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

APPENDIX 

THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF 

TUSTIN TOWN CENTER: 


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 

PREPARED BY 

FIELD PAOLI 

WITH KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES 

AND AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES 

PREPARED FOR 

THE CITY OF TUSTIN 

THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

300 CENTENNIAL WAY 

TUSTIN, CA 92780 

STRATEGIC GUIDE - SEPTEMBER 21, 2010

Table of Contents 

APPENDIX 

A.1 Glossary of Terms 

A.2 Development Thresholds 

A.3 Traffic and Circulation Testing 

A.4 Financial Feasibility Analysis for Key Opportunity Sites 

A.5 Implementation Strategies Exhibits 

A.6 Public Workshops 

A.6.1 Workshop #1 Materials 

A 6.2 Workshop #1 Public Comments 

A 6.3 Workshop #2 Materials 

A 6.4 Workshop #2 Public Comments 

A.7 Workshop Attendees 

A-1 

A-3 

A-8 

A-28 

A-48 

A-62 

A-72 

A-77 

A-95 

A-106 

Additional resource documents associated with the Town Center New Beginnings Project, 

(including copies of community workshop materials, presentations on alternative concept plans, 

and the Refined Market Analysis) are available on-line at the City of Tustin web site (tustinca.org), 

under Redevelopment, What’s New, and the Town Center New Beginnings project. 

STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 

THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER 


v

APPENDIX

A.1 Glossary of Terms 

MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS 

Change of Use: 

Consolidate: 

Infill: 

Intensify: 

Streetscape: 

Changing the land use, intensification of development for a parcel of land, 

or consolidation of parcels. 

A combination of two or more parcels consolidated across existing lot 

lines to form a larger parcel for development. Larger parcels are easier to 

develop and often more efficient in layout than smaller parcels. 

The location of new development within an area with existing 

development. Infill can include renovations, new development, 

intensification of development, consolidation of development, and/or new 

uses on a parcel that is located in a built area. Infill can meet short range to 

long term objectives for revitalization. 

Major improvements at a site that increases the scale and density of 

development. Intensified development can include an increased number of 

dwellings, increased building heights, replacement or alteration of single 

family buildings to accommodate multiple dwelling units, and/or a mix of 

different uses. 

A combination of planting, amenities such as benches, pavement, and 

special visual treatments, which can occur on both sides of streets and 

within medians for the purposes of aesthetics and/or shade. Streetscape 

usually does not include the travel lanes of a street, but can include bicycle 

lanes, on-street parking, and crosswalks. 

MINOR IMPROVEMENTS 

Upgrade/Renovate: Upgrades are short- to mid-term objectives, whereas renovations are 

longer term. Upgrades improve existing building systems, structures 

and private landscaping to a higher standard for minor and moderate 

improvements. Renovations replace old materials with new ones, preferably 

with long lasting and environmental friendly materials (e.g. recycled and 

sustainable materials) 

USE DEFINITIONS 

Institutional: 

Mixed-Use: 

Public Use: 

A designation of land use for private uses such as churches and religious 

purposes, clinics, health facilities, hospitals, and non-profit activities. 

A site that contains buildings with two or more types of land uses (not 

counting parking), even if segregated in separate buildings. 

Any use operated by a governmental agency or school district that 

provides direct services to the public, such as governmental offices, fire 

stations, police stations, schools, and libraries. 

STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER 

A-1 

MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS

Neighborhood Retail Center: 

A Neighborhood Retail Center is typically anchored by a grocery store or 

a drug store. Some of the smaller neighborhood centers may not have 

an anchor tenant and are comprised of shops. Tenants could include a 

coffee house, a nail salon, locally-owned businesses and restaurants. A 

neighborhood center generally ranges in size from 30,000 to 100,000 

square feet, surface parked, adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway, and 

located on three to ten acres. These centers serve populations ranging 

from 3,000 to 40,000 and provide convenience due to the proximity to their 

customer base. 

Anchor Store: 

A large store, such as a grocery store or department store, that is 

prominently located in a shopping center to attract customers who are then 

expected to patronize the other shops in the center. 

Amenity Open Space: 

An open space that is privately owned and maintained as part of a 

development but is accessible to the public . Certain restrictions, such as 

public access times, rules, types of allowed activities, may apply. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

Gross Scheduled Income (GSI): 

The total rental and other income generated by a project before vacancy and operating 

expenses are deducted. 

Net Operating Income (NOI): 

The gross scheduled income generated by a project 

after deducting vacancy and operating expenses but before paying debt service. 

Area Median Income (AMI): 

The midpoint of income distribution within a specific geographic area, whereas, 50% of 

households earn less than the median income and 50% earn more. The U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates AMI levels for different communities 

annually, with adjustments for family size. 

Level of Service (LOS): 

The transportation LOS system uses the letters A through F, with A being best and F being 

worst. The Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 

(“Green Book”) list the following levels of service: 

LOS Traffic Flow 

A= Free flow 

B=Reasonably free flow 

C=Stable flow 

D=Approaching unstable flow 

E=Unstable flow 

F=Forced or breakdown flow 

LOS At-Grade Intersections (Average Vehicle 

Control Delay) 

Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection 

A ≤10 sec ≤10 sec 

B 10-20 sec 10-15 sec 

C 20-35 sec 15-25 sec 

D 35-55 sec 25-35 sec 

E 55-80 sec 35-50 sec 

F ≥80 sec ≥50 sec 

A-2 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER 

MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS 

STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010

A.2 Development Thresholds 

CENTER CITY POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 

Existing Conditions vs. a Comparison of Alternatives 

Site Use Existing 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Summary of 

Opportunity 

Sites 


Other 

Locations in 

the 

Neighborhood 

TOTAL 

Center City 

Lot Size/Acres 

or Sq. Ft. 

DU/FAR 

Concept Plan 

Lot Size/Acres or 

Sq. Ft. 

Difference 

Residential Units 1 - - - 126 TBD 126 

Commercial Office (SF) 1 - - - 67,000 TBD 67,000 

Industrial Area (SF) 251,520 357,105 - - (251,500) 

Commercial Total (SF) 251,520 357,105 0.7 67,000 TBD 

Residential Units - - - 380 380 

Commercial Retail (SF) 119,373 399,969 - 160,000 473,529 40,600 

Commercial Hotel (SF) 16,321 32,290 - - - (16,300) 

Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 15,995 - 16,600 15,995 - 

Industrial Area (SF) 20,000 41,270 - - - (20,000) 

Commercial Total (SF) 172,281 489,524 0.4 176,600 489,524 24,300 



Commercial Retail (SF) 19,201 83,922 - 19,200 83,922 - 

Commercial Total (SF) 19,201 83,922 0.2 19,200 83,922 - 


Commercial Hotel (SF) 21,230 52,708 21,200 52,708 - 


Residential Units - 506 506 

Commercial Retail (SF) 219,706 295,100 75,300 

Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 83,600 67,000 

Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,300) 

Industrial Area (SF) 271,520 - (271,500) 

Commercial Total (SF) 545,364 1,529,306 0.4 399,900 1,172,201 (145,500) 

Residential Units 763 1,113 - 350 

Commercial Retail (SF) 139,111 150,000 - 10,900 

Commercial Office (SF) 55,624 90,000 - 34,400 


Residential Units 763 1,619 856 

Commercial Retail (SF) 2 358,817 445,100 86,300 


Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,400) 

Industrial Area (SF) 271,520 - (271,500) 

Commercial Total (SF) 740,099 2,178,743 0.3 639,900 1,821,638 (100,200) 

1 Originally Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. conducted traffic testing on two Concept Alternatives that proposed either all residential development 

(Alternative A) or all office development (Alternative B) on Opportunity Site #1. The recommended plan would permit either mixed use, a 

combination of residential and office development, or all residential use (287 units). Pursuant to the City's Housing Element, adopted June 16, 2009, 

the site may be required to have a minimum of 126 dwelling units in the event the City is not able to meet State-defined objectives. Factoring in a 

minimum of 126 dwelling units, a maximum of 67,000 square feet of Office Space can be built and still be within the traffic testing results conducted 

by Austin-Foust. 

2 Commercial Retail includes Service Commercial uses as well. 


A-3 


SOUTHERN GATEWAY POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 


Key Sites Use Existing 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 


Opportunity 

Sites 


Other 

Locations in 


Neighborhood 

TOTAL 

Southern Gateway 

Lot Size/Acres or 

Sq. Ft. 

DU/FAR 

Concept Plan 


or Sq. Ft. 

Difference 

Residential Units (DU) 13 1.43 9 175 3.49 162 

Commercial Retail (SF) 1 28,747 75,827 - - - (28,700) 

Commercial Total (SF) 28,747 75,827 0.4 - - (28,700) 

Residential Units (DU) - - - 23 - 23 



Commercial Retail (SF) 26,726 112,514 - 23,600 - (3,100) 

Commercial Office (SF) - - - 23,600 112,514 23,600 


Commercial Retail (SF) 41,140 170,319 - 34,300 - (6,800) 

Commercial Office (SF) - - - 34,300 170,319 34,300 


Residential Units (DU) 164 7.20 23 186 7.20 22 

Public/Youth Center (SF) - - - 12,000 104,544 6,000 

Commercial Total (SF) - - - - - - 


Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 23,086 - - - - 


Residential Units (DU) 177 384 207 

Commercial Retail (SF) 111,217 109,000 (2,100) 

Commercial Office (SF) - 57,900 57,900 

Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 12,000 6,000 


Residential Units (DU) 1,854 2,209 355 

Commercial Retail (SF) 106,194 130,000 - 23,800 

Commercial Office (SF) 75,000 215,000 - 140,000 



Commercial Retail (SF) 2 217,411 239,000 21,600 


Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 12,000 6,000 

Commercial Total (SF) 292,411 1,257,057 0.2 511,900 1,204,316 219,500 

1 75,827 is the combined square footage of parcels: 402-371-35; 402-371-37; and 402-371-38. 28,747 square feet of existing is 

an estimate, based on a total of 32,263 sq. ft. less 3,516 sq. ft. Carl's Jr. 





WEST VILLAGE POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 


Key Sites Use Existing 

West Village 


or Sq. Ft. 

DU/FAR 

Concept Plan 


or Sq. Ft. 

Difference 

Residential Units (DU) - - - 210 210 

12 Commercial Retail (SF) 42,890 176,694 - 50,000 262,026 7,100 


13 



14 Residential Units (DU) 44 1.71 26 24 0.95 (20) 

15 Residential Units (DU) 4 0.29 14 - - (4) 

Residential Units (DU) 1 164 18.35 9 240 18.35 76 

16 Commercial Retail (SF) - - - 6,000 24,000 6,000 

Commercial Total (SF) - - - 6,000 24,000 6,000 

17 Residential Units (DU) 1 188 18.43 10 276 18.43 88 


Opportunity 

Sites 

Residential Units (DU) 400 751 351 

Commercial Retail (SF) 48,321 71,100 22,800 

Commercial Total (SF) 48,321 214,334 71,100 323,666 22,800 


Other Residential Units (DU) 2,396 2,396 0 

Locations in 


Commercial Retail (SF) 20,627 20,600 0 

Neighborhood Commercial Total (SF) 20,627 97,906 0.2 20,600 97,906 0 


TOTAL Commercial Retail (SF) 2 68,948 91,700 22,800 


1 The number of units was calculated by multiplying (dwelling units/acre) x (75% of the total acreage), recognizing 

redevelopment will necessitate development of internal streets and parks on each site. 



A-5 


TOWN CENTER NEW BEGINNINGS CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 

Existing Conditions vs a Comparison of Alternatives 


Southern 

Gateway 

West 

Village 

Neighborhood 

Key Opportunity Sites 

Other Opportunities 

TOTAL 



TOTAL 



TOTAL 

TOTAL 



Use 

Existing 

Conditions 

Alternative A 

Changes Over 

Existing (+/-) 

Alternative B 

Changes Over 

Existing (+/-) 

KMA 

Absorption- 

Low 2008- 

2030 

KMA 

Absorption- 

High 2008- 

2030 

Residential (DU) 0 506 506 376 376 

Commercial Retail (SF) 219,706 295,100 75,300 234,200 14,400 

Commercial Office (SF) 16,587 83,600 67,000 755,000 738,400 

Commercial Hotel (SF) 37,551 21,200 (16,300) 0 (37,500) 

Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500) 

Residential (DU) 763 1,113 350 1,238 475 



Residential (DU) 763 1,619 856 1,614 851 




Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500) 

Commercial Total (SF) 740,099 639,900 (100,200) 1,249,200 509,100 

Residential (DU) (Alt A) 127 378 251 

Residential (DU) (Alt B) 177 384 207 

Commercial Retail (SF) 111,217 79,700 (31,400) 109,000 (2,100) 

Commercial Office (SF) 0 23,600 23,600 57,900 57,900 

Public/Youth Center (SF) 6,008 11,700 5,700 12,000 6,000 

Residential (DU) (Alt A) 1,904 2,170 266 2,259 355 

Residential (DU) (Alt B) 1,854 2,120 266 2,209 355 





Commercial Retail (SF) 217,411 204,700 (12,700) 239,000 21,600 




Residential (DU) 400 524 124 751 351 


Residential (DU) 2,396 2,396 0 2,396 0 

Commercial Retail (SF) 20,627 20,600 0 20,600 0 

Residential (DU) 2,796 2,920 124 3,147 351 



Residential (DU) (Alt A) 527 1,408 881 1,127 600 

Residential (DU) (Alt B) 577 1,030 453 1,511 934 





Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,520) 

Commercial Total (SF) 704,902 559,200 (145,700) 1,227,200 522,298 

Residential (DU) (Alt A) 5,063 5,679 616 5,893 830 





Residential (DU) (Alt A) 5,590 7,087 1,497 7,398 1,808 

Residential (DU) (Alt B) 5,590 7,043 1,453 7,354 1,764 

761 1,141 

Commercial Retail (SF) 1 645,176 726,400 81,200 719,900 74,700 26,400 66,000 

Commercial Office (SF) 147,211 397,200 250,000 1,132,900 985,700 352,000 704,000 



Industrial (SF) 271,520 0 (271,500) 0 (271,500) 

Commercial Total (SF) 1,101,458 1,144,800 43,300 1,852,800 751,300 





OPPORTUNITY SITES - COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 

FPA Neighborhood Concept 

Plans 

City Chart of Development 

Thresholds 

Protypical Testing (FPA) and 

Financial Feasibility Analysis 

(KMA) 

Center City - Opportunity Site 3 

Alternative A 

Comm. Retail (sf) No change/ Upgrade Existing 41,800 41,800 

FAR 0.3 0.3 

Residential 

DU/ac 

Alternative B 

Comm. Retail (sf) 25,000 20,000 

Comm. Office (sf) 45,000 40,000 

Total Commercial Office/ Retail (sf) 98,400 70,000 60,000 

FAR 0.8* 0.5 0.4 

Residential (DU) 

DU/ac 

Southern Gateway - Opportunity Site 9 

Alternative A 


FAR 0.2 0.2 

Residential 

DU/ac 

Alternative B 

Comm. Retail (sf) 34,300 34,000 

Comm. Office (sf) 34,300 34,000 


FAR 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Residential (DU) 

DU/ac 

West Village - Opportunity Site 12 

Alternative A 


FAR 0.2 0.2 

Residential 

DU/ac 

Alternative B 

Comm. Retail (sf) 30,000 50,000 41,000 

Comm. Office (sf) 


FAR 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Residential (DU) 168 210 40 

DU/ac 37 TBD 7 

Note: Different site size FPA vs. City 


A-7 


A.3 Traffic and Circulation Testing 

This report presents a preliminary traffic evaluation of potential new development in three 

neighborhood study areas in the City of Tustin referred to as Center City, Southern Gateway and 

West Village (see Figures 1 through 3). The traffic evaluation includes a preliminary qualitative 

analysis of the implications of two land use alternatives (Alternatives A and B) with changes 

in roadway circulation in select neighborhood areas and the potential impacts under existing 

conditions. The three defined neighborhood areas are evaluated separately. It should be noted 

that while there are two land use alternatives in each neighborhood area of the Tustin Town Center, 

a number of combinations of alternatives both land use and circulation (i.e., Neighborhood Plan) 

could actually be paired that would affect the final development plan. 

ANALYSIS SCOPE 

The land use and trip generation for each neighborhood area will first be summarized along 

with information on any changes in circulation associated with the land use alternatives for each 

neighborhood. Next, available existing count data (average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and 

peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values) taken from various sources for the key 

roadways and intersections evaluated will be presented. Lastly, the potential traffic impacts will 

be discussed on the circulation system under existing conditions with potential hot spots/critical 

locations identified that would require further and more detailed analysis at a later date. 

