trigger <strong>the</strong> need for signals at <strong>the</strong><br />
current Myrtle Avenue/Newport Avenue intersection. However, Altadena Drive and Myrtle Drive<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway are internal and narrow neighborhood streets that are expected to<br />
be slow speed and <strong>the</strong>refore would not be conducive to through traffic.<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternative B includes a proposal to potentially add a <strong>new</strong> east-west<br />
street between Pasadena Avenue and Newport Avenue north <strong>of</strong> Altadena Drive and <strong>the</strong><br />
potential vacation <strong>of</strong> Altadena Drive, Bliss Lane, Pasadena Avenue south <strong>of</strong> Altadena Drive,<br />
and Myrtle Avenue south <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> street if lot consolidations occur. There are currently no<br />
capacity issues with <strong>the</strong> highest level <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> LOS “C” in <strong>the</strong> PM peak hour at Pasadena<br />
Avenue and McFadden Avenue intersection. The same concerns/issues that were discussed in<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternative A apply for Alternative B. Instead <strong>of</strong> signals needed at Newport<br />
Avenue and Myrtle Avenue, which is vacated in Alternative B, <strong>the</strong> signals could be warranted at<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> potential east-west road at Newport Avenue. However, a more direct connection such as<br />
provided by <strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> east-west road from Pasadena Avenue to Newport Avenue could potentially<br />
attract through traffic in <strong>the</strong> neighborhood especially by vehicles that are from to/from <strong>the</strong> SR-<br />
55 northbound ramps at Sycamore Avenue or sou<strong>the</strong>rn parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> if <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn portion <strong>of</strong><br />
Pasadena Avenue was potentially closed or vacated.<br />
No significant traffic impacts are expected with <strong>the</strong> proposed location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> youth <strong>center</strong> in both<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternatives A and B except for <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> a <strong>new</strong> signal which may be<br />
warranted at <strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> intersection <strong>of</strong> Newport Avenue at Myrtle Avenue (Alternative A) or <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>new</strong> east-west road (Alternative B). In addition, if under ei<strong>the</strong>r alternative <strong>the</strong> proposed vacation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue is pursued by <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> will need to work with<br />
Caltrans to provide proper signage in order to inform drivers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> route to/from <strong>the</strong> SR-55<br />
northbound ramps.<br />
A-16 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Table 3<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – SOUTHERN GATEWAY LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY<br />
AM Peak Hour<br />
PM Peak Hour<br />
Land Use Amount/Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT<br />
Trip Rates<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) TSF .61 .39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 42.94<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01<br />
5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) TSF .99 .63 1.62 .54 .91 1.45 22.88<br />
Existing<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,031 DU 203 833 1,036 812 447 1,259 13,506<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 217.41 TSF 133 85 218 398 413 811 9,336<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 75 TSF 102 14 116 19 93 112 826<br />
5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 6.01 TSF 6 4 10 3 5 8 137<br />
TOTAL 444 936 1,380 1,232 958 2,190 23,805<br />
Alternative A<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,548 DU 255 1,045 1,300 1,019 561 1,580 16,944<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 204.7 TSF 125 80 205 375 389 764 8,790<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 223.6 TSF 304 42 346 56 277 333 2,462<br />
5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 11.7 TSF 12 7 19 6 11 17 268<br />
TOTAL 696 1,174 1,870 1,456 1,238 2,694 28,464<br />
Changes over existing 252 238 490 224 280 504 4,659<br />
% changes over existing 56.8% 25.4% 35.5% 18.2% 29.2% 23.0% 19.6%<br />
Alternative B<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,593 DU 259 1,063 1,322 1,037 570 1,607 17,243<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 239 TSF 146 93 239 437 454 891 10,263<br />
3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 272.9 TSF 371 52 423 68 338 406 3,005<br />
5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 12 TSF 12 8 20 6 11 17 275<br />
TOTAL 788 1,216 2,004 1,548 1,373 2,921 30,786<br />
Changes over existing 344 280 624 316 415 731 6,981<br />
% changes over existing 77.5% 29.9% 45.2% 25.6% 43.3% 33.4% 29.3%<br />
Abbreviations:<br />
ADT – average daily trips<br />
DU – dwelling unit<br />
ITE – Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual – Eighth Edition (2008)<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-17<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
WEST VILLAGE TRAFFIC EVALUATION<br />
A traffic evaluation was carried out for <strong>the</strong> two Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) on<br />
existing conditions for West Village. Neighborhood Plan Alternative A assumes <strong>the</strong> existing<br />
circulation system and Neighborhood Plan Alternative B includes a proposal to extend <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Village Way through a current private street to a <strong>new</strong> east-west street between Williams Street and<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way running parallel to Alliance Avenue. Similar to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>neighborhoods</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are currently no capacity issues (i.e., intersection is not expected to be higher than <strong>the</strong> acceptable<br />
level <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> LOS “D”) with <strong>the</strong> highest level <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> LOS “B” at <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
and McFadden Avenue intersection. Also out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong> proposed for changes,<br />
West Village has <strong>the</strong> least intense proposal with an increase in intensity <strong>of</strong> 15% in ADT assuming<br />
<strong>the</strong> higher trip generating land use Alternative B with slight increases <strong>of</strong> retail and residential<br />
compared to existing. The increase in ADT <strong>of</strong> 1,153 for Alternative A and 3,312 for Alternative B<br />
would add a low amount <strong>of</strong> traffic in <strong>the</strong> neighborhood area that could likely be accommodated<br />
by <strong>the</strong> existing circulation or Neighborhood Plan Alternative B circulation changes. Any land<br />
use/circulation combination not generating more trips than land use Alternative B will likely have<br />
no adverse impacts.<br />
No capacity issues are expected in both Neighborhood Plan alternatives, especially with <strong>the</strong><br />
addition <strong>of</strong> an east-west road parallel to Alliance Avenue. A likely benefit for <strong>the</strong> area under<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternative B is less local traffic using Williams Street due to <strong>the</strong> <strong>new</strong> eastwest<br />
road that would provide a route to <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way that runs parallel to Williams Street.<br />
WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING<br />
A-18 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A<br />
WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-19<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Never<strong>the</strong>less, a potential hot spot that may need to be improved would likely be at <strong>the</strong> intersection<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way and McFadden Avenue because <strong>of</strong> additional traffic that is expected from<br />
<strong>the</strong> proposed land uses <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r alternative as well as changes to Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and <strong>the</strong><br />
proximity to <strong>the</strong> SR-55 Bridge.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
Table 4<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – WEST VILLAGE LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY<br />
AM Peak Hour<br />
PM Peak Hour<br />
Land Use Amount/Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT<br />
Trip Rates<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) TSF .61 .39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 42.94<br />
Existing<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,796 DU 280 1,146 1,426 1,118 615 1,733 18,593<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 68.95 TSF 42 27 69 126 131 257 2,961<br />
TOTAL 322 1,173 1,495 1,244 746 1,990 21,554<br />
Alternative A<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,920 DU 292 1,197 1,489 1,168 642 1,810 19,418<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 76.6 TSF 47 30 77 140 146 286 3,289<br />
TOTAL 339 1,227 1,566 1,308 788 2,096 22,707<br />
Changes over existing 17 54 71 64 42 106 1,153<br />
% changes over existing 5.3% 4.6% 4.7% 5.1% 5.6% 5.3% 5.3%<br />
Alternative B<br />
1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 3,147 DU 315 1,290 1,605 1,259 692 1,951 20,928<br />
2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 91.7 TSF 56 36 92 168 174 342 3,938<br />
TOTAL 371 1,326 1,697 1,427 866 2,293 24,866<br />
Changes over existing 49 153 202 183 120 303 3,312<br />
% changes over existing 15.2% 13.0% 13.5% 14.7% 16.1% 15.2% 15.4%<br />
Abbreviations:<br />
ADT – average daily trips<br />
DU – dwelling unit<br />
ITE – Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual – Eighth Edition (2008)<br />
With <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highly intense land use Alternative B in Center <strong>City</strong>, any combination<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center land uses and circulation (i.e., Neighborhood Plans) are not<br />
expected to have any significant traffic impacts in <strong>the</strong> immediate surrounding area provided<br />
<strong>the</strong> resulting trip generation is not higher than presented in each Neighborhood Area (land use<br />
Alternative A in Center <strong>City</strong>, and land use Alternative B in Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and West Village).<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> following are potential hot spots mainly dealing with operational issues at certain<br />
intersections that would need to be monitored and addressed (i.e., lane or signal operation<br />
improvements, if possible) as each neighborhood plan is developed:<br />
A-20 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Newport Avenue at El Camino Real, I-5 Northbound Ramps and I-5 Southbound Ramps – Physical<br />
constraints due to <strong>the</strong> close proximity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound on-ramp would limit improvements<br />
needed to accommodate additional traffic on <strong>the</strong> northbound left turn on Newport Avenue (e.g.<br />
a second northbound left-turn on Newport Avenue at El Camino Real).<br />
Red Hill Avenue at El Camino Real, I-5 Northbound Ramps and I-5 Southbound Ramps – Physical<br />
constraints due to <strong>the</strong> close proximity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound on-ramp intersection would limit<br />
improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic on Red Hill Avenue (e.g. longer pocket<br />
for <strong>the</strong> dual northbound left-turn lanes on Red Hill Avenue).<br />
El Camino Real and Sixth Street – Office use in Alternative B will likely cause a need to improve<br />
El Camino Real at Sixth Street (e.g. provide a separate northbound left-turn on El Camino Real<br />
or separate eastbound left-turn on Sixth Street or change signals at intersection to allow north/<br />
south and east/west split phase).<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Newport Avenue at Mitchell Avenue and I-5 Southbound Ramps – The change <strong>of</strong> retail to<br />
residential (even if mixed-use) in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rnmost portion <strong>of</strong> Neighborhood Plan Alternative A<br />
will add traffic that has different a directionality in <strong>the</strong> peak hours. The I-5 southbound <strong>of</strong>f-ramp<br />
in particular will be affected in <strong>the</strong> PM peak hour, with homebound residential trips adding to an<br />
already high right-turning volume from <strong>the</strong> freeway ramp. Additional trips from both Center <strong>City</strong><br />
and Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway will be contributing to this ramp intersection.<br />
McFadden Avenue at Pasadena Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, Newport Avenue – Additional traffic<br />
that is rerouted due to closure/vacation <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue at Sycamore Avenue in both<br />
Neighborhood Plan alternatives could require lane/signal operation improvements or addition<br />
<strong>of</strong> signals in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Myrtle Avenue and McFadden Avenue intersection.<br />
Newport Avenue at Myrtle Avenue – This is likely to meet signal warrants due to closure <strong>of</strong> Pasadena<br />
Avenue at Sycamore Avenue, additional land uses and lot consolidation in Neighborhood Plan<br />
Alternative A.<br />
Newport Avenue at New East-West Road – This is likely to meet signal warrants due to <strong>the</strong><br />
closure <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Avenue at Sycamore Avenue, additional land uses and lot consolidation in<br />
Neighborhood Plan Alternative B.<br />
West Village<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way and McFadden Avenue – This may need to be improved due to additional<br />
traffic from West Village and Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and close proximity to <strong>the</strong> SR-55 Bridge.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-21<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER CIRCULATION SYSTEM<br />
EXISTING ADT VOLUMES<br />
A-22 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP<br />
EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY<br />
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Date or<br />
Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) ICU LOS ICU LOS Source<br />
1. El Camino Real & Newport .67 B .61 B 10/1/09<br />
2. Newport & I-5 NB Ramps .44 A .49 A IBC<br />
3. Newport & I-5 SB Ramps .48 A .62 B IBC<br />
4. Red Hill & El Camino Real .54 A .56 A 6/10/09<br />
5. Red Hill & I-5 NB Ramps .60 A .55 A 6/14, 6/15/05<br />
6. Red Hill & I-5 SB Ramps .62 B .59 A IBC<br />
7. Pasadena & McFadden .61 B .71 C 9/13,9/14/06<br />
8. Walnut & McFadden .41 A .38 A 2005<br />
9. Newport & McFadden .64 B .39 A 5/8/07<br />
10. Newport & Walnut .58 A .59 A 4/4/06<br />
11. Newport & Sycamore .48 A .46 A 1/24/07<br />
12. <strong>Tustin</strong> Village & McFadden .62 B .60 A 2005<br />
13. Williams & McFadden .51 A .54 A 2005<br />
14. Williams & Main .44 A .41 A 12/10, 12/9/09<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> service ranges: .00 - .60 A<br />
.61 - .70 B<br />
.71 - .80 C<br />
.81 - .90 D<br />
.91 – 1.00 E<br />
Above 1.00 F<br />
Abbreviations: IBC – Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Traffic Study, 2009<br />
ICU – intersection capacity utilization<br />
LOS – level <strong>of</strong> service<br />
NB – northbound<br />
N/S Rd at E/W Rd – North/South Road at East/West Road<br />
SB – southbound<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-23<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
1. El Camino Real & Newport (10/1/09) 2. Newport & I-5 NB Ramps (IBC)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 1 1700 311 .18* 242 .14* NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 309 .18* <br />
NBT 2 3400 213 .09 349 .15 NBT 3 5100 1014 .20 1514 .30 <br />
NBR 0 0 100 157 NBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 12 .01 45 .03 SBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
SBT 1 1700 86 .05* 161 .09* SBT 3 5100 1343 .26* 1002 .20* <br />
SBR 1 1700 241 .14 237 .14 SBR 1 1700 411 .24 434 .26 <br />
<br />
EBL 1 1700 156 .09* 247 .15* EBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
EBT 3 5100 598 .15 990 .23 EBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
EBR 0 0 181 198 EBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
WBL 1 1700 74 .04 143 .08 WBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
WBT 3 5100 1412 .28* 906 .18* WBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
WBR 0 0 18 28 WBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .02* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .06* <br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .49<br />
3. Newport & I-5 SB Ramps (IBC) 4. Red Hill & El Camino Real (6/10/09)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 2 3400 260 .08* 330 .10* <br />
NBT 3 5100 860 .17* 1191 .23* NBT 3 5100 632 .12 1223 .24 <br />
NBR 1 1700 63 .04 61 .04 NBR 1 1700 164 .10 288 .17 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 176 .10* 223 .13* SBL 1 1700 15 .01 18 .01 <br />
SBT 3 5100 1094 .21 861 .17 SBT 3 5100 1066 .22* 734 .16* <br />
SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 69 94 <br />
<br />
EBL 1.5 369 415 EBL 1 1700 37 .02 78 .05 <br />
EBT 0.5 3400 77 .13* 54 .14* EBT 1 1700 68 .04* 201 .12* <br />
EBR 1 1700 326 .19 531 .31 EBR 1 1700 145 .09 207 .12 <br />
<br />
WBL 1 1700 29 .02* 67 .04* WBL 1 1700 252 .15* 221 .13* <br />
WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 144 .09 279 .18 <br />
WBR 1 1700 110 .06 183 .11 WBR 0 0 14 29 <br />
<br />
Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* EBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .56<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .48 .62<br />
26 <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center 1180.001 2/10<br />
A-24 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
5. Red Hill & I-5 NB Ramps (6/14 & 6/15/05) 6. Red Hill & I-5 SB Ramps (IBC)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 1 1700 287 .17* 309 .18* NBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
NBT 3 5100 956 .19 1629 .32 NBT 3 5100 1055 .21* 1111 .22* <br />
NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 591 .35 441 .26 <br />
<br />
SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 403 .12* 298 .09* <br />
SBT 3 5100 1334 .26* 892 .17* SBT 3 5100 1201 .24 746 .15 <br />
SBR 1 1700 423 .25 259 .15 SBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1700 226 .13* 386 .23* <br />
EBT 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 457 .27 325 .19 <br />
<br />
WBL 1 1700 203 .12* 250 .15* WBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
WBT 1 1700 2 .00 15 .01 WBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
WBR 1 1700 239 .14 245 .14 WBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Right Turn Adjustment Multi .11* <br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 .55 <br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .59<br />
7. Pasadena & McFadden (9/13 & 9/14/06) 8. Walnut & McFadden (2005)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 1.5 296 {.09}* 254 {.09}* NBL 2 3400 340 .10* 430 .13* <br />
NBT 0.5 3400 20 .09 44 .09 NBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
NBR 1 1700 45 .03 51 .03 NBR 1 1700 10 .01 20 .01 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 86 .05 41 .02 SBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
SBT 1 1700 92 .11* 44 .07* SBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
SBR 0 0 89 82 SBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
EBL 1 1700 34 .02* 105 .06 EBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
EBT 2 3400 541 .32 868 .46* EBT 2 3400 280 .16 430 .19* <br />
EBR 0 0 577 .34 697 EBR 0 0 300 .18 220 <br />
<br />
WBL 1 1700 50 .03 69 .04* WBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01* <br />
WBT 2 3400 1134 .34* 851 .27 WBT 2 3400 900 .26* 450 .13 <br />
WBR 0 0 23 65 WBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .71 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .38<br />
