Agenda packet — Orange City Council, May 28, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

Project Access and Parking:

Vehicle access is provided by two-way entrance driveways along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. These entry drives connect to a looped private interior roadway that provides vehicle and pedestrian access to the main entrances and garages of the dwelling units. The internal roadway includes curb, gutter, and intermittent landscape planters. No unit driveways or sidewalks are provided along the interior roadway. Each unit is provided with an attached two-car garage, and there are 30 open parking spaces for occupants and guests for a total of 128 parking spaces provided for the development. Pedestrian access from the street frontages is provided via paved walkways at the Cambridge Street driveway, at the southwest corner of the site, and through gated courtyards for each unit along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The project also provides convenient pedestrian access to nearby shopping, restaurants, office, and residential uses, as well as to the bus City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™
626
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
pedestrian access to nearby shopping, restaurants, office, and residential uses, as well as to the bus stop located on Katella Avenue, adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Interior walkways are provided on the east and west sides of the interior residential island that connects to a landscaped paseo that leads to the entries of Units 14-33. The private interior roadway, parking spaces, common open space, and landscape areas designated on Sheet L-5 (HOA Maintained Areas Plan) of the project plans will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association for the development.

Common and Private Open Space:

The Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards require a project to provide common open space only if the buildings on each lot exceed 75 percent lot coverage. As noted on Sheet A1.0 (Conceptual Site Plan), lot coverage for the project ranges from 44-57 percent and therefore the project is not required to provide common open space. However, in an effort to enhance the project aesthetics and provide amenities to the residents, the applicant has provided an enclosed pocket park with shaded picnic tables, barbeque, mulltipurpose lawn area, and enhanced paving along the northern boundary, a pocket park with bench seating, entry portals, signage wall, and lawn area area at the southwest corner of the site, and a landscaped paseo between Units 13-34 in the interior residential island. The project also provides private open space in the form of roof decks for all three-story units, and 10-foot rear yards for units along the northern boundary.

Streetscape and Landscape
Sheet L-1 (Existing Conditions Plan) shows the removal of 18 existing mature trees in order to accommodate the new residential development. Nine (9) existing street trees will be protected in place.

Sheet L-25 (Conceptual Planting Plan) illustrates the proposed landscape palette for the project. The project incorporates a variety of water efficient plant material along the street frontages, project interior, and perimeter boundaries, including a total of 64 new trees. Streetscape treatment includes retension of existing street trees, and although not included on the plans, the incorporation of three (3) new street trees along the Katella Avenue frontage (Condition of Approval #24). Foundation planting and landscape planters will contain Hybrid Olive, Pink Trumpet, and Forest Pansey Redbud trees, and linear groupings of shrubs and groundcover including Blue Flame Agave, Little Rev Flax Lily, Huntington Carpet Rosemary, and Jerusalem Sage. The streetscape landscaping functions to convey the residential nature of the land use along the predominatently commercial Katella corridor, will articulate and help soften the three-story building design, and provide a friendly pedestrian- oriented interface with the buildings and sidewalk. The project interior will include Forest Pansy Redbud, Hybrid Olive, Saratoga Laurel, Nachez Crape Myrtle, Italian Cypress, and Filibusta Fan Palm trees with a mix of similar shrubs and ground cover, including artificial turf in the pocket parks.

Enhanced paving is proposed for pedestrian walkways, within the pocket parks, and within the fenced unit courtyards along the street frontages.

Fences/Walls:

Sheet L-3 (Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan) illustrates low stucco walls with wooden gates for the unit courtyards along both street frontages, contributing to the pedestrian interface of the project and sidewalks while also providing a physical cue of private property space. The southwest corner of the site is accentuated with 8-foot pedestrian portals and low stucco walls that will contain signage for the development. The majority of the existing 7-foot block wall along the northern boundary between the project and the residential neighbors to the north will remain in place, with the exception of the northeast corner that will be modified due to a retaining condition. A variable height (3 feet-6 inches to 8 feet) precision block wall is proposed along the eastern boundary between the project and the City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™
627
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
8 feet) precision block wall is proposed along the eastern boundary between the project and the adjacent commercial site. Side yard stucco walls and gates (6 feet tall) are proposed between the units, and low tubular steel fencing and gates will enclose the landscape area at the northeast corner and pocket park along the northern boundary.

Lighting:

Sheet EP1.1 includes the Photometric Plan and fixture designs for the project. New 16 feet tall LED pole streetlights are proposed in landscape planters at the entry drives, adjacent to guest parking spaces, and in the pocket park along the northern boundary. These fixtures will have house side shielding and will be directed downward to prevent off-site light spillage. LED bollard lighting (3 feet tall) is proposed in the pocket park at the southwest corner, and various landscape lighting, including shade structure down lighting, in-ground flush mounted fixtures, and tree/sign up lighting will also be provided. Decorative LED wall light fixtures (shown on building elevations) are proposed at the front and garage door entries of each unit. The proposed fixture styles are contemporary and compatible with the architecture of the buildings.

Signage:

Conceptual signage is included for illustrative purposes on Sheet L-1 and is not part of this project proposal. Monument signage is proposed on a low wall at the southwest corner pocket park for visibility at both street intersections. The sign concept appears compatible with the building design; however, the City’sBuilding Security Ordinance will likely require a lighted address on the monument sign and at each residential unit. All signage will comply with the City’s sign regulations.

Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials for all structures, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme. The project’scontemporary design attempts to provide a visual transition from the eclectic appearance of the Katella commercial corridor, immediately abutting residential neighborhoods, non-descript uses at the other three corners of the intersection, and at a key “gateway” location leading to the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District.

6. EXISTING SITE
The 2.71-acre site is currently developed with a vacant 20,621 square foot two-story utility building (former AT&T switching and service truck facility) that has a recent history of transient occupation and vandalism. A 53-foot tall wireless communication facility and related equipment is located to the east of the building. There is a surface parking lot with 152 spaces, mature trees and landscaping, perimeter walls, gated entries off Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, and site improvements. All structures and site improvements, including the wireless communication facility will be removed to accommodate the project.

7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The project site is located in a transitional area of the City, containing a mix of residential and commercial uses. To the north of the project site are one-story single-family residences located along Carleton Avenue. To the south is Katella Avenue and a bus stop located adjacent to the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Cambridge Street. Further south are one and two-story commercial buildings (Orange County Mattress, multi-tenant office building, Albert James Photographers). To the east is a two-story retail/office building (Pacific Coast Title Company, HN Mattress). To the west is Cambridge Street. Further west is the Speedway Express gas station, and two-story multi-family residences (Cambridge Court Apartments). The architecture in the surrounding area is eclectic, dating from the 1960’sthrough the 1980’s.The site is also within one half-mile of the Fairmeadow City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™
628
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
dating from the 1960’sthrough the 1980’s.The site is also within one half-mile of the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District and Taft Library, and a mile from the Irving House neighborhood, a recent development of a similar format and architectural style to the proposed project.

8. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials, conceptual signage, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme that attempts to achieve a logical visual transition/response to the surrounding environments. Removal of the wireless facility will also improve aesthetics of the site and surrounding area. Because two-story units will be located along the northern boundary, directly adjacent to single story residences (some with swimming pools) to the north, staff is concerned that privacy may be compromised.

Issue 1: Privacy for Residences along the Northern Boundary During the initial planning phase of the project, the applicant had included three-story attached units along the northern boundary of the project. In an effort to address staff’sconcerns regarding privacy for the single-story residences to the north, the applicant responded by redesigning the project and providing detached two-story units along the northern edge. Plans 3A and 3B (see Sheets A 4.3 - A

4.6) are proposed for the northern units, which include one larger bedroom window and one smaller clerestory bathroom window, both with unobscured glass on the second story rear elevations of each unit. Staff is primarily concerned with the screening of the larger bedroom windows. The rear elevations of the northern units are located approximately 14-58 feet away from the single-story residences to the north, and 10 feet from the north property line (Code requires a minimum of five feet). Sheet L-25 shows 24-inch box Natchez Crape Myrtle and Italian Cypress trees proposed on the rear corners of each lot; however, the number of trees proposed may not adequately screen the larger rear facing bedroom windows from the residences to the north. Staff believes the window size, glazing, and placement on the north elevations warrants refinement to avoid privacy infringement given the limited rear yard space available for additional landscape screening. The applicant has provided Neighbor Adjacency Exhibits (Sheets L-8 to L-15) to help illustrate the relationship between the units along the northern boundary and the single-story residences to the north. Staff is seeking direction on the proposed building fenestration along the northern boundary of the project.

9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Staff Review Committee (SRC) conducted reviews of the project on December 14, 2022, July 26, 2023, and on September 20, 2023. On November 1, 2023, SRC recommended that the project proceed to the Design Review Committee.

10. PUBLIC NOTICE
On November 9, 2023, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 was filed with the Orange County Clerk Recorder, posted at the site in two locations, mailed to 122 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, potentially affected cities, public agencies, utility service providers, and published in the Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper.

On November 22, 2023, the City sent a DRC Public Meeting Notice to 122 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, potentially affected cities, public agencies, utility service providers and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site has been posted in two locations with the notification on that same date.

City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™
629
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779

11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1882-22 has been prepared for this project and is included as Attachments 4 and 5 for the DRC’s review and consideration. The issues subject to DRC purview are impacts relating to Aesthetics (pages 21-24), and Cultural Resources (pages 38-40). The role of the DRC is to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and comments provided by the DRC will be included in the Planning Commission Staff Report.

MND No. 1882-22 analyzes the physical environmental impacts of the project. The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. There were no impacts identified related to Aesthetics or Cultural Resources. The public review period began on November 9, 2023 and will end on December 11, 2023. The MND was made publicly available at the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, and the City’s website.

12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
Findings for DRC applications come from four sources:
· The Orange Municipal Code
· The Infill Residential Design Guidelines
· The Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne (commonly referred to the Old Towne Design Standards or OTDS)
· Orange Eichler Design Standards (or OEDS)
The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions.
· The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).

The project is neither located in a specific plan area nor an area of the City subject to design standards. The surrounding community is characterized by a mix of land use types and design styles with no specific architectural theme. Adjacent commercial and residential buildings are generally contemporary in style, one and two stories in height, have varied roof forms, and rectangular and arched openings. The area along Katella Avenue is also in transition with the new three-story Katella Terrace senior apartments (1249 E. Katella Avenue) under construction to the east, Kiddie Academy daycare facility (232 E. Katella Avenue) and Rapids Express Car Wash (1325 W. Katella Avenue) to the west, and recently constructed five-story multi-family apartments (Garrison Modern Apartments, 1725 W. Katella Avenue) further to the west.