Hot spot locations can be identified in three ways in this report. First, hot spot locations are those 

locations that are likely impacted due to the project as defined by significance criteria and carried 

out in a quantitative analysis. Second, in addition to a more detailed analysis at a later date that 

would involve the use of the ICU methodology to determine project impact, certain areas will 

require a special traffic operations analysis. Those areas are designated as “Traffic Operations 

Hot Spots” and are locations where the standard ICU procedure does not fully depict the actual 

traffic characteristics. It should be noted that the ICU method of calculating the volume-tocapacity 

ratio of an intersection assumes isolated intersections and does not reflect any queuing 

of vehicles that may occur between intersections of close proximity. An example of this close 

proximity effect occurs on Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at the I-5 interchange and the 

adjacent intersections. Because of the closely spaced intersections, actual traffic conditions tend 

to be somewhat congested during peak periods even though the ICU values indicate adequate 

levels of service. Locations considered “hot spots” can also be sections of roadway where closely 

spaced intersections or side friction caused by numerous driveways degrade the performance 

of the roadway compared to its theoretical carrying capacity (referred to as Operations Hot 

Spot). Third, “hot spots” can be intersections or sections of roadway that cannot be improved 

to their full standard because of limited space due to right-of-way or other physical constraints 

(referred to as Space Constrained Hot Spot). Space constrained hot spots can reach a V/C of 

1.00 (rather than a threshold of .90) in recognition of the limitations involved in making physical 

improvements. 

In the future with a more detailed study, a set of performance criteria will be utilized to identify 

future level of service deficiencies on the study area circulation system and also to define impacts 

and peak hour ICU values of significance. Traffic LOS is designated “A” through “F” with LOS 

“A” representing free flow conditions and LOS “F” representing severe traffic congestion. The 

intersection criteria involve the use of peak hour ICU values. The ICU ranges that correspond to 

LOS “A” through “F” are presented in Table 1. By practice, the ICU methodology assumes that 

intersections are signalized. LOS “D” (ICU not to exceed .90) is the performance standard for the 

intersections in the City of Tustin. 




Table 1 

LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 

Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms of either average control delay 

that is measured in seconds (HCM methodology) or intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values as follows: 

Average 

LOS Description Delay (sec) 1 ICU 2 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

LOS “A” describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per 

vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and 

most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at 

all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. 

LOS “B” describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 

20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, 

short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS “A,” causing 

higher levels of delay. 

LOS “C” describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 

35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair 

progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may 

begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase 

does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of 

vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through 

the intersection without stopping. 

LOS “D” describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 

55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS “D,” the influence of congestion becomes 

more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of 

unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many 

vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. 

Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 

LOS “E” describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 

80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor 

progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle 

failures are frequent. 

LOS “F” describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds 

per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often 

occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the 

capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many 

individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also 

contribute significantly to high delay levels. 

10.0 .60 

10.1 – 20.0 .61 - .70 

20.1 – 35.0 .71 - .80 

35.1 – 55.0 .81 - .90 

55.1 – 80.0 .91 – 1.00 

> 80.0 > 1.00 

1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 

2 Source: Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). 


A-9 


LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION 

The land uses and trip generation for each neighborhood area and alternatives illustrated in 

Figures 4 through 9 are summarized in Tables 2 through 4. The highest Alternative A increase 

over existing, by approximately 35%, occurs in Center City whereas Southern Gateway and 

West Village proposed land use changes increase around 20% and 5%, respectively. The trips 

generated by the land uses assumed in Alternative A for any neighborhood area indicate that 

it is less intense than Alternative B by as much as 15% on a daily basis as in the case in Center 

City. Alternative B can be intense by as much as 51% compared to existing and 29% and 15% in 

Southern Gateway and West Village, respectively. There are three neighborhood areas (Center 

City, Southern Gateway, and West Village) each with two circulation plans that are referred to in this 

report as Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) and two land use alternatives (Alternatives 

A and B). The traffic evaluation carried out here for worse-case evaluation purposes uses the land 

use alternative with the highest trip generation (Alternative B) for each Neighborhood Plan under 

existing conditions in each of the Neighborhood Areas. However, it is likely the final development 

plan for Tustin Town Center will be a combination of circulation (such as Neighborhood Plan) and 

land use alternatives for each Neighborhood Area presented in Figures 4 through 9 and Tables 

2 through 4. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Figure 10 presents the circulation system within the study area. The existing ADT volumes 

are illustrated in Figure 11 and the select key intersections evaluated are shown in Figure 12. 

Drivers are more likely to perceive traffic problem at intersections rather than roadway segments, 

therefore the performance of intersections using peak hour data is the main emphasis of the 

evaluation given here. The ICU values for these intersections are summarized in Table 5. As can 

be seen here, all intersections are operating better than the acceptable level of service “D” (ICU 

= .90) with LOS “C” or better (ICU = .80 or below). The worst performing intersection with a PM 

peak hour ICU of .71 under existing conditions is Pasadena Avenue at McFadden Avenue. 

Future conditions that are not analyzed here but could affect travel patterns include the extension 

of Newport Avenue from just south of Sycamore Avenue to Edinger Avenue which will particularly 

affect traffic on Newport Avenue in the Southern Gateway. To what extent will be the subject of 

further study at a later date. 




CENTER CITY TRAFFIC EVALUATION 

For the Center City Neighborhood Area, a traffic evaluation was carried out for the two 

Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) on existing conditions assuming the vacation of El 

Camino Way south of El Camino Real. The intensity of land use Alternative A for Center City 

is only 32% in the AM peak hour and Alternative B slightly more than doubles in the AM peak 

hour compared to existing. The doubling of trips will likely trigger significant impacts to the 

intersections analyzed in this area even though they are currently operating at most LOS “B.” 

Any land use combination selected will likely cause adverse traffic operation hot spots in the 

area if the trip generation is higher than land use Alternative A. In addition, there are operational 

issues that will need to be addressed by both land use alternatives which are discussed in the 

next paragraph regarding operations hot spots. 

The potential operations hot spots that will occur in either land use Alternative A or B in the 

Center City Neighborhood are the I-5 interchange ramps and El Camino Real intersections 

along Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. With a high level of service of LOS “B” at the 

intersection El Camino Real and Newport Avenue there are no capacity issues expected in the 

neighborhood assuming LOS “D” as being acceptable. However, there are potential operational 

issues at intersections that could occur during the peak hour. The movement most affected by 

project traffic is the left-turn at Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue going away from the I-5 

Freeway at the intersection with El Camino Real. Currently a challenge today due to the closely 

spaced intersections, the left- turn lane on Newport Avenue to El Camino Real currently cannot 

accommodate the existing left-turn volume of 247 vehicles in the PM peak hour with a pocket 

of approximately 125 feet. To properly store the left-turning vehicles without impeding through 

traffic, a pocket length of 250 feet is required to accommodate the volume which cannot be 

CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING 


A-11 


CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A 

CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B 




Table 2 

TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – CENTER CITY LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 

AM Peak Hour 

PM Peak Hour 

Land Use Amount/Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT 

Trip Rates 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65 

2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) TSF .61 .39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 42.94 

3. Office (ITE 8th 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01 

4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) Room .16 .29 .45 .25 .22 .47 5.63 

6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) TSF .81 .11 .92 .12 .85 .97 6.97 

Existing 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 763 DU 76 313 389 305 168 473 5,074 

2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 358.82 TSF 219 140 359 657 682 1,339 15,408 

3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 72.21 TSF 98 14 112 18 90 108 795 

4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 230 Room 37 67 104 58 51 109 1,295 

6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) 271.52 TSF 220 30 250 33 231 264 1,892 

TOTAL 650 564 1,214 1,071 1,222 2,293 24,464 

Alternative A 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,780 DU 178 730 908 712 392 1,104 11,837 


3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 106.6 TSF 145 20 165 27 132 159 1,174 

4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 177 Room 28 51 79 44 39 83 997 

TOTAL 623 975 1,598 1,598 1,409 3,007 33,121 

Changes over existing -27 411 384 527 187 714 8,657 

% changes over existing -4.2% 72.9% 31.6% 49.2% 15.3% 31.1% 35.4% 

Alternative B 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,614 DU 161 662 823 646 355 1,001 10,733 


3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 860 TSF 1,170 163 1,333 215 1,066 1,281 9,469 

TOTAL 1,568 977 2,545 1,573 2,160 3,733 36,914 

Changes over existing 918 413 1,331 502 938 1,440 12,450 

% changes over existing 141.2% 73.2% 109.6% 46.9% 76.8% 62.8% 50.9% 

Abbreviations: 

ADT – average daily trips 

DU – dwelling unit 

ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual – Eighth Edition (2008) 

achieved because of the close proximity to the I-5 northbound on-ramp. The same movement 

on Red Hill Avenue at El Camino Real presents more of a challenge even with two left-turn lanes 

because of the signals at the I-5 northbound ramp intersection that are approximately 130 feet 

away. Although no data is available to make a definite determination, the office in Alternative 

B will likely create a hot spot at El Camino Real/Sixth Street intersection with a potential need 

to improve/provide northbound left on El Camino Real and eastbound right on Sixth Street. 

Should office be desirable the intensity of other land uses in the area would need to be reduced 

accordingly so that overall trip generation is less than Alternative A. 

A proposed vacation of El Camino Way is identified under Neighborhood Plan Alternatives A and 

B. The vacation would not be an issue provided the current access is not completely eliminated 

and is relocated and other access driveways are built and/or modified. 


A-13 


SOUTHERN GATEWAY TRAFFIC EVALUATION 

In Southern Gateway, On an average daily trip basis the intensity of land uses over existing 

for land use Alternative B increases by as much as 29% with more residential, retail and office 

uses and 20% for land use Alternative A with additional residential and office uses. The ADT 

generated by land use Alternatives A and B, 28,464 and 30,786, are not that different and would 

result in moderate increases in traffic therefore the focus of the evaluation here will be on the 

circulation alternative (i.e., Neighborhood Plan Alternative A or B). Any land use combination 

selected will not likely cause adverse impacts provided the trip generation are not higher than 

land use Alternative B. 

With the absence of data, no definite determination can be made but it is likely that the change 

of retail to residential (even if mixed-use) in the northernmost portion of Neighborhood Plan 

Alternative A will impact Newport Avenue at Mitchell Avenue intersection and Newport Avenue 

at the I-5 southbound off-ramp intersection particularly during the PM peak hour which today has 

a high right-turning volume from the freeway ramp. Additional trips from both Center City and 

Southern Gateway will be contributing to this ramp intersection. 

Neighborhood Plan Alternative A in the southernmost portion of Southern Gateway includes a 

proposal to either cul-de-sac or partially close the southern portion of Pasadena Avenue where 

it currently connects to the Sycamore Avenue ramp to the SR-55 Freeway, and the potential 

vacation of Bliss Lane and Altadena Drive west of Pasadena Avenue. The potential vacation of 

Bliss Lane and western portion of Altadena Drive in the event that lot consolidation is possible 

will pose no significant traffic impacts as these are local serving roadways. In addition, the 

effect of potentially severing the connection of Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue would 

SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING 




SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A 

SOUTHERN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B 


A-15 


add additional traffic at the intersections of Newport Avenue at Walnut Avenue and Walnut 

Avenue at McFadden Avenue but no capacity issues are expected since the current LOS at these 

intersections is “A.” It is likely that with Alternative A and an increase of around 20% daily trips in 

the area due to the land use changes as well as closure of Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 

that the intersection with the highest existing LOS (LOS “C”), Pasadena Avenue at McFadden 

Avenue, may experience higher LOS due to additional through traffic along McFadden Avenue. 

The addition of residential units and increase in traffic along Newport Avenue due to increased 

land use intensity and the closure of Pasadena Avenue may trigger the need for signals at the 

current Myrtle Avenue/Newport Avenue intersection. However, Altadena Drive and Myrtle Drive 

within the Southern Gateway are internal and narrow neighborhood streets that are expected to 

be slow speed and therefore would not be conducive to through traffic. 

Neighborhood Plan Alternative B includes a proposal to potentially add a new east-west 

street between Pasadena Avenue and Newport Avenue north of Altadena Drive and the 

potential vacation of Altadena Drive, Bliss Lane, Pasadena Avenue south of Altadena Drive, 

and Myrtle Avenue south of the new street if lot consolidations occur. There are currently no 

capacity issues with the highest level of service of LOS “C” in the PM peak hour at Pasadena 

Avenue and McFadden Avenue intersection. The same concerns/issues that were discussed in 

Neighborhood Plan Alternative A apply for Alternative B. Instead of signals needed at Newport 

Avenue and Myrtle Avenue, which is vacated in Alternative B, the signals could be warranted at 

the new potential east-west road at Newport Avenue. However, a more direct connection such as 

provided by the new east-west road from Pasadena Avenue to Newport Avenue could potentially 

attract through traffic in the neighborhood especially by vehicles that are from to/from the SR- 

55 northbound ramps at Sycamore Avenue or southern parts of Tustin if the southern portion of 

Pasadena Avenue was potentially closed or vacated. 

No significant traffic impacts are expected with the proposed location of the youth center in both 

Neighborhood Plan Alternatives A and B except for the possibility of a new signal which may be 

warranted at the new intersection of Newport Avenue at Myrtle Avenue (Alternative A) or the 

new east-west road (Alternative B). In addition, if under either alternative the proposed vacation 

of Pasadena Avenue to Sycamore Avenue is pursued by the City, the City will need to work with 

Caltrans to provide proper signage in order to inform drivers of the new route to/from the SR-55 

northbound ramps. 




Table 3 

TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – SOUTHERN GATEWAY LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 

AM Peak Hour 

PM Peak Hour 


Trip Rates 



3. Office (ITE 8th 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01 

5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) TSF .99 .63 1.62 .54 .91 1.45 22.88 

Existing 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,031 DU 203 833 1,036 812 447 1,259 13,506 

2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 217.41 TSF 133 85 218 398 413 811 9,336 

3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 75 TSF 102 14 116 19 93 112 826 

5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 6.01 TSF 6 4 10 3 5 8 137 

TOTAL 444 936 1,380 1,232 958 2,190 23,805 

Alternative A 

1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 2,548 DU 255 1,045 1,300 1,019 561 1,580 16,944 



5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 11.7 TSF 12 7 19 6 11 17 268 

TOTAL 696 1,174 1,870 1,456 1,238 2,694 28,464 

Changes over existing 252 238 490 224 280 504 4,659 


Alternative B 


2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 239 TSF 146 93 239 437 454 891 10,263 


5. Public/Youth Ctr (ITE 8th 495) 12 TSF 12 8 20 6 11 17 275 

TOTAL 788 1,216 2,004 1,548 1,373 2,921 30,786 








A-17 


WEST VILLAGE TRAFFIC EVALUATION 

A traffic evaluation was carried out for the two Neighborhood Plans (Alternatives A and B) on 

existing conditions for West Village. Neighborhood Plan Alternative A assumes the existing 

circulation system and Neighborhood Plan Alternative B includes a proposal to extend Tustin 

Village Way through a current private street to a new east-west street between Williams Street and 

Tustin Village Way running parallel to Alliance Avenue. Similar to the other neighborhoods, there 

are currently no capacity issues (i.e., intersection is not expected to be higher than the acceptable 

level of service of LOS “D”) with the highest level of service of LOS “B” at Tustin Village Way 

and McFadden Avenue intersection. Also out of the three neighborhoods proposed for changes, 

West Village has the least intense proposal with an increase in intensity of 15% in ADT assuming 

the higher trip generating land use Alternative B with slight increases of retail and residential 

compared to existing. The increase in ADT of 1,153 for Alternative A and 3,312 for Alternative B 

would add a low amount of traffic in the neighborhood area that could likely be accommodated 

by the existing circulation or Neighborhood Plan Alternative B circulation changes. Any land 

use/circulation combination not generating more trips than land use Alternative B will likely have 

no adverse impacts. 

No capacity issues are expected in both Neighborhood Plan alternatives, especially with the 

addition of an east-west road parallel to Alliance Avenue. A likely benefit for the area under 

Neighborhood Plan Alternative B is less local traffic using Williams Street due to the new eastwest 

road that would provide a route to Tustin Village Way that runs parallel to Williams Street. 

WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - EXISTING 




WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A 

WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B 


A-19 


Nevertheless, a potential hot spot that may need to be improved would likely be at the intersection 

of Tustin Village Way and McFadden Avenue because of additional traffic that is expected from 

the proposed land uses of either alternative as well as changes to Southern Gateway and the 

proximity to the SR-55 Bridge. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Table 4 

TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – WEST VILLAGE LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 

AM Peak Hour 

PM Peak Hour 


Trip Rates 



Existing 



TOTAL 322 1,173 1,495 1,244 746 1,990 21,554 

Alternative A 



TOTAL 339 1,227 1,566 1,308 788 2,096 22,707 



Alternative B 



TOTAL 371 1,326 1,697 1,427 866 2,293 24,866 







With the exception of the highly intense land use Alternative B in Center City, any combination 

of the proposed Tustin Town Center land uses and circulation (i.e., Neighborhood Plans) are not 

expected to have any significant traffic impacts in the immediate surrounding area provided 

the resulting trip generation is not higher than presented in each Neighborhood Area (land use 

Alternative A in Center City, and land use Alternative B in Southern Gateway and West Village). 

However, the following are potential hot spots mainly dealing with operational issues at certain 

intersections that would need to be monitored and addressed (i.e., lane or signal operation 

improvements, if possible) as each neighborhood plan is developed: 





Newport Avenue at El Camino Real, I-5 Northbound Ramps and I-5 Southbound Ramps – Physical 

constraints due to the close proximity of the I-5 northbound on-ramp would limit improvements 

needed to accommodate additional traffic on the northbound left turn on Newport Avenue (e.g. 

a second northbound left-turn on Newport Avenue at El Camino Real). 

Red Hill Avenue at El Camino Real, I-5 Northbound Ramps and I-5 Southbound Ramps – Physical 

constraints due to the close proximity of the I-5 northbound on-ramp intersection would limit 

improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic on Red Hill Avenue (e.g. longer pocket 

for the dual northbound left-turn lanes on Red Hill Avenue). 

El Camino Real and Sixth Street – Office use in Alternative B will likely cause a need to improve 

El Camino Real at Sixth Street (e.g. provide a separate northbound left-turn on El Camino Real 

or separate eastbound left-turn on Sixth Street or change signals at intersection to allow north/ 

south and east/west split phase). 


Newport Avenue at Mitchell Avenue and I-5 Southbound Ramps – The change of retail to 

residential (even if mixed-use) in the northernmost portion of Neighborhood Plan Alternative A 

will add traffic that has different a directionality in the peak hours. The I-5 southbound off-ramp 

in particular will be affected in the PM peak hour, with homebound residential trips adding to an 

already high right-turning volume from the freeway ramp. Additional trips from both Center City 

and Southern Gateway will be contributing to this ramp intersection. 

McFadden Avenue at Pasadena Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, Newport Avenue – Additional traffic 

that is rerouted due to closure/vacation of Pasadena Avenue at Sycamore Avenue in both 

Neighborhood Plan alternatives could require lane/signal operation improvements or addition 

of signals in the case of Myrtle Avenue and McFadden Avenue intersection. 

Newport Avenue at Myrtle Avenue – This is likely to meet signal warrants due to closure of Pasadena 

Avenue at Sycamore Avenue, additional land uses and lot consolidation in Neighborhood Plan 

Alternative A. 

Newport Avenue at New East-West Road – This is likely to meet signal warrants due to the 

closure of Pasadena Avenue at Sycamore Avenue, additional land uses and lot consolidation in 

Neighborhood Plan Alternative B. 

West Village 

Tustin Village Way and McFadden Avenue – This may need to be improved due to additional 

traffic from West Village and Southern Gateway and close proximity to the SR-55 Bridge. 


A-21 


TUSTIN TOWN CENTER CIRCULATION SYSTEM 

EXISTING ADT VOLUMES 




INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP 

EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY 

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Date or 

Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) ICU LOS ICU LOS Source 

1. El Camino Real & Newport .67 B .61 B 10/1/09 

2. Newport & I-5 NB Ramps .44 A .49 A IBC 

3. Newport & I-5 SB Ramps .48 A .62 B IBC 

4. Red Hill & El Camino Real .54 A .56 A 6/10/09 

5. Red Hill & I-5 NB Ramps .60 A .55 A 6/14, 6/15/05 

6. Red Hill & I-5 SB Ramps .62 B .59 A IBC 

7. Pasadena & McFadden .61 B .71 C 9/13,9/14/06 

8. Walnut & McFadden .41 A .38 A 2005 

9. Newport & McFadden .64 B .39 A 5/8/07 

10. Newport & Walnut .58 A .59 A 4/4/06 

11. Newport & Sycamore .48 A .46 A 1/24/07 

12. Tustin Village & McFadden .62 B .60 A 2005 

13. Williams & McFadden .51 A .54 A 2005 

14. Williams & Main .44 A .41 A 12/10, 12/9/09 

Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A 

.61 - .70 B 

.71 - .80 C 

.81 - .90 D 

.91 – 1.00 E 

Above 1.00 F 

Abbreviations: IBC – Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Traffic Study, 2009 

ICU – intersection capacity utilization 

LOS – level of service 

NB – northbound 

N/S Rd at E/W Rd – North/South Road at East/West Road 

SB – southbound 


A-23 


1. El Camino Real & Newport (10/1/09) 2. Newport & I-5 NB Ramps (IBC) 

 

Existing Counts Existing Counts 

 

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 

 

NBL 1 1700 311 .18* 242 .14* NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 309 .18* 

NBT 2 3400 213 .09 349 .15 NBT 3 5100 1014 .20 1514 .30 

NBR 0 0 100 157 NBR 0 0 0 0 

 

SBL 1 1700 12 .01 45 .03 SBL 0 0 0 0 

SBT 1 1700 86 .05* 161 .09* SBT 3 5100 1343 .26* 1002 .20* 

SBR 1 1700 241 .14 237 .14 SBR 1 1700 411 .24 434 .26 

 

EBL 1 1700 156 .09* 247 .15* EBL 0 0 0 0 

EBT 3 5100 598 .15 990 .23 EBT 0 0 0 0 

EBR 0 0 181 198 EBR 0 0 0 0 

 

WBL 1 1700 74 .04 143 .08 WBL 0 0 0 0 

WBT 3 5100 1412 .28* 906 .18* WBT 0 0 0 0 

WBR 0 0 18 28 WBR 0 0 0 0 

 

Right Turn Adjustment SBR .02* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .06* 

Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 

 

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .49 

3. Newport & I-5 SB Ramps (IBC) 4. Red Hill & El Camino Real (6/10/09) 

 


 



 

NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 2 3400 260 .08* 330 .10* 

NBT 3 5100 860 .17* 1191 .23* NBT 3 5100 632 .12 1223 .24 

NBR 1 1700 63 .04 61 .04 NBR 1 1700 164 .10 288 .17 

 

SBL 1 1700 176 .10* 223 .13* SBL 1 1700 15 .01 18 .01 

SBT 3 5100 1094 .21 861 .17 SBT 3 5100 1066 .22* 734 .16* 

SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 69 94 

 

EBL 1.5 369 415 EBL 1 1700 37 .02 78 .05 

EBT 0.5 3400 77 .13* 54 .14* EBT 1 1700 68 .04* 201 .12* 

EBR 1 1700 326 .19 531 .31 EBR 1 1700 145 .09 207 .12 

 

WBL 1 1700 29 .02* 67 .04* WBL 1 1700 252 .15* 221 .13* 

WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 144 .09 279 .18 

WBR 1 1700 110 .06 183 .11 WBR 0 0 14 29 

 

Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* EBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 

Clearance Interval .05* .05* 

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .56 


26 Tustin Town Center 1180.001 2/10 




5. Red Hill & I-5 NB Ramps (6/14 & 6/15/05) 6. Red Hill & I-5 SB Ramps (IBC) 

 


 



 

NBL 1 1700 287 .17* 309 .18* NBL 0 0 0 0 

NBT 3 5100 956 .19 1629 .32 NBT 3 5100 1055 .21* 1111 .22* 

NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 591 .35 441 .26 

 

SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 403 .12* 298 .09* 

SBT 3 5100 1334 .26* 892 .17* SBT 3 5100 1201 .24 746 .15 

SBR 1 1700 423 .25 259 .15 SBR 0 0 0 0 

 

EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1700 226 .13* 386 .23* 

EBT 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 

EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 457 .27 325 .19 

 

WBL 1 1700 203 .12* 250 .15* WBL 0 0 0 0 

WBT 1 1700 2 .00 15 .01 WBT 0 0 0 0 

WBR 1 1700 239 .14 245 .14 WBR 0 0 0 0 

 

Clearance Interval .05* .05* Right Turn Adjustment Multi .11* 


TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 .55 


7. Pasadena & McFadden (9/13 & 9/14/06) 8. Walnut & McFadden (2005) 

 


 



 

NBL 1.5 296 {.09}* 254 {.09}* NBL 2 3400 340 .10* 430 .13* 

NBT 0.5 3400 20 .09 44 .09 NBT 0 0 0 0 

NBR 1 1700 45 .03 51 .03 NBR 1 1700 10 .01 20 .01 

 

SBL 1 1700 86 .05 41 .02 SBL 0 0 0 0 

SBT 1 1700 92 .11* 44 .07* SBT 0 0 0 0 

SBR 0 0 89 82 SBR 0 0 0 0 

 

EBL 1 1700 34 .02* 105 .06 EBL 0 0 0 0 

EBT 2 3400 541 .32 868 .46* EBT 2 3400 280 .16 430 .19* 

EBR 0 0 577 .34 697 EBR 0 0 300 .18 220 

 

WBL 1 1700 50 .03 69 .04* WBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01* 

WBT 2 3400 1134 .34* 851 .27 WBT 2 3400 900 .26* 450 .13 

WBR 0 0 23 65 WBR 0 0 0 0 

 


 




A-25 


9. Newport & McFadden (5/8/07) 10. Newport & Walnut (4/4/06) 

 


 



 

NBL 1 1700 28 .02* 43 .03* NBL 1 1700 54 .03 73 .04 

NBT 3 5100 527 .11 640 .13 NBT 3 5100 366 .09* 382 .08* 

NBR 0 0 11 15 NBR 0 0 100 49 

 

SBL 1 1700 18 .01 38 .02 SBL 1 1700 451 .27* 338 .20* 

SBT 3 5100 795 .16* 669 .13* SBT 3 5100 346 .07 307 .07 

SBR 1 1700 917 .54 416 .24 SBR 0 0 11 28 

 

EBL 1.5 338 {.10}* 526 {.16}* EBL 1 1700 15 .01* 14 .01* 

EBT 0.5 3400 1 .10 9 .16 EBT 2 3400 258 .09 242 .09 

EBR 1 1700 37 .02 33 .02 EBR 0 0 31 61 

 

WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 99 .06 112 .07 

WBT 1 1700 0 .01* 0 .02* WBT 2 3400 327 .16* 499 .25* 

WBR 0 0 19 28 WBR 0 0 220 353 

 

Right Turn Adjustment SBR .30* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 




11. Newport & Sycamore (1/24/07) 12. Tustin Village & McFadden (2005) 

 


 



 

NBL 1 1700 129 .08 41 .02 NBL 1.5 210 {.08}* 390 

NBT 1 1700 95 .09* 63 .05* NBT 0.5 3400 50 .08 100 .14* 

NBR 0 0 59 26 NBR 1 1700 180 .11 280 .16 

 

SBL 1 1700 213 .13* 235 .14* SBL 0.5 160 110 .06* 

SBT 1 1700 70 .04 139 .08 SBT 1.5 3400 120 .10* 30 .05 

SBR 1 1700 103 .06 79 .05 SBR 0 60 60 

 

EBL 1 1700 159 .09* 103 .06* EBL 1 1700 80 .05 70 .04 

EBT 1 1700 65 .04 53 .05 EBT 2 3400 510 .23* 830 .31* 

EBR 0 0 11 24 EBR 0 0 280 210 

 

WBL 0.5 27 54 WBL 2 3400 550 .16* 150 .04* 

WBT 1.5 3400 262 .12* 332 .16* WBT 2 3400 690 .23 800 .27 

WBR 0 133 166 WBR 0 0 80 120 

 


 






13. Williams & McFadden (2005) 14. Williams & Main (12/10 & 12/9/09) 

 


 



 

NBL 0 0 10 10 NBL 1 1700 164 .10* 148 .09* 

NBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .04* NBT 0 0 0 0 

NBR 0 0 20 50 NBR 1 1700 231 .14 197 .12 

 

SBL 1 1700 250 .15* 220 .13* SBL 0 0 0 0 

SBT 1 1700 10 .06 10 .01 SBT 0 0 0 0 

SBR 0 0 100 10 SBR 0 0 0 0 

 

EBL 1 1700 30 .02* 40 .02* EBL 0 0 0 0 

EBT 2 3400 510 .15 950 .28 EBT 1 1700 282 .17* 300 .18* 

EBR 0 0 10 10 EBR 1 1700 122 .07 152 .09 

 

WBL 1 1700 30 .02 40 .02 WBL 1 1700 203 .12* 161 .09* 

WBT 2 3400 810 .27* 850 .30* WBT 1 1700 262 .15 256 .15 

WBR 0 0 110 170 WBR 0 0 0 0 

 


 




A-27 


A.4 Financial Feasibility Analysis for 


MEMORANDUM 

To: 

From: 

Frank Fuller, Principal 

Field Paoli Architects 

KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Date: June 1, 2010 

Subject: 

Neighborhoods of Tustin Town Center Financial Feasibility Analysis 

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) is pleased to present the following memorandum 

report summarizing the conclusions of the financial feasibility analysis for three (3) sites in 

the Neighborhoods of Tustin Town Center. It is KMA’s understanding that Field Paoli 

prepared two alternatives for a variation of sites within the Neighborhoods. KMA’s analysis 

is based on the Alternative “B” scenarios which are generally the higher density scenarios. 

KMA evaluated the following sites: 

Neighborhood Site Acreage 

Center City Site 3 3.18 

Southern Gateway Site 9 3.90 

West Village Site 12 4.06 

For this analysis KMA undertook a cursory review of the existing retail, office, and rental 

residential markets as compared to the findings of the 2008 Refined Market Analysis. KMA 

also relied on the 2008 Refined Market Analysis for identification of competing developments 

and projected absorption for each product and further, relied on Agency staff for updated 

market data. KMA found that given the current economic situation, the market data 

contained in the Refined Market Analysis has a relatively good caption of current market 

trends. 

The following Summary Table summarizes the project descriptions and residual land values 

in a side-by-side comparison format. Residual land value is best described as the value of 

the property after considering the value (or income generated) from the project and 

deducting total development costs including developer profit. The residual land value is the 

amount a developer can feasibly afford to pay for the property in the open market. It should 

be noted that KMA’s feasibility analysis does not include assumptions for land acquisition, 

demolition, and/or relocation. 




SUMMARY TABLE 

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 

FIELD PAOLI / CITY OF TUSTIN 

Site 3 Site 9 Site 12 

Center City Southern Gateway West Village 

I. Project Description 

Acres 3.18 Acres 3.91 Acres 4.06 Acres 

Residential Units 0 Units 0 Units 40 Units 

Retail Uses 

Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF 22,000 SF 22,000 SF 

Retail (in office/residential building) 11,000 SF 12,000 SF 18,000 SF 

Total Retail SF 20,000 SF 34,000 SF 40,000 SF 

Office Uses 

Net Leasable 34,000 SF 28,900 SF 0 SF 

Circulation/Common Area 6,000 SF 5,100 SF 0 SF 

Total Office SF 40,000 SF 34,000 SF 0 SF 

Parking Spaces 230 Spaces 266 Spaces 250 Spaces 

Type of Parking 

Surface Surface Surface / at-grade encapsulated / 

one level below-grade 

Parking Ratios 

Residential 0.00 Spaces/Unit 0.00 Spaces/Unit 2.25 Spaces/Unit 

Retail 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 4.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 

Office (1) 3.75 Spaces/1,000 SF 3.82 Spaces/1,000 SF 0.00 Spaces/1,000 SF 

II. Residual Land Value (2) 

Total Residual Land Value 

$1,378,000 $1,908,000 ($2,334,000) 

Per SF Site Area $10 /SF Site Area $11 /SF Site Area ($13) /SF Site Area 

(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. 

(2) Represents the value a developer can feasibility afford to pay for land. Land acquisition, demolition, and/or relocation are not included. 


A-29 


A. Key Findings 

As shown in the Summary Table, the Center City and Southern Gateway sites are similar in 

product type and while they generate positive residual land values, these values do not 

constitute the development of a feasible project. These improved sites will incur additional 

costs for acquisition, demolition, and possibly relocation. With the current economic and 

market factors of these areas, achievable rent levels are not great enough to support the 

acquisition of existing improved properties in combination with the cost of developing new 

construction. Based on the KMA Refined Market Analysis, acquisition costs are on average 

$225 per square foot (SF) or improved commercial properties. In order for the proposed 

projects to be feasible, market rents will need to be substantially higher to support any new 

development. 