27 <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center 1180.001 2/10<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-25<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
9. Newport & McFadden (5/8/07) 10. Newport & Walnut (4/4/06)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 1 1700 28 .02* 43 .03* NBL 1 1700 54 .03 73 .04 <br />
NBT 3 5100 527 .11 640 .13 NBT 3 5100 366 .09* 382 .08* <br />
NBR 0 0 11 15 NBR 0 0 100 49 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 18 .01 38 .02 SBL 1 1700 451 .27* 338 .20* <br />
SBT 3 5100 795 .16* 669 .13* SBT 3 5100 346 .07 307 .07 <br />
SBR 1 1700 917 .54 416 .24 SBR 0 0 11 28 <br />
<br />
EBL 1.5 338 {.10}* 526 {.16}* EBL 1 1700 15 .01* 14 .01* <br />
EBT 0.5 3400 1 .10 9 .16 EBT 2 3400 258 .09 242 .09 <br />
EBR 1 1700 37 .02 33 .02 EBR 0 0 31 61 <br />
<br />
WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 99 .06 112 .07 <br />
WBT 1 1700 0 .01* 0 .02* WBT 2 3400 327 .16* 499 .25* <br />
WBR 0 0 19 28 WBR 0 0 220 353 <br />
<br />
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .30* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .59<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .39<br />
11. Newport & Sycamore (1/24/07) 12. <strong>Tustin</strong> Village & McFadden (2005)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 1 1700 129 .08 41 .02 NBL 1.5 210 {.08}* 390 <br />
NBT 1 1700 95 .09* 63 .05* NBT 0.5 3400 50 .08 100 .14* <br />
NBR 0 0 59 26 NBR 1 1700 180 .11 280 .16 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 213 .13* 235 .14* SBL 0.5 160 110 .06* <br />
SBT 1 1700 70 .04 139 .08 SBT 1.5 3400 120 .10* 30 .05 <br />
SBR 1 1700 103 .06 79 .05 SBR 0 60 60 <br />
<br />
EBL 1 1700 159 .09* 103 .06* EBL 1 1700 80 .05 70 .04 <br />
EBT 1 1700 65 .04 53 .05 EBT 2 3400 510 .23* 830 .31* <br />
EBR 0 0 11 24 EBR 0 0 280 210 <br />
<br />
WBL 0.5 27 54 WBL 2 3400 550 .16* 150 .04* <br />
WBT 1.5 3400 262 .12* 332 .16* WBT 2 3400 690 .23 800 .27 <br />
WBR 0 133 166 WBR 0 0 80 120 <br />
<br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .48 .46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .60<br />
28 <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center 1180.001 2/10<br />
A-26 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
13. Williams & McFadden (2005) 14. Williams & Main (12/10 & 12/9/09)<br />
<br />
Existing Counts Existing Counts <br />
<br />
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR <br />
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C <br />
<br />
NBL 0 0 10 10 NBL 1 1700 164 .10* 148 .09* <br />
NBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .04* NBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
NBR 0 0 20 50 NBR 1 1700 231 .14 197 .12 <br />
<br />
SBL 1 1700 250 .15* 220 .13* SBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
SBT 1 1700 10 .06 10 .01 SBT 0 0 0 0 <br />
SBR 0 0 100 10 SBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
EBL 1 1700 30 .02* 40 .02* EBL 0 0 0 0 <br />
EBT 2 3400 510 .15 950 .28 EBT 1 1700 282 .17* 300 .18* <br />
EBR 0 0 10 10 EBR 1 1700 122 .07 152 .09 <br />
<br />
WBL 1 1700 30 .02 40 .02 WBL 1 1700 203 .12* 161 .09* <br />
WBT 2 3400 810 .27* 850 .30* WBT 1 1700 262 .15 256 .15 <br />
WBR 0 0 110 170 WBR 0 0 0 0 <br />
<br />
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* <br />
<br />
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 .54 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .41<br />
29 <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center 1180.001 2/10<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-27<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.4 Financial Feasibility Analysis for<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
MEMORANDUM<br />
To:<br />
From:<br />
Frank Fuller, Principal<br />
Field Paoli Architects<br />
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.<br />
Date: June 1, 2010<br />
Subject:<br />
Neighborhoods <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center Financial Feasibility Analysis<br />
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) is pleased to present <strong>the</strong> following memorandum<br />
report summarizing <strong>the</strong> conclusions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> financial feasibility analysis for three (3) sites in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Neighborhoods <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center. It is KMA’s understanding that Field Paoli<br />
prepared two alternatives for a variation <strong>of</strong> sites within <strong>the</strong> Neighborhoods. KMA’s analysis<br />
is based on <strong>the</strong> Alternative “B” scenarios which are generally <strong>the</strong> higher density scenarios.<br />
KMA evaluated <strong>the</strong> following sites:<br />
Neighborhood Site Acreage<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Site 3 3.18<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Site 9 3.90<br />
West Village Site 12 4.06<br />
For this analysis KMA undertook a cursory review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing retail, <strong>of</strong>fice, and rental<br />
residential markets as compared to <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2008 Refined Market Analysis. KMA<br />
also relied on <strong>the</strong> 2008 Refined Market Analysis for identification <strong>of</strong> competing developments<br />
and projected absorption for each product and fur<strong>the</strong>r, relied on Agency staff for updated<br />
market data. KMA found that given <strong>the</strong> current economic situation, <strong>the</strong> market data<br />
contained in <strong>the</strong> Refined Market Analysis has a relatively good caption <strong>of</strong> current market<br />
trends.<br />
The following Summary Table summarizes <strong>the</strong> project descriptions and residual land values<br />
in a side-by-side comparison format. Residual land value is best described as <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> property after considering <strong>the</strong> value (or income generated) from <strong>the</strong> project and<br />
deducting total development costs including developer pr<strong>of</strong>it. The residual land value is <strong>the</strong><br />
amount a developer can feasibly afford to pay for <strong>the</strong> property in <strong>the</strong> open market. It should<br />
be noted that KMA’s feasibility analysis does not include assumptions for land acquisition,<br />
demolition, and/or relocation.<br />
A-28 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
SUMMARY TABLE<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Site 3 Site 9 Site 12<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway West Village<br />
I. Project Description<br />
Acres 3.18 Acres 3.91 Acres 4.06 Acres<br />
Residential Units 0 Units 0 Units 40 Units<br />
Retail Uses<br />
Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF 22,000 SF 22,000 SF<br />
Retail (in <strong>of</strong>fice/residential building) 11,000 SF 12,000 SF 18,000 SF<br />
Total Retail SF 20,000 SF 34,000 SF 40,000 SF<br />
Office Uses<br />
Net Leasable 34,000 SF 28,900 SF 0 SF<br />
Circulation/Common Area 6,000 SF 5,100 SF 0 SF<br />
Total Office SF 40,000 SF 34,000 SF 0 SF<br />
Parking Spaces 230 Spaces 266 Spaces 250 Spaces<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> Parking<br />
Surface Surface Surface / at-grade encapsulated /<br />
one level below-grade<br />
Parking Ratios<br />
Residential 0.00 Spaces/Unit 0.00 Spaces/Unit 2.25 Spaces/Unit<br />
Retail 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF<br />
Office (1) 3.75 Spaces/1,000 SF 3.82 Spaces/1,000 SF 0.00 Spaces/1,000 SF<br />
II. Residual Land Value (2)<br />
Total Residual Land Value<br />
$1,378,000 $1,908,000 ($2,334,000)<br />
Per SF Site Area $10 /SF Site Area $11 /SF Site Area ($13) /SF Site Area<br />
(1) Zoning code requires 4 spaces per 1,000 SF for first 25,000 SF, and 1 space per 300 SF for area above 25,000 SF.<br />
(2) Represents <strong>the</strong> value a developer can feasibility afford to pay for land. Land acquisition, demolition, and/or relocation are not included.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-29<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A. Key Findings<br />
As shown in <strong>the</strong> Summary Table, <strong>the</strong> Center <strong>City</strong> and Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway sites are similar in<br />
product type and while <strong>the</strong>y generate positive residual land values, <strong>the</strong>se values do not<br />
constitute <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> a feasible project. These improved sites will incur additional<br />
costs for acquisition, demolition, and possibly relocation. With <strong>the</strong> current economic and<br />
market factors <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se areas, achievable rent levels are not great enough to support <strong>the</strong><br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing improved properties in combination with <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> developing <strong>new</strong><br />
construction. Based on <strong>the</strong> KMA Refined Market Analysis, acquisition costs are on average<br />
$225 per square foot (SF) or improved commercial properties. In order for <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
projects to be feasible, market rents will need to be substantially higher to support any <strong>new</strong><br />
development.<br />
Development may take some time to occur due to <strong>the</strong> national and local economic<br />
conditions. The most likely scenarios to occur would be for identifying a local owner-user or<br />
a national franchisee owner-user. A current owner-user may be able to proceed due to a<br />
lower holding cost and ability to sustain cash flow at current low rent levels. A national<br />
franchisee owner-user type tenant may be more concerned about market share and <strong>new</strong><br />
markets than market value and current returns on investment. A national franchisee owneruser<br />
may also be more willing to work with <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong>/Agency on structuring o<strong>the</strong>r incentives,<br />
and a longer-term horizon for receiving a return on investment. Both could be assisted<br />
through <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> through local regulatory changes to zoning restrictions and reductions in<br />
development standards/parking requirements.<br />
The West Village site generates a negative residual land value. This is due primarily to <strong>the</strong><br />
high cost <strong>of</strong> structured parking and <strong>the</strong> inability for <strong>the</strong> residential units to achieve market<br />
rents sufficient to cover <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> structured parking. While <strong>the</strong> proposed development<br />
does incorporate affordable housing, <strong>the</strong> affordable housing does not create a significant<br />
burden on land value. KMA’s calculation <strong>of</strong> moderate income rents exceeds achievable<br />
market rents in <strong>the</strong> West Village area, <strong>the</strong>refore, KMA has adjusted <strong>the</strong> moderate income<br />
rents downward to <strong>the</strong> market rent level. A potential alternative for this site is to develop a<br />
lower density residential development, i.e., eliminate need for structured parking and/or<br />
reduce parking requirements.<br />
The tables attached to this memorandum provide <strong>the</strong> details and calculations for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
scenarios.<br />
A-30 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
B. Center <strong>City</strong>, Site 3 (Alternative B)<br />
Project Description<br />
As shown on Table A-1, Site 3 is comprised <strong>of</strong> three parcels totaling 3.18 acres. The<br />
development scenario assumes construction <strong>of</strong> a three-story building at Newport and El<br />
Camino Real containing 40,000 SF <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice and 11,000 SF <strong>of</strong> retail space occupying <strong>the</strong><br />
ground floor. For <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice space, KMA is projecting this to be Class B type space. Per <strong>the</strong><br />
Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), <strong>the</strong> general<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> each are as follows:<br />
Class A: Most prestigious buildings competing for premier <strong>of</strong>fice users with rents above<br />
average for <strong>the</strong> area. Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> art systems,<br />
exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence.<br />
Class B: Buildings competing for a wide range <strong>of</strong> users with rents in <strong>the</strong> average range for<br />
<strong>the</strong> area. Building finishes are fair to good for <strong>the</strong> area. Building finishes are fair to good for<br />
<strong>the</strong> area and systems are adequate, but <strong>the</strong> building does not compete with Class A at <strong>the</strong><br />
same price.<br />
Class C: Buildings competing for tenants requiring functional space at rents below <strong>the</strong><br />
average for <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
The development scenario also includes a one story 9,000 SF freestanding retail building.<br />
Retail and <strong>of</strong>fice parking is accommodated in a surface lot configuration with a total <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least 230 parking spaces.<br />
Total Development Costs<br />
KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be <strong>of</strong> Type V construction and have<br />
estimated total development costs (excluding land) <strong>of</strong> $9.3 million or $156 per SF gross<br />
building area (GBA). The detailed development costs are presented in Table A-2, as<br />
described below:<br />
<br />
<br />
Direct construction costs consist <strong>of</strong> such items as <strong>of</strong>f- and on-site improvements, parking,<br />
shell construction, tenant improvements, and contingency. For <strong>the</strong>se analyses, KMA has<br />
assumed no payment <strong>of</strong> prevailing wages. Total direct costs are estimated at $6.8<br />
million, or $113 per SF GBA.<br />
Indirect costs consist <strong>of</strong> architecture, engineering, public permits and fees, legal and<br />
accounting, taxes and insurance, developer fee, marketing/sales/lease-up, and<br />
contingency. Total indirect costs are estimated at $1.9 million, or 28% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-31<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Financing costs consist <strong>of</strong> such items as loan fees, interest during construction and<br />
leasing. Total financing costs are estimated at $677,000, or 10% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
Net Operating Income<br />
As shown on Table A-3, KMA has estimated that <strong>the</strong> proposed development scenario will<br />
generate net operating income (NOI) totaling $946,000 annually. The following assumptions<br />
were used in determining this figure:<br />
<br />
Gross scheduled income (GSI) <strong>of</strong> $1.2 million, or an average lease rate <strong>of</strong> $1.79 per SF<br />
per month.<br />
Overall vacancy factor <strong>of</strong> 5%.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unreimbursed retail operating expenses at 5% <strong>of</strong> retail GSI.<br />
Office expenses <strong>of</strong> $4 per SF per year.<br />
Residual Land Value<br />
As shown on Table A-4, after assuming <strong>the</strong> capitalized value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NOI from <strong>the</strong> retail, and<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice space, this scenario generates a total project value <strong>of</strong> $12.6 million. After deducting a<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> sale (3% <strong>of</strong> value), developer pr<strong>of</strong>it (12% <strong>of</strong> value), and total development costs, KMA<br />
finds <strong>the</strong> proposed project generates a residual land value <strong>of</strong> $1.4 million, or $10 per SF <strong>of</strong><br />
site area.<br />
It should be noted that while Site 3 generates a positive residual land value, this does not<br />
assume <strong>the</strong> proposed project is feasible. The residual land value is generally <strong>the</strong> amount a<br />
developer can feasibly afford to pay for a site after considering <strong>the</strong> project’s value against<br />
development costs and developer pr<strong>of</strong>it. KMA’s analysis has not estimated costs associated<br />
with acquisition, demolition <strong>of</strong> existing improvements, and/or relocation <strong>of</strong> existing occupants.<br />
C. Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway, Site 9 (Alternative B)<br />
Project Description<br />
As shown on Table B-1, Site 9 is comprised <strong>of</strong> three parcels totaling 3.9 acres. The<br />
development scenario assumes construction <strong>of</strong> a three-story <strong>of</strong>fice building at Newport and<br />
Walnut containing 34,000 SF <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice and 12,000 SF <strong>of</strong> retail space on <strong>the</strong> ground floor.<br />
The scenario also includes a one-story 22,000-SF freestanding retail building, which allows<br />
potential for a grocery story, drug store, or medium-sized tenant. Retail and <strong>of</strong>fice parking is<br />
accommodated in a surface lot with a total <strong>of</strong> at least 266 parking spaces.<br />
A-32 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Total Development Costs<br />
KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be <strong>of</strong> Type V construction and has<br />
estimated total development costs (excluding land) to be $10.6 million or $156 per SF GBA.<br />
The detailed development costs are presented in Table B-2, as described below:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Total direct costs are estimated at $7.7 million, or $113 per SF GBA.<br />
Total indirect costs are estimated at $2.2 million, or 28% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
Total financing costs are estimated at $0.8 million, or 10% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
Net Operating Income<br />
As shown on Table B-3, KMA has estimated that <strong>the</strong> proposed development scenario will<br />
generate a NOI totaling $1.1 million annually. The following assumptions were used in<br />
determining this figure:<br />
<br />
GSI <strong>of</strong> $1.3 million, or an average lease rate <strong>of</strong> $1.75 per SF.<br />
Overall vacancy factor <strong>of</strong> 5%.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unreimbursed retail operating expenses at 5% <strong>of</strong> retail GSI.<br />
Office expenses <strong>of</strong> $4 per SF per year.<br />
Residual Land Value<br />
As shown on Table B-4, after assuming <strong>the</strong> capitalized value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NOI from <strong>the</strong> retail, and<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice space, this scenario generates a total project value <strong>of</strong> $14.7 million. After deducting a<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> sale (3% <strong>of</strong> value), developer pr<strong>of</strong>it (12% <strong>of</strong> value), and total development costs, KMA<br />
finds <strong>the</strong> project generates a modest residual land value <strong>of</strong> $1.9 million, or $11 per SF <strong>of</strong> site<br />
area.<br />
Similar to Site 3, Site 9 also generates a positive residual land value and as previously<br />
mentioned does not account for costs associated with acquisition, demolition, and/or<br />
relocation.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-33<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
D. West Village neighborhood, Site 12 (Alternative B)<br />
Project Description<br />
As shown on Table C-1, Site 12 is comprised <strong>of</strong> three parcels totaling 4.06 acres. It should<br />
be noted that <strong>the</strong> contiguous CalTrans parcel to <strong>the</strong> north (1.96 acres), which could be used<br />
for a community <strong>center</strong> and park, has been excluded from this analysis. The scenario<br />
assumes construction <strong>of</strong> a three-story residential building along <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
containing 40 rental apartment units with 18,000 SF <strong>of</strong> retail space occupying <strong>the</strong> ground<br />
floor. This scenario assumes <strong>the</strong> inclusion <strong>of</strong> 15% very low and moderate income housing<br />
units.<br />