The proposed project will revitalize the neighborhood by replacing an existing, dated two-story commercial building and surface parking lot with a distinctive, contemporary residential development that integrates with the surrounding development along Cambridge Street and City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™
630
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
development that integrates with the surrounding development along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The three-story building height integrates with the large scale two-story commercial buildings to the east and south that direct massing towards the Katella Avenue frontage. Two-story units located along the northern boundary take into consideration the adjacent one-story single-family residential development to the north. The architectural design incorporates a combination of hip, flat, and shed roof forms, unique window arrangements and details, arched openings, use of trim and siding, and façade plane changes to add visual interest. The proposed landscape design, project lighting, and signage will enhance the architectural aesthetics and will contribute to the integration of the project with the surrounding development. Streetscape enhancements along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue provide an appealing pedestrian friendly environment to encourage pedestrian activity and linkage to surrounding commercial and residential uses, and public transportation. This project presents a unifying theme and results in an internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles in the surrounding area. Further, in order to accommodate this residential development project, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards are proposed to allow a space efficient alternative housing type which would create an additional opportunity for homeownership in the City of Orange.

13. CONDITIONS
The approval of this project is subject to the following conditions:

1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled as Attachment 7 in the staff report (date stamped received November 9, 2023), including modifications required by the conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee.

2. Except as otherwise provided herein, this project is approved as a precise plan. After any application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plot plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan administratively.

3. Subsequent modifications to the approved architecture, color scheme, and landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.

4. The applicant agrees, as a condition of City’s approval of Design Review No. 5092-22, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at applicant’sexpense, the City, its officers, agents, and employees (“City”)from and against any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City, including, but not limited to, any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 8 of 11
powered by Legistar™
631
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which the City receives notice and to cooperate fully with the applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs and attorney’sfees that the City may be required to pay, including any expenses ordered by a court or expenses incurred through the Office of the City Attorney in connection with said claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding but such participation shall not relieve applicant of the obligations of this condition. In the event the applicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action or proceeding, City shall have the right to approve counsel to so defend the City, approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approve any all settlements, which approval(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld. The obligations set forth herein remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including any and all appeals of any lower court judgment rendered in the proceeding. Further, applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City for all costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this provision.

5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations.

Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit.

6. Building permits shall be obtained for all future construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Community Development Department’s Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit.

7. All signage shall comply with Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations of the Orange Municipal Code.

Project signage shall be subject to Community Development Director approval.

8. If not utilized, project approval expires twenty-four months from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted, if requested in writing in accordance with OMC Section 17.08.060.

9. In conjunction with construction, all activity will be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity will be permitted on Sundays and Federal holidays.

10. These conditions shall be reprinted on the second page of the construction documents when submitted to the Building Division for the plan check process.

11. Any graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours from the time the City of Orange Notice of Violation is sent to the applicant/property owner’s address of record.

12. Any new lighting on the premise shall be installed in such a way to direct, control, and screen the lighting to prevent off site light spillage onto adjoining properties and shall not be a nuisance to any point beyond the exterior boundaries of the property.

13. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule a light reading inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™
632
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779
inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. The applicant shall use shielding so as to ensure that the light standards meet the requirements of OMC Section

17.12.030 for areas beyond the property’s exterior boundaries; light spillage or pollution to surrounding residential areas shall not exceed a maintained minimum of 0.5 foot-candle.

14. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that all mechanical and air conditioning equipment shall be shielded and screened from view from adjacent streets and properties. The screening shall be integrated architecturally with the building and painted to match the walls of the building.

15. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of application for Building Permit.

16. Prior to building permit issuance, final landscaping plans for the project shall be designed to comply with the City’sWater Efficient Landscape Guidelines as described in Section IX et al of the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation verifying compliance with this requirement for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

17. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare a final landscaping and irrigation plan consistent with the grading plans, site plans, and the conceptual landscaping plan as proposed for the project for the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

18. Landscape maintenance shall be performed in such a manner as to allow all trees to retain their full canopy height for screening and full canopy breadth for shade at point of maturity, except as required for public safety purposes.

19. Prior to building permit issuance, City required irrigation and landscape inspection notes, in accordance with the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications, shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or designee in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

20. Prior to certificate of occupancy, all landscaping improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans, the City of Orange Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, and City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation certifying compliance with this requirement (Appendices B and E of City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications) for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee, in coordination with the Public Works Director or designee.

21. The final landscape plan shall include a note that a fully automated irrigation system will be provided.

City of Orange Printed on 11/30/2023Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™
633
Item #: 4.2. 12/6/2023 File #: 23-0779

22. Prior to building permit issuance, landscape plans shall include landscape area calculations needed for State landscape water use reporting.

23. Prior to building permit issuance, a Tree Removal Permit shall be approved by the Community Services Director in accordance with the City’sTree Preservation Ordinance. A plan is required for submittal to the City depicting all of the existing on-site trees, the specifics of each tree, and the number of trees proposed for removal and replacement.

24. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall install three (3) new Camphor street trees to fill in the gaps along the Katella Avenue frontage. Tree wells shall measure 6 feet by 6 feet, and trees spacing shall be 35 feet on center. Tree variety and placement shall be approved by the Public Works Department, Tree Services Coordinator.

25. Patio covers, pergolas, canopies, umbrellas larger than five feet in diameter, or similar shade structures, and overhead patio string lighting are not permitted on roof top decks. Heat lamps and other outdoor accessory fixtures shall not extend above the height of the roof parapet/balcony railing.

MINUTES
City of Orange
D6ign Review Gommittee
December 06, 2023
The Design Review Committee of the City of Orange, California convened 2023, al 5:30 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber, 300 E.

Orange, California.
,1. OPENING/CALL TO ORDER
Chair McDermott called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

1.1 1.2

3.1. 3.2
on December 6,
Chapman Avenue,
2 3

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair McDermott led the flag salute.

ROLL CALL

Present: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Ledesma, and McDermott

Absent: Skorpanich, and Grosse

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

Approval of minutes of the City of Orange Design Review Committee Regular Meeting held on November 15,2023,
ACTION: Approved minutes as presented.

Design review of a master sign program for the Providence St. Joseph Medical Office Building at 363 S. Main Street (Design Review No. 51'14-231.

ACTION: Approved by the Design Review Committee.

A request for new signage for a proposed restaurant al 212E. chapman Avenue (oRc 5120-23).

Item 3.3 was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration by Committee Member Fox.

3.3.

Page 1 of 3 ends

635
December 6, 2023

4.1. Batavia Self Storage, located at 630 N Batavia Street (Design Review No 5072-221.

4.2. A molion was made by Committee Member Fox, seconded by Committee Member Ledesma, to recommend approval of Design Review 5072-221o lhe Planning Commission with the following recommendations:
-The Ceanothus called out on the landscape plan be substituted with the coffee berry shrub
- The tree count of the Brisbane box should be increased per the landscape architects recommendations so that it results in having seven 24-inch trees and an additional four 36-inch Brisbane box trees and that the applicant will work with staff prior to submittal for building plan check
The motion carried by the following vote:

Aves: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich, and Grosse
A proposal to construct 49 small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue (Design Review No. 5092-221.

The following spoke on behalf of the project:

Emilie Simard, Applicant; Phil Stevens,
of lntracorp; Michael Stone, Architect:

Applicant.

Landscape Architect; Brad
Joy Hendrick, Consultant,
Perozzi, President
and Rick Puffer.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Design Review Committee Minutes
ACTION: A motion was made by Committee Member Fox, seconded by Committee Member lmboden, to approve Design Review 5120-23 with the added following conditions:
- The halo illumination be eliminated on the lower line of text on the Chapman Avenue facing side so that the words " TEA & FUSION RESTAURANT' do not have the halo illumination
- No exposed conduit or raceways on the outer surface of the facade The motion carried by the following vote:

Aves: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich, and Grosse

3.4. A request for a stealth wireless facility housed within the City's Main Library Cupola, /O7 E. Chapman Avenue (Design Review No. 5108-23).

ACTION: Approved by the Design Review Committee.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
A motion was made by Committee Member Fox, seconded by Committee Member lmboden, to approve the Consent Calendar as presenled. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aves: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich, and Grosse

4. NEW BUSINESS
636
Design Review Committee Min utes December 6, 2023
The following spoke in opposition to the project:

Steve Fingal, David Nelson, Kevin Tong, Corina Ven De Pol, Joe Vasquez, Alfred Tucker, Lily Tucker, Carolyn Jones, Rosalie Huynh, Doug Hamilton, Janet Majick, Richard Housky, Timothy C. Ngo, Amy Moen, Hung Doan, Rob Canning, David Stuetzel, and Alex Martin.

RECESS: The Design Review Committee recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with all Members present.

RECESS: The Design Review Committee recessed al 9:27 p.m. and reconvened at 9:44 p.m. with all Members present.

A motion was made by Committee Member Fox, seconded by
Farfan, to continue Design Review 5092-22 to February 7, 2024. by the following vote:

Aves: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich, and Grosse

ADJOURNMENT
Committee Member
The motion carrred
5 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 P.M reb
Pnncrpa lPlanner
After further discussion, the Design Review Committee took a recess to allow the applicant time to consider a continuance.

The next Regular Design Review Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.

Page 3 of 3 ends

637
Agenda Item
Design Review Committee
Item #: 4.1. 2/7/2024 File #: 24-0087
TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
FROM: Monique Schwartz, Senior Planner

1. SUBJECT
A proposal to construct 49 small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue (Design Review No. 5092-22) (Continued from December 6, 2023).

2. SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing 2.71-acre commercial site with 49, two-and three- story single-family small lot homes (17 paired and 15 detached), open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements. On December 6, 2023, the Design Review Committee (DRC) continued this project to February 7, 2024, in order to provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to DRC feedback regarding overall site layout, building architecture, privacy, shade and shadow, and landscaping.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Continue to the February 21, 2024, Design Review Committee Regular meeting.