Development may take some time to occur due to the national and local economic 

conditions. The most likely scenarios to occur would be for identifying a local owner-user or 

a national franchisee owner-user. A current owner-user may be able to proceed due to a 

lower holding cost and ability to sustain cash flow at current low rent levels. A national 

franchisee owner-user type tenant may be more concerned about market share and new 

markets than market value and current returns on investment. A national franchisee owneruser 

may also be more willing to work with the City/Agency on structuring other incentives, 

and a longer-term horizon for receiving a return on investment. Both could be assisted 

through the City through local regulatory changes to zoning restrictions and reductions in 

development standards/parking requirements. 

The West Village site generates a negative residual land value. This is due primarily to the 

high cost of structured parking and the inability for the residential units to achieve market 

rents sufficient to cover the cost of the structured parking. While the proposed development 

does incorporate affordable housing, the affordable housing does not create a significant 

burden on land value. KMA’s calculation of moderate income rents exceeds achievable 

market rents in the West Village area, therefore, KMA has adjusted the moderate income 

rents downward to the market rent level. A potential alternative for this site is to develop a 

lower density residential development, i.e., eliminate need for structured parking and/or 

reduce parking requirements. 

The tables attached to this memorandum provide the details and calculations for each of the 

scenarios. 




B. Center City, Site 3 (Alternative B) 

Project Description 

As shown on Table A-1, Site 3 is comprised of three parcels totaling 3.18 acres. The 

development scenario assumes construction of a three-story building at Newport and El 

Camino Real containing 40,000 SF of office and 11,000 SF of retail space occupying the 

ground floor. For the office space, KMA is projecting this to be Class B type space. Per the 

Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), the general 

characteristics of each are as follows: 

Class A: Most prestigious buildings competing for premier office users with rents above 

average for the area. Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, 

exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence. 

Class B: Buildings competing for a wide range of users with rents in the average range for 

the area. Building finishes are fair to good for the area. Building finishes are fair to good for 

the area and systems are adequate, but the building does not compete with Class A at the 

same price. 

Class C: Buildings competing for tenants requiring functional space at rents below the 

average for the area. 

The development scenario also includes a one story 9,000 SF freestanding retail building. 

Retail and office parking is accommodated in a surface lot configuration with a total of at 

least 230 parking spaces. 

Total Development Costs 

KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be of Type V construction and have 

estimated total development costs (excluding land) of $9.3 million or $156 per SF gross 

building area (GBA). The detailed development costs are presented in Table A-2, as 

described below: 

 

 

Direct construction costs consist of such items as off- and on-site improvements, parking, 

shell construction, tenant improvements, and contingency. For these analyses, KMA has 

assumed no payment of prevailing wages. Total direct costs are estimated at $6.8 

million, or $113 per SF GBA. 

Indirect costs consist of architecture, engineering, public permits and fees, legal and 

accounting, taxes and insurance, developer fee, marketing/sales/lease-up, and 

contingency. Total indirect costs are estimated at $1.9 million, or 28% of direct costs. 


A-31 


Financing costs consist of such items as loan fees, interest during construction and 

leasing. Total financing costs are estimated at $677,000, or 10% of direct costs. 

Net Operating Income 

As shown on Table A-3, KMA has estimated that the proposed development scenario will 

generate net operating income (NOI) totaling $946,000 annually. The following assumptions 

were used in determining this figure: 

 

Gross scheduled income (GSI) of $1.2 million, or an average lease rate of $1.79 per SF 

per month. 

Overall vacancy factor of 5%. 

 

 

Unreimbursed retail operating expenses at 5% of retail GSI. 

Office expenses of $4 per SF per year. 

Residual Land Value 

As shown on Table A-4, after assuming the capitalized value of the NOI from the retail, and 

office space, this scenario generates a total project value of $12.6 million. After deducting a 

cost of sale (3% of value), developer profit (12% of value), and total development costs, KMA 

finds the proposed project generates a residual land value of $1.4 million, or $10 per SF of 

site area. 

It should be noted that while Site 3 generates a positive residual land value, this does not 

assume the proposed project is feasible. The residual land value is generally the amount a 

developer can feasibly afford to pay for a site after considering the project’s value against 

development costs and developer profit. KMA’s analysis has not estimated costs associated 

with acquisition, demolition of existing improvements, and/or relocation of existing occupants. 

C. Southern Gateway, Site 9 (Alternative B) 


As shown on Table B-1, Site 9 is comprised of three parcels totaling 3.9 acres. The 

development scenario assumes construction of a three-story office building at Newport and 

Walnut containing 34,000 SF of office and 12,000 SF of retail space on the ground floor. 

The scenario also includes a one-story 22,000-SF freestanding retail building, which allows 

potential for a grocery story, drug store, or medium-sized tenant. Retail and office parking is 

accommodated in a surface lot with a total of at least 266 parking spaces. 





KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be of Type V construction and has 

estimated total development costs (excluding land) to be $10.6 million or $156 per SF GBA. 

The detailed development costs are presented in Table B-2, as described below: 

 

 

 

Total direct costs are estimated at $7.7 million, or $113 per SF GBA. 

Total indirect costs are estimated at $2.2 million, or 28% of direct costs. 

Total financing costs are estimated at $0.8 million, or 10% of direct costs. 

Net Operating Income 

As shown on Table B-3, KMA has estimated that the proposed development scenario will 

generate a NOI totaling $1.1 million annually. The following assumptions were used in 

determining this figure: 

 

GSI of $1.3 million, or an average lease rate of $1.75 per SF. 


 

 


Office expenses of $4 per SF per year. 


As shown on Table B-4, after assuming the capitalized value of the NOI from the retail, and 

office space, this scenario generates a total project value of $14.7 million. After deducting a 

cost of sale (3% of value), developer profit (12% of value), and total development costs, KMA 

finds the project generates a modest residual land value of $1.9 million, or $11 per SF of site 

area. 

Similar to Site 3, Site 9 also generates a positive residual land value and as previously 

mentioned does not account for costs associated with acquisition, demolition, and/or 

relocation. 


A-33 


D. West Village neighborhood, Site 12 (Alternative B) 


As shown on Table C-1, Site 12 is comprised of three parcels totaling 4.06 acres. It should 

be noted that the contiguous CalTrans parcel to the north (1.96 acres), which could be used 

for a community center and park, has been excluded from this analysis. The scenario 

assumes construction of a three-story residential building along Tustin Village Way 

containing 40 rental apartment units with 18,000 SF of retail space occupying the ground 

floor. This scenario assumes the inclusion of 15% very low and moderate income housing 

units. 

The scenario also includes a one story 22,000 SF freestanding retail building, which may 

also potentially allow for a grocery story, drug store, or medium-sized tenant. Retail parking 

will be accommodated in a mix of surface and at-grade encapsulated parking with a total of 

at least 160 parking spaces. Residents of the apartment complex will be parked within the 

at-grade encapsulated structure as well as in the below-grade parking level. Parking for the 

residential component totals 90 parking spaces with an overall parking ratio of 2.25 spaces 

per unit (including guest parking). 


KMA anticipates that this development scenario will be of Type V construction and have an 

estimated total development cost of $16.9 million or $202 per SF GBA. The detailed 

development costs are presented in Table C-2, as described below: 

 

 

 

Total direct costs are estimated at $12.1 million, or $145 per SF GBA. 

Total indirect costs are estimated at $3.3 million, or 27% of direct costs. 

Total financing costs are estimated at $1.5 million, or 12% of direct costs. 

Net Operating Income – Retail 

As shown on Table C-3, KMA has estimated the retail components of the proposed 

development scenario to generate NOI totaling $710,000 annually. The following 

assumptions were used in determining this figure: 

 

GSI of $786,000, or an average lease rate of $1.64 per SF. 


 





Net Operating Income – Residential 

As shown on Table C-4, KMA has estimated the residential component of the proposed 

development scenario will generate NOI totaling $460,000 annually. The following 

assumptions were used in determining this figure: 

 

 

Mixed-income scenario including 2 very low income units (50% AMI), 4 moderate income 

units (110% AMI), and 34 market-rate units. The unit mix and income levels are in 

compliance with standard California Redevelopment Law requirements. 

GSI of $771,000, or an average lease rate of $1.74 per SF (market-rate and affordable). 

Rents by bedroom type are as follows: 

Income Level by Bedroom Type Monthly Rent Rent/SF 

One-Bedroom 

Very Low (50% AMI) $823 $1.03 

Moderate (110% AMI) $1,480 (1) $1.85 

Market-Rate $1,480 $1.85 

Two-Bedroom 

Very Low (50% AMI) $922 $0.92 

Moderate (110% AMI) $1,750 (1) $1.75 

Market Rate $1,750 

(1) Reflects downward adjustment to reflect achievable market rents. 

See Table C-5 for calculation of affordable rents. 

 

Other income of $10 per unit per month. 


 

Annual operating expenses of approximately $6,900 per unit. 


As shown on Table C-6, after assuming the capitalized value of the NOI from the retail, and 

residential components, this scenario generates a total project value of $17.1 million. After 

deducting a cost of sale (3% of value), developer profit (12% of value), and total 

development costs, KMA finds the project generates a negative residual land value of $2.3 

million, or negative $13 per SF of site area. 


A-35 


Site 3 

Alternative B 

Pro Forma Analysis 

Center City Study Area 

TABLE A-1 

SITE 3 

ALTERNATIVE B 

CENTER CITY STUDY AREA 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



I. Site Area 3.18 Acres 

138,695 SF 

II. Construction Type 

Type V 

III. Number of Stories 

1 to 3 Stories (above-grade) 

IV. Gross Building Area 

A. Retail 

Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF 45% 

Retail (in office building) 11,000 SF 55% 

Circulation/Common Area 0 SF 0% 

Subtotal Retail 20,000 SF 100% 

B. Office 

Net Leasable 34,000 SF 85% 

Circulation/Common Area 6,000 SF 15% 

Subtotal Office 40,000 SF 100% 

C. Total Gross Building Area (GBA) 60,000 SF 

V. Parking 

Type 

# Spaces Parking Ratio 

Retail Surface lot 80 Spaces @ 4.00 /Unit 

Office Surface lot 150 Spaces @ 3.75 /1,000 SF 

Total Parking 

230 Spaces 




TABLE A-2 

SITE 3 

ALTERNATIVE B 


DEVELOPMENT COSTS 



Totals 

Notes 

I. Direct Costs (1) 

Off-Site Improvements (2) $139,000 $1 Per SF Site Area 

On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $416,000 $3 Per SF Site Area 

Parking - Surface $0 Included above 

Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $720,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding 

Shell Construction - Retail $935,000 $85 Per SF - Retail 

Shell Construction - Office $3,400,000 $85 Per SF - Office 

Tenant Improvements - Retail $200,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail 

Tenant Improvements - Office $340,000 $10 Per Net SF - Office 

Contingency $615,000 10% of Directs 

Subtotal Direct Costs $6,765,000 $113 Per SF GBA 

II. Indirect Costs 

Architecture & Engineering $338,000 5.0% of Directs 

Permits & Fees (2) $600,000 $10 Per SF GBA 

Legal & Accounting $68,000 1.0% of Directs 

Taxes & Insurance $101,000 1.5% of Directs 

Developer Fee $271,000 4.0% of Directs 

Marketing/Lease-Up $432,000 $8 Per Net SF 

Contingency $91,000 5.0% of Indirects 

Subtotal Indirect Costs $1,901,000 28.1% of Directs 

III. Financing Costs 

Subtotal Financing Costs $677,000 10.0% of Directs 

IV. Total Development Costs $9,343,000 $156 Per SF GBA 

Or Say (Rounded) $9,343,000 

(1) Does not include the payment of prevailing wages. 

(2) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA. 

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 

Filename: Tustin\Tustin Financial Feasibility;6/1/2010;ema 


A-37 


TABLE A-3 

SITE 3 

ALTERNATIVE B 


NET OPERATING INCOME 



I. Gross Scheduled Income 

Leasable SF 

Rent/SF 

Total 

Annual 

Freestanding Retail 9,000 SF $2.00 /SF/Month/NNN $216,000 

Retail (in office building) 11,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $231,000 

Office 34,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/Modified Gross $714,000 

Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 54,000 SF $1.79 /SF $1,161,000 

(Less) Vacancy 5.0% of GSI ($58,000) 

II. Effective Gross Income $1,103,000 

(Less) Unreimbursed Expenses - Retail 5.0% of EGI ($21,000) 

(Less) Office Expenses $4.00 /SF/Year ($136,000) 

III. Net Operating Income $946,000 

Capitalized Value of NOI @ 7.5% Going In Cap Rate $12,613,000 

IV. Total Project Value $12,613,000 

TABLE A-4 

SITE 3 

ALTERNATIVE B 


RESIDUAL LAND VALUE 



I. Total Project Value $12,613,000 

(Less) Cost of Sale @ 3.0% of Value ($378,000) 

(Less) Target Developer Profit @ 12.0% of Value ($1,514,000) 

II. Warranted Investment $10,721,000 

(Less) Development Costs ($9,343,000) 

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 

Filename: Tustin\Tustin Financial Feasibility;6/1/2010;ema 

III. Residual Land Value $1,378,000 

Per SF Site Area $10 




Site 9 

Alternative B 


Southern Gateway Study Area 

TABLE B-1 

SITE 9 

ALTERNATIVE B 

SOUTHERN GATEWAY STUDY AREA 





170,319 SF 


Type V 



IV. Gross Building Area 

A. Retail 


Retail (in office building) 12,000 SF 35% 



B. Office 

Net Leasable 28,900 SF 85% 


Subtotal Office 34,000 SF 100% 


V. Parking 

Type 


Retail Surface lot 136 Spaces @ 4.00 /1,000 SF 

Office Surface lot 130 Spaces @ 3.82 /1,000 SF 

Total Parking 

266 Spaces 


A-39 


TABLE B-2 

SITE 9 

ALTERNATIVE B 





Totals 

Notes 


Off-Site Improvements (2) $170,000 $1 Per SF Site Area 

On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $511,000 $3 Per SF Site Area 

Parking - Surface $0 Included above 

Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $1,760,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding 

Shell Construction - Retail $1,020,000 $85 Per SF - Retail 

Shell Construction - Office $2,890,000 $85 Per SF - Office 

Tenant Improvements - Retail $340,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail 

Tenant Improvements - Office $289,000 $10 Per Net SF - Office 

Contingency $698,000 10.0% of Directs 

Subtotal Direct Costs $7,678,000 $113 Per SF GBA 


Architecture & Engineering $384,000 5.0% of Directs 

Permits & Fees (2) $680,000 $10 Per SF GBA 

Legal & Accounting $77,000 1.0% of Directs 

Taxes & Insurance $115,000 1.5% of Directs 

Developer Fee $307,000 4.0% of Directs 

Marketing/Lease-Up $503,200 $8 Per Net SF 

Contingency $103,000 5.0% of Indirects 

Subtotal Indirect Costs $2,169,200 28.3% of Directs 


Subtotal Financing Costs $768,000 10.0% of Directs 

IV. Total Development Costs $10,615,000 $156 Per SF GBA 







TABLE B-3 

SITE 9 

ALTERNATIVE B 






Leasable SF 

Rent/SF 

Total 

Annual 


Retail (in office building) 12,000 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/NNN $252,000 

Office 28,900 SF $1.75 /SF/Month/Modified Gross $607,000 

Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 62,900 SF $1.75 /SF $1,321,000 


II. Effective Gross Income $1,255,000 


(Less) Office Expenses $4.00 /SF/Year ($116,000) 

III. Net Operating Income $1,105,000 



TABLE B-4 

SITE 9 

ALTERNATIVE B 





I. Total Project Value $14,733,000 





III. Residual Land Value $1,908,000 

Per SF Site Area $11 


A-41 


TABLE C-1 




Site 12 

Alternative B 


West Village Study Area 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 

WEST VILLAGE STUDY AREA 


176,694 SF 


Type V (above Type I parking) 



IV. Density 

9.9 Units/Acre 

V. Gross Building Area 

A. Retail 


Retail (in residential building) 18,000 SF 45% 



B. Residential 

One-Bedroom Units 13,000 SF 30% 

Two-Bedroom Units 24,000 SF 55% 


Subtotal Residential 43,500 SF 100% 


VI. Unit Mix 

# of Units Unit Mix Unit SF 

One-Bedroom Units 16 Units 40% 800 SF 

Two-Bedroom Units 24 Units 60% 1,000 SF 

Total Number of Units 40 Units 100% 925 SF 

VII. Affordability Mix 

Market-Rate 34 Units 85% 

Very Low (50% AMI) 2 Units 5% 

Moderate (110% AMI) 4 Units 10% 

Total Units 40 Units 100% 

VIII. Parking 


Residential At-grade encapsulated / one-level below grade 90 Spaces @ 2.25 /Unit (1) 

Retail Surface lot 160 Spaces @ 4.00 /1,000 SF 

Total Parking 

250 Spaces 

(1) Includes residential guest parking. 