The scenario also includes a one story 22,000 SF freestanding retail building, which may<br />
also potentially allow for a grocery story, drug store, or medium-sized tenant. Retail parking<br />
will be accommodated in a mix <strong>of</strong> surface and at-grade encapsulated parking with a total <strong>of</strong><br />
at least 160 parking spaces. Residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> apartment complex will be parked within <strong>the</strong><br />
at-grade encapsulated structure as well as in <strong>the</strong> below-grade parking level. Parking for <strong>the</strong><br />
residential component totals 90 parking spaces with an overall parking ratio <strong>of</strong> 2.25 spaces<br />
per unit (including guest parking).<br />
Total Development Costs<br />
KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be <strong>of</strong> Type V construction and have an<br />
estimated total development cost <strong>of</strong> $16.9 million or $202 per SF GBA. The detailed<br />
development costs are presented in Table C-2, as described below:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Total direct costs are estimated at $12.1 million, or $145 per SF GBA.<br />
Total indirect costs are estimated at $3.3 million, or 27% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
Total financing costs are estimated at $1.5 million, or 12% <strong>of</strong> direct costs.<br />
Net Operating Income – Retail<br />
As shown on Table C-3, KMA has estimated <strong>the</strong> retail components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
development scenario to generate NOI totaling $710,000 annually. The following<br />
assumptions were used in determining this figure:<br />
<br />
GSI <strong>of</strong> $786,000, or an average lease rate <strong>of</strong> $1.64 per SF.<br />
Overall vacancy factor <strong>of</strong> 5%.<br />
<br />
Unreimbursed retail operating expenses at 5% <strong>of</strong> retail GSI.<br />
A-34 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Net Operating Income – Residential<br />
As shown on Table C-4, KMA has estimated <strong>the</strong> residential component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
development scenario will generate NOI totaling $460,000 annually. The following<br />
assumptions were used in determining this figure:<br />
<br />
<br />
Mixed-income scenario including 2 very low income units (50% AMI), 4 moderate income<br />
units (110% AMI), and 34 market-rate units. The unit mix and income levels are in<br />
compliance with standard California Redevelopment Law requirements.<br />
GSI <strong>of</strong> $771,000, or an average lease rate <strong>of</strong> $1.74 per SF (market-rate and affordable).<br />
Rents by bedroom type are as follows:<br />
Income Level by Bedroom Type Monthly Rent Rent/SF<br />
One-Bedroom<br />
Very Low (50% AMI) $823 $1.03<br />
Moderate (110% AMI) $1,480 (1) $1.85<br />
Market-Rate $1,480 $1.85<br />
Two-Bedroom<br />
Very Low (50% AMI) $922 $0.92<br />
Moderate (110% AMI) $1,750 (1) $1.75<br />
Market Rate $1,750<br />
(1) Reflects downward adjustment to reflect achievable market rents.<br />
See Table C-5 for calculation <strong>of</strong> affordable rents.<br />
<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r income <strong>of</strong> $10 per unit per month.<br />
Overall vacancy factor <strong>of</strong> 5%.<br />
<br />
Annual operating expenses <strong>of</strong> approximately $6,900 per unit.<br />
Residual Land Value<br />
As shown on Table C-6, after assuming <strong>the</strong> capitalized value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NOI from <strong>the</strong> retail, and<br />
residential components, this scenario generates a total project value <strong>of</strong> $17.1 million. After<br />
deducting a cost <strong>of</strong> sale (3% <strong>of</strong> value), developer pr<strong>of</strong>it (12% <strong>of</strong> value), and total<br />
development costs, KMA finds <strong>the</strong> project generates a negative residual land value <strong>of</strong> $2.3<br />
million, or negative $13 per SF <strong>of</strong> site area.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-35<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Site 3<br />
Alternative B<br />
Pro Forma Analysis<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Study Area<br />
TABLE A-1<br />
SITE 3<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
CENTER CITY STUDY AREA<br />
PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Site Area 3.18 Acres<br />
138,695 SF<br />
II. Construction Type<br />
Type V<br />
III. Number <strong>of</strong> Stories<br />
1 to 3 Stories (above-grade)<br />
IV. Gross Building Area<br />
A. Retail<br />
Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF 45%<br />
Retail (in <strong>of</strong>fice building) 11,000 SF 55%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 0 SF 0%<br />
Subtotal Retail 20,000 SF 100%<br />
B. Office<br />
Net Leasable 34,000 SF 85%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 6,000 SF 15%<br />
Subtotal Office 40,000 SF 100%<br />
C. Total Gross Building Area (GBA) 60,000 SF<br />
V. Parking<br />
Type<br />
# Spaces Parking Ratio<br />
Retail Surface lot 80 Spaces @ 4.00 /Unit<br />
Office Surface lot 150 Spaces @ 3.75 /1,000 SF<br />
Total Parking<br />
230 Spaces<br />
A-36 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
TABLE A-2<br />
SITE 3<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
CENTER CITY STUDY AREA<br />
DEVELOPMENT COSTS<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Totals<br />
Notes<br />
I. Direct Costs (1)<br />
Off-Site Improvements (2) $139,000 $1 Per SF Site Area<br />
On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $416,000 $3 Per SF Site Area<br />
Parking - Surface $0 Included above<br />
Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $720,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding<br />
Shell Construction - Retail $935,000 $85 Per SF - Retail<br />
Shell Construction - Office $3,400,000 $85 Per SF - Office<br />
Tenant Improvements - Retail $200,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail<br />
Tenant Improvements - Office $340,000 $10 Per Net SF - Office<br />
Contingency $615,000 10% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Subtotal Direct Costs $6,765,000 $113 Per SF GBA<br />
II. Indirect Costs<br />
Architecture & Engineering $338,000 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Permits & Fees (2) $600,000 $10 Per SF GBA<br />
Legal & Accounting $68,000 1.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Taxes & Insurance $101,000 1.5% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Developer Fee $271,000 4.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Marketing/Lease-Up $432,000 $8 Per Net SF<br />
Contingency $91,000 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Indirects<br />
Subtotal Indirect Costs $1,901,000 28.1% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
III. Financing Costs<br />
Subtotal Financing Costs $677,000 10.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
IV. Total Development Costs $9,343,000 $156 Per SF GBA<br />
Or Say (Rounded) $9,343,000<br />
(1) Does not include <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> prevailing wages.<br />
(2) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA.<br />
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.<br />
Filename: <strong>Tustin</strong>\<strong>Tustin</strong> Financial Feasibility;6/1/2010;ema<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-37<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE A-3<br />
SITE 3<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
CENTER CITY STUDY AREA<br />
NET OPERATING INCOME<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Gross Scheduled Income<br />
Leasable SF<br />
Rent/SF<br />
Total<br />
Annual<br />
Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF $2.00 /SF/Month/NNN $216,000<br />
Retail (in <strong>of</strong>fice building) 11,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $231,000<br />
Office 34,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/Modified Gross $714,000<br />
Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 54,000 SF $1.79 /SF $1,161,000<br />
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% <strong>of</strong> GSI ($58,000)<br />
II. Effective Gross Income $1,103,000<br />
(Less) Unreimbursed Expenses - Retail 5.0% <strong>of</strong> EGI ($21,000)<br />
(Less) Office Expenses $4.00 /SF/Year ($136,000)<br />
III. Net Operating Income $946,000<br />
Capitalized Value <strong>of</strong> NOI @ 7.5% Going In Cap Rate $12,613,000<br />
IV. Total Project Value $12,613,000<br />
TABLE A-4<br />
SITE 3<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
CENTER CITY STUDY AREA<br />
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Total Project Value $12,613,000<br />
(Less) Cost <strong>of</strong> Sale @ 3.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($378,000)<br />
(Less) Target Developer Pr<strong>of</strong>it @ 12.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($1,514,000)<br />
II. Warranted Investment $10,721,000<br />
(Less) Development Costs ($9,343,000)<br />
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.<br />
Filename: <strong>Tustin</strong>\<strong>Tustin</strong> Financial Feasibility;6/1/2010;ema<br />
III. Residual Land Value $1,378,000<br />
Per SF Site Area $10<br />
A-38 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Site 9<br />
Alternative B<br />
Pro Forma Analysis<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Study Area<br />
TABLE B-1<br />
SITE 9<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY STUDY AREA<br />
PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Site Area 3.91 Acres<br />
170,319 SF<br />
II. Construction Type<br />
Type V<br />
III. Number <strong>of</strong> Stories<br />
1 to 3 Stories (above-grade)<br />
IV. Gross Building Area<br />
A. Retail<br />
Freestanding Retail 22,000 SF 65%<br />
Retail (in <strong>of</strong>fice building) 12,000 SF 35%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 0 SF 0%<br />
Subtotal Retail 34,000 SF 100%<br />
B. Office<br />
Net Leasable 28,900 SF 85%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 5,100 SF 15%<br />
Subtotal Office 34,000 SF 100%<br />
C. Total Gross Building Area (GBA) 68,000 SF<br />
V. Parking<br />
Type<br />
# Spaces Parking Ratio<br />
Retail Surface lot 136 Spaces @ 4.00 /1,000 SF<br />
Office Surface lot 130 Spaces @ 3.82 /1,000 SF<br />
Total Parking<br />
266 Spaces<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-39<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE B-2<br />
SITE 9<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY STUDY AREA<br />
DEVELOPMENT COSTS<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Totals<br />
Notes<br />
I. Direct Costs (1)<br />
Off-Site Improvements (2) $170,000 $1 Per SF Site Area<br />
On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $511,000 $3 Per SF Site Area<br />
Parking - Surface $0 Included above<br />
Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $1,760,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding<br />
Shell Construction - Retail $1,020,000 $85 Per SF - Retail<br />
Shell Construction - Office $2,890,000 $85 Per SF - Office<br />
Tenant Improvements - Retail $340,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail<br />
Tenant Improvements - Office $289,000 $10 Per Net SF - Office<br />
Contingency $698,000 10.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Subtotal Direct Costs $7,678,000 $113 Per SF GBA<br />
II. Indirect Costs<br />
Architecture & Engineering $384,000 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Permits & Fees (2) $680,000 $10 Per SF GBA<br />
Legal & Accounting $77,000 1.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Taxes & Insurance $115,000 1.5% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Developer Fee $307,000 4.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Marketing/Lease-Up $503,200 $8 Per Net SF<br />
Contingency $103,000 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Indirects<br />
Subtotal Indirect Costs $2,169,200 28.3% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
III. Financing Costs<br />
Subtotal Financing Costs $768,000 10.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
IV. Total Development Costs $10,615,000 $156 Per SF GBA<br />
Or Say (Rounded) $10,615,000<br />
(1) Does not include <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> prevailing wages.<br />
(2) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA.<br />
A-40 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
TABLE B-3<br />
SITE 9<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY STUDY AREA<br />
NET OPERATING INCOME<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Gross Scheduled Income<br />
Leasable SF<br />
Rent/SF<br />
Total<br />
Annual<br />
Freestanding Retail 22,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $462,000<br />
Retail (in <strong>of</strong>fice building) 12,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $252,000<br />
Office 28,900 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/Modified Gross $607,000<br />
Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 62,900 SF $1.75 /SF $1,321,000<br />
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% <strong>of</strong> GSI ($66,000)<br />
II. Effective Gross Income $1,255,000<br />
(Less) Unreimbursed Expenses - Retail 5.0% <strong>of</strong> EGI ($34,000)<br />
(Less) Office Expenses $4.00 /SF/Year ($116,000)<br />
III. Net Operating Income $1,105,000<br />
Capitalized Value <strong>of</strong> NOI @ 7.5% Going In Cap Rate $14,733,000<br />
IV. Total Project Value $14,733,000<br />
TABLE B-4<br />
SITE 9<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY STUDY AREA<br />
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Total Project Value $14,733,000<br />
(Less) Cost <strong>of</strong> Sale @ 3.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($442,000)<br />
(Less) Target Developer Pr<strong>of</strong>it @ 12.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($1,768,000)<br />
II. Warranted Investment $12,523,000<br />
(Less) Development Costs ($10,615,000)<br />
III. Residual Land Value $1,908,000<br />
Per SF Site Area $11<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-41<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE C-1<br />
PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Site 12<br />
Alternative B<br />
Pro Forma Analysis<br />
West Village Study Area<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
I. Site Area 4.06 Acres<br />
176,694 SF<br />
II. Construction Type<br />
Type V (above Type I parking)<br />
III. Number <strong>of</strong> Stories<br />
1 to 3 Stories (above-grade)<br />
IV. Density<br />
9.9 Units/Acre<br />
V. Gross Building Area<br />
A. Retail<br />
Freestanding Retail 22,000 SF 55%<br />
Retail (in residential building) 18,000 SF 45%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 0 SF 0%<br />
Subtotal Retail 40,000 SF 100%<br />
B. Residential<br />
One-Bedroom Units 13,000 SF 30%<br />
Two-Bedroom Units 24,000 SF 55%<br />
Circulation/Common Area 6,500 SF 15%<br />
Subtotal Residential 43,500 SF 100%<br />
C. Total Gross Building Area (GBA) 83,500 SF<br />
VI. Unit Mix<br />
# <strong>of</strong> Units Unit Mix Unit SF<br />
One-Bedroom Units 16 Units 40% 800 SF<br />
Two-Bedroom Units 24 Units 60% 1,000 SF<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Units 40 Units 100% 925 SF<br />
VII. Affordability Mix<br />
Market-Rate 34 Units 85%<br />
Very Low (50% AMI) 2 Units 5%<br />
Moderate (110% AMI) 4 Units 10%<br />
Total Units 40 Units 100%<br />
VIII. Parking<br />
# Spaces Parking Ratio<br />
Residential At-grade encapsulated / one-level below grade 90 Spaces @ 2.25 /Unit (1)<br />
Retail Surface lot 160 Spaces @ 4.00 /1,000 SF<br />
Total Parking<br />
250 Spaces<br />
(1) Includes residential guest parking.<br />
A-42 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
TABLE C-2<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
DEVELOPMENT COSTS<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Totals Per Unit Notes<br />
I. Direct Costs (1)<br />
Off-Site Improvements (2) $177,000 $4,425 $1 Per SF Site Area<br />
On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $530,000 $13,250 $3 Per SF Site Area<br />
Parking - Surface $0 $0 Included above<br />
Parking - Structured $2,070,000 $51,750 $23,000 Per Space - Structured<br />
Shell Construction - Residential $5,003,000 $125,075 $115 Per SF - Residential<br />
Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $1,760,000 $44,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding<br />
Shell Construction - Retail $1,530,000 $38,250 $85 Per SF - Retail<br />
Tenant Improvements - Retail $400,000 $10,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail<br />
Amenities/FF&E $80,000 $2,000 Allowance<br />
Contingency $578,000 $14,450 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Subtotal Direct Costs $12,128,000 $303,200 $145 Per SF GBA<br />
II. Indirect Costs<br />
Architecture & Engineering $728,000 $18,200 6.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Permits & Fees - Residential (2) $800,000 $20,000 Allowance<br />
Permits & Fees - Retail (2) $400,000 $10,000 $10 Per SF GBA - Retail<br />
Legal & Accounting $121,000 $3,025 1.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Taxes & Insurance $243,000 $6,075 2.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Developer Fee $485,000 $12,125 4.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
Marketing/Sales - Residential $60,000 $1,500 Allowance<br />
Marketing/Lease-Up - Retail $320,000 $8,000 $8 Per Net SF - Retail<br />
Contingency $158,000 $3,950 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Indirects<br />
Subtotal Indirect Costs $3,315,000 $82,875 27.3% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
III. Financing Costs<br />
Subtotal Financing Costs $1,455,000 $36,375 12.0% <strong>of</strong> Directs<br />
IV. Total Development Costs $16,898,000 $422,450 $202 Per SF GBA<br />
Or Say (Rounded) $16,898,000<br />
(1) Does not include <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> prevailing wages.<br />
(2) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-43<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE C-3<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
NET OPERATING INCOME<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Gross Scheduled Income<br />
Leasable SF<br />
Rent/SF<br />
Total<br />
Annual<br />
Freestanding Retail 22,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $462,000<br />
Retail (in residential building) 18,000 SF $1.50 /SF/Month/NNN $324,000<br />
Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 40,000 SF $1.64 /SF $786,000<br />
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% <strong>of</strong> GSI ($39,000)<br />
II. Effective Gross Income $747,000<br />
(Less) Unreimbursed Expenses - Retail 5.0% <strong>of</strong> EGI ($37,000)<br />
III. Net Operating Income $710,000<br />
Capitalized Value <strong>of</strong> NOI @ 7.5% Going In Cap Rate $9,467,000<br />
IV. Total Project Value $9,467,000<br />
A-44 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
TABLE C-4<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
NET OPERATING INCOME - RESIDENTIAL<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Gross Scheduled Income<br />
Average<br />
Unit Size<br />
# <strong>of</strong> Monthly Total<br />
Units Rent/SF Rent Annual<br />
One-Bedroom @ 50% <strong>of</strong> AMI 800 SF 1 $1.03 $823 $10,000<br />
One-Bedroom @ 110% <strong>of</strong> AMI 800 SF 2 $1.85 $1,480 (1) $36,000<br />
One-Bedroom @ Market-Rate 800 SF 13 $1.85 $1,480 $231,000<br />
Two-Bedroom @ 50% <strong>of</strong> AMI 1,000 SF 1 $0.92 $922 $11,000<br />
Two-Bedroom @ 110% <strong>of</strong> AMI 1,000 SF 2 $1.75 $1,750 (1) $42,000<br />
Two-Bedroom @ Market-Rate 1,000 SF 21 $1.75 $1,750 $441,000<br />
Total/Average 925 SF 40 $1.74 $1,606 $771,000<br />
Add: O<strong>the</strong>r Income $10 /Unit/Month $5,000<br />
(Less) Vacancy @ 5.0% <strong>of</strong> Income ($39,000)<br />
Effective Gross Income (EGI) $737,000<br />
II. Operating Expenses<br />
(Less) Operating Expenses $4,500 /Unit/Year ($180,000)<br />
(Less) Property Taxes (2) $2,100 /Unit/Year ($85,000)<br />
(Less) Replacement Reserves $300 /Unit/Year ($12,000)<br />
Total Expenses $6,900 /Unit/Year ($277,000)<br />
37.6% <strong>of</strong> EGI<br />
III. Net Operating Income $460,000<br />
Capitalized Value <strong>of</strong> NOI @ 6.0% Cap Rate $7,667,000<br />
IV. Total Project Value $7,667,000<br />
(1) Calculation <strong>of</strong> moderate income rents exceed market-rate rents. Reflects downward adjustment to reflect achievable market rent.<br />
(2) Based on capitalized income approach, assumes a 1.10% tax rate and 6.0% cap rate.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-45<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE C-5<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE RENTS<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Bedrooms: 1 2<br />