4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In response to the comments provided at the December 6, 2023, DRC meeting, the applicant is working with staff to address the feedback. The requested continuance to February 21, 2024, allows the applicant additional time to provide the requested information and revisions on the plans.

City of Orange Printed on 2/1/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
638
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEWCOMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 21,2024

MINUTES
City of Orange
Design Review Committee
February 07 , 2024
The Design Review Committee of the City of Orange,
2024, al 5:30 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council
Orange, California.
convened on February 7,
300 E. Chapman Avenue,
1 OPENING/CALL TO ORDER
Chair McDermott called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair McDermott led the flag salute.

ROLL CALL

Present: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott

Absent: Skorpanich

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Speakers:

1.2 Steve Fingal spoke briefly about ltem 4.1 and informed the Committee that he, and others, will be in attendance at the February 21 ,2024 meeting.

3. CONSENTCALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Design Review Commitlee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

3.1. Approval of minutes of the City of Orange Design Review Committee Regular Meeting held on January 17 ,2024.

ACTION: Approved minutes as presented.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
A motion was made to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion canied by the following vote:

Aves: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich
California
Chamber,
2

Page 1 of 3 ends

639
Design Review Committee Minutes Febtuary 7 , 2024

3.2 3.3.
4 4.1.

Review of a proposed change in window and door design of a previously approved project at 367 N. Cambridge Street (Design Review No. 5033-21).

Item 3.2 was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration by Chair McDermott.

A motion was made by Commiftee lvlember Fox, seconded by Committee Member No. 5033-21. Thelmboden, to deny unpermitted modifications to Design Review motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Fox, lmboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich
A request for an addition at the side of an existing historic 814 E. Ferndale Avenue (Design Review No. 5111-231.

Note: Committee Member Fox recused herself from ltem 3.3 due to the proximity of her residence to the project and left the meeting at 5:54 p.m.

Item 3.3 was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration by Committee Member lmboden.

Public Speakers
The following spoke on behalf of the project:

Ron Vandermooren, Contractor.

A motion was made by Committee Member lmboden, seconded by Chair McDermott, to continue Design Review No. 5033-21 to the March 20, 2024, Design Review Committee Regular meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aves: lmboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich
Recuse: Fox

OLD BUSINESS
A proposal to construct 49 small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue (Design Review No. 5092-221(Continued from December 6, 2023).

A motion was made by Chair McDermott, seconded by Committee Member Ledesma, to continue Design Review 5092-22 to the February 21, 2024, Design Review Commrttee Regular meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: lmboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott
Noes: None

Absent: Skorpanich, and Fox
residence, located at

Page 2 of 3 ends

640
De6ign Review Committee Minutes Febtuary 7 , 2024
5 ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

The next Regular Design Review Committee meeting will be held February 21,2024 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
on Wednesday,
C rtlie b
Principal Plan ner

Page 3 of 3 ends

/-r
641
Agenda Item
Design Review Committee
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
FROM: Monique Schwartz, Senior Planner

1. SUBJECT
A proposal to construct 49 small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue (Design Review No. 5092-22).

2. SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing 2.71-acre commercial site with 49, two-and three- story single family small lot homes (17 paired and 15 detached), open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission.

4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Intracorp Homes, Emilie Simard
Property Owner: Phoenix Power & Light, LLC, Jonathan Schurgin Property Location: 901 E. Katella Avenue
General Plan Designation: General Commercial Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) Zoning Classification: Commercial Professional (C-P)
Existing Development: The site is currently developed with a 20,621-square-foot two-story vacant commercial building, a 53-foot-tall wireless communication facility and equipment enclosure located to the east of the building, a surface parking lot with 152 spaces, mature trees and landscaping, and site improvements.

Associated Applications: General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22, Zone Change No. 1307-22, Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293-23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22.

Previous DRC Project Review: On December 6, 2023, the Design Review Committee (DRC) continued this project to February 7, 2024, in order to provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to feedback regarding overall site layout, building architecture, privacy, shade and shadow, and landscaping. A second continuance to February 21, 2021, was requested and granted at the City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 1 of 16
powered by Legistar™
642
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
February 7, 2024 DRC meeting.

5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a request to allow for the redevelopment of an existing 2.71-acre commercial site with 49, two-and three-story single-family small lot homes (17 paired and 15 detached), open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements (Attachment 12 Project Plans). The existing commercial building, site improvements, and wireless communication facility will be demolished and removed. Since this type of project is not permitted in a commercial General Plan designation or Zone, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Element designation from General Commercial, Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) to Medium Density Residential 15-24 dwelling units per acre (MDR), a Zone Change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential Multiple Family (R-3), and application of Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards [Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.14.270]. The proposed development will have a density of 18.1 dwelling units per acre, approximately the midpoint of the Medium Density Residential designation. The proposal includes a Tentative Tract Map for the small lot subdivision including establishment of private and common use areas.

In 2021, Title 17 of the OMC was amended to provide development standards for small lot subdivisions. The Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards and Guidelines allow for the development of smaller fee simple, single-family residential lots in multi-family residential zones (R-3 and R-4) and the NMU-24 mixed use zone. The lots created under these standards are less than the typical minimum area of a traditional single-family lot, which allows for flexibility in lot configuration, and reduces the amount of land required for new-single family residences. The development standards include regulations for lot frontage, setbacks, stories, height, private open space, and parking (Attachment 3 Development Standards Reference Table). These development standards allow for a space-efficient and economical alternative to traditional options for home ownership.

The project includes small lots ranging from 1,468 to 2,442 square feet. Residential units are configured around a 25-foot wide looped private interior roadway. There are 15 residences that have primary entries accessed from the Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue frontages, providing a pedestrian oriented sidewalk interface along both streets. There are 22 units located at the center of the site that have primary entries off an interior landscaped paseo, and 12 units along the northern boundary have primary entries off the interior roadway.

The project provides three different floor plans with units ranging from 1,604 to 2,001 square feet (See Sheet A1.0 - Conceptual Site Plan). Modifed floor plans will also be offered for Plan 2 styles with the option of an office or loft in lieu of a fourth bedroom (Plan 2 ALT). In addition, each unit plan provides garage space dedicated for the storage of three trash carts for the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and organics and a minimum of 250 cubic feet of overhead storage.

Floor Plan No. of
Units
Gross Area
(Square Feet)
No. of
Stories
No. of
Bedrooms
No. of
Bathrooms
Garage
(Square
Feet)
Plan 1 17 1,965 3 + Roof
Deck
3 3.5 487
Plan 2 18 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
4 3.5 471
Plan 2 ALT
Units 47 and
49 2 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
3 + Loft or
Office

3.5 471
Plan 3 12 1,604 3 + Roof
Deck
3 2.5 471
Total 49
City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 2 of 16
powered by Legistar™
643
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
Floor Plan No. of
Units
Gross Area
(Square Feet)
No. of
Stories
No. of
Bedrooms
No. of
Bathrooms
Garage
(Square
Feet)
Plan 1 17 1,965 3 + Roof
Deck
3 3.5 487
Plan 2 18 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
4 3.5 471
Plan 2 ALT
Units 47 and
49 2 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
3 + Loft or
Office

3.5 471
Plan 3 12 1,604 3 + Roof
Deck
3 2.5 471
Total 49
Architecture
The project site is located in an area containing a mix of commercial and residential uses with eclectic architectural styles. The area along Katella Avenue is in transition with a three-story senior apartment building under construction to the east (Katella Terrace, 1249 E. Katella Avenue), Kiddie Academy daycare facility to the west (232 E. Katella Avenue), Rapids Express Car Wash to the west (1325 W. Katella Avenue), and recently constructed five-story multi-family apartments further to the west (Garrison Modern Apartments, 1725 W. Katella Avenue).

The proposed project introduces a contemporary residential design that is intended to respond to the eclectic contemporary visual character of the area, and the proximity to the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District, Taft Library (740 E. Taft Avenue), and Irving House residential project (2007-2053 N.

Orange Olive Road) inspired by Irving Gill architecture. The majority of units are three-stories with roof decks (35 feet tall), while the units along the northern boundary are two-stories (25 feet-5 inches), with a first-floor setback of 10 feet and a second-floor setback between 12 and 15 feet from the north property line, abutting the one-story single-family residences to the north. The building orientations along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue consider the site’scharacteristics and the City’s Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment 4) in that the main entrances are oriented towards the streets and sidewalks to create a relationship between the buildings and pedestrian and to establish a strong tie to the street frontages.

Architectural elements include a combination of hip, shed, and flat roof forms, parapets, arched entries, distinctive window arrangements, recessed and simple door and window detailing, porch elements, use of trim and siding, and alternating plane changes to add visual interest. Window placement has also generally been considered to preserve the privacy of adjacent neighbors within the project, and the single-story residences to the north. The north facing second story windows on Units 1-12 will be clerestory. Although not illustrated on the plans, the applicant has indicated that the windows will be located approximately seven feet from the interior finished floor to the bottom of windows.

The use of varied rooflines, articulated building elevations (especially along the street frontages), and arches help soften the scale and rectangular massing of the buildings. The project’s rectangular building forms and openings, relationship to the street, and scale along the Katella frontage are generally visually compatible with the architecture of the two office buildings to the east. The proposed exterior building materials also contribute to the architectural character of the project, including composite roof shingles, painted stucco finish, metal canopies, vinyl windows, stucco over foam trim details, engineered wood siding, wood faux balcony railing, and painted metal sectional garage doors. The coordinated exterior color scheme consists of subtle natural tones, with contrasting colors used for accents and details. The project provides a residential design that is distinctive, yet compatible with the commercial and neighborhood area context, and scale of the City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 3 of 16
powered by Legistar™
644
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
adjacent roadways.

Project Access and Parking:

Vehicle access is provided by two-way entrance driveways along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. These entry drives connect to a looped private interior roadway that provides vehicle and pedestrian access to the main entrances and garages of the dwelling units. The internal roadway includes curb, gutter, and intermittent landscape planters. No unit driveways or sidewalks are provided along the interior roadway. Each unit is provided with an attached two-car garage, and there are 30 open parking spaces for occupants and guests for a total of 128 parking spaces provided for the development. Pedestrian access from the street frontages is provided via paved walkways at the Cambridge Street driveway, at the southwest corner of the site, and through gated courtyards for each unit along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The project also provides convenient pedestrian access to nearby shopping, restaurants, office, and residential uses, as well as to the bus stop located on Katella Avenue, adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Interior walkways are provided on the east and west sides of the interior residential island that connects to a landscaped paseo that leads to the entries of Units 14-33 and at the entrance to the pocket park along the northern boundary providing access to the park. The private interior roadway, parking spaces, common open space, and landscape areas designated in green on Sheet L-5 (HOA Maintained Areas Plan) of the project plans will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association for the development.