TABLE C-2 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 





Totals Per Unit Notes 


Off-Site Improvements (2) $177,000 $4,425 $1 Per SF Site Area 

On-Site Improvements/Landscaping $530,000 $13,250 $3 Per SF Site Area 

Parking - Surface $0 $0 Included above 

Parking - Structured $2,070,000 $51,750 $23,000 Per Space - Structured 

Shell Construction - Residential $5,003,000 $125,075 $115 Per SF - Residential 

Shell Construction - Freestanding Retail $1,760,000 $44,000 $80 Per SF - Freestanding 

Shell Construction - Retail $1,530,000 $38,250 $85 Per SF - Retail 

Tenant Improvements - Retail $400,000 $10,000 $10 Per Net SF - Retail 

Amenities/FF&E $80,000 $2,000 Allowance 

Contingency $578,000 $14,450 5.0% of Directs 

Subtotal Direct Costs $12,128,000 $303,200 $145 Per SF GBA 


Architecture & Engineering $728,000 $18,200 6.0% of Directs 

Permits & Fees - Residential (2) $800,000 $20,000 Allowance 

Permits & Fees - Retail (2) $400,000 $10,000 $10 Per SF GBA - Retail 

Legal & Accounting $121,000 $3,025 1.0% of Directs 

Taxes & Insurance $243,000 $6,075 2.0% of Directs 

Developer Fee $485,000 $12,125 4.0% of Directs 

Marketing/Sales - Residential $60,000 $1,500 Allowance 

Marketing/Lease-Up - Retail $320,000 $8,000 $8 Per Net SF - Retail 

Contingency $158,000 $3,950 5.0% of Indirects 

Subtotal Indirect Costs $3,315,000 $82,875 27.3% of Directs 


Subtotal Financing Costs $1,455,000 $36,375 12.0% of Directs 

IV. Total Development Costs $16,898,000 $422,450 $202 Per SF GBA 





A-43 


TABLE C-3 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 






Leasable SF 

Rent/SF 

Total 

Annual 


Retail (in residential building) 18,000 SF $1.50 /SF/Month/NNN $324,000 

Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) 40,000 SF $1.64 /SF $786,000 


II. Effective Gross Income $747,000 








TABLE C-4 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 


NET OPERATING INCOME - RESIDENTIAL 




Average 

Unit Size 

# of Monthly Total 

Units Rent/SF Rent Annual 

One-Bedroom @ 50% of AMI 800 SF 1 $1.03 $823 $10,000 

One-Bedroom @ 110% of AMI 800 SF 2 $1.85 $1,480 (1) $36,000 

One-Bedroom @ Market-Rate 800 SF 13 $1.85 $1,480 $231,000 

Two-Bedroom @ 50% of AMI 1,000 SF 1 $0.92 $922 $11,000 

Two-Bedroom @ 110% of AMI 1,000 SF 2 $1.75 $1,750 (1) $42,000 

Two-Bedroom @ Market-Rate 1,000 SF 21 $1.75 $1,750 $441,000 

Total/Average 925 SF 40 $1.74 $1,606 $771,000 

Add: Other Income $10 /Unit/Month $5,000 

(Less) Vacancy @ 5.0% of Income ($39,000) 

Effective Gross Income (EGI) $737,000 

II. Operating Expenses 

(Less) Operating Expenses $4,500 /Unit/Year ($180,000) 

(Less) Property Taxes (2) $2,100 /Unit/Year ($85,000) 

(Less) Replacement Reserves $300 /Unit/Year ($12,000) 

Total Expenses $6,900 /Unit/Year ($277,000) 

37.6% of EGI 


Capitalized Value of NOI @ 6.0% Cap Rate $7,667,000 


(1) Calculation of moderate income rents exceed market-rate rents. Reflects downward adjustment to reflect achievable market rent. 

(2) Based on capitalized income approach, assumes a 1.10% tax rate and 6.0% cap rate. 


A-45 


TABLE C-5 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 


ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE RENTS 



Number of Bedrooms: 1 2 

I. Very Income - 50% AMI 

Family Size (1) 2 3 

Household Income (2) $34,450 $38,750 

Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 

Monthly Housing Cost $861 $969 

(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($38) ($47) 

Maximum Monthly Rent - Very Low Income $823 $922 

II. 

Moderate Income - 110% AMI 

Family Size (1) 2 3 

Household Income (2) $75,790 $85,250 

Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 

Monthly Housing Cost $1,895 $2,131 

(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($38) ($47) 

Maximum Monthly Rent - Moderate Income $1,857 $2,084 

Maximum Monthly Rent - Market-Rate $1,480 $1,750 

(1) As assigned by California Redevelopment Law. 

(2) State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2009 income limits. 

(3) As calculated by Orange County Housing and Community Development, as follows: 

Number of Bedrooms: 1 2 

Electric Heat $13 $17 

Gas Cooking $4 $4 

Other Electric $16 $20 

Gas Water Heater $5 $6 

Total Utility Allowance $38 $47 




TABLE C-6 

SITE 12 

ALTERNATIVE B 





I. Total Project Value - Residential and Retail $17,134,000 





III. Residual Land Value ($2,334,000) 

Per SF Site Area ($13) 


A-47 


A.5 Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency 

Criteria and Submittal Information 

A.5.1 ASSISTANCE CRITERIA 

The Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency understands and recognizes the potential 

impacts of the City of Tustin’s land use regulations and the Agency’s development objectives on 

the viability of a development project located within a Redevelopment Project Area. While the 

Agency is prepared to negotiate land uses, development standards and other similar regulations 

within the constraints of State Law, the Agency must see that the site is developed to the highest 

quality of improvement consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. In addition, 

the Agency must ensure that the proposed project provides the level of amenities required in the 

community in terms of architecture, landscaping and parking to serve the development. 

The Redevelopment Agency maintains a policy of providing assistance only to the extent there are 

circumstances faced by the private sector which inhibits the private sector’s ability to accomplish 

its own goals and the goals of the Agency. The Agency does not provide assistance simply as 

an inducement to development but rather as means to achieving an intensity and quality of 

development above which the market would traditionally support. Recognizing, however, that 

there may be extraordinary actions and costs that may be required but cannot be accomplished 

by the private sector alone or financed through convention methods, the Redevelopment Agency 

is prepared, if needed, to negotiate various types of assistance in order to accomplish the City’s 

and Agency’s goals. 

If land assembly is necessary, the Redevelopment Agency expects the developer to use all 

reasonable and appropriate methods to assemble the land at a fair market value. Only if such 

methods are exhausted and do not prove successful, would the Agency be prepared to use its 

authority under State Law to assist in land assembly and resale the property to the developer 

at its reuse value. The Agency encourages a proposed development to include participation 

of existing property owners and business owners in the project area to the extent practical as 

a means of reducing the land assembly costs. While not all of the existing businesses may 

with the proposed development, the Agency views the efforts and methods of the developer in 

dealing with existing property owners and businesses as a highly important criteria in evaluating 

a proposed development project. 




The Redevelopment Agency recognizes that, if needed, there are a number of methods of 

providing financial assistance to a proposed project. However, the Agency expects that any such 

assistance shall be based on the performance of the developer and the demonstrated financial 

needs of the proposed project. The Agency maintains the following criteria for providing any 

such financial assistance: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Agency assistance may be provided only for extraordinary project costs. Those cost which 

are ordinary and typical of a similar development project and not exacerbated by any above 

market-standard requirements of the Agency will not be offset. 

Agency assistance may be provided only after the developer has contributed financially to 

the extent convention financing sources would expect and only for those costs which cannot 

otherwise be financed through conventional means. 

Agency financial assistance may be provided only to the extent the proposed development 

project meets the City’s and the Redevelopment Agency’s goals. 

Agency financial assistance will be evaluated based on the projected overall financial return 

to the Agency from loan payments, increased tax revenues and other financial consideration. 

Agency financial assistance will also be evaluated based on projected tangible and intangible 

benefits to the City and the Agency and the Tustin community as a whole. 

Agency financial assistance will only be provided after thorough review and analysis, which 

may include a third-party professional analysis of each request, based on the unique needs of 

each individual proposed project. 

Agency financial assistance will only be provided under a Disposition and Development 

Agreement (DDA) approved and executed by and between the Tustin Community 

Redevelopment Agency and the duly authorized developed/property owner. 


A-49 






A-51 






A-53 






A-55 






A-57 






A-59 






A-61 


A.6 Public Workshops 

A.6.1 

WORKSHOP #1 - MATERIALS 

Tustin Town Center, A New Beginning 

Process Overview and Goals 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx • Revitalization of three neighborhoods: 

• xxxWest Village, South Gateway and Center City 

• xxx 

• A series of public workshops to seek input on 

• xxx 

revitalization efforts, opportunity areas, 

• xxx 

and plan alternatives 

• Development of Neighborhood Concept Plans 

TUSTIN TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY 

First Community Workshops - October 6, 2008 



Context Map 

ULI Study Area 

ULI 

Study Area 





Objectives based on ULI Panel Study 

Land Use Map 

• Refined Market Study 

• Neighborhood Concept Plans 

• Development of Design Guidelines 

• Implementation Strategy 

• Development of Regulatory Documents by City Staff 








Area Circulation 

Public Transit 





Study Area Overview 

2008 Estimate 

Tustin Town Center 

Refined Market Analysis 

Population & 

Income 

Population 

Center 

City 

3,088 


Gateway 

9,997 

West 

Village 

8,867 

City of 

Tustin 

71,955 

Prepared for: 

City of Tustin 

Prepared by: 

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Households over 

$75,000 

$50,000 

25% 

$48,400 

21% 

$43,300 

15% 

$70,000 

46% 

Source: Claritas, Inc. 





Study Area Overview 

2008 Estimate 

Housing Units 

Total Units 

Center 

City 

1,101 


Gateway 

3,545 

West 

Village 

2,594 

City of 


26,767 

Market Potential 

Type 

Multi-Family 

Single-Family 

Occupancy 

Owner 

Renter 

82% 

17% 

22% 

75% 

91% 

8% 

13% 

67% 

84% 

2% 

23% 

74% 

65% 

31% 

47% 

46% 

Source: Claritas, Inc. 






A-63 


Existing Market Conditions 


Retail/Restaurant 

Retail centers lack strong anchors 

Some centers experience high vacancy rates 

Average asking lease rates of $1.80/SF/Month 

vs. $2.65/SF/Month in Orange County 

Residents purchase goods outside of Study Area 

Office 

Study Areas not a recognized office location 

Existing uses limited to small medical or professional business 

services 

13% vacancy rate for cities surrounding Study Areas and County 

Average asking lease rate of $2.40/SF vs. $2.72/SF for the 

County 







Residential - Owner 

National homeowner market in decline 

Median sales prices in County down from previous year 

10% of homes within Study Area are owner-occupied 

Residential - Renter 

Orange County ranked 5th nationally in lowest vacancy rates (4%) 

80% of housing units in Study Areas are rentals 

Most affordable rents in the County 

…these forces may strengthen the rental market 





Retail Development 

Opportunities 

Location within Orange County that 

will experience high population 

growth 

Visibility and access to I-5 and SR- 

55 freeways 

New residential and office key to 

expand retail base 

Mixed-use developments appeal to 

young professionals and empty 

nesters 

Increased densification and adaptive 

re-use of existing buildings/sites 

Constraints 

Large renter population and lowincome 

households 

Competing developments 

Need for land assembly 

Potentially high acquisition and 

relocation costs 



Office Development 

Opportunities 

Tustin Hospital and Medical Center – 

anchor for Southern Gateway 

High visibility and access from I-5 

and SR-55 freeways 


re-use of buildings/sites 

Constraints 

Close proximity to Tustin Legacy and 

other well-known office centers 

Lack of supporting services and 

amenities for workers 









Residential Development 

Opportunities 

Location within Orange County that 

will experience high population 

growth 

Access to I-5 and SR-55 freeways 


re-use of buildings/sites 

Constraints 

Neighboring developments 

Lack of services and amenities 


Total Projected Development 

Long Term Projection, 2008 - 2030 

Land Use 


Office 

Low 

25,800 SF 

356,000 SF 

High 

65,300 SF 

713,000 SF 

Mixed-use developments appeal to 

young professionals and empty 

nesters 



Residential 

760 Units 

1,140 Units 

Expansion of homeownership 

opportunities to increase 

neighborhood stability, attract retail 





Center City Neighborhood 

Neighborhoods 

Existing Conditions and Opportunities 

W. MAIN STREET 

INTERSTATE 5 

HIGHWAY 55 

NEWPORT AVENUE 

RED HILL AVENUE 





Center City Circulation and Uses 

EL CAMINO REAL 


NEWPORT AVE 

Center City Character 


BRYAN AVENUE 

6TH STREET 

B St. 

INTERSTATE 5 

ORANGE ST. 

SAN JUAN STREET 

RED HILL AVE. 




BROWNING AVE. 

El Camino Real 






A-65 




Red Hill Plaza at Red Hill Avenue 



El Camino Real – Old Town 





Sixth Street 



El Camino Real 



Center City Assets and Constraints 

Pepper Tree 

Park 


Dead End 

6TH STREET 


Old 

Town 

City Hall 

Library 

Pine Tree 

Park 

Center City Opportunity Sites 


6TH STREET 


BRYAN AVENUE 

Freeway 

Barrier 

B St. 

INTERSTATE 5 

ORANGE ST. 


High School 


RED HILL AVE. 

BRYAN AVENUE 

B St. 

INTERSTATE 5 

ORANGE ST. 


RED HILL AVE. 


Good 

Access 


Marjorie 

Veeh 

School 

BROWNING AVE. 



BROWNING AVE. 








For Next Meeting 

Please tell us: 

Discussion/ Question & Answers 

Three key improvements & 

Three top opportunities 





Note: Presentations for Southern Gateway and West Village 

Neighborhoods include the same first 20 slides as shown here 

for Center City. They are omitted on the following pages to avoid 

repeating information. 


A-67 


Southern Gateway Neighborhood 

Neighborhoods 


E. McFADDEN AVENUE 

HIGHWAY 55 

INTERSTATE 5 


EDINGER AVENUE 

WALNUT AVENUE 





Southern Gateway Circulation and Uses 

Southern Gateway Character 

INTERSTATE 5 

MITCHELL AVE. 

E. McFADDEN AVE. 

WALNUT AVE. 

EDINGER AVE. 

ROUTE 55 

NEWPORT AVE. 

SYCAMORE AVE. 

METROLINK/ RAIL 

RED HILL AVE. 

Newport Avenue 







Newport Avenue 



Sycamore at Newport Avenue 








Newport Avenue/ New Residential 



Myrtle Avenue at Newport Avenue/ Medical Center 



Southern Gateway Assets and Constraints 

Southern Gateway Opportunity Sites 

Freeway 

Barrier 

INTERSTATE 5 

Freeway 

Barrier 

Good 

Access 

INTERSTATE 5 

Views 


Good 

Access 

NEWPORT AVE. 

MITCHELL AVE. 

Frontier 

Park 


MITCHELL AVE. 

New 

Access 

EDINGER AVE. 

New 

Access 

ROUTE 55 


SYCAMORE AVE. 

WALNUT AVE. 

RED HILL AVE. 

Beswick 

School 


Medical Plaza 

Family and 

Youth Center 

EDINGER AVE. 

ROUTE 55 

SYCAMORE AVE. 


WALNUT AVE. 

RED HILL AVE. 

A.G. Currie Middle School/ 

J. Thorman Elementary School 

Newport Ave. 

Extension 

Railway 

Barrier 







Discussion / Questions & Answers 








A-69 


West Village Neighborhood 

Neighborhoods 


S. LYON STREET 


INTERSTATE 5 

E. McFADDEN AVENUE 

HIGHWAY 55 





West Village Circulation and Uses 

West Village Character 




WILLIAMS STREET 

ALLIANCE AVE. 

TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY 

HIGHWAY 55 

INTERSTATE 5 




Tustin Village Way 





Commercial Center McFadden Ave at Tustin Village Way 



Mobile Home Park at Williams Street 







West Village Assets and Constraints 

No Entrance 

to Zoo 

Santa Ana 

Zoo 

Few Access 

Points 


No 

Connections 


Freeway 

Barrier 

Robert 

Heideman 

School 



ALLIANCE AVE. 