I. Very Income - 50% AMI<br />
Family Size (1) 2 3<br />
Household Income (2) $34,450 $38,750<br />
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30%<br />
Monthly Housing Cost $861 $969<br />
(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($38) ($47)<br />
Maximum Monthly Rent - Very Low Income $823 $922<br />
II.<br />
Moderate Income - 110% AMI<br />
Family Size (1) 2 3<br />
Household Income (2) $75,790 $85,250<br />
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30%<br />
Monthly Housing Cost $1,895 $2,131<br />
(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($38) ($47)<br />
Maximum Monthly Rent - Moderate Income $1,857 $2,084<br />
Maximum Monthly Rent - Market-Rate $1,480 $1,750<br />
(1) As assigned by California Redevelopment Law.<br />
(2) State <strong>of</strong> California Department <strong>of</strong> Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2009 income limits.<br />
(3) As calculated by Orange County Housing and Community Development, as follows:<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Bedrooms: 1 2<br />
Electric Heat $13 $17<br />
Gas Cooking $4 $4<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Electric $16 $20<br />
Gas Water Heater $5 $6<br />
Total Utility Allowance $38 $47<br />
A-46 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
TABLE C-6<br />
SITE 12<br />
ALTERNATIVE B<br />
WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA<br />
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE<br />
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS<br />
FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN<br />
I. Total Project Value - Residential and Retail $17,134,000<br />
(Less) Cost <strong>of</strong> Sale @ 3.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($514,000)<br />
(Less) Target Developer Pr<strong>of</strong>it @ 12.0% <strong>of</strong> Value ($2,056,000)<br />
II. Warranted Investment $14,564,000<br />
(Less) Development Costs ($16,898,000)<br />
III. Residual Land Value ($2,334,000)<br />
Per SF Site Area ($13)<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-47<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.5 <strong>Tustin</strong> Community Redevelopment Agency<br />
Criteria and Submittal Information<br />
A.5.1 ASSISTANCE CRITERIA<br />
The <strong>Tustin</strong> Community Redevelopment Agency understands and recognizes <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>’s land use regulations and <strong>the</strong> Agency’s development objectives on<br />
<strong>the</strong> viability <strong>of</strong> a development project located within a Redevelopment Project Area. While <strong>the</strong><br />
Agency is prepared to negotiate land uses, development standards and o<strong>the</strong>r similar regulations<br />
within <strong>the</strong> constraints <strong>of</strong> State Law, <strong>the</strong> Agency must see that <strong>the</strong> site is developed to <strong>the</strong> highest<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> improvement consistent with <strong>the</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Redevelopment Plan. In addition,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Agency must ensure that <strong>the</strong> proposed project provides <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> amenities required in <strong>the</strong><br />
community in terms <strong>of</strong> architecture, landscaping and parking to serve <strong>the</strong> development.<br />
The Redevelopment Agency maintains a policy <strong>of</strong> providing assistance only to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
circumstances faced by <strong>the</strong> private sector which inhibits <strong>the</strong> private sector’s ability to accomplish<br />
its own goals and <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agency. The Agency does not provide assistance simply as<br />
an inducement to development but ra<strong>the</strong>r as means to achieving an intensity and quality <strong>of</strong><br />
development above which <strong>the</strong> market would traditionally support. Recognizing, however, that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re may be extraordinary actions and costs that may be required but cannot be accomplished<br />
by <strong>the</strong> private sector alone or financed through convention methods, <strong>the</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
is prepared, if needed, to negotiate various types <strong>of</strong> assistance in order to accomplish <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
and Agency’s goals.<br />
If land assembly is necessary, <strong>the</strong> Redevelopment Agency expects <strong>the</strong> developer to use all<br />
reasonable and appropriate methods to assemble <strong>the</strong> land at a fair market value. Only if such<br />
methods are exhausted and do not prove successful, would <strong>the</strong> Agency be prepared to use its<br />
authority under State Law to assist in land assembly and resale <strong>the</strong> property to <strong>the</strong> developer<br />
at its reuse value. The Agency encourages a proposed development to include participation<br />
<strong>of</strong> existing property owners and business owners in <strong>the</strong> project area to <strong>the</strong> extent practical as<br />
a means <strong>of</strong> reducing <strong>the</strong> land assembly costs. While not all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing businesses may<br />
with <strong>the</strong> proposed development, <strong>the</strong> Agency views <strong>the</strong> efforts and methods <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developer in<br />
dealing with existing property owners and businesses as a highly important criteria in evaluating<br />
a proposed development project.<br />
A-48 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
The Redevelopment Agency recognizes that, if needed, <strong>the</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> methods <strong>of</strong><br />
providing financial assistance to a proposed project. However, <strong>the</strong> Agency expects that any such<br />
assistance shall be based on <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developer and <strong>the</strong> demonstrated financial<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed project. The Agency maintains <strong>the</strong> following criteria for providing any<br />
such financial assistance:<br />
1.<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
5.<br />
6.<br />
7.<br />
Agency assistance may be provided only for extraordinary project costs. Those cost which<br />
are ordinary and typical <strong>of</strong> a similar development project and not exacerbated by any above<br />
market-standard requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agency will not be <strong>of</strong>fset.<br />
Agency assistance may be provided only after <strong>the</strong> developer has contributed financially to<br />
<strong>the</strong> extent convention financing sources would expect and only for those costs which cannot<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise be financed through conventional means.<br />
Agency financial assistance may be provided only to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>the</strong> proposed development<br />
project meets <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong>’s and <strong>the</strong> Redevelopment Agency’s goals.<br />
Agency financial assistance will be evaluated based on <strong>the</strong> projected overall financial return<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Agency from loan payments, increased tax revenues and o<strong>the</strong>r financial consideration.<br />
Agency financial assistance will also be evaluated based on projected tangible and intangible<br />
benefits to <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Agency and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> community as a whole.<br />
Agency financial assistance will only be provided after thorough review and analysis, which<br />
may include a third-party pr<strong>of</strong>essional analysis <strong>of</strong> each request, based on <strong>the</strong> unique needs <strong>of</strong><br />
each individual proposed project.<br />
Agency financial assistance will only be provided under a Disposition and Development<br />
Agreement (DDA) approved and executed by and between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Community<br />
Redevelopment Agency and <strong>the</strong> duly authorized developed/property owner.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-49<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-50 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-51<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-52 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-53<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-54 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-55<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-56 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-57<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-58 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-59<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A-60 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-61<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.6 Public Workshops<br />
A.6.1<br />
WORKSHOP #1 - MATERIALS<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center, A New Beginning<br />
Process Overview and Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong>:<br />
• xxxWest Village, South Gateway and Center <strong>City</strong><br />
• xxx<br />
• A series <strong>of</strong> public workshops to seek input on<br />
• xxx<br />
revitalization efforts, opportunity areas,<br />
• xxx<br />
and plan alternatives<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Context Map<br />
ULI Study Area<br />
ULI<br />
Study Area<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Objectives based on ULI Panel Study<br />
Land Use Map<br />
• Refined Market Study<br />
• Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Design Guidelines<br />
• Implementation Strategy<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Regulatory Documents by <strong>City</strong> Staff<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
A-62 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Area Circulation<br />
Public Transit<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Study Area Overview<br />
2008 Estimate<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center<br />
Refined Market Analysis<br />
Population &<br />
Income<br />
Population<br />
Center<br />
<strong>City</strong><br />
3,088<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Gateway<br />
9,997<br />
West<br />
Village<br />
8,867<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
71,955<br />
Prepared for:<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Prepared by:<br />
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.<br />
Median<br />
Household<br />
Income<br />
Households over<br />
$75,000<br />
$50,000<br />
25%<br />
$48,400<br />
21%<br />
$43,300<br />
15%<br />
$70,000<br />
46%<br />
Source: Claritas, Inc.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Study Area Overview<br />
2008 Estimate<br />
Housing Units<br />
Total Units<br />
Center<br />
<strong>City</strong><br />
1,101<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Gateway<br />
3,545<br />
West<br />
Village<br />
2,594<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
26,767<br />
Market Potential<br />
Type<br />
Multi-Family<br />
Single-Family<br />
Occupancy<br />
Owner<br />
Renter<br />
82%<br />
17%<br />
22%<br />
75%<br />
91%<br />
8%<br />
13%<br />
67%<br />
84%<br />
2%<br />
23%<br />
74%<br />
65%<br />
31%<br />
47%<br />
46%<br />
Source: Claritas, Inc.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-63<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Existing Market Conditions<br />
Existing Market Conditions<br />
Retail/Restaurant<br />
Retail <strong>center</strong>s lack strong anchors<br />
Some <strong>center</strong>s experience high vacancy rates<br />
Average asking lease rates <strong>of</strong> $1.80/SF/Month<br />
vs. $2.65/SF/Month in Orange County<br />
Residents purchase goods outside <strong>of</strong> Study Area<br />
Office<br />
Study Areas not a recognized <strong>of</strong>fice location<br />
Existing uses limited to small medical or pr<strong>of</strong>essional business<br />
services<br />
13% vacancy rate for cities surrounding Study Areas and County<br />
Average asking lease rate <strong>of</strong> $2.40/SF vs. $2.72/SF for <strong>the</strong><br />
County<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Existing Market Conditions<br />
Existing Market Conditions<br />
Residential - Owner<br />
National homeowner market in decline<br />
Median sales prices in County down from previous year<br />
10% <strong>of</strong> homes within Study Area are owner-occupied<br />
Residential - Renter<br />
Orange County ranked 5th nationally in lowest vacancy rates (4%)<br />
80% <strong>of</strong> housing units in Study Areas are rentals<br />
Most affordable rents in <strong>the</strong> County<br />
…<strong>the</strong>se forces may streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> rental market<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Retail Development<br />
Opportunities<br />
Location within Orange County that<br />
will experience high population<br />
growth<br />
Visibility and access to I-5 and SR-<br />
55 freeways<br />
New residential and <strong>of</strong>fice key to<br />
expand retail base<br />
Mixed-use developments appeal to<br />
young pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and empty<br />
nesters<br />
Increased densification and adaptive<br />
re-use <strong>of</strong> existing buildings/sites<br />
Constraints<br />
Large renter population and lowincome<br />
households<br />
Competing developments<br />
Need for land assembly<br />
Potentially high acquisition and<br />
relocation costs<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Office Development<br />
Opportunities<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Hospital and Medical Center –<br />
anchor for Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
High visibility and access from I-5<br />
and SR-55 freeways<br />
Increased densification and adaptive<br />
re-use <strong>of</strong> buildings/sites<br />
Constraints<br />
Close proximity to <strong>Tustin</strong> Legacy and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r well-known <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>center</strong>s<br />
Lack <strong>of</strong> supporting services and<br />
amenities for workers<br />
Need for land assembly<br />
Potentially high acquisition and<br />
relocation costs<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
A-64 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Residential Development<br />
Opportunities<br />
Location within Orange County that<br />
will experience high population<br />
growth<br />
Access to I-5 and SR-55 freeways<br />
Increased densification and adaptive<br />
re-use <strong>of</strong> buildings/sites<br />
Constraints<br />
Neighboring developments<br />
Lack <strong>of</strong> services and amenities<br />
Need for land assembly<br />
Total Projected Development<br />
Long Term Projection, 2008 - 2030<br />
Land Use<br />
Retail/Restaurant<br />
Office<br />
Low<br />
25,800 SF<br />
356,000 SF<br />
High<br />
65,300 SF<br />
713,000 SF<br />
Mixed-use developments appeal to<br />
young pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and empty<br />
nesters<br />
Potentially high acquisition and<br />
relocation costs<br />
Residential<br />
760 Units<br />
1,140 Units<br />
Expansion <strong>of</strong> homeownership<br />
opportunities to increase<br />
neighborhood stability, attract retail<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Neighborhood<br />
Neighborhoods<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
RED HILL AVENUE<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Circulation and Uses<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
NEWPORT AVE<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Character<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
BRYAN AVENUE<br />
6TH STREET<br />
B St.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
ORANGE ST.<br />
SAN JUAN STREET<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
RED HILL AVENUE<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
BROWNING AVE.<br />
El Camino Real<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-65<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Center <strong>City</strong> Character<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Character<br />
Red Hill Plaza at Red Hill Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
El Camino Real – Old Town<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Character<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Character<br />
Sixth Street<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
El Camino Real<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Assets and Constraints<br />
Pepper Tree<br />
Park<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
Dead End<br />
6TH STREET<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Old<br />
Town<br />
<strong>City</strong> Hall<br />
Library<br />
Pine Tree<br />
Park<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Opportunity Sites<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
6TH STREET<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
BRYAN AVENUE<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
B St.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
ORANGE ST.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
High School<br />
SAN JUAN STREET<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
BRYAN AVENUE<br />
B St.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
ORANGE ST.<br />
SAN JUAN STREET<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Marjorie<br />
Veeh<br />
School<br />
BROWNING AVE.<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
BROWNING AVE.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
A-66 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
For Next Meeting<br />
Please tell us:<br />
Discussion/ Question & Answers<br />
Three key improvements &<br />
Three top opportunities<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Note: Presentations for Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and West Village<br />
Neighborhoods include <strong>the</strong> same first 20 slides as shown here<br />
for Center <strong>City</strong>. They are omitted on <strong>the</strong> following pages to avoid<br />
repeating information.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-67<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Neighborhood<br />
Neighborhoods<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
E. McFADDEN AVENUE<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
EDINGER AVENUE<br />
WALNUT AVENUE<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Circulation and Uses<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Character<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
MITCHELL AVE.<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
WALNUT AVE.<br />
EDINGER AVE.<br />
ROUTE 55<br />
NEWPORT AVE.<br />
SYCAMORE AVE.<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
Newport Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Character<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Character<br />
Newport Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Sycamore at Newport Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
A-68 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Character<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Character<br />
Newport Avenue/ New Residential<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Myrtle Avenue at Newport Avenue/ Medical Center<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Assets and Constraints<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Opportunity Sites<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
Views<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
NEWPORT AVE.<br />
MITCHELL AVE.<br />
Frontier<br />
Park<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
MITCHELL AVE.<br />
New<br />
Access<br />
EDINGER AVE.<br />
New<br />
Access<br />
ROUTE 55<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
SYCAMORE AVE.<br />
WALNUT AVE.<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
Beswick<br />
School<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Medical Plaza<br />
Family and<br />
Youth Center<br />
EDINGER AVE.<br />
ROUTE 55<br />
SYCAMORE AVE.<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
WALNUT AVE.<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
A.G. Currie Middle School/<br />
J. Thorman Elementary School<br />