Common and Private Open Space:

The Small Lot Subdivision development standards require a project to provide common open space only if the buildings on each lot exceed 75 percent lot coverage. As noted on Sheet A1.0 (Conceptual Site Plan), lot coverage for the project ranges from 44-57 percent and therefore the project is not required to provide common open space. However, in an effort to enhance the project aesthetics and provide amenities to the residents, the applicant has provided an enclosed pocket park with shaded picnic tables, barbeque, multipurpose lawn area, and enhanced paving along the northern boundary, a pocket park with bench seating, entry portals, signage wall, and lawn area area at the southwest corner of the site, and a landscaped paseo between Units 13-34 in the interior residential island. The project also provides private open space in the form of roof decks for all three-story units, and 10-foot rear yards for units along the northern boundary.

Streetscape and Landscape
Sheet L-1 (Existing Conditions Plan) shows the removal of 19 existing mature trees in order to accommodate the new residential development. Nine existing street trees will be protected in place and three new street trees will be installed along the Katella Avenue frontage.

Sheets L-32 - L-34 (Plant Palette and Conceptual Planting Plan) illustrate the proposed landscape palette for the project. The project incorporates a variety of water efficient plant material along the street frontages, project interior, and perimeter boundaries, including a total of 54 new trees.

Streetscape treatment includes retension of existing street trees, and the incorporation of three new Camphor street trees along Katella Avenue (Condition of Approval #24). Foundation planting and landscape planters will contain Hybrid Olive, Pink Trumpet, and Forest Pansey Redbud trees, and linear groupings of shrubs and groundcover including Blue Flame Agave, Little Rev Flax Lily, Huntington Carpet Rosemary, and Jerusalem Sage. The streetscape landscaping conveys the residential nature of the land use along the predominatently commercial Katella corridor, articulates and helps soften the three-story building design, and provides a friendly pedestrian-oriented interface with the buildings and sidewalk. The project interior will include Hybrid Olive, Saratoga Bay Laurel, City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 4 of 16
powered by Legistar™
645
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
with the buildings and sidewalk. The project interior will include Hybrid Olive, Saratoga Bay Laurel, Southern Live Oak, Little Gem Magnolia, Giant Bird of Paradise, and Filibusta Fan Palm trees with a mix of similar shrubs and ground cover, including artificial turf in the pocket parks. Little Gem Magnolia Trees (24-in box size) will be planted in the rear corners of Units 1-12, a dense row of Shrubby Yew Podocarpus (24-inch box size) will be planted along the entire north property line wall and at the northeast corner of the site, and a Southern Live Oak tree (48-inch box size) will be planted in the pocket park along the north property line to provide additional green screening for the single-story residences to the north. Condition of Approval #25 has been included to require routine trimming and maintainenance of trees and shrubs along the north property line so they do not grow to interfere with the overhead utility lines, and require replacement of said trees and shrubs if they are damaged, removed, or die. Enhanced paving is also proposed for pedestrian walkways, within the pocket parks, and within the fenced unit courtyards along the street frontages.

Fences/Walls:

Sheet L-3 (Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan) illustrates low stucco walls with wooden gates for the unit courtyards along both street frontages, contributing to the pedestrian interface of the project and sidewalks while also providing a physical cue of private property space. The southwest corner of the site is accentuated with 8-foot pedestrian portals and low stucco walls that will contain development identification signage. Two existing seven-foot parallel block walls will remain in place along the northern boundary, one on the project site, and the other on the adjacent Carlton Avenue residential properties. A variable height (3 feet-6 inches to 8 feet) precision block wall is proposed along the eastern boundary between the project and the adjacent commercial site. Side yard stucco walls and gates (6-feet tall) are proposed between the units, and low tubular steel fencing and gates will enclose the landscape area at the northwest corner and pocket park along the northern boundary.

Lighting:

Sheets EP1.1 - EP1.2 include the Photometric Plan and fixture designs for the project. New 16-feet tall LED pole streetlights are proposed in landscape planters at the entry drives, adjacent to guest parking spaces, and in the pocket park along the northern boundary. These fixtures will have shields directed downward to prevent off-site light spillage. Three-feet-tall LED bollard lighting is proposed in the pocket park at the southwest corner, and various landscape lighting, including shade structure down lighting, in-ground flush mounted fixtures, tree and sign up-lighting will also be provided.

Decorative LED wall light fixtures (shown on building elevations) are proposed at the front, rear patio (Units 1-12), and garage door entries of each unit. The proposed fixture styles are contemporary and compatible with the architecture of the buildings.

Signage:

Conceptual signage is included for illustrative purposes on Sheet L-24 and is not part of this project proposal. Monument signage is proposed on a low wall at the southwest corner pocket park for visibility at both street intersections. The sign concept appears compatible with the building design; however, the City’sBuilding Security Ordinance will likely require a lighted address on the monument sign and at each residential unit. All signage will comply with the City’s sign regulations.

Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials for all structures, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme. The project’scontemporary design attempts to provide a visual transition from the eclectic appearance of the Katella commercial corridor, immediately abutting residential neighborhoods, non-descript uses at the other three corners of the intersection, and at a key City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 5 of 16
powered by Legistar™
646
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
“gateway” location leading to the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District.

6. EXISTING SITE
The 2.71-acre site is currently developed with a vacant 20,621 square foot two-story commercial building (former AT&T switching and service truck facility) that has a recent history of transient occupation and vandalism. A 53-foot-tall wireless communication facility and related equipment is located to the east of the building. There is a surface parking lot with 152 spaces, mature trees and landscaping, perimeter walls, gated entries off Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, and site improvements. All structures and site improvements, including the wireless communication facility will be removed to accommodate the project.

7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The project site is located in a transitional area of the city, containing a mix of residential and commercial uses. To the north of the project site are one-story single-family residences located along Carleton Avenue. To the south is Katella Avenue and a bus stop located adjacent to the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Cambridge Street. Further south are one and two-story commercial buildings (Orange County Mattress, multi-tenant office building, Albert James Photographers). To the east is a two-story retail/office building (Pacific Coast Title Company, HN Mattress). To the west is Cambridge Street. Further west is the Speedway Express gas station, and two-story multi-family residences (Cambridge Court Apartments). The architecture in the surrounding area is eclectic, dating from the 1960’sthrough the 1980’s.The site is also within one half-mile of the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District and Taft Library, and a mile from the Irving House neighborhood, a recent development of a similar format and architectural style to the proposed project.

8. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Design Review Committee Feedback
On December 6, 2023, the DRC conducted a review of the project design and provided comments to the applicant pertaining to the overall site layout, building architecture, privacy, shade and shadow, and landscaping. Final minutes of this meeting and the applicant’s responses to comments are included as Attachments 8 and 11 to this report. The December 6, 2023 DRC comments and responses to comments are as follows:

DRC Comments
Overall Site Layout

1. Pedestrian access is lacking to the pocket park along the north property line.

2. The double wall along the north property line could facilitate animals and debris being caught in between. Replacement of the double wall with a single wall was recommended.

3. Trash collection and storage operations:
a. Concern was expressed regarding resident access to trash carts stored within individual garages. Potential exists that each resident would need to pull out one car to access trash carts which could block the drive aisle. This could be impactful during trash pick-up day.
b. Trash carts may block access to the fire lane, individual garages, and side yard gates. c. Some units may need to place trash carts in front of adjacent properties on trash pick- up day so that they do not block fire lane access. An inquiry was made if trash carts will remain perfectly aligned.
d. Concern was expressed that trash storage and collection should be functional and conveniently placed throughout the development as specified within the Small Lot City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 6 of 16
powered by Legistar™
647
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
conveniently placed throughout the development as specified within the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards.

4. Guest access to units along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue would need to be from the unit garages, or they would need to walk completely around the development onto the street frontages to the front entries.

5. Many aspects of the project dominate the site, including three-story units, roof decks, parking, and utilities. A reduction of units is needed to make the project livable. There is not enough room for adequate and sustainable landscaping, to have a sense of entry, or to have separation between very tall and harsh architecture.

6. Concern was expressed regarding the potential for an entitlement to remain for the existing cell site.

7. Concern was expressed that the project does not meet the goals of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance in that the subdivision may not fit into the existing neighborhood context, and introduces a new housing typology that does not maintain the neighborhood form.

8. A comment was made that there are very little context driven design decisions for the project.

9. The project should consider the location and marketability of Unit #45, which is located directly behind the existing bus stop.

Building Architecture, Privacy, Shade and Shadow

1. Concern was expressed about the height, number of homes, and limited landscaping.

2. The project needs to provide screening for the northerly neighbors.

3. Although the architecture along Cambridge Street is not a problem, the architecture proposed along the rear of Units 1-12 along the north property line is unacceptable. Windows should not be oriented to look onto neighboring properties. Screening needs to be provided on the project side to include landscaping that could be sustained in the narrow rear yards.

4. Third story decks act as a fourth story, and decks located close to Katella Avenue are concerning for safety reasons. Concern was expressed that roof top umbrellas would not survive in windy conditions.

5. A suggestion was made to replace the large second-story north-facing bedroom windows with high windows and to move the large rear windows to the side elevation with a side yard meeting egress requirements.

6. The height of the two-story buildings and 10-foot rear yard setback along the north property line compounds view impacts with solar shading problems during the summer and winter solstices. The project needs to substantially solve the shade and shadow impacts.

7. The DRC requested line of sight studies as viewed from the second and third story north facing windows and roof top decks to the Carleton Avenue neighbors, including locations where there are no units backing the north property line (in the area of the pocket park) and demonstrate how the views will be protected. Pad elevations need to correlate with the grading plans; heights need to correlate with the heights specified on the plans; sections need to be provided; and angles of sight need to be included from a five-foot eye height.

8. Moving the second story back 15 feet will not solve the view impacts of the three-story units across from the pocket park.

9. Site design does not mitigate the building height.

10. A comment was made that the project is neither urban nor suburban in its approach. The project needs to be more suburban on the north side to uphold community aesthetics.