HIGHWAY 55 

Only One 

East West 

Connection 

Views 


INTERSTATE 5 


Few Access 

Points 

Good 

Access 


Williams Street at W. Main Street 



Railway 

Barrier 



West Village Opportunity Sites 




ALLIANCE AVE. 



HIGHWAY 55 

INTERSTATE 5 










Discussion/ Question & Answers 




A-71 


A.6.2 

WORKSHOP #1 - PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Center City - Comments (C), Q&A 

Q: What is the definition of infill & densification? 

• Infill is development in the existing built context, for example on vacant parcels, or expansion 

of existing buildings. 

• Densification is the replacement or expansion of existing buildings with new, higher density 

development. 

Q: What is the timeline for the Newport Avenue extension? 

• Planning will take another 18 months, and the implementation 2-5 years, depending on 

funding. 

Q: How can smaller parcels get assembled for bigger development? 

• Some parcels are already large. 

• Expansion of existing sites. 

• Market-driven development by the private sector: 

• City can provide incentives (zoning and financial). 

• No aggressive acquisition by city; no use of eminent domain. 

Q: How does the current downturn impact future development? 

• The long-term view is important. 

C: Affordable housing will remain in demand in Tustin. 

C: Prospect Village is a well-done development. 

C: Improve the pedestrian environment. 

• There are no bike lanes. 

• Provide better connections to train stations. 

• Noise issues (freeway, airport, train) need to be addressed by City through the use of zoning 

and built elements. 

• Make a place (for example through undergrounding of utilities). 

• Provide linkages to assets (Old Town and El Camino Plaza mixed- use). 

C: Use Red Hill Plaza as an opportunity site. 

C: The office projections of the Market Study appear to be high; existing development is already 

sitting empty. 

• Existing office space will get absorbed first. 

• The study looked at the long term (30-year range). 




C: In some cases it may be OK to use Eminent Domain, for example for the Red Hill parcel. 

C: Overall Goals (Comments by City Staff): 

• Provide improvements to older areas of Tustin. 

• Retain existing and provide new workforce housing. 

• Balance jobs/housing. 

• Prevent the moving of people and businesses elsewhere. 

• Proximity of live and work. 

• Future development will happen around transit. 

• Variety of housing that is interconnected; this is in demand in Orange County.. 

• Long term planning effort – 30 years. 

• Create an identity with Tustin. 

• Provide bike trails. 

C: Encourage the use of vacant land for residential parking. 

• Parking districts can be established for some areas. 

C: The city dominated by freeways and transportation constraints. More retail and business 

activity may increase traffic problems. 

C: Provide more Rapid Transit. 

Southern Gateway - Comments (C), Q&A 

Q: What is the definition of opportunity sites? 

• Sites that have future possibilities, i.e. sites that are suitable for development or 

improvement. 

C: Opportunity Site: 

• Trailer Park North @ Mitchell (in Redevelopment Area). 

C: Arbor Walk is a positive example. 

C: What will happen with the Tustin Hospital? Will it get developed? 

• The hospital is currently underutilized. Physical improvements could be made to provide 

better office space. 

C: Retail/Commercial should focus on the community rather than access from the freeway. 

• Provide retail at walk-to locations. 

• Sound walls prevent visibility from freeways. 


A-73 


C: There should be more mix of uses instead of the current type of commercial development. 

• There is a current sense of isolation. 

• There are enough strip malls. 

C: It appears that the City is “overbuilding” while existing buildings are sitting empty; slow down 

development. 

• There is demand for rental residential in the long-term. 

C: There is a need for open space, parks, and greenbelts. 

• This is part of the long-term planning effort. 

C: Look into a bus system to connect neighborhoods, like DASH system in Los Angeles. 

• The buses could also connect commercial “highlights”. 

• The City Council is very interested in this and the City applied for grant at OCTA to conduct a 

study. 

C: The completed Newport Avenue extension & Tustin Ranch 

Road extension would assist the area; Transit route down 

Sycamore has a blighted area. 

• The City has made this project a top priority. 

• The design phase will be completed in about 18 months. 

• Grade separation is required. 

• Projected completion of construction in approximately 2-5 years, depending on financing. 

• Phase 1 completed will cost $40 million. 

• Phase 2 underpass another $40 million +. 

C: The traffic upgrades will not improve the quality of life in existing high density residential areas 

but increase traffic. The housing stock is old. What kind of density is envisioned? 

• The purpose of the workshops is to come up with ideas that address these issues. 

• Work with owners to improve housing. 

C: Newport Avenue lacks parking and is used for car sales. 

C: Walnut @ Newport Commercial Development needs to be improved and is an opportunity 

site. 

Q: Will Eminent Domain be used to implement improvements? 

• No, the City is looking for market driven solutions. 

• The City could provide resources or incentives to help the process 




West Village - Comments (C), Q&A 

C: There is a lack of parking on Alliance Avenue. 

• Introduce diagonal parking. 

• Parking lot at Jewelry Exchange gets a lot of overnight parking (residential). 

• Jewelry Exchange has considered building a parking structure. 

• Residential units only have 1 garage space per unit. 

• On-street parking is difficult. 

• Cars from/ to Santa Ana come through the area. 

• Front yards on the south side of Alliance can be used for parking. 

• Tear down units on Alliance to create commercial and parking opportunities. 

C: Provide financial mechanisms for improvements. 

• Offer loans to facilitate growth. 

C: Use the school as a neighborhood amenity. 

• Use the school for additional activities, for example as a play area for kids. 

• Expand the school for community services and a park. 

• School is one of the densest sites. 

C: Jewelry Exchange offered to purchase the CalTrans parcel and donate land for a small park. 

Jewelry Exchange property on the opposite side is being considered for a parking structure. 

• City has an offer in on the CalTrans property; there is no set time frame. 

C: Jewelry Exchange has previously submitted plans for the renovation of existing buildings. 

Jewelry Exchange wants new freeway sign. 

C: There are Traffic Issues @ Williams Street. 

• Santa Ana traffic is moving through the area. 

• Area improvement is connected to solving the parking issue. 

• Due to economy, families are sharing a home but there is not enough parking. 

C: 10% of Tustin’s population lives in the West Village, and parking is the biggest issue in the 

neighborhood. 

• The West Village is very dense. 

• Property on McFadden included sufficient parking in initial plans. 

Q. Is there a height issue? 

• Think outside the box; rules concerning heights can get changed as a result of the process. 


A-75 


C: There are no commercial/ shopping opportunities in the West Village. 

• There is no retail that residents can walk to. 

• Residents shop at Vons, Larwin Square, and go up Williams Street to Main Street. 

Q: What is the feasibility of a grocery store in the West Village? 

• A grocery store is going to look at a larger area, typically a 3-mile trade area. 

C: Consider locating new retail along McFadden since it carries a lot of traffic. 

Q: Can Tustin Village Way get extended to Main Street? 

• The freeway is in the way. 

• A lot of traffic! 

• Shuttle service would benefit children and area. 

• Study of residents’ traffic patterns? 

C: Reduce traffic in the residential area. 

• There is a lot of traffic! 

• A Shuttle service would be beneficial to the area, particularly for children. 

• A study of residents’ traffic patterns would be helpful. 

C: Consider converting some private roads into public roads to improve connectivity. 

C: Better configuration of buildings can free up space while keeping the same level of density. 

• More height to free up space for open space & commercial/retail. 

• Amenities and a mix of uses distribute density differently. 

Q: Most of the ideas are very expensive. Where would the money come from that is needed to 

make the changes happen? 

• Most ideas could get funded by a combination of private and public sources. 




A.6.3 

WORKSHOP #2 - MATERIALS 

Note: The first 3 slides for Center City presentation are repeated for Southern Gateway and West Village 

Neighborhoods. They are omitted on the following pages to avoid repeating information. 

Tustin Town Center, A New Beginning 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

Process Overview & Goals 

• Revitalization of three neighborhoods: 

West Village, Southern Gateway and 


• A series of public workshops to seek 

input on revitalization efforts, opportunity 

areas, and plan alternatives 

• Development of Neighborhood Concept 

Plans 


CENTER CITY - Second Community Workshop - September, 2009 



Goals & Approach for Workshop #2 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

1. Review last workshop 

2. Bring everyone up to date 

3. To illustrate and describe two potential 

alternatives and obtain input 

4. Next Steps 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx 

Summary of Workshop #1 

October 6, 2008 





ULI Study Area 

Objectives based on ULI Panel Study 

• Refined Market Study 

• Neighborhood Concept Plans 

• Development of Design Guidelines 

• Implementation Strategy 

• Development of Regulatory Documents 

by City Staff 






A-77 


Total Projected Development 

Long Term – All 3 Neighborhoods, 2008 - 2030 

Land Use 

Low 

High 


Office 

25,800 SF 

356,000 SF 

65,300 SF 

713,000 SF 


in the Center City Neighborhood 

Residential 

760 Units 

1,140 Units 





Existing Conditions 


Circulation and Uses 


NEWPORT AVE 


BRYAN AVENUE 

6TH STREET 

B St. 

INTERSTATE 5 

ORANGE ST. 


RED HILL AVE. 




BROWNING AVE. 






Public Comments from Workshop #1 

Pepper Tree 

Park 


Dead End 

6TH STREET 

Freeway 

Barrier 

B St. 

INTERSTATE 5 



Old 

City Hall 

Town 

Library 

Pine Tree 

Park 



BRYAN AVENUE 


High School 

Marjorie 

Veeh 

School 

Good 

Access 

ORANGE ST. 

RED HILL AVE. 

BROWNING AVE. 

• The long-term view is important. 

• Affordable housing will remain in demand 

in Tustin (good example: Prospect 

Village). 

• Improve the pedestrian environment and 

connectivity to assets (station, Old Town, 

shopping). 

• Provide bike lanes. 

• Noise issues (freeway, airport, train) need 

to be addressed. 











• Make a place (for example through undergrounding 

of utilities). 

• Use Red Hill Plaza as an opportunity site. 

• Encourage the use of vacant land for 

residential parking; consider parking districts. 

• The city is dominated by freeways and 

transportation constraints. More retail and 

business activity may increase traffic 

problems. 


Neighborhood Concept Plans 





Neighborhood Overall Goals 

• xxx 

• xxx 

• xxx • Increase the supply of housing. 

• xxx • Enrich the livability of neighborhoods. 

• xxx • Revitalize commercial uses on arterial streets. 

• xxx 

• Upgrade the appearance of street corridors 

• xxx and community gateways. 

• Create employment opportunities for 

residents. 

Strategies to Achieve Goals 

• xxx 

• xxx• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors 

• xxx into well-defined neighborhood centers 

• xxx and/or mixed-use developments. 

• xxx• Redirect future development to underutilized 

• xxx and underperforming sites. 

• xxx 

• Relocate industrial uses away from 

residential and commercial centers. 

• Expand streetscape improvements along 

street corridors. 






Alternative A 

• xxx 

• Encourage introduction of moderate to high 

• xxx 

density residential and mixed use development 

• xxx along street corridors, compatible with the 

• xxx adjacent neighborhood. 

• xxx 

• Encourage construction of a greater variety of 

• xxx residential types to accommodate a variety of 

• xxx family sizes. 

• Upgrade and revitalize older residential areas. 

• Improve connectivity in and between 

neighborhoods, including provision of bike lane 

routes. 






A-79 


Alternative B 

Key Differences between Alternatives 

• Low-scale residential development on the 

south side of 6th Street and west of B Street 

(Alt. A) 

OR 

• Atrium-type office development on the south 

side of 6 th Street and west of B Street (Alt. B) 







• Renovation and upgrade Red Hill Center 

(Alt. A) 

OR 

• Redevelop Red Hill Center with new retail 

and office mixed-use (Alt. B) 

• Renovation of large commercial parcel at the 

south-east corner of El Camino Real and 

Newport Avenue (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Redevelop parcel with new office and retail 

mixed-use to help form a gateway to the city 

(Alt. B) 





Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3: Existing Uses 










Opportunity Sites 1,2 & 3 

SITE FEATURES 

Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3 

SITE LIMITATIONS 

• Close proximity to Downtown 

• Good connectivity to El Camino 

& I-5 

• Gateway location to Downtown 

• Good visibility from El Camino 

and from parts of Newport 

Avenue 

• Well served by public streets 

• Existing retail, office and 

residential adjacent to sites 

• Potential for parcel consolidation 

OPPORTUNITIES 

• Potential parcel consolidation 

• Intensification along El Camino 

SITE 1: 

• Proximity to existing single-family 

residential land uses north of 6th 

Street requires sensitive solution 

for future uses, massing, and 

building heights 

SITE 2: 

• Depth of parcels require improved 

accessibility 

SITE 3: 

• Triangular shape of parcel limits 

efficient site layout on the east 

side 





Opportunity Sites 1, 2, & 3: Alternative A 

Opportunity Sites 1,2, & 3: Alternative B 





Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Existing Conditions 

Opportunity Sites 4 & 5 


SITE 4: 

• Residential uses on east and north side 

require sensitive site layout and 

transitions 

SITE 5: 

• Depth of parcels requires creative 

solutions for accessibility and visibility 

• South-eastern parcels are only visible 

from El Camino 

OPPORTUNITIES 


• Intensification along Red Hill Avenue 






A-81 


Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Alternative A 

Opportunity Sites 4 & 5: Alternative B 





Discussion of Plans & Key Sites 



• Which Alternative Plan or part of a plan do you 

think is best? Why? 

• Which Key Site do you think is most important? 

• Which alternative for the Key Site or for part of 

the site do you think is best? Why? 

• From the Strategies, Plans and Key Sites, what 

do you think are the one or two most important 

actions needed for the neighborhood? 





Next Steps 


Summary and Next Steps 

• Prepare Financial Feasibility Analysis of 

Proposed Development Products on Several 

Opportunity Sites 

• Test Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity of 

Alternatives 

• Finalize and Recommend a Preferred Concept 

Plan, including Design Guidelines 

• Develop Implementation Strategy 

Recommendations 

• Development of General Plan and Zoning 

Regulatory Documents by City Staff 










in the Southern Gateway Neighborhood 


SOUTHERN GATEWAY - Second Community Workshop – Sept. 2009 





INTERSTATE 5 

MITCHELL AVE. 

NEWPORT AVE 

Southern Gateway Assets and Constraints 


NEWPORT AVE. 

WALNUT AVE. 

EDINGER AVE. 

ROUTE 55 

NEWPORT AVE. 

SYCAMORE AVE. 


RED HILL AVE. 







• Retail/Commercial should focus on the 

community. 

• Sound walls prevent commercial visibility from 

freeways. 

• There should be more mix of uses. 

• Don’t overbuild while existing buildings are 

sitting empty; slow down development. 

• There is demand for rental residential in the 

long-term. 

• Need for open space, parks, and greenbelts. 



• Look into a bus system to connect 

neighborhoods. 

• The housing stock is old. What kind of density is 

envisioned? 

• Walnut at Newport Commercial Development 

needs to be improved and is an opportunity site. 

• Arbor Walk is a positive example. 






A-83 




Neighborhoods Overall Goals 

• xxx 

• xxx 




• xxx 




residents. 






• xxx 

• xxx 

• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors 

• xxx 

into well-defined neighborhood centers 

• xxx and/or mixed-use developments. 

• xxx• Redirect future development to underutilized 

• xxx and underperforming sites. 

• xxx• Expand streetscape improvements along 

street corridors. 

• Upgrade and revitalize older residential 

areas. 


• Encourage introduction of moderate to high 

density residential development along street 

corridors, compatible with the adjacent 

neighborhood. 

• Encourage construction of a greater variety 

of residential types to accommodate a variety 

of family sizes. 

• Improve connectivity in and between 

neighborhoods, including provision of bike 

lane routes. 