Newport Ave.<br />
Extension<br />
Railway<br />
Barrier<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
For Next Meeting<br />
Please tell us:<br />
Discussion / Questions & Answers<br />
Three key improvements &<br />
Three top opportunities<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-69<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
West Village Neighborhood<br />
Neighborhoods<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
E. McFADDEN AVENUE<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
West Village Circulation and Uses<br />
West Village Character<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
WILLIAMS STREET<br />
ALLIANCE AVE.<br />
TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
West Village Character<br />
West Village Character<br />
Commercial Center McFadden Ave at <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Mobile Home Park at Williams Street<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
A-70 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
West Village Character<br />
West Village Assets and Constraints<br />
No Entrance<br />
to Zoo<br />
Santa Ana<br />
Zoo<br />
Few Access<br />
Points<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
No<br />
Connections<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
Robert<br />
Heideman<br />
School<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
WILLIAMS STREET<br />
ALLIANCE AVE.<br />
TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
Only One<br />
East West<br />
Connection<br />
Views<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
Few Access<br />
Points<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
Williams Street at W. Main Street<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Railway<br />
Barrier<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
West Village Opportunity Sites<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
WILLIAMS STREET<br />
ALLIANCE AVE.<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
For Next Meeting<br />
Please tell us:<br />
Three key improvements &<br />
Three top opportunities<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
Discussion/ Question & Answers<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-71<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.6.2<br />
WORKSHOP #1 - PUBLIC COMMENTS<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> - Comments (C), Q&A<br />
Q: What is <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> infill & densification?<br />
• Infill is development in <strong>the</strong> existing built context, for example on vacant parcels, or expansion<br />
<strong>of</strong> existing buildings.<br />
• Densification is <strong>the</strong> replacement or expansion <strong>of</strong> existing buildings with <strong>new</strong>, higher density<br />
development.<br />
Q: What is <strong>the</strong> timeline for <strong>the</strong> Newport Avenue extension?<br />
• Planning will take ano<strong>the</strong>r 18 months, and <strong>the</strong> implementation 2-5 years, depending on<br />
funding.<br />
Q: How can smaller parcels get assembled for bigger development?<br />
• Some parcels are already large.<br />
• Expansion <strong>of</strong> existing sites.<br />
• Market-driven development by <strong>the</strong> private sector:<br />
• <strong>City</strong> can provide incentives (zoning and financial).<br />
• No aggressive acquisition by city; no use <strong>of</strong> eminent domain.<br />
Q: How does <strong>the</strong> current downturn impact future development?<br />
• The long-term view is important.<br />
C: Affordable housing will remain in demand in <strong>Tustin</strong>.<br />
C: Prospect Village is a well-done development.<br />
C: Improve <strong>the</strong> pedestrian environment.<br />
• There are no bike lanes.<br />
• Provide better connections to train stations.<br />
• Noise issues (freeway, airport, train) need to be addressed by <strong>City</strong> through <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> zoning<br />
and built elements.<br />
• Make a place (for example through undergrounding <strong>of</strong> utilities).<br />
• Provide linkages to assets (Old Town and El Camino Plaza mixed- use).<br />
C: Use Red Hill Plaza as an opportunity site.<br />
C: The <strong>of</strong>fice projections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Market Study appear to be high; existing development is already<br />
sitting empty.<br />
• Existing <strong>of</strong>fice space will get absorbed first.<br />
• The study looked at <strong>the</strong> long term (30-year range).<br />
A-72 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
C: In some cases it may be OK to use Eminent Domain, for example for <strong>the</strong> Red Hill parcel.<br />
C: Overall Goals (Comments by <strong>City</strong> Staff):<br />
• Provide improvements to older areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>.<br />
• Retain existing and provide <strong>new</strong> workforce housing.<br />
• Balance jobs/housing.<br />
• Prevent <strong>the</strong> moving <strong>of</strong> people and businesses elsewhere.<br />
• Proximity <strong>of</strong> live and work.<br />
• Future development will happen around transit.<br />
• Variety <strong>of</strong> housing that is interconnected; this is in demand in Orange County..<br />
• Long term planning effort – 30 years.<br />
• Create an identity with <strong>Tustin</strong>.<br />
• Provide bike trails.<br />
C: Encourage <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> vacant land for residential parking.<br />
• Parking districts can be established for some areas.<br />
C: The city dominated by freeways and transportation constraints. More retail and business<br />
activity may increase traffic problems.<br />
C: Provide more Rapid Transit.<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway - Comments (C), Q&A<br />
Q: What is <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> opportunity sites?<br />
• Sites that have future possibilities, i.e. sites that are suitable for development or<br />
improvement.<br />
C: Opportunity Site:<br />
• Trailer Park North @ Mitchell (in Redevelopment Area).<br />
C: Arbor Walk is a positive example.<br />
C: What will happen with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Hospital? Will it get developed?<br />
• The hospital is currently underutilized. Physical improvements could be made to provide<br />
better <strong>of</strong>fice space.<br />
C: Retail/Commercial should focus on <strong>the</strong> community ra<strong>the</strong>r than access from <strong>the</strong> freeway.<br />
• Provide retail at walk-to locations.<br />
• Sound walls prevent visibility from freeways.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-73<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
C: There should be more mix <strong>of</strong> uses instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current type <strong>of</strong> commercial development.<br />
• There is a current sense <strong>of</strong> isolation.<br />
• There are enough strip malls.<br />
C: It appears that <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> is “overbuilding” while existing buildings are sitting empty; slow down<br />
development.<br />
• There is demand for rental residential in <strong>the</strong> long-term.<br />
C: There is a need for open space, parks, and greenbelts.<br />
• This is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> long-term planning effort.<br />
C: Look into a bus system to connect <strong>neighborhoods</strong>, like DASH system in Los Angeles.<br />
• The buses could also connect commercial “highlights”.<br />
• The <strong>City</strong> Council is very interested in this and <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> applied for grant at OCTA to conduct a<br />
study.<br />
C: The completed Newport Avenue extension & <strong>Tustin</strong> Ranch<br />
Road extension would assist <strong>the</strong> area; Transit route down<br />
Sycamore has a blighted area.<br />
• The <strong>City</strong> has made this project a top priority.<br />
• The design phase will be completed in about 18 months.<br />
• Grade separation is required.<br />
• Projected completion <strong>of</strong> construction in approximately 2-5 years, depending on financing.<br />
• Phase 1 completed will cost $40 million.<br />
• Phase 2 underpass ano<strong>the</strong>r $40 million +.<br />
C: The traffic upgrades will not improve <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> life in existing high density residential areas<br />
but increase traffic. The housing stock is old. What kind <strong>of</strong> density is envisioned?<br />
• The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> workshops is to come up with ideas that address <strong>the</strong>se issues.<br />
• Work with owners to improve housing.<br />
C: Newport Avenue lacks parking and is used for car sales.<br />
C: Walnut @ Newport Commercial Development needs to be improved and is an opportunity<br />
site.<br />
Q: Will Eminent Domain be used to implement improvements?<br />
• No, <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> is looking for market driven solutions.<br />
• The <strong>City</strong> could provide resources or incentives to help <strong>the</strong> process<br />
A-74 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
West Village - Comments (C), Q&A<br />
C: There is a lack <strong>of</strong> parking on Alliance Avenue.<br />
• Introduce diagonal parking.<br />
• Parking lot at Jewelry Exchange gets a lot <strong>of</strong> overnight parking (residential).<br />
• Jewelry Exchange has considered building a parking structure.<br />
• Residential units only have 1 garage space per unit.<br />
• On-street parking is difficult.<br />
• Cars from/ to Santa Ana come through <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
• Front yards on <strong>the</strong> south side <strong>of</strong> Alliance can be used for parking.<br />
• Tear down units on Alliance to create commercial and parking opportunities.<br />
C: Provide financial mechanisms for improvements.<br />
• Offer loans to facilitate growth.<br />
C: Use <strong>the</strong> school as a neighborhood amenity.<br />
• Use <strong>the</strong> school for additional activities, for example as a play area for kids.<br />
• Expand <strong>the</strong> school for community services and a park.<br />
• School is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> densest sites.<br />
C: Jewelry Exchange <strong>of</strong>fered to purchase <strong>the</strong> CalTrans parcel and donate land for a small park.<br />
Jewelry Exchange property on <strong>the</strong> opposite side is being considered for a parking structure.<br />
• <strong>City</strong> has an <strong>of</strong>fer in on <strong>the</strong> CalTrans property; <strong>the</strong>re is no set time frame.<br />
C: Jewelry Exchange has previously submitted plans for <strong>the</strong> renovation <strong>of</strong> existing buildings.<br />
Jewelry Exchange wants <strong>new</strong> freeway sign.<br />
C: There are Traffic Issues @ Williams Street.<br />
• Santa Ana traffic is moving through <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
• Area improvement is connected to solving <strong>the</strong> parking issue.<br />
• Due to economy, families are sharing a home but <strong>the</strong>re is not enough parking.<br />
C: 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>’s population lives in <strong>the</strong> West Village, and parking is <strong>the</strong> biggest issue in <strong>the</strong><br />
neighborhood.<br />
• The West Village is very dense.<br />
• Property on McFadden included sufficient parking in initial plans.<br />
Q. Is <strong>the</strong>re a height issue?<br />
• Think outside <strong>the</strong> box; rules concerning heights can get changed as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-75<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
C: There are no commercial/ shopping opportunities in <strong>the</strong> West Village.<br />
• There is no retail that residents can walk to.<br />
• Residents shop at Vons, Larwin Square, and go up Williams Street to Main Street.<br />
Q: What is <strong>the</strong> feasibility <strong>of</strong> a grocery store in <strong>the</strong> West Village?<br />
• A grocery store is going to look at a larger area, typically a 3-mile trade area.<br />
C: Consider locating <strong>new</strong> retail along McFadden since it carries a lot <strong>of</strong> traffic.<br />
Q: Can <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way get extended to Main Street?<br />
• The freeway is in <strong>the</strong> way.<br />
• A lot <strong>of</strong> traffic!<br />
• Shuttle service would benefit children and area.<br />
• Study <strong>of</strong> residents’ traffic patterns?<br />
C: Reduce traffic in <strong>the</strong> residential area.<br />
• There is a lot <strong>of</strong> traffic!<br />
• A Shuttle service would be beneficial to <strong>the</strong> area, particularly for children.<br />
• A study <strong>of</strong> residents’ traffic patterns would be helpful.<br />
C: Consider converting some private roads into public roads to improve connectivity.<br />
C: Better configuration <strong>of</strong> buildings can free up space while keeping <strong>the</strong> same level <strong>of</strong> density.<br />
• More height to free up space for open space & commercial/retail.<br />
• Amenities and a mix <strong>of</strong> uses distribute density differently.<br />
Q: Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ideas are very expensive. Where would <strong>the</strong> money come from that is needed to<br />
make <strong>the</strong> changes happen?<br />
• Most ideas could get funded by a combination <strong>of</strong> private and public sources.<br />
A-76 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
A.6.3<br />
WORKSHOP #2 - MATERIALS<br />
Note: The first 3 slides for Center <strong>City</strong> presentation are repeated for Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and West Village<br />
Neighborhoods. They are omitted on <strong>the</strong> following pages to avoid repeating information.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Town Center, A New Beginning<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
Process Overview & Goals<br />
• Revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong>:<br />
West Village, Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway and<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
• A series <strong>of</strong> public workshops to seek<br />
input on revitalization efforts, opportunity<br />
areas, and plan alternatives<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Neighborhood Concept<br />
Plans<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Goals & Approach for Workshop #2<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
1. Review last workshop<br />
2. Bring everyone up to date<br />
3. To illustrate and describe two potential<br />
alternatives and obtain input<br />
4. Next Steps<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> Workshop #1<br />
October 6, 2008<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
ULI Study Area<br />
Objectives based on ULI Panel Study<br />
• Refined Market Study<br />
• Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Design Guidelines<br />
• Implementation Strategy<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> Regulatory Documents<br />
by <strong>City</strong> Staff<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-77<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Total Projected Development<br />
Long Term – All 3 Neighborhoods, 2008 - 2030<br />
Land Use<br />
Low<br />
High<br />
Retail/Restaurant<br />
Office<br />
25,800 SF<br />
356,000 SF<br />
65,300 SF<br />
713,000 SF<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Center <strong>City</strong> Neighborhood<br />
Residential<br />
760 Units<br />
1,140 Units<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Circulation and Uses<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
NEWPORT AVE<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
BRYAN AVENUE<br />
6TH STREET<br />
B St.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
ORANGE ST.<br />
SAN JUAN STREET<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
RED HILL AVENUE<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
BROWNING AVE.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Assets and Constraints<br />
Public Comments from Workshop #1<br />
Pepper Tree<br />
Park<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
Dead End<br />
6TH STREET<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
B St.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Old<br />
<strong>City</strong> Hall<br />
Town<br />
Library<br />
Pine Tree<br />
Park<br />
SAN JUAN STREET<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
BRYAN AVENUE<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
High School<br />
Marjorie<br />
Veeh<br />
School<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
ORANGE ST.<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
BROWNING AVE.<br />
• The long-term view is important.<br />
• Affordable housing will remain in demand<br />
in <strong>Tustin</strong> (good example: Prospect<br />
Village).<br />
• Improve <strong>the</strong> pedestrian environment and<br />
connectivity to assets (station, Old Town,<br />
shopping).<br />
• Provide bike lanes.<br />
• Noise issues (freeway, airport, train) need<br />
to be addressed.<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
A-78 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Public Comments from Workshop #1<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
• Make a place (for example through undergrounding<br />
<strong>of</strong> utilities).<br />
• Use Red Hill Plaza as an opportunity site.<br />
• Encourage <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> vacant land for<br />
residential parking; consider parking districts.<br />
• The city is dominated by freeways and<br />
transportation constraints. More retail and<br />
business activity may increase traffic<br />
problems.<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Neighborhood Overall Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Increase <strong>the</strong> supply <strong>of</strong> housing.<br />
• xxx • Enrich <strong>the</strong> livability <strong>of</strong> <strong>neighborhoods</strong>.<br />
• xxx • Revitalize commercial uses on arterial streets.<br />
• xxx<br />
• Upgrade <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> street corridors<br />
• xxx and community gateways.<br />
• Create employment opportunities for<br />
residents.<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors<br />
• xxx into well-defined neighborhood <strong>center</strong>s<br />
• xxx and/or mixed-use developments.<br />
• xxx• Redirect future development to underutilized<br />
• xxx and underperforming sites.<br />
• xxx<br />
• Relocate industrial uses away from<br />
residential and commercial <strong>center</strong>s.<br />
• Expand streetscape improvements along<br />
street corridors.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
Alternative A<br />
• xxx<br />
• Encourage introduction <strong>of</strong> moderate to high<br />
• xxx<br />
density residential and mixed use development<br />
• xxx along street corridors, compatible with <strong>the</strong><br />
• xxx adjacent neighborhood.<br />
• xxx<br />
• Encourage construction <strong>of</strong> a greater variety <strong>of</strong><br />
• xxx residential types to accommodate a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
• xxx family sizes.<br />
• Upgrade and revitalize older residential areas.<br />
• Improve connectivity in and between<br />
<strong>neighborhoods</strong>, including provision <strong>of</strong> bike lane<br />
routes.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-79<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Alternative B<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• Low-scale residential development on <strong>the</strong><br />
south side <strong>of</strong> 6th Street and west <strong>of</strong> B Street<br />
(Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Atrium-type <strong>of</strong>fice development on <strong>the</strong> south<br />
side <strong>of</strong> 6 th Street and west <strong>of</strong> B Street (Alt. B)<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• Renovation and upgrade Red Hill Center<br />
(Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Redevelop Red Hill Center with <strong>new</strong> retail<br />
and <strong>of</strong>fice mixed-use (Alt. B)<br />
• Renovation <strong>of</strong> large commercial parcel at <strong>the</strong><br />
south-east corner <strong>of</strong> El Camino Real and<br />
Newport Avenue (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Redevelop parcel with <strong>new</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice and retail<br />