11. Second and third story building facades enclose into the drive aisles creating a “caved-in corridor” with little room for landscaping. Front façades are taken care of, but the sides and rears along the drive aisle are simple and boxy.

12. Trash storage and pick-up, and landscaping are suffering due to the number of proposed City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 7 of 16
powered by Legistar™
648
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048

12. Trash storage and pick-up, and landscaping are suffering due to the number of proposed units.

13. Plans do not show the location of gas meters for all units, and location of air conditioners on two-story units.

14.The only access to the four-foot side yards is from the drive aisle.

15.Plans do not specify window material and frame color.

16. Plans do not include wall mounted lighting above rear patio doors on the two-story units along the northern boundary.

17.Plans do not include cut sheets and specifications for all exterior lighting.

18. The Lighting Plan on Sheet EP1.1 does not include the lighting under the patio cover in the pocket park along the north property line. Concern was expressed about how this relates to the wall height and if light will be visible in the background.

Landscaping

1. Trees along the north property line are not positioned to screen views from second story windows because they are positioned between the houses.

2. An inquiry was made as to how the trees proposed along the north property line will be maintained and who will be responsible for replacing damaged or dead trees.

3. The Crape Myrtle trees specified in the rear corner yards along the north property line are not typically used for landscape screening and the Italian Cypress trees may not provide adequate screening.

4. The Shade and Shadow Plans do not address landscaping in the back yards of Units 1-12 or the drive aisles adjacent to the three-story buildings. The drive aisle will be in full shade all of the time. Planting material specified is more suitable for full and partial sun conditions.

5. A concern was expressed regarding plant selection and health of the tree root systems.

6. Plans do not include valve boxes and transformers which could further reduce planting areas.

7. The use of synthetic turf is not included on the Planting Plan.

8. The plant specification of “Lnr” is not shown on Planting Plan.

Applicant’s Responses to Comments
In response to the DRC’scomments, the applicant has subsequently revised the submittal plans and provided additional information responding to several concerns and recommendations by the Committee. The applicant has provided written Responses to Comments, included as Attachment 11 to this report. Updates to the design of the proposed project include the following:

Overall Site Layout
The Conceptual Site Plan (Sheet A1.0) has been modified to clearly include plan designations that correspond to the unit summary and parking requirements. The plan indicates that there will be 31 three-bedroom and 18 four-bedroom units and provides the 128 required parking spaces. A pedestrian walkway has been included that provides access to the pocket park along the north property line. This in turn reduced the distance separation between Units 1-12, from 6 feet-3 inches to 6 feet-1 inch, but still provides adequate separation distance for egress purposes. The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Sheet L-2) and Conceptual Planting Plan (Sheet L-34) were revised to include air conditioning units in the rear yards of Units 1-12. The Trash Management Plan (Sheet L-6) was revised to show all trash carts located outside of the fire lane during trash pick-up day, and the applicant has provided a justification letter (Attachment 11) for the proposed location of trash carts and pictures to help describe the trash storage and pick-up operations for the project. Sheets L-2 - L- 6 have been revised to include a conceptual layout of electrical transformers in the interior landscape City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 8 of 16
powered by Legistar™
649
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
6 have been revised to include a conceptual layout of electrical transformers in the interior landscape planters.

Building Architecture, Privacy, Shade and Shadow
The second story north elevations of Units 1-12 were modified to include a step back of 12 to 15 feet from the north property line. The first-floor setback of 10 feet remains the same. In addition, the Plan 3 (Carleton Avenue adjacent) floor plans and elevations were modified by replacing the large north- facing second story primary bedroom windows with two clerestory windows. The applicant has indicated that the windows will be located approximately seven feet above the interior finished floor to the bottom of the windows. The east elevations of Units 1-6 and west elevations of Units 7-12 were modified by replacing the two smaller rectangular windows with one larger primary bedroom window to meet egress requirements for each unit. Neighbor Adjacencies Exhibits were also modified to illustrate the changes stated above (See Sheets A 4.2 - A 4.11 and L-17 - L-22). These modifications serve to minimize the privacy concerns expressed by staff and the DRC in relation to the north facing second story setbacks and window placement for Units 1-12. In addition, building elevations now include exterior vinyl window material and bronze frame color notations.

The applicant has provided revised View Studies (Sheets L-11 - L-15) with section lines to illustrate the privacy views as seen from the roof decks through the six-foot gaps between the two-story units and the pocket park along the north property line. Perspective views from the third story north facing bedroom window and roof deck of Unit 20 through the pocket park along the north property line are included on Sheets L-29 - L-30, and additional perspective views are provided in Attachment 13.

Trees and privacy hedge screening have been provided along the north property line and is described in the landscaping section below. Based on the View Studies and perspective views provided by the applicant, the DRC should comment if views from roof decks and third story windows are adequately screened.

The DRC expressed concerns about the new buildings potentially blocking sunlight to the neighboring residential properties to the north. The City considers project impacts to be significant if new shading from a project continuously covers either roof top solar panels or residential windows for two continuous hours or more on any given day during the winter and summer solstice or spring and fall equinox. In response to the DRC’scomments, the Shade and Shadow Analysis (Sheets L-7 - L- 10) was updated to include existing and proposed project conditions during the winter solstice from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. (when the sun angle is lowest, resulting in the most restrictive time period).

Shading occurs at 7:00 a.m. with or without the project, so the two-hour threshold window begins at 7:30 a.m. The analysis shows that at 9:30 a.m. during the winter solstice, both existing and proposed project shading is similar in that shading is absent from most of the northerly residential buildings except for two properties located at 932 and 942 E. Carleton Avenue. However, these buildings are already shaded at this time by existing trees on the project site and on the private properties. Details of the shade and shadow analysis are provided within Attachment 15.

Exterior rear patio door lighting on Units 1-12 is included on Sheets A 4.3, A 4.5, A 4.8, and A 4.10 (Plan 3 Rear Elevations). LED shade structure down lighting in the pocket park along the north property line, and exterior lighting design specifications have been provided on Sheets EP1.1 - EP1.2 (Photometric and Site Plan Cut Sheets Plans).

Landscaping
Sheets L-2 (Conceptual Landscape Plan), L-34 (Conceptual Planting Plan), L-17 - L-19 (Neighbor Adjacency Exhibits), L-20 - L-22 and L-27 - L-30 (Perspective Views) were revised to include a dense City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 9 of 16
powered by Legistar™
650
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
Adjacency Exhibits), L-20 - L-22 and L-27 - L-30 (Perspective Views) were revised to include a dense row of Shrubby Yew Podocarpus shrubs (24-inch box size) along the entire north property line and at the northeast corner of Unit 12. Natchez Crape Myrtle and Italian Cypress trees previously located in the corner yards of Units 1-12 were replaced with Little Gem Magnolia trees (24-inch box size), and the Hybrid Olive tree in the pocket park was replaced with a Southern Live Oak tree (48-inch box size) to provide larger canopies for screening and privacy purposes. General revisions were made to Sheet L-34 (Conceptual Planting Plan) to address shade and sunlight sensitive plants, including the addition of Camelia, Clivia, Japanese Aralia, Little Ragu Sweet Bay, Carolina Laurel Cherry, Narrow- leaved Bird of Paradise, and Asian Star Jasmine shrubs. In addition, three Camphor street trees were added along the Katella Avenue frontage.

Neighborhood Concerns
Planning Division staff received 37 letters of opposition from the neighboring community and forwarded the letters to the DRC in advance of the December 6, 2023 meeting. In addition, public comments were posted on the City’s website, and Community members spoke at the meeting.

Neighborhood concerns pertaining to project design included the following:

1. Second story window placement, three story units with roof top decks, and lack of green landscape screening along the north property line compromise privacy.

2. The two-story homes located 10 feet away impact the back yards of existing residences.

3. Three story buildings with roof decks are out of character with the Katella Avenue corridor.

4. The scale of the project will impact sun in backyards and solar panel performance.

5. The applicant expects the property owners on Carleton Avenue to keep their window covering closed to mitigate privacy concerns.

6. The project does not have enough green space and trees.

7. Responsible development needs to be provided to support construction.

8. The project would increase light pollution.

9. The modern design and intensity of development is inconsistent with existing context.

10.The project does not adhere to the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines.

11. The proposed design does not adhere to the City’sGeneral Plan Land Use Policies 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 listed on page LU-4 and Policy 6.1 on page LU-8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan listed below:

Policy 1.2: Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods.

Policy 1.4: Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development.

Policy 1.6: Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development is compatible with the style and design of established structures and the surrounding environment.

The applicant’splan revisions and responses resolve several concerns expressed by staff, the DRC, and neighboring community. The stepped back second story setbacks and utilization of clerestory windows on the north building elevations of Units 1-12 help to address privacy concerns along the north property line. The incorporation of dense green screening and larger canopy trees along the north property line wall will help screen views from third story windows and roof decks toward the northerly neighbors. Landscape plans include sunlight sensitive plants, and the addition of three street trees along Katella Avenue will help soften the three-story massing along the street frontage.

The addition of a pedestrian walkway to the pocket park along the north property line will also provide City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 10 of 16
powered by Legistar™
651
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
The addition of a pedestrian walkway to the pocket park along the north property line will also provide residents with access to the common open space amenities.

Overall, the project’scompliance with the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards, coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials, conceptual signage, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an overall integrated design theme that attempts to achieve a logical visual transition and response to the surrounding environs. Removal of the wireless facility will also improve the aesthetics of the site and surrounding area.

On December 6, 2023, the DRC reviewed the subject proposal and voted 5-0-2 to continue the project to the February 7, 2024 meeting in order for the applicant to address the Committee’s comments and concerns.

On February 7, 2024, the DRC voted 5-0-2 to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff and provide the requested information and revisions on the plans.

On November 22, 2023, the City sent a December 6, 2023 DRC Public Meeting Notice to 122 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, potentially affected cities, public agencies, utility service providers and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site was posted in two locations with the notification on that same date.

Because the DRC continued the project from the December 6, 2023 meeting to dates certain on February 7, 2024 and to February 21, 2024, public notification was not required for these continued meetings.

11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1882-22 has been prepared for this project and is included as Attachments 5 and 6 for the DRC’s review and consideration. The issues subject to DRC purview are impacts relating to Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. The role of the DRC is to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and comments provided by the DRC will be included in the Planning Commission Staff Report.