Alternative A 

Alternative B 










• New retail and office mixed-use on triangular 

parcel between McFadden, Newport and 

Walnut Avenue only (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Higher concentration of new retail and office 

mixed-use by also converting the retail center 

at the south side of Walnut and east side of 

Newport Avenue (Alt. B) 

• New residential use on consolidated site 

south of Altadena Dr with vacation of Bliss 

Lane and a portion of Altadena Dr (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Consolidation for new residential use with 

new east-west street and new Youth Center 

west of Pasadena Ave; both alternatives 

include the a potential closure of the 

southern portion of Pasadena Ave that 

connects to Sycamore Ave (Alt. B) 






• Expand existing Youth Center to the north 

using an existing commercial site (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Relocate Youth Center to a larger site at the 

north-western corner of Pasadena and 

Sycamore Avenue; reuse current Youth 

Center site for larger retail in in combination 

with commercial site on the north side and 

parking lot on the east side (Alt. B) 









SITE FEATURES 

SITE 6: 

• Marks the northern end of the Southern 

Gateway neighborhood 

• Good connectivity to Newport Ave and I-5 

• Good visibility from I-5 exit and Newport 

Ave 

• Existing commercial and residential uses 

adjacent to site 

SITE 7: 

• High visibility from Newport Avenue 

• Efficient parcel shape 

• Site is surrounded by residential uses 






A-85 




SITE 6: 

• Retail location on west side 

difficult due to depth of parcel 

• Northern parcels require improved 

access for future use 

Opportunity Sites 6 & 7: Alternative 

OPPORTUNITIES 


• Intensification along Newport 

Avenue 







SITE FEATURES 

• Central location along Newport Avenue 

corridor 

• Good connectivity to and visibility from 

Newport Avenue and McFadden 

Avenue 

• Existing commercial and residential 

uses adjacent to site 

• Sites are served well by public streets 

SITE 8: 

• High visibility and accessibility 

SITE 9: 

• Efficient and accessible parcel shape 







SITE 8: 

• Triangular shape is more difficult 

to develop 

OPPORTUNITIES 


for new development 

• Sites 8 and 9 can form a new 

center for the neighborhood 


SITE 8: 

• New mixed-use: 

retail & office use 

SITE 9: 

• Upgrade existing 

commercial use 










SITE 8: 



SITE 9: 








SITE FEATURES 

• Gateway location 

• High visibility and accessibility 

from Newport Avenue and 

Sycamore Avenue 

• Good connectivity to Newport 

Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, and 

SR-55 

• Site 11 has efficient parcel 

shapes 

• Residential and institutional uses 

adjacent to sites 





• Site 10 cannot be accessed directly 

from Sycamore Avenue 

OPPORTUNITIES 

• Potential parcel consolidation at both 

sites to form larger development site 

• Potential closure of Pasadena Ave 

to reduce through traffic 

• Possible reconfiguration of access 

streets to use Site 10 more efficiently 

• Intensification along Newport Ave 

• Newport Ave extension will increase 

access to neighborhood 






SITE 10 a: 

• Potential cul-de-sac or 

partial street closure 

(portion of Pasadena 

Ave, Bliss Lane, and 

portion of Altadena Dr) 

• Lot consolidation east 

and west of Pasadena 

Ave 

SITE 11 a: 

• Expansion of existing 

Youth Center on 

existing commercial 

site 




SITE 10 a+b: 

• Potential youth center on the 

west side of Pasadena Ave 

• Potential cul-de-sac or partial 

street closure (portion of 

Pasadena Ave, Bliss Lane, 

portion of Altadena Dr, and 

portion of Myrtle Ave) 

• Lot consolidation east and 

west of Pasadena Ave 

• New east-west street 

SITE 11 a+b: 

• New consolidated retail site 


A-87 

















Next Steps 







Alternatives 
















in the West Village Neighborhood 


WEST VILLAGE - Second Community Workshop – September, 2009 








NEWPORT AVE 


No Entrance 

to Zoo 

No 

Connections 


Few Access 

Points 

Santa Ana 

Zoo 



Freeway 

Barrier 



ALLIANCE AVE. 


HIGHWAY 55 

INTERSTATE 5 

Robert 

Heideman 

School 



ALLIANCE AVE. 


HIGHWAY 55 

Only One 

East West 

Connection 

Views 


INTERSTATE 5 



Few Access 

Points 

Good 

Access 


Railway 

Barrier 







• 10% of Tustin’s population lives in the West Village, 

and parking and traffic are the biggest issue in the 

neighborhood. 

• Provide financial mechanisms for improvements. 

• Use the school as a neighborhood amenity. 

• There are insufficient commercial/ shopping 

opportunities in the West Village. 

• Consider converting some private roads into public 

roads to improve connectivity. 

• Better configuration of buildings can free up space 

while keeping the same level of density. 

West Village 







A-89 


Neighborhoods Overall Goals 

• xxx 

• xxx 




• xxx 




residents. 




• Consolidate commercial uses along corridors into 

well-defined neighborhood centers and/or mixed-use 

developments. 

• Redirect future development to underutilized and 

underperforming sites. 

• Expand streetscape improvements along street 

corridors. 

• Encourage introduction of moderate to high density 

residential and mixed use development along street 

corridors, compatible with the adjacent 

neighborhood. 




Alternative A 

• xxx 

• xxx • Encourage construction of a greater variety of 

• xxx residential types to accommodate a variety of 

family sizes. 

• xxx 

• xxx • Upgrade and revitalize older residential areas. 

• xxx • Improve connectivity in and between 

• xxx neighborhoods, including provision of bike lane 

routes. 

• Develop additional park and open spaces, 

where possible, particularly within the West 

Village and Southern Gateway neighborhoods. 





Alternative B 


• Provide new park and new joint parking for 

neighborhood and park use on existing 

residential parcels on south side of 

Alliance Street (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Reuse fewer residential parcels for joint 

parking for school and neighborhood with 

optional new residential development 

replacing existing residential uses in the 

south side of Alliance Street (Alt. B) 










• Provide new park on the existing Caltrans 

site and renovate the existing retail center at 

the corner of Tustin Village Way and 

McFadden Avenue (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Combine both parcels and develop with new 

retail and residential mixed-use (Alt. B) 

• Update and renovate mobile home park 

areas and do not change the northern end 

of Tustin Village Way (Alt. A) 

OR 

• Develop both sites with new residential 

uses that include new public parks and a 

new east-west street that connects Tustin 

Village Way with Williams Street (Alt. B). 






West Village 







SITE FEATURES 

• Can benefit from traffic on 

McFadden and serve as a 

gateway to the West Village 

• Surrounded by existing 

residential and commercial 

uses 

• High visibility from McFadden 

Ave and Tustin Village Way 

• Efficient parcel shape and size 



SITE 12: 

• Limited visibility from McFadden 

traveling east due to overpass 

ramp 

• Site requires improved access 

configuration due to parcel depth 

• No direct access from freeway 

SITE 13: 

• Residential use on west side 

requires sensitive site layout and 

transitions 






A-91 


Opportunity Site 12 & 13 

OPPORTUNITIES 


at both sites 

• Both sites can serve as a 

neighborhood center due to 

gateway location 

• Intensification along 

McFadden Avenue and Tustin 

Village Way 


SITE 12: 

• New public open space on 

Caltrans parcel 

• Upgrade or consolidate 

existing commercial retail 

center 

SITE 13a: 

• Upgrade or renovate 

existing commercial use 

and add new retail use on 

vacant site 







SITE 12: 

• New mixed-use: retail & 

residential (ownership) on 

consolidated site 

SITE 13a+b: 

• Consolidate parcels and 

redevelop entire site with 

new commercial use 






SITE FEATURES 

• Central location in the West Village 

• Sites are adjacent to school and 

residential uses 

• Sites are fronting on public streets 

OPPORTUNITIES 

• Future open space can provide 

much needed amenity and improve 

Alliance Street 

• Ideal location for school expansion 

• Potential parcel consolidation for 

new development 






SITE 14: 

• Potential new park site 

• Proposed new joint parking 

for neighborhood and park 

use on the west side of 

parcel 

SITE 15: 

• New school expansion site 

adjacent to existing school 






SITE 14: 

• Proposed new joint parking 

for school and 

neighborhood use, or 

alternatively, new 

neighborhood park 

• Upgrade existing or new 

residential use (ownership) 

including a small park 

SITE 15: 

• New school expansion site 

adjacent to existing school 






SITE FEATURES 

• Site fronts on Main Street 

and Williams Street 

• Large, mainly rectangular 

shaped parcels 

• Site is surrounded by 

residential and commercial 

uses 

• Proximity to existing school 



SITE 16: 

• Depth of parcel requires 

additional access streets; 

accessible only from two 

public streets 

SITE 17: 

• Depth of parcel requires 

additional access 

streets; accessible only 

from Williams Street 

• Proximity to freeway 






OPPORTUNITIES 

SITE 16: 

• High visibility from Main Street 

and Williams Street 

• Large size of parcel allow for 

various site layouts 

• Opportunity site for additional 

small neighborhood retail use 

Opportunity Sites 16 & 17: Alternative 

SITE 17: 

• Adjacent to residential uses 

• Site has a protected setting 

due to east west orientation 

and freeway along the 

northern boundary 






A-93 



West Village 














Next Steps 

West Village 






Alternatives 














A.6.4 

WORKSHOP #2 - PUBLIC COMMENTS 

City Center Neighborhood 

1. Comments and Discussion: 

• Don’t use setbacks south of 6th Street; higher buildings may mitigate the noise 

• Residential south of 6th Street: family housing preference 

• Potential connection from El Camino to “B” Street (East – West) 

• Alternate access to (N) residential or office (other than 6th Street) 

2. Which key site is most important? 

• #1 and #2 have some flexibility, wait what market proposes > public road doesn’t necessarily 

need to be built. 

• #1 should be looked at. City may have better insight re: property owners 


A-95 


City Center 

ALTERNATIVE A POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

New Residential 

6th Street 

Newport/ 

Orange St. 

Tustin High 

School 

5 South Exit at 

Red Hill 

El Camino 

• Good for Plan A. 

• Buildings at the sidewalk would 

be better than setback from the 

street. 

• Like to see residential here. 

• Residential ILO office 

• Nice idea for residential across 

the street. If this occurs, sound 

alternative is critical along 6th 

Street 

Q: Residential for family or adult 

living? (6th Street and B Street) Will 

you be addressing the drainage 

systems (maintenance) along 6th 

Street? 

• Need less stringent building/ 

parking requirements to 

We have existing permits to build/ 

develop – 

encourage redevelopment/ • But city parking ordinance is not 

development consolidation of update with reality. 

current dilapidated multifamily 

• Driveway ordinance not realistic 

area. Single family lot need 

to elevate off street parking. 

to be re-zoned to encourage 

consolidation. 

• Area density development not 

consistent. 

• Consider extending El Camino 

Real to B Street to break up 

large residential parcel and 

de-intensify traffic (B – 6th – El 

Camino) 

• Taller residential or office 

buildings on South of 6th 

would benefit the residential by 

mitigating freeway noise. 

Convert High School to a Magnet 

School (-Medical emphasis?) to tie 

to Hospital. 

Change center lane at Red Hill 

Freeway exit to right and left turn 

lane. 





ALTERNATIVE B POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

New Residential 

6th Street 

El Camino 

Striped Areas for 

Proposed Change 

of Use 

Upgrade Existing 

Residential 

Triplexes 

Upgrade/ 

Intensify Existing 

Residential 

New Retail/Office 

Mixed-Use 

Upgrade and 

Consolidate 

Existing 

Commercial 

• Setback important 

• Like office because no one should 

have to live right next to freeway. I 

suggest using style compatible with 

Old Town. 

• Avoid access on 6th Street to protect 

neighborhood. Reuse s/o 6th is 

good though. 

• Residential ILO office 

• Extend El Camino Real to B Street • Consider eliminating spur of El 

Camino Real and redeveloping area 

(buildings or parking) to face onto 

remaining part of El Camino. 

• Who chose the striped areas 

labeled as Proposed change or 

consolidation? When a private entity 

comes in and tries to buy up your 

property, it is very uncomfortable 

– they use a lot of pressure and use 

the city to also apply pressure. This 

has already happened on a couple 

years back. It is unfair. It is very 

threatening if you don’t want to sell. 

We still own our property on Kenyon 

but the buyers tried to strong-arm 

and they also go the city to support 

them. 

• 3 single family homes 13781 Orange 

St.., 13791 Orange St., Orange and 

Walnut NE Corner 

• Lower density of residential and 

remove parking on Main St. Add 

traffic signal at corner of Bryan and 

Main St., - provides better access 

from Larwin Square, etc. 

• Red Hill is now like a freeway! There 

is no place for residents to park! 

• Upgrade traffic flow not only for bike 

lanes but cars at intersection of Red 

Hill and El Camino. 


A-97 



ALT. A - SITES 1-3 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

• BOC Tustin prefers A 

• Weed to address “lighting” 

ALT. B - SITES 1-3 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

• Think of this area as an annex of Old 

Told concepts 

• Both can work but need different 

features to protect homes and 

encourage pedestrian traffic. 

Site 1 and 3 • Like Alternative B for Lots 1 and 3 


Site 4 

• Why not re-route El Camino Real 

and make it straight or close to I-5 

freeway? 

ALT B - SITES 4-5 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

Site 5 • 

• 

Like Alternative B for Lot 5. 

Best for revitalizing 




Southern Gateway Neighborhood 

Discussion and Comments: 

• More green and parks (office development doesn’t provide them) for different residents 

• Question of “upgrade” 

• Incentives in zoning to intensify uses/financial resources may be available 

• Traffic concern if Pasadena gets closed (may move traffic to east) 

• More study required 

• Funding sources? Private development/City for streetscape improvements 

• Preferred alternative 

• Prioritization of improvements and identification of resources 

• Newport Extension top priority, Tustin Ranch Road second 

• Design 90% done; construction funding still needs to be identified 

1) Alternative Plan or Part of the Plan is Best? Why? 

General comments: 

• 11a & b combined reduces parking for medical complex, could lead to more parking in 

neighborhoods, address parking issue (long term care facility doesn’t require as much 

parking) 

• Kenyon Drive: Owners responsible for maintenance? Up to property owners, potential gated 

for security 

• How realistic are ideas and improvements? 

• Sets up incentives and tone, longer term view (20 years) 

Question: Which key site is most important? 

• Triangular site (McFadden/Walnut /Newport) 


A-99 




Expansion of 

Youth Center 

Pasadena Ave. 

Upgrade 

Existing 

Residential 

Myrtle Ave. 

Proposed 

Widening of 

Newport Ave. 

Upgrade 

Existing 

Commercial 

(Newport/ 

McFadden) 

New Retail/ 

Residential 

Mixed-Use 

• Like Youth Center away from busy 

corner. Like trees on streets. 

• Agree Youth Center move - 

dangerous on busy corner. Speed 

bumps on Carfax and Del Amo 

– close to schools. Upgrade medical 

center and encourage doctor 

offices, pharmacy, etc. in adjacent 

areas including Newport/Walnut 

intersection. 

• I like this better than B. Maybe make 

it a one-way going north to maintain 

access but reduce _____? 

• Maybe close Myrtle instead of 

Pasadena to reduce crime. 

1. 

2. 

I think we need more open space 

“green areas” for families and kids. 

The commercial site (red) will be 

better in the Youth Center site. 

• Move Youth Center – Alternative “B” 

• Why not turn the Youth Center into 

overflow parking for the already taxed 

parking in the area – especially since 

the City of Tustin is removing parking. 

• Why is there still a commercial use 

here (McFadden & Pasadena)? The 

liquor store has an adverse effect 

on residential on both sides of 

McFadden. 

• When saying an area is to be 

upgraded – who determines what 

the upgrades will be and will this be 

forced on the owner? 

• Focus more specific efforts on 

improving Myrtle residential. 

• No major arterial from Santa Ana to 

north 5/55 Freeways. Also serves 

northbound 55 to Santa Ana and 

connection to Newport Ave. 

• Why widen Newport? Tustin has 

already widened it by removing the 

parking along there. At the expense 

of the residents. 

• What about access? Let’s not repeat 

triangle square. 

• We don’t need more retail/office 

space! To promote families, we need 

more parks, open spaces. Upgrade 

residential not commercial. 

• Why add more office space when 

complexes are half empty already? 






Potential New 

Youth Center Site 

Planned Newport 

Ave Extension 

Consolidate and 


Residential 

New 

Consolidated 

Commercial Site 

• Like moving Youth Center to new 

location near freeway. More room 

there for youth plus park access. 

• Moving Family and Youth is a 

good idea to allow more space for 

commercial office use. 

• Is there street widening to 

accommodate bike lanes and 

trees? How is increased traffic from 

connecting Newport going to be 

handled? 

• Youth Center proximity to freeway on 

ramp is a concern. 

• Youth Center causes too much 

congestion on the busy corner. 

• Don’t like moving Youth Center – it is 

an expensive option? 

• Moving Youth Center too far away 

from schools. How will kids get 

there? 

• Where are the Parks? Where can 

kids/families play? 

• Like streetscape on Sycamore. • Overall lack of park space. 

Misc. Comments 

• Option “B” is better plan. 

1. Streetscaping is valuable to 

improving area. 

2. Continue grants to support upgrades 

that otherwise fall to owners of 

multifamily buildings. 


A-101 



KEY OPPORTUNITY 

SITES 

Area between “B” 

Street, McFadden, 

55 Freeway and 5 

Freeway 

POSITIVE 

AREAS OF CONCERN 

• More parks, please, to help 

families living in these various 

residential areas. Also, more trees 

and greenery. 