mixed-use to help form a gateway to <strong>the</strong> city<br />
(Alt. B)<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3: Existing Uses<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
A-80 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Opportunity Sites 1,2 & 3<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
• Close proximity to Down<strong>town</strong><br />
• Good connectivity to El Camino<br />
& I-5<br />
• Gateway location to Down<strong>town</strong><br />
• Good visibility from El Camino<br />
and from parts <strong>of</strong> Newport<br />
Avenue<br />
• Well served by public streets<br />
• Existing retail, <strong>of</strong>fice and<br />
residential adjacent to sites<br />
• Potential for parcel consolidation<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation<br />
• Intensification along El Camino<br />
SITE 1:<br />
• Proximity to existing single-family<br />
residential land uses north <strong>of</strong> 6th<br />
Street requires sensitive solution<br />
for future uses, massing, and<br />
building heights<br />
SITE 2:<br />
• Depth <strong>of</strong> parcels require improved<br />
accessibility<br />
SITE 3:<br />
• Triangular shape <strong>of</strong> parcel limits<br />
efficient site layout on <strong>the</strong> east<br />
side<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 1, 2, & 3: Alternative A<br />
Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3: Alternative B<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Existing Conditions<br />
Opportunity Sites 4 & 5<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
SITE 4:<br />
• Residential uses on east and north side<br />
require sensitive site layout and<br />
transitions<br />
SITE 5:<br />
• Depth <strong>of</strong> parcels requires creative<br />
solutions for accessibility and visibility<br />
• South-eastern parcels are only visible<br />
from El Camino<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation<br />
• Intensification along Red Hill Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-81<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Alternative A<br />
Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Alternative B<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
• Which Alternative Plan or part <strong>of</strong> a plan do you<br />
think is best? Why?<br />
• Which Key Site do you think is most important?<br />
• Which alternative for <strong>the</strong> Key Site or for part <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> site do you think is best? Why?<br />
• From <strong>the</strong> Strategies, Plans and Key Sites, what<br />
do you think are <strong>the</strong> one or two most important<br />
actions needed for <strong>the</strong> neighborhood?<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
Next Steps<br />
Center <strong>City</strong><br />
Summary and Next Steps<br />
• Prepare Financial Feasibility Analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
Proposed Development Products on Several<br />
Opportunity Sites<br />
• Test Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
Alternatives<br />
• Finalize and Recommend a Preferred Concept<br />
Plan, including Design Guidelines<br />
• Develop Implementation Strategy<br />
Recommendations<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> General Plan and Zoning<br />
Regulatory Documents by <strong>City</strong> Staff<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009<br />
A-82 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Existing Conditions<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Neighborhood<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
Circulation and Uses<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
MITCHELL AVE.<br />
NEWPORT AVE<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Assets and Constraints<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
NEWPORT AVE.<br />
WALNUT AVE.<br />
EDINGER AVE.<br />
ROUTE 55<br />
NEWPORT AVE.<br />
SYCAMORE AVE.<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
RED HILL AVE.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Public Comments from Workshop #1<br />
Public Comments from Workshop #1<br />
• Retail/Commercial should focus on <strong>the</strong><br />
community.<br />
• Sound walls prevent commercial visibility from<br />
freeways.<br />
• There should be more mix <strong>of</strong> uses.<br />
• Don’t overbuild while existing buildings are<br />
sitting empty; slow down development.<br />
• There is demand for rental residential in <strong>the</strong><br />
long-term.<br />
• Need for open space, parks, and greenbelts.<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
• Look into a bus system to connect<br />
<strong>neighborhoods</strong>.<br />
• The housing stock is old. What kind <strong>of</strong> density is<br />
envisioned?<br />
• Walnut at Newport Commercial Development<br />
needs to be improved and is an opportunity site.<br />
• Arbor Walk is a positive example.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-83<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
Neighborhoods Overall Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Increase <strong>the</strong> supply <strong>of</strong> housing.<br />
• xxx • Enrich <strong>the</strong> livability <strong>of</strong> <strong>neighborhoods</strong>.<br />
• xxx • Revitalize commercial uses on arterial streets.<br />
• xxx<br />
• Upgrade <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> street corridors<br />
• xxx and community gateways.<br />
• Create employment opportunities for<br />
residents.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors<br />
• xxx<br />
into well-defined neighborhood <strong>center</strong>s<br />
• xxx and/or mixed-use developments.<br />
• xxx• Redirect future development to underutilized<br />
• xxx and underperforming sites.<br />
• xxx• Expand streetscape improvements along<br />
street corridors.<br />
• Upgrade and revitalize older residential<br />
areas.<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
• Encourage introduction <strong>of</strong> moderate to high<br />
density residential development along street<br />
corridors, compatible with <strong>the</strong> adjacent<br />
neighborhood.<br />
• Encourage construction <strong>of</strong> a greater variety<br />
<strong>of</strong> residential types to accommodate a variety<br />
<strong>of</strong> family sizes.<br />
• Improve connectivity in and between<br />
<strong>neighborhoods</strong>, including provision <strong>of</strong> bike<br />
lane routes.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Alternative A<br />
Alternative B<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
A-84 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• New retail and <strong>of</strong>fice mixed-use on triangular<br />
parcel between McFadden, Newport and<br />
Walnut Avenue only (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Higher concentration <strong>of</strong> <strong>new</strong> retail and <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
mixed-use by also converting <strong>the</strong> retail <strong>center</strong><br />
at <strong>the</strong> south side <strong>of</strong> Walnut and east side <strong>of</strong><br />
Newport Avenue (Alt. B)<br />
• New residential use on consolidated site<br />
south <strong>of</strong> Altadena Dr with vacation <strong>of</strong> Bliss<br />
Lane and a portion <strong>of</strong> Altadena Dr (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Consolidation for <strong>new</strong> residential use with<br />
<strong>new</strong> east-west street and <strong>new</strong> Youth Center<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Ave; both alternatives<br />
include <strong>the</strong> a potential closure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
sou<strong>the</strong>rn portion <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Ave that<br />
connects to Sycamore Ave (Alt. B)<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• Expand existing Youth Center to <strong>the</strong> north<br />
using an existing commercial site (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Relocate Youth Center to a larger site at <strong>the</strong><br />
north-western corner <strong>of</strong> Pasadena and<br />
Sycamore Avenue; reuse current Youth<br />
Center site for larger retail in in combination<br />
with commercial site on <strong>the</strong> north side and<br />
parking lot on <strong>the</strong> east side (Alt. B)<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 6 & 7: Existing Conditions<br />
Opportunity Sites 6 & 7<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
SITE 6:<br />
• Marks <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Gateway neighborhood<br />
• Good connectivity to Newport Ave and I-5<br />
• Good visibility from I-5 exit and Newport<br />
Ave<br />
• Existing commercial and residential uses<br />
adjacent to site<br />
SITE 7:<br />
• High visibility from Newport Avenue<br />
• Efficient parcel shape<br />
• Site is surrounded by residential uses<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-85<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Opportunity Sites 6 & 7<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
SITE 6:<br />
• Retail location on west side<br />
difficult due to depth <strong>of</strong> parcel<br />
• Nor<strong>the</strong>rn parcels require improved<br />
access for future use<br />
Opportunity Sites 6 & 7: Alternative<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation<br />
• Intensification along Newport<br />
Avenue<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 8 & 9: Existing Conditions<br />
Opportunity Sites 8 & 9<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
• Central location along Newport Avenue<br />
corridor<br />
• Good connectivity to and visibility from<br />
Newport Avenue and McFadden<br />
Avenue<br />
• Existing commercial and residential<br />
uses adjacent to site<br />
• Sites are served well by public streets<br />
SITE 8:<br />
• High visibility and accessibility<br />
SITE 9:<br />
• Efficient and accessible parcel shape<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 8 & 9<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
SITE 8:<br />
• Triangular shape is more difficult<br />
to develop<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation<br />
for <strong>new</strong> development<br />
• Sites 8 and 9 can form a <strong>new</strong><br />
<strong>center</strong> for <strong>the</strong> neighborhood<br />
Opportunity Sites 8 & 9: Alternative A<br />
SITE 8:<br />
• New mixed-use:<br />
retail & <strong>of</strong>fice use<br />
SITE 9:<br />
• Upgrade existing<br />
commercial use<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
A-86 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Opportunity Sites 8 & 9: Alternative B<br />
Opportunity Sites 10 & 11: Existing Conditions<br />
SITE 8:<br />
• New mixed-use:<br />
retail & <strong>of</strong>fice use<br />
SITE 9:<br />
• New mixed-use:<br />
retail & <strong>of</strong>fice use<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 10 & 11<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
• Gateway location<br />
• High visibility and accessibility<br />
from Newport Avenue and<br />
Sycamore Avenue<br />
• Good connectivity to Newport<br />
Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, and<br />
SR-55<br />
• Site 11 has efficient parcel<br />
shapes<br />
• Residential and institutional uses<br />
adjacent to sites<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 10 & 11<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
• Site 10 cannot be accessed directly<br />
from Sycamore Avenue<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation at both<br />
sites to form larger development site<br />
• Potential closure <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Ave<br />
to reduce through traffic<br />
• Possible reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> access<br />
streets to use Site 10 more efficiently<br />
• Intensification along Newport Ave<br />
• Newport Ave extension will increase<br />
access to neighborhood<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 10 & 11: Alternative A<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
SITE 10 a:<br />
• Potential cul-de-sac or<br />
partial street closure<br />
(portion <strong>of</strong> Pasadena<br />
Ave, Bliss Lane, and<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> Altadena Dr)<br />
• Lot consolidation east<br />
and west <strong>of</strong> Pasadena<br />
Ave<br />
SITE 11 a:<br />
• Expansion <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
Youth Center on<br />
existing commercial<br />
site<br />
Opportunity Sites 10 & 11: Alternative B<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
SITE 10 a+b:<br />
• Potential youth <strong>center</strong> on <strong>the</strong><br />
west side <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Ave<br />
• Potential cul-de-sac or partial<br />
street closure (portion <strong>of</strong><br />
Pasadena Ave, Bliss Lane,<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> Altadena Dr, and<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> Myrtle Ave)<br />
• Lot consolidation east and<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Pasadena Ave<br />
• New east-west street<br />
SITE 11 a+b:<br />
• New consolidated retail site<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-87<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
• Which Alternative Plan or part <strong>of</strong> a plan do you<br />
think is best? Why?<br />
• Which Key Site do you think is most important?<br />
• Which alternative for <strong>the</strong> Key Site or for part <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> site do you think is best? Why?<br />
• From <strong>the</strong> Strategies, Plans and Key Sites, what<br />
do you think are <strong>the</strong> one or two most important<br />
actions needed for <strong>the</strong> neighborhood?<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
Next Steps<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
Summary and Next Steps<br />
• Prepare Financial Feasibility Analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
Proposed Development Products on Several<br />
Opportunity Sites<br />
• Test Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
Alternatives<br />
• Finalize and Recommend a Preferred Concept<br />
Plan, including Design Guidelines<br />
• Develop Implementation Strategy<br />
Recommendations<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> General Plan and Zoning<br />
Regulatory Documents by <strong>City</strong> Staff<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009<br />
A-88 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Existing Conditions<br />
Existing Conditions and Opportunities<br />
in <strong>the</strong> West Village Neighborhood<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Circulation and Uses<br />
NEWPORT AVENUE<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
NEWPORT AVE<br />
Center <strong>City</strong> Assets and Constraints<br />
No Entrance<br />
to Zoo<br />
No<br />
Connections<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
Few Access<br />
Points<br />
Santa Ana<br />
Zoo<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
W. MAIN STREET<br />
Freeway<br />
Barrier<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
WILLIAMS STREET<br />
ALLIANCE AVE.<br />
TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
Robert<br />
Heideman<br />
School<br />
S. LYON STREET<br />
WILLIAMS STREET<br />
ALLIANCE AVE.<br />
TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY<br />
HIGHWAY 55<br />
Only One<br />
East West<br />
Connection<br />
Views<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
INTERSTATE 5<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
E. McFADDEN AVE.<br />
Few Access<br />
Points<br />
Good<br />
Access<br />
METROLINK/ RAIL<br />
Railway<br />
Barrier<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Public Comments from Workshop #1<br />
EL CAMINO REAL<br />
• 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>’s population lives in <strong>the</strong> West Village,<br />
and parking and traffic are <strong>the</strong> biggest issue in <strong>the</strong><br />
neighborhood.<br />
• Provide financial mechanisms for improvements.<br />
• Use <strong>the</strong> school as a neighborhood amenity.<br />
• There are insufficient commercial/ shopping<br />
opportunities in <strong>the</strong> West Village.<br />
• Consider converting some private roads into public<br />
roads to improve connectivity.<br />
• Better configuration <strong>of</strong> buildings can free up space<br />
while keeping <strong>the</strong> same level <strong>of</strong> density.<br />
West Village<br />
Neighborhood Concept Plans<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-89<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Neighborhoods Overall Goals<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Increase <strong>the</strong> supply <strong>of</strong> housing.<br />
• xxx • Enrich <strong>the</strong> livability <strong>of</strong> <strong>neighborhoods</strong>.<br />
• xxx • Revitalize commercial uses on arterial streets.<br />
• xxx<br />
• Upgrade <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> street corridors<br />
• xxx and community gateways.<br />
• Create employment opportunities for<br />
residents.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors into<br />
well-defined neighborhood <strong>center</strong>s and/or mixed-use<br />
developments.<br />
• Redirect future development to underutilized and<br />
underperforming sites.<br />
• Expand streetscape improvements along street<br />
corridors.<br />
• Encourage introduction <strong>of</strong> moderate to high density<br />
residential and mixed use development along street<br />
corridors, compatible with <strong>the</strong> adjacent<br />
neighborhood.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Strategies to Achieve Goals<br />
Alternative A<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Encourage construction <strong>of</strong> a greater variety <strong>of</strong><br />
• xxx residential types to accommodate a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
family sizes.<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx • Upgrade and revitalize older residential areas.<br />
• xxx • Improve connectivity in and between<br />
• xxx <strong>neighborhoods</strong>, including provision <strong>of</strong> bike lane<br />
routes.<br />
• Develop additional park and open spaces,<br />
where possible, particularly within <strong>the</strong> West<br />
Village and Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway <strong>neighborhoods</strong>.<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Alternative B<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• Provide <strong>new</strong> park and <strong>new</strong> joint parking for<br />
neighborhood and park use on existing<br />
residential parcels on south side <strong>of</strong><br />
Alliance Street (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Reuse fewer residential parcels for joint<br />
parking for school and neighborhood with<br />
optional <strong>new</strong> residential development<br />
replacing existing residential uses in <strong>the</strong><br />
south side <strong>of</strong> Alliance Street (Alt. B)<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
A-90 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
Key Differences between Alternatives<br />
• Provide <strong>new</strong> park on <strong>the</strong> existing Caltrans<br />
site and renovate <strong>the</strong> existing retail <strong>center</strong> at<br />
<strong>the</strong> corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way and<br />
McFadden Avenue (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Combine both parcels and develop with <strong>new</strong><br />
retail and residential mixed-use (Alt. B)<br />
• Update and renovate mobile home park<br />
areas and do not change <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn end<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way (Alt. A)<br />
OR<br />
• Develop both sites with <strong>new</strong> residential<br />
uses that include <strong>new</strong> public parks and a<br />
<strong>new</strong> east-west street that connects <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Village Way with Williams Street (Alt. B).<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 12 & 13: Existing Conditions<br />
West Village<br />
Key Opportunity Sites<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 12 & 13<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
• Can benefit from traffic on<br />
McFadden and serve as a<br />
gateway to <strong>the</strong> West Village<br />
• Surrounded by existing<br />
residential and commercial<br />
uses<br />
• High visibility from McFadden<br />
Ave and <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