MND No. 1882-22 analyzes the physical environmental impacts of the project. The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. There were no impacts identified related to Aesthetics or Cultural Resources. The public review period began on November 9, 2023, and ended on December 11, City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 11 of 16
powered by Legistar™
652
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
Resources. The public review period began on November 9, 2023, and ended on December 11, 2023. The MND was made publicly available at the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, and the City’s website.

Public comments on MND No. 1882-22 were received from Caltrans and the neighboring community and responses to comments have been included in Attachment 5 (Mitigated Negative Declaration 1882-22).

The project is neither located in a specific plan area nor an area of the City subject to design standards. The surrounding community is characterized by a mix of land use types and design styles with no specific architectural theme. Adjacent commercial and residential buildings are generally contemporary in style, one and two stories in height, have varied roof forms, and rectangular and arched openings. Katella Avenue is in transition with the new three-story Katella Terrace senior apartments (1249 E. Katella Avenue) under construction to the east, Kiddie Academy daycare facility (232 E. Katella Avenue) and Rapids Express Car Wash (1325 W. Katella Avenue) to the west, and recently constructed five-story multi-family apartments (Garrison Modern Apartments, 1725 W. Katella Avenue) further to the west.

The proposed project will revitalize the neighborhood by replacing an existing, dated two-story commercial building and surface parking lot with a distinctive, contemporary residential development that integrates with the surrounding development along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The three-story building height integrates with the large scale two-story commercial buildings to the east and south that direct massing towards the Katella Avenue frontage. Two-story units, with stepped back second stories, located along the northern boundary take into consideration the adjacent one-story single-family residential development to the north. The architectural design incorporates a combination of hip, flat, and shed roof forms, unique window arrangements and details, arched openings, use of trim and siding, and façade plane changes to add visual interest. The proposed landscape design, project lighting, and signage will enhance the architectural aesthetics and will contribute to the integration of the project with the surrounding development. Streetscape enhancements along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue provide an appealing pedestrian friendly environment to encourage pedestrian activity and linkage to surrounding commercial and residential uses, and public transportation. This project presents a unifying theme and results in a internally consistent City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 12 of 16
powered by Legistar™
653
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
transportation. This project presents a unifying theme and results in a internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles in the surrounding area. Further, this residential development project implements the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards allowing a space-efficient alternative housing type which would create an additional opportunity for homeownership in the City of Orange.

13. CONDITIONS
The approval of this project is subject to the following conditions:

1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee.

2. This project is approved as a precise plan and shall conform to, and be maintained in accordance with plans and exhibits labeled as Attachment 12 in the staff report (date stamped received February 5, 2024), including modifications required by the conditions of approval.

After any application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change in use, location, or other aspect of the project not otherwise addressed by these conditions, complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan administratively.

4. The applicant agrees, as a condition of City’s approval of Design Review No. 5092-22, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at applicant’sexpense, the City, its officers, agents, and employees (“City”)from and against any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City, including, but not limited to, any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which the City receives notice and to cooperate fully with the applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs and attorney’sfees that the City may be required to pay, including any expenses ordered by a court or expenses incurred through the Office of the City Attorney in connection with said claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding but such participation shall not relieve applicant of the obligations of this condition. In the event the applicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action or proceeding, City shall have the right to approve counsel to so defend the City, approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approve any all settlements, which approval(s) shall not City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 13 of 16
powered by Legistar™
654
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048
in which the defense is conducted and approve any all settlements, which approval(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld. The obligations set forth herein remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including any and all appeals of any lower court judgment rendered in the proceeding. Further, applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City for all costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this provision.

5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations.

Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit.

7. All signage shall comply with Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations of the Orange Municipal Code.

Project signage shall be subject to Community Development Director approval.

8. If use or construction is not commenced, project approval expires twenty-four months from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted, if requested in writing in accordance with OMC Section 17.08.060.

10. These conditions shall be reprinted on the second page of the construction documents when submitted to the Building Division for the plan check process.

11. Any graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours from applicant/property owner’sreceipt of the City’snotification. Notification shall be deemed received if sent by certified mail to the address last provided by the applicant/property owner.

13. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule a light reading inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. The applicant shall use shielding so as to ensure that the light standards meet the requirements of OMC Section

17.12.030 for areas beyond the property’s exterior boundaries; light spillage or pollution to surrounding residential areas shall not exceed a maintained minimum of 0.5 foot-candle.

City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 14 of 16
powered by Legistar™
655
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048

15. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of application for Building Permit.

21. The final landscape plan shall include a note that a fully automated irrigation system will be provided.

22. Prior to building permit issuance, landscape plans shall include landscape area calculations needed for State landscape water use reporting.

City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 15 of 16
powered by Legistar™
656
Item #: 5.1. 2/21/2024 File #: 24-0048

25. The dense row of shrubs and trees planted along the north property line wall shall be routinely trimmed and adequately maintained by the Homeowner’sAssociation so as to not interfere with the overhead utility lines or cause overgrowth into adjacent neighboring properties. The Homeowner’sAssociation shall replace any damaged, removed, or dead shrubs and trees with similar plant material and species.

14. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
· Attachment 2 Existing Site Photographs
· Attachment 3 Development Standards Reference Table
· Attachment 4 Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines
· Attachment 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 dated October 20, 2023 · Attachment 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 Appendices · Attachment 7 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated December 6, 2023 · Attachment 8 Design Review Committee Minutes dated December 6, 2023 · Attachment 9 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated February 7, 2024 · Attachment 10 Design Review Committee Draft Minutes dated February 7, 2024 · Attachment 11 Applicant’s Responses to Comments from the December 6, 2024 Design Review Committee Meeting
· Attachment 12 Project Plans, date stamped received February 5, 2024 · Attachment 13 Additional Perspective Views, date stamped received February 9, 2024 · Attachment 14 Color and Material Boards; Physical Boards Provided at Meeting · Attachment 15 Shade and Shadow Analysis
· Attachment 16 Public Comments
City of Orange Printed on 2/15/2024Page 16 of 16
powered by Legistar™
657
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 21, 2024

MINUTES
City of Orange
Design Review Committee
February 21, 2024
The Design Review Committee of the City of Orange, California convened on Wednesday February 21, 2024, at 5: 30 p. m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber, 300 E.

Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.

1. OPENING/ CALL TO ORDER
Chair McDermott called the meeting to order at 5: 31 p. m.

1. 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair McDermott led the flag salute.

1. 2 ROLL CALL

Present: Skorpanich, Fox, Imboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott

Absent: None

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

3. 1. Approval of minutes of the City of Orange Design Review Committee Regular Meeting held on February 7, 2024.

Note: Vice Chair Skorpanich abstained from voting due to her absence at the February 7, 2024, meeting.

ACTION: Approved minutes as presented.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
A motion was made by Committee Member Imboden, seconded by Committee Member Grosse, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Skorpanich, Fox, Imboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: None

Absent: None

Page 1 of 3 ends

658
Design Review Committee Minutes February 21, 2024

4. COMMITTEE BUSINESS

4. 1. Selection of Design Review Committee Officers A motion was made by Chair McDermott, seconded by Committee Member Fox, to nominate Vice Chair Skorpanich as Chair effective February 22, 2024. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Skorpanich, Fox, Imboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: None

Absent: None
A motion was made by Vice Chair Skorpanich, seconded by Chair McDermott, to nominate Committee Member Jerico Farfan as Vice Chair effective February 22, 2024.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Skorpanich, Fox, Imboden, Farfan, Grosse, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: None

Absent: None

5. OLD BUSINESS

5. 1. A proposal to construct 49 small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue Design Review No. 5092- 22).

Public Speakers:

The following spoke on behalf of the project:

Emilie Simard, Applicant; Phillip Stevens, Landscape Architect; Michael Stone, Architect; Joy Hendricks, Consultant; Rick Puffer, Developer; Brad Perozzi, Developer.

The following spoke in opposition to the project:

Steve Fingal, David Nelson, David Stuetzel, Heath Poizer and Stephen Reifenstein.

During deliberation, Committee Members expressed concern that the project did not meet all the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines.

Committee Member Grosse indicated additional conditions could be included as a way to recommend approval to the Planning Commission.

RECESS: The Design Review Committee recessed at 7: 50 p. m. and reconvened at 7: 56 p. m. with all Members present.

Motion made by Committee Member Fox to recommend denial of Design Review No. 5092- 22 to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Imboden seconded the motion and requested to amend the motion to include that the required findings could not be made. Committee Member Fox accepted the amendment.

Vice Chair Skorpanich made a substitute motion, seconded by Chair McDermott, to recommend denial of Design Review No. 5092- 22 to the Planning Commission as the Committee could not make the required findings that the project meets the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code.

Page 2 of 3 ends

659
Design Review Committee Minutes- Draft February 21, 2024 The motion carried by the following vote.

Ayes: Skorpanich, Fox, Imboden, Ledesma, and McDermott Noes: Farfan, and Grosse

Absent: None

6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8: 05 p. m.

The next Regular Design Review Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 5: 30 p. m., in the Council Chamber.
d Ortlieb
Principal Planner

Page 3 of 3 ends

660

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 0004-22

RESOLUTION NO. PC 06-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY

COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENE RAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 0004-22, A REQUEST TO CHANGE

THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL

COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ON A 2.71-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 901 E KATELLA
AVENUE

APPLICANT: INTRACORP HOMES, EMILIE SIMARD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.10.010 and 17.10.020 to make a recommendation to the City Council to take action on General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22; and
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22 was filed by Intracorp Homes, Emile Simard in accordance with the provisions of the OMC; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, Zone Change No. 1307-22 to change the property ’s zoning designation from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential Multiple Family (R-3), Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 18 82-22 were filed concurrently; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City C ouncil adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22, which was prepa red to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed project located at 901 E. Katella Avenue , includin g General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commiss ion conducted a duly advertised public hearing on March 18, 2024, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the project, including General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22 based on the following findings:

Draft
661
Resolution No. PC 06-24

Page 2 of 5 ends

SECTION 1 - FINDINGS

1. The requested General Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation for the project site from General Commercial, Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) to Medium Density Residential, 15 -24 dwelling units per acre (MDR) is consistent with the land use designation to the west, as presented in Attachment “A” to this Resolution.