ALT A SITES 6-7 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

Alternative A, 

Site 6: Residential Use 

(Rental/Ownership) 

• Low and middle income housing. 



Site 8: Mixed Use 

Retail and Office 

• Parking is a BIG problem here. Lot 

is sometimes completely full, and 

you have to exit onto McFadden, 

then turn right on Newport, then 

right on Walnut, and right into 

the back parking lot. Suggest 

lowering “shops density” and 

replacing with other use. 


Alternative B: 

New Youth Center 

w/ Green Space 

• I love the idea of a park, plus 

vacating the striped part of 

Pasadena Avenue and adding the 

east-west street, and moving the 

Youth Center next to the park. 

Great ideas! 

• Key opportunity – adding park and 

expanding Youth Center is crucial 

to improving this area. 




West Village Neighborhood 

Discussion and Comments: 

• Reduce traffic through area (no additional streets) 

• 20 year period: new street is good 

• Better mix of residents 

• Financial options for owners? 

• Private development with city incentives – no eminent domain 

• Make sure that there is a long-term vision 

• Why does it take that long? 

• Organic, depends on market; start earlier, but develop over time (no “Disneyland”) 

1) Alternative Plan or Part of the Plan is Best? Why? 

General comments: 

• Commercial sites at McFadden and Tustin Village Way important – Main entrance; same for 

McFadden and Williams. 

• West Village needs parks 

• Clean up and consistency 

• Signs announcing West Village (corners/intersections) 

• School traffic issue 

• More commercial along Main Street/close to zoo (zoo has unused entrance on Main) 

• Incentives for mobile home park to move? 

• 20 year plan 

• Coordination with Santa Ana? 

• Face same issues (density, amenities, recreation) 

• Make West Village more part of Tustin (entrance/streetscape) 


A-103 


West Village 


Proposed Joint 

Parking for 

Neighborhood 

and Park Use 

Potential New 

Neighborhood 

Park Site 

Upgrade/ 

Consolidate 

Existing 

Commercial 

Retail Center 

Overall 

Comments: 

• I like the idea of using this site (the 

Caltrans site) for a park and/or 

community garden. Also, the linear 

park along Alliance. 

• Need new street in the future or near 

future. 

• Yes to Park on Alliance. 

• South Side of Alliance : yes to park 

• Site 12: good as long as there is 

extra parking. 

• Alliance: Displaces too many 

residents 

• Parking, parking, parking, Please! 

West Village 


New Street, 

Extension of 

Tustin Village 

Way (Subject to 

Further Study) 

New Retail/ 

Residential 

Mixed-Use 

Overall 

Comments: 


Residential 

Triplexes 

Upgrade/ 

Intensify Existing 

Residential 

• No on the road. Open streets create 

more unwanted getaways. 

• I think that we need more parking to 

enjoy the Site 12. 

• Alternate B would be better for a 

longer long-term plan. It would be 

costlier but more productive for the 

neighborhood. 

• 

• 

Too much activity may provide too 

much criminal activity. No road 

extension. 

Gang traffic 

• 3 single family homes 13781 Orange 

St., 13791 Orange St., Orange and 

Walnut NE Corner 

• Lower density of residential and 

remove parking on Main St. Add 

traffic signal at corner of Bryan and 

Main St., - provides better access 

from Larwin Square, etc. 




West Village 

ALT A. SITES 12-13 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 

Alternative A 

• 

• 

Yes to park and parking 

Yes to park and upgrades only. 

ALT B. SITES 12-13 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 


Site 6: Residential Use 

(Rental/Ownership) 

• Yes to beautify the gateway to 

Tustin Village Way and McFadden. 

ALT A. SITES 14-15 POSITIVE AREAS OF CONCERN 


Site 8: Mixed Use 

Retail and Office 

• Yes to park. Ideal place. 

• Yes – another park and more 

parking. 


Alternative B Site 16 • 

• 

I like the street idea. 

Remodeled mobile home 

parks can be attractions for a 

neighborhood. 

Alternative B Site 17 

• Good idea for new street in the 

future. 

• Over the next two decades, “aging 

baby boomers” will be needing 

one-story, moderately-priced 

homes with small yards. With 

this in mind, consider replacing 

the mobile home park with an 

area of clustered, small homes 

similar to the small development 

immediately west of Jamestown 

Village in Old Town Tustin. This 

could promote “community” and 

would allow residents to have their 

own small gardens – flowers or 

veggies. Include a small park in 

center. 


A-105 


A.7 Workshop Attendees 

ATTENDEE LIST BY WORKSHOP 

PLEASE PRINT: 

SIGN IN SHEET 

September 28, 2009 6:00 pm 

“” Community Outreach Workshop 

Name Address E-Mail Address INTEREST 

GROUP 

1 Kurt Christy 12811 Bubbling Well 

Santa Ana 

2 Darla Cox 17102 Kenyon 

3 Cruz, Patsy Cruz 669 c W. 6th 

4 Jeff Enes Tustin 

5 Brent Ferdig 140 S. Myrtle, Tustin baferdig@earthline.net 

6 John Grover Tustin 

7 Jimmy Lin P.O. Box 1321, Tustin Flanmonste2000@yahoo.com 

8 Addie McHale 5801 6 th Street, Tustin 

9 Nathan Menard 345 W. 6 th St., Tustin Nathan.menard@SBCGlobal.net 

10 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive, Tustin 

11 John Nielsen Tustin Councilmember 

12 Henry Palmer Tustin yahdib@gmail.com 

13 Josh Perez 1081 Bonita Joshperez1@yahoo.com 

14 Margaret Quinones 1062 San Juan St., Tustin 

15 Roland Rosado 1062 San Juan St., Apt 2, 


16 Jeff Thompson 415 W. 6 th St., Tustin 

(Planning Commission) 

17 Ellen Yang 1052 Bonita Eln.yang@cox.net 

18 Peter Zappas 700 El Camino Real, Tustin 

City Staff: 

1 Chris Shingleton City of Tustin, CM 

2 John Buchanan City of Tustin, RDA 

3 Jerry Craig City of Tustin, RDA 

4 Matt West City of Tustin, RDA 

5 Sesar Morfin City of Tustin, RDA 

6 Elizabeth Binsack City of Tustin, CDD 

7 Justina Willkom City of Tustin, CDD 

8 Scott Reekstin City of Tustin, CDD 

9 Pamela Arends-King City of Tustin, Finance 

10 David Wilson City of Tustin, P & R 

11 Doug Stack City of Tustin, PW 

12 Doug Anderson City of Tustin, PW 

13 Wisam Altowaiji City of Tustin, PW 

14 Scott Jordan Tustin PD 

15 Steve Lewis Tustin PD slewis@tustinca.org 

16 John Strain Tustin PD jstrain@tustinca.org 




SIGN IN SHEET 


“SOUTHERN GATEWAY” Community Outreach Workshop 

PLEASE PRINT: 


GROUP 

1-2 Joe and Linda Day 1103 E. Wilson, Orange, CA 

3 Patricia Lucero 13841 Tustin E. Paty_Lucero@hotmail.com 

4-5 Mr. and Mrs. Ferd Cox 17102 Kenyon Drive CoxF@cox.net 

6 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive 

7 Brian O’Neil 395 Clipper Way Bpo42@yahoo.com 

8 John O’Neil 395 Clipper Way 

9 Asim Altamimi 2420 Cheney Santamonican@yahoo.com 

10 Vincent Rymso (?) gowithpunches@gmail.com 

11 Chad Clanton Tustin 

12 Tim O’Neil 1142 Scherer Place 

13-14 Joe and Jill Schleifer jschleifer@verizon.net 

15-16 Bill and Amy Sokol Tustin williamasokol@yahoo.com 

17 Jim Minnis P.O. Box 10191, Santa Ana 

92711 

18 David Miranda 300 S. “C” St., Tustin Dmmiranda@tustin.k12.ca.us TUSD 

19-20 Morrie & Carole 

Lebanoff 

45325 Sage, #6, Palm Desert, 

92260 

21 Gail Goida P.O. Box 17085, Anaheim 

92877 

gailit@pacbell.net 

Property 

owner 

22 Yavuz Akbulut 1082 San Juan, #E yavuzakbulut@att.net 

23-24 John & Peggy Perample 14621 Charloma Dr. 

25-26 Gary & Pam 

Schoenbachhler 

14642 Charloma Dr. semis@pacbell.net 

27 Marge Kasalek Tustin Planning Commission 

1 Chris Shingleton City of Tustin, CM 



4 Matt West City of Tustin, RDA 

5 Kimberly McAllen City of Tustin, RDA 


7 Dana Ogdon City of Tustin, CDD 



10 Chad Clanton City of Tustin, P & R 




14 Steve Lewis Tustin PD slewis@tustinca.org 

15 John Strain Tustin PD jstrain@tustinca.org 

16 Paul Garaven Tustin PD 


A-107 


SIGN IN SHEET 


“WEST VILLAGE” Community Outreach Workshop 

PLEASE PRINT: 


GROUP 

1 Jerry Amante Tustin Mayor Pro Tem 

2 Nicole Garcia 16571 Alliance Avenue markvii@apthomes4u.com 

3 Patricia Lucero 13841 Tustin E. Paty-lucero@hotmail.com 

4 Karin Marquez 15701 Tustin Village Way, #I-7 Kmarquez@jmrc.com T.E.A.M. 

5 Sherri Miller 2800 Keller Drive 

6 Al Murray Tustin Planning 

Commissioner 

7 Vaunda Myrick 15401 Williams 92780 smyrick@ca.rr 

8 John Nielsen Tustin Councilmember 

9 Ernest Schroeder 2411 E. Coast Hwy, Corona del 

Apt owner 

Mar 

10 Jean Schulte Jms8888@hotmail.com 

11-12 Lluevelyn and Jan 3234 Dakota, Costa Mesa 92626 JS52882003@yahoo.com 

Smith 

13 C. Velarde 15560 Tustin Village Way Segovia@apthomes4u.com 

14 Brenda White 55 Granada, Irvine 92602 bwhite@cerritos.edu 

City Staff: 

1 Lisa Woolery City of Tustin, CM 



4 Kimberly McAllen City of Tustin, RDA 


6 Elizabeth Binsack City of Tustin, CDD 

7 Amy Thomas City of Tustin, CDD 






13 Steve Lewis Tustin PD 

14 Paul Garaven Tustin PD 




ATTENDEE LIST BY ADDRESS 

SIGN IN SHEET 


Community Outreach Workshops to discuss revitalization of three neighborhoods in Tustin 

Last Name First Name Address INTEREST 

GROUP 

CENTER 

CITY 

SOUTHRN 

GATEWAY 

WEST 

VILLAGE 

Nielsen John X X X X 

Leffler Tom 1 Buena Vista X 

Opittek Gene 10962 Harrogate Place 

X 

Santa Ana, CA 

Mason Bob 1051 Bonita 

Tustin, CA 

Mason Marel 1051 Bonita 


Giel Tim and Linda 1052-C Walnut St. 

X 

Tustin, CA 92780 

Lynn Dee Dee 1062 Walnut St., #A X 

Nunez Celia 1072 Walnut St. 


Nunez Margarita 1075 San Juan St. 


Hall Janice 1082 E. Main X 

Karlen Donna 1101 St. Regis Place 

X 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Garceau Nancy 1102-B San Juan 

X 


Teal Lorne 1241 Sycamore Ave. 

X 


Meyer Michele 12562 Ranchwood Rd 

X 

Santa Ana, CA 

Bartolomucci Jim 13432 Cindy Lane 

X 


Groves John 13781 Orange St. 

X 


Rios Sara 13791 Orange St. X 

Rios Stella 13791 Orange St. X 

Smith Jocelyn 13811 Orange St. Resident X 

Gleason Stephen 13811 Orange St. X X 

Smith Charles M. 13831 Orange St. X 

Kellams Dorothy 1401 San Juan 

X 


Servais Charles 14041 Newport Ave. 

X 

X 


Vincent Margaret 14042 Holt Ave 

X 

Santa Ana, CA 

Kanselbaum Marty 14151 Newport Ave, 201A 

Prop. X X 


owner 

Long Minh Tam 14536 Newport Ave., #2 


X 

1 


A-109 


SIGN IN SHEET 




GROUP 

Chio Thieu 14551 Newport 


Heyer Madeline 14562 Newport Ave., #3 


Wu Beth 14602 Carfax 


Perample Peggy and John 14621 Charloma Dr. 


Soltz Sue and Joe 14641 Del Amo 


Schoenbachler Gary and Pam 14642 Charloma Dr. 


Brockschmidt Mary 14702 Charloma Dr. 


Remy David 1471 San Juan X 

Zim Teri and Mke 14721 Charloma Dr. 


Jackson Mike 14731 Charloma 


Jackson Dale 14731 Charloma Dr. 


Myrick Sam 15411 Williams 


Guard Suzanne 15500 Williams 


Adams Phebe 15504-J Williams 


Peltway Jo Ann 15510 Williams, #B 


Claudio Juan 15520 Tustin Village Way 


Pflug Jim 15642 B St. 


Trujillo Sylvia 15730 Tustin Village Way 

Tustin, CA (Jewelry Exchange) 

Lara Sandra 15742 Williams St. 

Valencia Gardens 

Landhelm Jim 16522 Alliance 


Lopez Rafael 16526 Alliance Ave. 


CENTER 

CITY 

SOUTHRN 

GATEWAY 

X 

Tang Gexin 16572 Alliance Ave X 

Bradley Randy and Lisa 16572 Montego Way 

X 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

WEST 

VILLAGE 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2 




SIGN IN SHEET 




GROUP 

Smith Jim 16602-16606 Alliance 


CENTER 

CITY 

SOUTHRN 

GATEWAY 

Hudson Kim 16619 Montelo Way 


Minnis Jim 17102 McFadden Ave X 

Goitier Edgar 18581 Myrtle Ave. 


Streeter John 18836 Oakridge Drive 

X 


Cox F. 1932 McClean Dr. 

X X 


James Elysse 2006 McGaw Ave. 

X X X 

Irvine, CA 

Schroeder Ernest 2411 E. Coast Hwy, #300 

X 

Corona Del Mar, CA 

Offlelie Joe 3010 Old Ranch 

X 

Seal Beach, CA 90740 

Hill Carol L. 515 South B St. 

X 


Jones Sharon 520 W. Main St. X X X 

Kliss Bill 6003 E. Crater Lake 

X 

Orange, CA 

Switzky Roger 6225 S. Allison Circle 

X 

Orange, CA 92869 

Alvarez Suzanne 657-D West 6 th Prop. X 

Owner 

Bernard John 660 Newport Center, #930 

X X 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Zappas Peter 700-A El Camino Real 

X 


Cantrell Jill Greenwood X 

Stockstill Mike P.O. Box 51551 

X X X 

Irvine, CA 92619 

Nedza E.A. P.O. Box 5832 

Orange, CA 92863 

Ehret Mary Ann Pueblo 

X 


Nunez Enrique Tustin, CA 

Peria Alfonso Tustin, CA 

Wong Bing Tustin, CA 

Nunn Jana Valencia Garden Apts X 

Chaney Caryl Williamshire HOA X 

WEST 

VILLAGE 

X 

3 


A-111 


SIGN IN SHEET 




GROUP 

CENTER 

CITY 

SOUTHRN 

GATEWAY 

Breskin Khaya City of Tustin PD X 

Jordan Scott City of Tustin PD 

Lewis Steve City of Tustin PD X 

Kapadia Reina City of Tustin, CDD 

Meyer Cari City of Tustin, CDD 

Ogdon Dana City of Tustin, CDD 

Swiontek Ryan City of Tustin, CD 

Willkom Justina City of Tustin, CDD 

Bone Lou City of Tustin, City Council X 

Davert Doug City of Tustin, City Council X X X X 

Woolery Lisa City of Tustin, CM 

Kasalek Marge City of Tustin, Planning Commission X 

Murray Al City of Tustin, Planning Commission 

Thompson Jeff City of Tustin, Planning Commission X X X 

Altowaiji Wisam City of Tustin, PW 

Anderson Doug City of Tustin, PW 

Stack Doug City of Tustin, PW 

Buchanan John City of Tustin, RDA 

Craig Jerry City of Tustin, RDA 

McAllen Kimberly City of Tustin, RDA 

Morfin Sesar City of Tustin, RDA 

West Matt City of Tustin, RDA 

Wilson Dave City of Tustin, Parks & Recreation 

WEST 

VILLAGE 

S:\BEYOND THE BASE\Workshop Oct 08\Attend List_by name.doc 

4 




150 CALIFORNIA 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 T. 415 788 6606 F. 415 788 6650 WWW.FIELDPAOLI.COM

the neighborhoods of tustin town center: a new ... - City of Tustin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?