• Efficient parcel shape and size<br />
Opportunity Sites 12 & 13<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
SITE 12:<br />
• Limited visibility from McFadden<br />
traveling east due to overpass<br />
ramp<br />
• Site requires improved access<br />
configuration due to parcel depth<br />
• No direct access from freeway<br />
SITE 13:<br />
• Residential use on west side<br />
requires sensitive site layout and<br />
transitions<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-91<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Opportunity Site 12 & 13<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation<br />
at both sites<br />
• Both sites can serve as a<br />
neighborhood <strong>center</strong> due to<br />
gateway location<br />
• Intensification along<br />
McFadden Avenue and <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Village Way<br />
Opportunity Sites 12 & 13: Alternative A<br />
SITE 12:<br />
• New public open space on<br />
Caltrans parcel<br />
• Upgrade or consolidate<br />
existing commercial retail<br />
<strong>center</strong><br />
SITE 13a:<br />
• Upgrade or renovate<br />
existing commercial use<br />
and add <strong>new</strong> retail use on<br />
vacant site<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 12 & 13: Alternative B<br />
Opportunity Sites 14 & 15: Existing Conditions<br />
SITE 12:<br />
• New mixed-use: retail &<br />
residential (ownership) on<br />
consolidated site<br />
SITE 13a+b:<br />
• Consolidate parcels and<br />
redevelop entire site with<br />
<strong>new</strong> commercial use<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 14 & 15<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
• Central location in <strong>the</strong> West Village<br />
• Sites are adjacent to school and<br />
residential uses<br />
• Sites are fronting on public streets<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
• Future open space can provide<br />
much needed amenity and improve<br />
Alliance Street<br />
• Ideal location for school expansion<br />
• Potential parcel consolidation for<br />
<strong>new</strong> development<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 14 & 15: Alternative A<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
SITE 14:<br />
• Potential <strong>new</strong> park site<br />
• Proposed <strong>new</strong> joint parking<br />
for neighborhood and park<br />
use on <strong>the</strong> west side <strong>of</strong><br />
parcel<br />
SITE 15:<br />
• New school expansion site<br />
adjacent to existing school<br />
A-92 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Opportunity Sites 14 & 15: Alternative B<br />
Opportunity Sites 16 & 17: Existing Conditions<br />
SITE 14:<br />
• Proposed <strong>new</strong> joint parking<br />
for school and<br />
neighborhood use, or<br />
alternatively, <strong>new</strong><br />
neighborhood park<br />
• Upgrade existing or <strong>new</strong><br />
residential use (ownership)<br />
including a small park<br />
SITE 15:<br />
• New school expansion site<br />
adjacent to existing school<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 16 & 17<br />
SITE FEATURES<br />
• Site fronts on Main Street<br />
and Williams Street<br />
• Large, mainly rectangular<br />
shaped parcels<br />
• Site is surrounded by<br />
residential and commercial<br />
uses<br />
• Proximity to existing school<br />
Opportunity Sites 16 & 17<br />
SITE LIMITATIONS<br />
SITE 16:<br />
• Depth <strong>of</strong> parcel requires<br />
additional access streets;<br />
accessible only from two<br />
public streets<br />
SITE 17:<br />
• Depth <strong>of</strong> parcel requires<br />
additional access<br />
streets; accessible only<br />
from Williams Street<br />
• Proximity to freeway<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Opportunity Sites 16 & 17<br />
OPPORTUNITIES<br />
SITE 16:<br />
• High visibility from Main Street<br />
and Williams Street<br />
• Large size <strong>of</strong> parcel allow for<br />
various site layouts<br />
• Opportunity site for additional<br />
small neighborhood retail use<br />
Opportunity Sites 16 & 17: Alternative<br />
SITE 17:<br />
• Adjacent to residential uses<br />
• Site has a protected setting<br />
due to east west orientation<br />
and freeway along <strong>the</strong><br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn boundary<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-93<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
West Village<br />
Discussion <strong>of</strong> Plans & Key Sites<br />
• Which Alternative Plan or part <strong>of</strong> a plan do you<br />
think is best? Why?<br />
• Which Key Site do you think is most important?<br />
• Which alternative for <strong>the</strong> Key Site or for part <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> site do you think is best? Why?<br />
• From <strong>the</strong> Strategies, Plans and Key Sites, what<br />
do you think are <strong>the</strong> one or two most important<br />
actions needed for <strong>the</strong> neighborhood?<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
Next Steps<br />
West Village<br />
Summary and Next Steps<br />
• Prepare Financial Feasibility Analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
Proposed Development Products on Several<br />
Opportunity Sites<br />
• Test Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
Alternatives<br />
• Finalize and Recommend a Preferred Concept<br />
Plan, including Design Guidelines<br />
• Develop Implementation Strategy<br />
Recommendations<br />
• Development <strong>of</strong> General Plan and Zoning<br />
Regulatory Documents by <strong>City</strong> Staff<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY<br />
WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009<br />
A-94 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
A.6.4<br />
WORKSHOP #2 - PUBLIC COMMENTS<br />
<strong>City</strong> Center Neighborhood<br />
1. Comments and Discussion:<br />
• Don’t use setbacks south <strong>of</strong> 6th Street; higher buildings may mitigate <strong>the</strong> noise<br />
• Residential south <strong>of</strong> 6th Street: family housing preference<br />
• Potential connection from El Camino to “B” Street (East – West)<br />
• Alternate access to (N) residential or <strong>of</strong>fice (o<strong>the</strong>r than 6th Street)<br />
2. Which key site is most important?<br />
• #1 and #2 have some flexibility, wait what market proposes > public road doesn’t necessarily<br />
need to be built.<br />
• #1 should be looked at. <strong>City</strong> may have better insight re: property owners<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-95<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
<strong>City</strong> Center<br />
ALTERNATIVE A POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
New Residential<br />
6th Street<br />
Newport/<br />
Orange St.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> High<br />
School<br />
5 South Exit at<br />
Red Hill<br />
El Camino<br />
• Good for Plan A.<br />
• Buildings at <strong>the</strong> sidewalk would<br />
be better than setback from <strong>the</strong><br />
street.<br />
• Like to see residential here.<br />
• Residential ILO <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
• Nice idea for residential across<br />
<strong>the</strong> street. If this occurs, sound<br />
alternative is critical along 6th<br />
Street<br />
Q: Residential for family or adult<br />
living? (6th Street and B Street) Will<br />
you be addressing <strong>the</strong> drainage<br />
systems (maintenance) along 6th<br />
Street?<br />
• Need less stringent building/<br />
parking requirements to<br />
We have existing permits to build/<br />
develop –<br />
encourage redevelopment/ • But city parking ordinance is not<br />
development consolidation <strong>of</strong> update with reality.<br />
current dilapidated multifamily<br />
• Driveway ordinance not realistic<br />
area. Single family lot need<br />
to elevate <strong>of</strong>f street parking.<br />
to be re-zoned to encourage<br />
consolidation.<br />
• Area density development not<br />
consistent.<br />
• Consider extending El Camino<br />
Real to B Street to break up<br />
large residential parcel and<br />
de-intensify traffic (B – 6th – El<br />
Camino)<br />
• Taller residential or <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
buildings on South <strong>of</strong> 6th<br />
would benefit <strong>the</strong> residential by<br />
mitigating freeway noise.<br />
Convert High School to a Magnet<br />
School (-Medical emphasis?) to tie<br />
to Hospital.<br />
Change <strong>center</strong> lane at Red Hill<br />
Freeway exit to right and left turn<br />
lane.<br />
A-96 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
<strong>City</strong> Center<br />
ALTERNATIVE B POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
New Residential<br />
6th Street<br />
El Camino<br />
Striped Areas for<br />
Proposed Change<br />
<strong>of</strong> Use<br />
Upgrade Existing<br />
Residential<br />
Triplexes<br />
Upgrade/<br />
Intensify Existing<br />
Residential<br />
New Retail/Office<br />
Mixed-Use<br />
Upgrade and<br />
Consolidate<br />
Existing<br />
Commercial<br />
• Setback important<br />
• Like <strong>of</strong>fice because no one should<br />
have to live right next to freeway. I<br />
suggest using style compatible with<br />
Old Town.<br />
• Avoid access on 6th Street to protect<br />
neighborhood. Reuse s/o 6th is<br />
good though.<br />
• Residential ILO <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
• Extend El Camino Real to B Street • Consider eliminating spur <strong>of</strong> El<br />
Camino Real and redeveloping area<br />
(buildings or parking) to face onto<br />
remaining part <strong>of</strong> El Camino.<br />
• Who chose <strong>the</strong> striped areas<br />
labeled as Proposed change or<br />
consolidation? When a private entity<br />
comes in and tries to buy up your<br />
property, it is very uncomfortable<br />
– <strong>the</strong>y use a lot <strong>of</strong> pressure and use<br />
<strong>the</strong> city to also apply pressure. This<br />
has already happened on a couple<br />
years back. It is unfair. It is very<br />
threatening if you don’t want to sell.<br />
We still own our property on Kenyon<br />
but <strong>the</strong> buyers tried to strong-arm<br />
and <strong>the</strong>y also go <strong>the</strong> city to support<br />
<strong>the</strong>m.<br />
• 3 single family homes 13781 Orange<br />
St.., 13791 Orange St., Orange and<br />
Walnut NE Corner<br />
• Lower density <strong>of</strong> residential and<br />
remove parking on Main St. Add<br />
traffic signal at corner <strong>of</strong> Bryan and<br />
Main St., - provides better access<br />
from Larwin Square, etc.<br />
• Red Hill is now like a freeway! There<br />
is no place for residents to park!<br />
• Upgrade traffic flow not only for bike<br />
lanes but cars at intersection <strong>of</strong> Red<br />
Hill and El Camino.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-97<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
<strong>City</strong> Center<br />
ALT. A - SITES 1-3 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
• BOC <strong>Tustin</strong> prefers A<br />
• Weed to address “lighting”<br />
ALT. B - SITES 1-3 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
• Think <strong>of</strong> this area as an annex <strong>of</strong> Old<br />
Told concepts<br />
• Both can work but need different<br />
features to protect homes and<br />
encourage pedestrian traffic.<br />
Site 1 and 3 • Like Alternative B for Lots 1 and 3<br />
ALT. A - SITES 4-5 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Site 4<br />
• Why not re-route El Camino Real<br />
and make it straight or close to I-5<br />
freeway?<br />
ALT B - SITES 4-5 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Site 5 •<br />
•<br />
Like Alternative B for Lot 5.<br />
Best for revitalizing<br />
A-98 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway Neighborhood<br />
Discussion and Comments:<br />
• More green and parks (<strong>of</strong>fice development doesn’t provide <strong>the</strong>m) for different residents<br />
• Question <strong>of</strong> “upgrade”<br />
• Incentives in zoning to intensify uses/financial resources may be available<br />
• Traffic concern if Pasadena gets closed (may move traffic to east)<br />
• More study required<br />
• Funding sources? Private development/<strong>City</strong> for streetscape improvements<br />
• Preferred alternative<br />
• Prioritization <strong>of</strong> improvements and identification <strong>of</strong> resources<br />
• Newport Extension top priority, <strong>Tustin</strong> Ranch Road second<br />
• Design 90% done; construction funding still needs to be identified<br />
1) Alternative Plan or Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Plan is Best? Why?<br />
General comments:<br />
• 11a & b combined reduces parking for medical complex, could lead to more parking in<br />
<strong>neighborhoods</strong>, address parking issue (long term care facility doesn’t require as much<br />
parking)<br />
• Kenyon Drive: Owners responsible for maintenance? Up to property owners, potential gated<br />
for security<br />
• How realistic are ideas and improvements?<br />
• Sets up incentives and tone, longer term view (20 years)<br />
Question: Which key site is most important?<br />
• Triangular site (McFadden/Walnut /Newport)<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-99<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
ALTERNATIVE A POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Expansion <strong>of</strong><br />
Youth Center<br />
Pasadena Ave.<br />
Upgrade<br />
Existing<br />
Residential<br />
Myrtle Ave.<br />
Proposed<br />
Widening <strong>of</strong><br />
Newport Ave.<br />
Upgrade<br />
Existing<br />
Commercial<br />
(Newport/<br />
McFadden)<br />
New Retail/<br />
Residential<br />
Mixed-Use<br />
• Like Youth Center away from busy<br />
corner. Like trees on streets.<br />
• Agree Youth Center move -<br />
dangerous on busy corner. Speed<br />
bumps on Carfax and Del Amo<br />
– close to schools. Upgrade medical<br />
<strong>center</strong> and encourage doctor<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices, pharmacy, etc. in adjacent<br />
areas including Newport/Walnut<br />
intersection.<br />
• I like this better than B. Maybe make<br />
it a one-way going north to maintain<br />
access but reduce _____?<br />
• Maybe close Myrtle instead <strong>of</strong><br />
Pasadena to reduce crime.<br />
1.<br />
2.<br />
I think we need more open space<br />
“green areas” for families and kids.<br />
The commercial site (red) will be<br />
better in <strong>the</strong> Youth Center site.<br />
• Move Youth Center – Alternative “B”<br />
• Why not turn <strong>the</strong> Youth Center into<br />
overflow parking for <strong>the</strong> already taxed<br />
parking in <strong>the</strong> area – especially since<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> is removing parking.<br />
• Why is <strong>the</strong>re still a commercial use<br />
here (McFadden & Pasadena)? The<br />
liquor store has an adverse effect<br />
on residential on both sides <strong>of</strong><br />
McFadden.<br />
• When saying an area is to be<br />
upgraded – who determines what<br />
<strong>the</strong> upgrades will be and will this be<br />
forced on <strong>the</strong> owner?<br />
• Focus more specific efforts on<br />
improving Myrtle residential.<br />
• No major arterial from Santa Ana to<br />
north 5/55 Freeways. Also serves<br />
northbound 55 to Santa Ana and<br />
connection to Newport Ave.<br />
• Why widen Newport? <strong>Tustin</strong> has<br />
already widened it by removing <strong>the</strong><br />
parking along <strong>the</strong>re. At <strong>the</strong> expense<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> residents.<br />
• What about access? Let’s not repeat<br />
triangle square.<br />
• We don’t need more retail/<strong>of</strong>fice<br />
space! To promote families, we need<br />
more parks, open spaces. Upgrade<br />
residential not commercial.<br />
• Why add more <strong>of</strong>fice space when<br />
complexes are half empty already?<br />
A-100 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
ALTERNATIVE B POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Potential New<br />
Youth Center Site<br />
Planned Newport<br />
Ave Extension<br />
Consolidate and<br />
Upgrade Existing<br />
Residential<br />
New<br />
Consolidated<br />
Commercial Site<br />
• Like moving Youth Center to <strong>new</strong><br />
location near freeway. More room<br />
<strong>the</strong>re for youth plus park access.<br />
• Moving Family and Youth is a<br />
good idea to allow more space for<br />
commercial <strong>of</strong>fice use.<br />
• Is <strong>the</strong>re street widening to<br />
accommodate bike lanes and<br />
trees? How is increased traffic from<br />
connecting Newport going to be<br />
handled?<br />
• Youth Center proximity to freeway on<br />
ramp is a concern.<br />
• Youth Center causes too much<br />
congestion on <strong>the</strong> busy corner.<br />
• Don’t like moving Youth Center – it is<br />
an expensive option?<br />
• Moving Youth Center too far away<br />
from schools. How will kids get<br />
<strong>the</strong>re?<br />
• Where are <strong>the</strong> Parks? Where can<br />
kids/families play?<br />
• Like streetscape on Sycamore. • Overall lack <strong>of</strong> park space.<br />
Misc. Comments<br />
• Option “B” is better plan.<br />
1. Streetscaping is valuable to<br />
improving area.<br />
2. Continue grants to support upgrades<br />
that o<strong>the</strong>rwise fall to owners <strong>of</strong><br />
multifamily buildings.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-101<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Gateway<br />
KEY OPPORTUNITY<br />
SITES<br />
Area between “B”<br />
Street, McFadden,<br />
55 Freeway and 5<br />
Freeway<br />
POSITIVE<br />
AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
• More parks, please, to help<br />
families living in <strong>the</strong>se various<br />
residential areas. Also, more trees<br />
and greenery.<br />
ALT A SITES 6-7 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative A,<br />
Site 6: Residential Use<br />
(Rental/Ownership)<br />
• Low and middle income housing.<br />
ALT. A - SITES 8-9 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative A,<br />
Site 8: Mixed Use<br />
Retail and Office<br />
• Parking is a BIG problem here. Lot<br />
is sometimes completely full, and<br />
you have to exit onto McFadden,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n turn right on Newport, <strong>the</strong>n<br />
right on Walnut, and right into<br />
<strong>the</strong> back parking lot. Suggest<br />
lowering “shops density” and<br />
replacing with o<strong>the</strong>r use.<br />
ALT B - SITES 10-11 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative B:<br />
New Youth Center<br />
w/ Green Space<br />
• I love <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> a park, plus<br />
vacating <strong>the</strong> striped part <strong>of</strong><br />
Pasadena Avenue and adding <strong>the</strong><br />
east-west street, and moving <strong>the</strong><br />
Youth Center next to <strong>the</strong> park.<br />
Great ideas!<br />
• Key opportunity – adding park and<br />
expanding Youth Center is crucial<br />
to improving this area.<br />
A-102 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
West Village Neighborhood<br />
Discussion and Comments:<br />
• Reduce traffic through area (no additional streets)<br />
• 20 year period: <strong>new</strong> street is good<br />
• Better mix <strong>of</strong> residents<br />
• Financial options for owners?<br />
• Private development with city incentives – no eminent domain<br />
• Make sure that <strong>the</strong>re is a long-term vision<br />
• Why does it take that long?<br />
• Organic, depends on market; start earlier, but develop over time (no “Disneyland”)<br />
1) Alternative Plan or Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Plan is Best? Why?<br />
General comments:<br />
• Commercial sites at McFadden and <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way important – Main entrance; same for<br />
McFadden and Williams.<br />
• West Village needs parks<br />
• Clean up and consistency<br />
• Signs announcing West Village (corners/intersections)<br />
• School traffic issue<br />
• More commercial along Main Street/close to zoo (zoo has unused entrance on Main)<br />
• Incentives for mobile home park to move?<br />
• 20 year plan<br />
• Coordination with Santa Ana?<br />
• Face same issues (density, amenities, recreation)<br />
• Make West Village more part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> (entrance/streetscape)<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-103<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
West Village<br />