2. The land uses allowed under th e MDR land use designation are compatible with the abutting Low Density Residen tial (LDR) land uses that would remain to the north, and General Commercial, Max 1.0 FAR (GC) land uses to the east, south, and west of the project site, which accommodates residential uses, a mix of retail and service commercial uses, and professional offices.

3. The proposed MDR land use designation enables the implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision Devel opment Standards , which allows for t he construction of small lot homes that provide a space -efficient and economical alternative to traditional single dwelling unit and multiple dwelling unit development. The project is consistent with the intent of the MDR land use designation, in that the project provides private and common open space with amenities, a pedestrian-friendly integration along both street frontages, is adjacent to public transportation, and is in close proximity to commercial, retail, medical and professional office s, and recreational uses. If the proposed project and associated discretionary acti ons are approved, the project would be consistent with the site’s new General Plan land use designation and would comply with the Genera l Plan polici es for MDR designated areas.

4. With adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 0004 -22, in conjunction with the subject development proposal establishing the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the site , the project is consistent with the goals a nd policies stated within the City ’s General Plan in that the project will enhance and promote quality of life in the community b y supporting and enhancing d iverse living environments. The project transforms and revita lizes a vacant AT&T facility with a sm all lot residential development that provides a space -efficient and economical alternative to traditional options for home ownership in the City. The project provides architecture and landscape design that emphasizes pedestrian orientation and safe and con venient access between uses. The project brings a residential population into an area where goods and services are offered by local business es, national retailers, and restaurants. The project supports the goals of the City’s Housing Element by bringing fo rward housing that increases the inventory of housing and diversifying the housing types available in the community. The creation of infill housing is consistent with Housing Element Policy Action 7.

The streetscape and sidewalk improvements included in the project address the goals of the Circulation and Mobility Element by facilitating pedestrian activity and connections between commercial, office, and entertainment destinations. The project also provides housing in proximity to bus service and a Class II (on-street) bikeway located on Cambridge Street. These factors contribute to the Cit y’s development of a multi -modal transportation network. Finally, providing housing in proximity to employment, services, and transit also supports the Natural Resourc es Element by establishing more efficient Draft
662
Resolution No. PC 06-24

Page 3 of 5 ends

relationships between land uses that encourage multi-modal travel and reduced dependence on traditional auto travel and associated vehicle trips in pursuit of reduced air pollution emissions.

SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1882-22 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment and associated development project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA guidelines Section 15070 and the local CEQA Guidelines. No land use impacts have been identified in the MND. The MND finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implem entation standard c onditions, Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City ’s General Plan Map be amended to incorporate the new MDR land use designation as depicted on maps provided in Attachment “A”.

ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2024.

____________________________________
David Vazquez, Planning Commission Chair

I hereby certify t hat the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 th day of March 2024 , by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSED:

ABSENT:

___________________________________
Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director

Draft
663
Resolution No. PC 06-24

Page 4 of 5 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Draft
664
Resolution No. PC 06-24

Page 5 of 5 ends

Draft
665

ZONE CHANGE NO. 1307-22

RESOLUTION NO. PC 07-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 1307-22

AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE

ZONING DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL

PROFESSIONAL TO RESI DENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY

TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE

MEDIUM DENSITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASS IFICATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW ON A 2.71-ACRE SITE
LOCATED AT 901 E. KATELLA AVENUE

APPLICANT: INTRACORP HOMES, EMILIE SIMARD

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code Section 17.10.020 to make recommendations to the City Council to take action on Zone Change No. 1307-22; and

WHEREAS, an application for Zone Change No. 1307-22 was filed by Intracorp Homes, Emilie Simard in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code (OMC); and
WHEREAS, Zone C hange No. 1307-22 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 0004 -22 to change the property ’s General Plan designation from General Commercial (GC) to Medium Density Residential (MD R), and Tentative Tract Map No. 0051 -22, Major Site Plan R eview No. 1111 -22, Des ign Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 were filed concurrently; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860 requires consistency between a city’s general plan and zoning designations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22, which was prepared to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project located at 9 01 E. Kate lla Avenue , including Zone Change No. 1307-22; and
Draft
666
Resolution No. PC 07-24

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on March 18, 2024, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to t estify either in support of or opposition to the project, including Zone Change No. 1307-22.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 1307-22 based on the following findings:

SECTION 1 - FINDINGS

1. The proposed zone change for the project site from C ommercial Professional (C -P) to Residential Multiple Family (R-3) makes the Project’s zoning consistent with the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation established by t he Project’s General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22, as required by law (Government Code Section 65860).

2. The R-3 zoning and implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision D evelopment Standards allows a small lot residential development use and physical development conditions that are generally compatible with the Single Family Residential, 7 ,000 square foot lot (R-1-7) zoning to the north, Residential Multiple Family (R -3) zoning to the east, and Commercial Professional (C -P) zoning to the east , south, and west which accommodate s residential uses, a mix of retail and service commercial uses , and professional offi ces. The zoning supports the pattern of residential development east and west of the site on Katella Avenue.

SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1882-22 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the zone change and associated development project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA guidelines Section 15070 and the local CEQA Guidelines. No land use impacts have been identified in the MND. The MND finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implem entation standard conditions, Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City ’s Zoning Map be amended to incorporate the new Residential Multiple Family zoning district as depicted on maps provided in Attachment “A”.

ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2024.

____________________________________
David Vazquez, Planning Commission Chair

Draft
667
Resolution No. PC 07-24

Page 3 of 5 ends

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSED:

ABSENT:

___________________________________
Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director

Draft
668
Resolution No. PC 07-24

Page 4 of 5 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Draft
669
Resolution No. PC 07-24

Page 5 of 5 ends

Draft
670

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0051-22
MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 1111-22
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5092-22
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0293-23
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1882-22

RESOLUTION NO. PC 08-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0051 -22, MAJOR
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 1111-22, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5092-22, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0293 -23, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DEC LARATION NO. 1882-22 AND ASSOCIAT ED

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE REDEVELOPME NT OF A VACANT AT&T FACILITY
WITH 49, TWO -AND THREE -STORY SINGLE -FAMLY SMALL

LOT HOMES, OPEN SPACE RECREATION AREAS, GUEST
PARKING, AND RELATED SIT E IMPROVEMENTS ON A 2.71 -
ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 901 E KATELLA AVENUE

APPLICANT: INTRACORP HOMES, EMILIE SIMARD

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020 to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on Tentative Tract M ap No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Dec laration No. 1882-22 for the redevelopment of an existing 2.71-acre vacant AT&T facility with 49, two -and three-story single-family small lot homes, open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements, located at 901 E. Katella Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293-23, and Mitigated Negative Dec laration No. 1882 -22 were filed by Intracorp Homes, Emilie Simard (“applicant”) in accordance with the provisions of the OMC; and

WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 00 04-22 to change the General Plan Land Use Element desi gnation from General Commercial, Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) to Medium Density Residential 15-24 dwelling units per acre (MDR), and Zone Change No. 1307-22 to change the Zoning from Commercial Professional (C -P) to Residential Multiple Family (R -3) were filed concurrently; and

WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 were processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and
Draft
671
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 2 of 23 ends

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023 , the City’s interdepartmental Staff Review Committee completed its review of the project and recommended the applications proceed to the Design Review Committee subject to conditions; and

WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the City’s Design Revie w Committee reviewed the Project and recommended denial to the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote.

WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and concluded that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implemen tation of standard conditions, Project Design Features re lating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and

WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 was circulated for public review and commen ts for 30 days as required by CEQA, with the comment pe riod beginning November 9, 2023 and ending December 11, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information presented in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22, including any written comments received during the public review period; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted one duly advertised public hearing o n March 18, 2024, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 upon property described in Attachment “A” to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the redevelopment of an existing 2.71 -acre vacant AT&T facility with 49, two -and three- story single-family small lot homes, open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements, located at 901 E. Katella Avenue, based on the following findings:

SECTION 1 – GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS

1. The project must be consistent with the goals and poli cies stated within the City’s General Plan.

With adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 0004 -22, in conjunction with the subject development proposal establishing the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the site , the project is consistent with the goa ls and p olicies stated within the City ’s General Plan in that the project will enhance and promote quality of life in the Draft
672
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 3 of 23 ends

community b y supporting and enhancing d iverse living environments. The project transforms and revita lizes a vacant AT&T fa cility with a small lot residential development that provides a space -efficient and economical alternative to traditional options for home ownership in the City. The project provides architecture and landscape design that emphasizes pedestrian orientation and safe and convenient access between uses. The project brings a residential population into an area where goods and services are offered by local business es, national retailers, and restaurants. The project supports the goals of the City’s Housing Elemen t by bringin g forward housing that increases the inventory of housing and diversifying the housing types available in the community. The creation of infill housing is consistent with Housing Element Policy Action 7.

The streetscape and sidewalk improveme nts included in the project address the goals of the Circulation and Mobility Element by facilitating pedestrian activity and connections between commercial, office, and entertainment destinations. The project also provides housing in proximity to bus ser vice and a C lass II (on-street) bikeway located on Cambridge Street. These factors contribute to the Cit y’s development of a multi -modal transportation network. Finally, providing housing in proximity to employment, services, and transit also supports the Natural Res ources Element by establishing more efficient relationships between land uses that encourage multi-modal travel and reduced dependence on traditional auto travel and associated vehicle trips in pursuit of reduced air pollution emissions.

SECTION 2 – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS

1. The proposed division of land complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Orange Municipal Code, and all other resolutions and ordinances of this City, including, but not limited to, requirements concerning area, improvements and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposa l facilities, water supply availability, public safety facilities and environmental protection.

The p roposed tent ative tract map for the small lot subdivision complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act , OMC Title 16, Subdivisions, and all other resolutions and ordinances of this City , including the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (OMC Section 17.14.270). Further, the tract m ap for the small lot subdivision establishes private and common use areas for the proposed residential development on a vacant paved site that was used as a commercial facility . Site plannin g requirements related to area, improvements and design, floodwate r drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, public safety facilities and environmental protection have been addressed either via project design components shown on the proposed plans or through conditions of approval. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

Draft
673
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 4 of 23 ends

SECTION 3 – MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS

1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods (OMC 17.10.060.H.1).