ALTERNATIVE A POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Proposed Joint<br />
Parking for<br />
Neighborhood<br />
and Park Use<br />
Potential New<br />
Neighborhood<br />
Park Site<br />
Upgrade/<br />
Consolidate<br />
Existing<br />
Commercial<br />
Retail Center<br />
Overall<br />
Comments:<br />
• I like <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> using this site (<strong>the</strong><br />
Caltrans site) for a park and/or<br />
community garden. Also, <strong>the</strong> linear<br />
park along Alliance.<br />
• Need <strong>new</strong> street in <strong>the</strong> future or near<br />
future.<br />
• Yes to Park on Alliance.<br />
• South Side <strong>of</strong> Alliance : yes to park<br />
• Site 12: good as long as <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
extra parking.<br />
• Alliance: Displaces too many<br />
residents<br />
• Parking, parking, parking, Please!<br />
West Village<br />
ALTERNATIVE B POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
New Street,<br />
Extension <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Village<br />
Way (Subject to<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r Study)<br />
New Retail/<br />
Residential<br />
Mixed-Use<br />
Overall<br />
Comments:<br />
Upgrade Existing<br />
Residential<br />
Triplexes<br />
Upgrade/<br />
Intensify Existing<br />
Residential<br />
• No on <strong>the</strong> road. Open streets create<br />
more unwanted getaways.<br />
• I think that we need more parking to<br />
enjoy <strong>the</strong> Site 12.<br />
• Alternate B would be better for a<br />
longer long-term plan. It would be<br />
costlier but more productive for <strong>the</strong><br />
neighborhood.<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Too much activity may provide too<br />
much criminal activity. No road<br />
extension.<br />
Gang traffic<br />
• 3 single family homes 13781 Orange<br />
St., 13791 Orange St., Orange and<br />
Walnut NE Corner<br />
• Lower density <strong>of</strong> residential and<br />
remove parking on Main St. Add<br />
traffic signal at corner <strong>of</strong> Bryan and<br />
Main St., - provides better access<br />
from Larwin Square, etc.<br />
A-104 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
West Village<br />
ALT A. SITES 12-13 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative A<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Yes to park and parking<br />
Yes to park and upgrades only.<br />
ALT B. SITES 12-13 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative A,<br />
Site 6: Residential Use<br />
(Rental/Ownership)<br />
• Yes to beautify <strong>the</strong> gateway to<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way and McFadden.<br />
ALT A. SITES 14-15 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative A,<br />
Site 8: Mixed Use<br />
Retail and Office<br />
• Yes to park. Ideal place.<br />
• Yes – ano<strong>the</strong>r park and more<br />
parking.<br />
ALT B - SITES 16-17 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN<br />
Alternative B Site 16 •<br />
•<br />
I like <strong>the</strong> street idea.<br />
Remodeled mobile home<br />
parks can be attractions for a<br />
neighborhood.<br />
Alternative B Site 17<br />
• Good idea for <strong>new</strong> street in <strong>the</strong><br />
future.<br />
• Over <strong>the</strong> next two decades, “aging<br />
baby boomers” will be needing<br />
one-story, moderately-priced<br />
homes with small yards. With<br />
this in mind, consider replacing<br />
<strong>the</strong> mobile home park with an<br />
area <strong>of</strong> clustered, small homes<br />
similar to <strong>the</strong> small development<br />
immediately west <strong>of</strong> James<strong>town</strong><br />
Village in Old Town <strong>Tustin</strong>. This<br />
could promote “community” and<br />
would allow residents to have <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own small gardens – flowers or<br />
veggies. Include a small park in<br />
<strong>center</strong>.<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-105<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
A.7 Workshop Attendees<br />
ATTENDEE LIST BY WORKSHOP<br />
PLEASE PRINT:<br />
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
September 28, 2009 6:00 pm<br />
“” Community Outreach Workshop<br />
Name Address E-Mail Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
1 Kurt Christy 12811 Bubbling Well<br />
Santa Ana<br />
2 Darla Cox 17102 Kenyon<br />
3 Cruz, Patsy Cruz 669 c W. 6th<br />
4 Jeff Enes <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
5 Brent Ferdig 140 S. Myrtle, <strong>Tustin</strong> baferdig@earthline.net<br />
6 John Grover <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
7 Jimmy Lin P.O. Box 1321, <strong>Tustin</strong> Flanmonste2000@yahoo.com<br />
8 Addie McHale 5801 6 th Street, <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
9 Nathan Menard 345 W. 6 th St., <strong>Tustin</strong> Nathan.menard@SBCGlobal.net<br />
10 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive, <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
11 John Nielsen <strong>Tustin</strong> Councilmember<br />
12 Henry Palmer <strong>Tustin</strong> yahdib@gmail.com<br />
13 Josh Perez 1081 Bonita Joshperez1@yahoo.com<br />
14 Margaret Quinones 1062 San Juan St., <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
15 Roland Rosado 1062 San Juan St., Apt 2,<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong><br />
16 Jeff Thompson 415 W. 6 th St., <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
(Planning Commission)<br />
17 Ellen Yang 1052 Bonita Eln.yang@cox.net<br />
18 Peter Zappas 700 El Camino Real, <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> Staff:<br />
1 Chris Shingleton <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CM<br />
2 John Buchanan <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
3 Jerry Craig <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
4 Matt West <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
5 Sesar Morfin <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
6 Elizabeth Binsack <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
7 Justina Willkom <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
8 Scott Reekstin <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
9 Pamela Arends-King <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Finance<br />
10 David Wilson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, P & R<br />
11 Doug Stack <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
12 Doug Anderson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
13 Wisam Altowaiji <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
14 Scott Jordan <strong>Tustin</strong> PD<br />
15 Steve Lewis <strong>Tustin</strong> PD slewis@<strong>tustin</strong>ca.org<br />
16 John Strain <strong>Tustin</strong> PD jstrain@<strong>tustin</strong>ca.org<br />
A-106 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
September 29, 2009 6:00 pm<br />
“SOUTHERN GATEWAY” Community Outreach Workshop<br />
PLEASE PRINT:<br />
Name Address E-Mail Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
1-2 Joe and Linda Day 1103 E. Wilson, Orange, CA<br />
3 Patricia Lucero 13841 <strong>Tustin</strong> E. Paty_Lucero@hotmail.com<br />
4-5 Mr. and Mrs. Ferd Cox 17102 Kenyon Drive CoxF@cox.net<br />
6 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive<br />
7 Brian O’Neil 395 Clipper Way Bpo42@yahoo.com<br />
8 John O’Neil 395 Clipper Way<br />
9 Asim Altamimi 2420 Cheney Santamonican@yahoo.com<br />
10 Vincent Rymso (?) gowithpunches@gmail.com<br />
11 Chad Clanton <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
12 Tim O’Neil 1142 Scherer Place<br />
13-14 Joe and Jill Schleifer jschleifer@verizon.net<br />
15-16 Bill and Amy Sokol <strong>Tustin</strong> williamasokol@yahoo.com<br />
17 Jim Minnis P.O. Box 10191, Santa Ana<br />
92711<br />
18 David Miranda 300 S. “C” St., <strong>Tustin</strong> Dmmiranda@<strong>tustin</strong>.k12.ca.us TUSD<br />
19-20 Morrie & Carole<br />
Leban<strong>of</strong>f<br />
45325 Sage, #6, Palm Desert,<br />
92260<br />
21 Gail Goida P.O. Box 17085, Anaheim<br />
92877<br />
gailit@pacbell.net<br />
Property<br />
owner<br />
22 Yavuz Akbulut 1082 San Juan, #E yavuzakbulut@att.net<br />
23-24 John & Peggy Perample 14621 Charloma Dr.<br />
25-26 Gary & Pam<br />
Schoenbachhler<br />
14642 Charloma Dr. semis@pacbell.net<br />
27 Marge Kasalek <strong>Tustin</strong> Planning Commission<br />
1 Chris Shingleton <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CM<br />
2 John Buchanan <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
3 Jerry Craig <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
4 Matt West <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
5 Kimberly McAllen <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
6 Sesar Morfin <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
7 Dana Ogdon <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
8 Pamela Arends-King <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Finance<br />
9 David Wilson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, P & R<br />
10 Chad Clanton <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, P & R<br />
11 Doug Stack <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
12 Doug Anderson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
13 Wisam Altowaiji <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
14 Steve Lewis <strong>Tustin</strong> PD slewis@<strong>tustin</strong>ca.org<br />
15 John Strain <strong>Tustin</strong> PD jstrain@<strong>tustin</strong>ca.org<br />
16 Paul Garaven <strong>Tustin</strong> PD<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-107<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
September 30, 2009 6:00 pm<br />
“WEST VILLAGE” Community Outreach Workshop<br />
PLEASE PRINT:<br />
Name Address E-Mail Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
1 Jerry Amante <strong>Tustin</strong> Mayor Pro Tem<br />
2 Nicole Garcia 16571 Alliance Avenue markvii@apthomes4u.com<br />
3 Patricia Lucero 13841 <strong>Tustin</strong> E. Paty-lucero@hotmail.com<br />
4 Karin Marquez 15701 <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way, #I-7 Kmarquez@jmrc.com T.E.A.M.<br />
5 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive<br />
6 Al Murray <strong>Tustin</strong> Planning<br />
Commissioner<br />
7 Vaunda Myrick 15401 Williams 92780 smyrick@ca.rr<br />
8 John Nielsen <strong>Tustin</strong> Councilmember<br />
9 Ernest Schroeder 2411 E. Coast Hwy, Corona del<br />
Apt owner<br />
Mar<br />
10 Jean Schulte Jms8888@hotmail.com<br />
11-12 Lluevelyn and Jan 3234 Dakota, Costa Mesa 92626 JS52882003@yahoo.com<br />
Smith<br />
13 C. Velarde 15560 <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way Segovia@apthomes4u.com<br />
14 Brenda White 55 Granada, Irvine 92602 bwhite@cerritos.edu<br />
<strong>City</strong> Staff:<br />
1 Lisa Woolery <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CM<br />
2 John Buchanan <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
3 Jerry Craig <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
4 Kimberly McAllen <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
5 Sesar Morfin <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
6 Elizabeth Binsack <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
7 Amy Thomas <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
8 Pamela Arends-King <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Finance<br />
9 David Wilson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, P & R<br />
10 Doug Stack <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
11 Doug Anderson <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
12 Wisam Altowaiji <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
13 Steve Lewis <strong>Tustin</strong> PD<br />
14 Paul Garaven <strong>Tustin</strong> PD<br />
A-108 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
ATTENDEE LIST BY ADDRESS<br />
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
October 6, 2008<br />
Community Outreach Workshops to discuss revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong> in <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Last Name First Name Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
CENTER<br />
CITY<br />
SOUTHRN<br />
GATEWAY<br />
WEST<br />
VILLAGE<br />
Nielsen John X X X X<br />
Leffler Tom 1 Buena Vista X<br />
Opittek Gene 10962 Harrogate Place<br />
X<br />
Santa Ana, CA<br />
Mason Bob 1051 Bonita<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Mason Marel 1051 Bonita<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Giel Tim and Linda 1052-C Walnut St.<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Lynn Dee Dee 1062 Walnut St., #A X<br />
Nunez Celia 1072 Walnut St.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Nunez Margarita 1075 San Juan St.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Hall Janice 1082 E. Main X<br />
Karlen Donna 1101 St. Regis Place<br />
X<br />
Santa Ana, CA 92705<br />
Garceau Nancy 1102-B San Juan<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Teal Lorne 1241 Sycamore Ave.<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Meyer Michele 12562 Ranchwood Rd<br />
X<br />
Santa Ana, CA<br />
Bartolomucci Jim 13432 Cindy Lane<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Groves John 13781 Orange St.<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Rios Sara 13791 Orange St. X<br />
Rios Stella 13791 Orange St. X<br />
Smith Jocelyn 13811 Orange St. Resident X<br />
Gleason Stephen 13811 Orange St. X X<br />
Smith Charles M. 13831 Orange St. X<br />
Kellams Dorothy 1401 San Juan<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Servais Charles 14041 Newport Ave.<br />
X<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Vincent Margaret 14042 Holt Ave<br />
X<br />
Santa Ana, CA<br />
Kanselbaum Marty 14151 Newport Ave, 201A<br />
Prop. X X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
owner<br />
Long Minh Tam 14536 Newport Ave., #2<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
X<br />
1<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-109<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
October 6, 2008<br />
Community Outreach Workshops to discuss revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong> in <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Last Name First Name Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
Chio Thieu 14551 Newport<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Heyer Madeline 14562 Newport Ave., #3<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Wu Beth 14602 Carfax<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Perample Peggy and John 14621 Charloma Dr.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Soltz Sue and Joe 14641 Del Amo<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Schoenbachler Gary and Pam 14642 Charloma Dr.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Brockschmidt Mary 14702 Charloma Dr.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA 92780<br />
Remy David 1471 San Juan X<br />
Zim Teri and Mke 14721 Charloma Dr.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Jackson Mike 14731 Charloma<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Jackson Dale 14731 Charloma Dr.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Myrick Sam 15411 Williams<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Guard Suzanne 15500 Williams<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Adams Phebe 15504-J Williams<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Peltway Jo Ann 15510 Williams, #B<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Claudio Juan 15520 <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Pflug Jim 15642 B St.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Trujillo Sylvia 15730 <strong>Tustin</strong> Village Way<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA (Jewelry Exchange)<br />
Lara Sandra 15742 Williams St.<br />
Valencia Gardens<br />
Landhelm Jim 16522 Alliance<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Lopez Rafael 16526 Alliance Ave.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
CENTER<br />
CITY<br />
SOUTHRN<br />
GATEWAY<br />
X<br />
Tang Gexin 16572 Alliance Ave X<br />
Bradley Randy and Lisa 16572 Montego Way<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
WEST<br />
VILLAGE<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
2<br />
A-110 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
October 6, 2008<br />
Community Outreach Workshops to discuss revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong> in <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Last Name First Name Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
Smith Jim 16602-16606 Alliance<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
CENTER<br />
CITY<br />
SOUTHRN<br />
GATEWAY<br />
Hudson Kim 16619 Montelo Way<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Minnis Jim 17102 McFadden Ave X<br />
Goitier Edgar 18581 Myrtle Ave.<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Streeter John 18836 Oakridge Drive<br />
X<br />
Santa Ana, CA 92705<br />
Cox F. 1932 McClean Dr.<br />
X X<br />
Santa Ana, CA 92705<br />
James Elysse 2006 McGaw Ave.<br />
X X X<br />
Irvine, CA<br />
Schroeder Ernest 2411 E. Coast Hwy, #300<br />
X<br />
Corona Del Mar, CA<br />
Offlelie Joe 3010 Old Ranch<br />
X<br />
Seal Beach, CA 90740<br />
Hill Carol L. 515 South B St.<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Jones Sharon 520 W. Main St. X X X<br />
Kliss Bill 6003 E. Crater Lake<br />
X<br />
Orange, CA<br />
Switzky Roger 6225 S. Allison Circle<br />
X<br />
Orange, CA 92869<br />
Alvarez Suzanne 657-D West 6 th Prop. X<br />
Owner<br />
Bernard John 660 Newport Center, #930<br />
X X<br />
Newport Beach, CA 92660<br />
Zappas Peter 700-A El Camino Real<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Cantrell Jill Greenwood X<br />
Stockstill Mike P.O. Box 51551<br />
X X X<br />
Irvine, CA 92619<br />
Nedza E.A. P.O. Box 5832<br />
Orange, CA 92863<br />
Ehret Mary Ann Pueblo<br />
X<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Nunez Enrique <strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Peria Alfonso <strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Wong Bing <strong>Tustin</strong>, CA<br />
Nunn Jana Valencia Garden Apts X<br />
Chaney Caryl Williamshire HOA X<br />
WEST<br />
VILLAGE<br />
X<br />
3<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
A-111<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS
SIGN IN SHEET<br />
October 6, 2008<br />
Community Outreach Workshops to discuss revitalization <strong>of</strong> three <strong>neighborhoods</strong> in <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Last Name First Name Address INTEREST<br />
GROUP<br />
CENTER<br />
CITY<br />
SOUTHRN<br />
GATEWAY<br />
Breskin Khaya <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> PD X<br />
Jordan Scott <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> PD<br />
Lewis Steve <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong> PD X<br />
Kapadia Reina <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
Meyer Cari <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
Ogdon Dana <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
Swiontek Ryan <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CD<br />
Willkom Justina <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CDD<br />
Bone Lou <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, <strong>City</strong> Council X<br />
Davert Doug <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, <strong>City</strong> Council X X X X<br />
Woolery Lisa <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, CM<br />
Kasalek Marge <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Planning Commission X<br />
Murray Al <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Planning Commission<br />
Thompson Jeff <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Planning Commission X X X<br />
Altowaiji Wisam <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
Anderson Doug <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
Stack Doug <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, PW<br />
Buchanan John <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
Craig Jerry <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
McAllen Kimberly <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
Morfin Sesar <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
West Matt <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, RDA<br />
Wilson Dave <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong>, Parks & Recreation<br />
WEST<br />
VILLAGE<br />
S:\BEYOND THE BASE\Workshop Oct 08\Attend List_by name.doc<br />
4<br />
A-112 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER<br />
MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS<br />
STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
150 CALIFORNIA 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 T. 415 788 6606 F. 415 788 6650 WWW.FIELDPAOLI.COM