The project si te is in an area of the city th at contains a mix of single and multi-family residential uses, as well as commercial development. The proposed project introduces a contemporary residential design that is intended to respond to the eclectic contemporary visual character of the area . The proposed density and small lot single-family product type provide a transition between the traditional single-family neighborhoods to the north and the denser multifamily condominium and apartment developments to west. The three-story building height integrates with the large scale two-story commercial buildings to the east and south t hat direct massing tow ards the Katella Avenue frontage. The project considers the single-story residents to the north by providing a two-story building height, second-story step backs between 12 and 15 feet and clerestory windows on north building elevations, and a green screen along the entire north property line to minimize privacy concerns . The streetscape and landscape design, project lighting, and signage enhance the architectural aesthetics and contribute to the integration of the project with the surrounding development. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements (OMC 17.10.060.H.2).

The proposed development conforms with th e OMC and the City’s Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards and Guidelines, except for entry drive widths off of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue (arterial highways). The reduction in width will be addressed through the approval of Administrative Adjustment No. 0293-23, which would allow a 10% reduction to the required 30-foot-wide entry drive width off arterial highways for both the Cambri dge Street an d K atella Avenue entries. The Planning Division, together with the Public Works Department, Subdivision and Tra ffic Divisions reviewed the request and found the reduced driveway widths adequate for the proposed development.

The project also c omplies with the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines in that the three- story building height integrates with the large scale two-story commercial buildings to the east and south that direct massing tow ards the Katella Avenue frontage. Two-story units with stepped back second stories, strategic window placement, and green screening along the north property line , take into consideration the adjacent one -story single family residential development to the north. The architectural design incorporates varied roof forms, arched openings, unique window arrangements, trim and siding, and façade plane changes that help break up the massing a nd provide visual interest along the street frontages. The building orientations along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue consider the site’s ch aracteristics in that the main entrances are oriented towards the streets and sidewalks to create a relationshi p between the buildings and pedestrian s and establish a strong tie to the street frontages . The streetscape improvements are intende d to provide a friendly pedestrian -oriented interface with the sidewalk for existing and anticipated Draft
674
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 5 of 23 ends

patterns of pedestria n activity in the area and encourage pedestrian linkage between the project and surrounding uses . There are no specific plan requireme nts applicable to th e project. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off-site (OMC 17.10.060.H.3).

This project was reviewed by the City’s interdepartmental Staff Review Committee and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on and off -site, were found to b e safe and adequate. The Planning Division , together with the Public Works Department, Subdivision and Traffic Divisions reviewed the Administrativ e Adjustment request and found the reduced driveway widths adequate for the proposed development. Vehicle access is provided by two -way entrance driveways along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. These entry drives connect to a looped priva te interior roadwa y that provid es vehicle and pedestrian access to the main entrances and g arages of t he dwelling units.

Pedestrian access from the street frontages is provided via paved walkways at the Cambridge Street driveway, at the southwest corner of the site, and thr ough gated courtyards for each unit along Cambridge Street and Katella Av enue. The p roject also provides convenient pedestrian access to nearby shopping, restaurants, office, and residential uses, as well as to the bus stop located on Kat ella Avenue, adjac ent to the southwest corner of the site , and the Cl ass II ( On-Street) bikeway on Cam bridge Street.

Interior walkways are provided on the east and west sides of the interior residential island that connects to a landscaped paseo that leads to unit entries and at the ent rance to the pocket park along the northern bo undary providing access to the park. In addition, the Site Distance Analysis include d in Appendix L of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 analyzed inbound left turns to the project from Cambridge Street and determined that sight lines could be obstructed by v ehicles queued in the southbound left -turn lane and/or southbound through lane at the interse ction of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, which could potentially create a dangerous turn ing movement. As a result, a traffic mitigation measure (MM Trans -1) i s included in the M itigated Negative Declaration that requires the applicant to install striping modifications or signag e to prohibit southbound left turn movement from Cambridge Street into the project.

The design of the vehicular and pedestrian network for the site supports the goals and policies of the Circulation & Mobility Element of the General Plan which focus on achieving safe and comprehensive circulation that sustains quality of life in Or ange neighborhoods. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project (OMC 17.10.060.H.4).

The project was reviewed by the City’s interdepartmental Staff Review Committee and City servi ces were foun d to be sufficient to serve the project. The project is an infill development located on a site that is already developed as a commercial use in an area of the City that i s essentially built out. As such, City services are already available in the area to serve the site. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

Draft
675
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 6 of 23 ends

5. The project has b een designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects (OMC 17.10.060.H.5).

Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 analyzes the environmental impacts of the project and requires implementation of standard conditions, Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to B iological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. These mitigation measures reduce th e environmental effects of the project to a less than significant level. The project, therefore, meet s this finding.

SECTION 4 – DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS

1. The project design upholds communit y aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design th eme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).

The project is neither located in a specific p lan area nor an area of the City subject to design standards. The surrounding community is characterized by a mix of land use types and design styles with no specific architectural theme. Adjacent commercial and residential buildings are generally contempo rary in style, one and two stories in height, have varied roof forms, and rect angular and arched openings. The area along Katella Avenue is also in transition with the new three -story Katella Terrace senior apa rtments (1249 E. Katel la Avenue) under constru ction to the east, Kiddie Academy daycare facility (232 E. Katella Avenue) and Rapids Express Car Wash (1325 W. Katella Avenue) to the west, and five-story multi -family apartm ents (Garrison Mo dern Apartments, 1725 W. Katella Avenue) further to the west.

The proposed project will revitalize the neighborhood by r eplacing an existing, obsolete two-story AT&T facility and surface parking lot with a distinctive, contemporary residential devel opment that integrates with the surrounding de velopment along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. In addition, the project includes the removal of an existing non-stealth wireless communication facility which will improve the area aesthetics. The three -story building height integrates with the large scale two -story commercial buildings to the east and south that direct massing toward s the Katella Avenue frontage. Two -story units located along the northern boundary take into consideration the adjacent one -story single-family residential development to the north.

The architect ural design incorporates a combination of hip, flat, and shed roof forms, unique window arrangements and details, arched openings, use of trim and siding, and façade plane changes to add visual inter est. The proposed landscape desig n, project lighting, and signage will enhance the architectural aesthetics and will c ontribute to the integration of the project with the surrounding development. Streetscape enhancements along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue provide an appealing pedes trian friendly environment to encourage pedestrian activity and linkage to surrounding commercial a nd residential uses, and public transportation. This project presents a unifying theme and results in an internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles Draft
676
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 7 of 23 ends

in the surrounding area. Further, in order to accommodate this residential development project, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards will allow a space effi cient alternative housing type which would create an additional opportunity for homeowner ship in the City of Orange.

The project, therefore, meets this finding.

SECTION 5 – ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS

1. The reduction in standards will not be detrime ntal to the public health, safety, and general welfare of persons resid ing or working on the su bject property or in the v icinity (OMC 17.10.050.E.1).

The applicant is requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow for a 2-foot, 5-inch to 3-foot (10%) reduction to the required 30-foot-wide entry drive width off of arterial highways for both the Cambrid ge Street and Katella Avenue entries. The Planning Division, together with the Public Works Department, Subdivision and Tra ffic Divisions reviewed the reque st and found that the reduced drive way widths are adequate and will not be detrimental to public safety or the general welfa re of persons on or in the vicinity of the property. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

2. Issuance of the permit does not compromise the intent of this code (OMC 17.10.050.E.2).

Granting the administrative adjustment does not compromise the intent of the OMC because the requested reduction continues to accommodate a functional and efficient site plan and on-site circulation. The project, therefore, meets this finding.

SECTION 6 – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882 -22 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the pro ject, in conformance with the provi sions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Stat e CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and ass ociated Mitigation Monitoring and R eporting Program contain an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the pro ject will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of st andard conditions, Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noi se, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

On November 9, 2023, a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 was filed with the Orange Count y Clerk Recorder, posted at the site in two locations, mailed to 122 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, potentially affected cities, public agencies, utility service providers, and published in the Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on November 9, 2023. The public review period began on Nove mber 9, 2023, and Draft
677
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 8 of 23 ends

ended on December 11, 2023. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made publicly availab le at the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, and the City’s website.

Public comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltr ans) and 37 neighboring community m embers.

Responses to comments addressing feedback relevant to environmental impacts received during the public review period were incorporated into th e final Mitigated Negative Declarat ion.

Comments did not change the conclusions of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22.

SECTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions are imposed:

General:

1. All Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures identified in Mitigated Negativ e Declaration No. 1882-22 and in the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included as Attachment s 9 and 10 to the Planning Commission staff report for this project, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project by the f inal decision-making body and shall be implemented as described in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22.

2. If not utilized, project approvals expire two years from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted in accordance with Orange Munici pal Code ( OMC) Section

17.08.060.

3. Within two (2) business days of approval by the final decision -making body for this project, the appli cant shall deliver to the Planning Divisio n a cashier ’s check payable t o the Orange County Clerk in an amount required to fulfill the fee requirements of Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)( 2) and the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file t he Notice of Determination required und er Public Resourc es Code 21152 1 4 Cal.

Code Regulations 15075 . If it is determined that there will be no impact on wildlife resources, the fee shall be as required based on the current fee schedule.

4. Within two (2) business days o f approval by the final decision -making body for this project, the applicant shall submit a deposit to the P lanning Division for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Time spent by City staff to complete the project will be charged to the applicant on an hourly basis, in accordance with the city’s fee schedule.

5. These conditions shal l be reprinted o n the second and third pages of the construction documents when submitted to the Building Division for the plan check process.

6. This project shall conform in substance and be maint ained in gen eral conformance with plans and as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, unless modified by the City Council.

Draft
678
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 9 of 23 ends

7. This project is approved as a precise plan and shall conf orm to, and be maintained in accordance with, plans and exhibits labeled as Attachment 7 in the Planning Commission staff report for this project (date stamped received February 23, 2024 ), includ ing modifications required by the conditions of approval. After any application has been approved, if changes are proposed , a changed plan m ay be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies wit h the pr ovisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan administratively. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change does not comply with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the ac tion would not have been the same for th e changed plan as for the approved plan, the Community Development Director shall require the change to be approved by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and/or City Council, as appropriate and as determined by the Community Development Director.

8. Subsequent modifications to the approved architecture, color scheme, and lan dscape plan specifically shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee.

9. The applicant agrees, as a condition of the City’s approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111 -22, Design Review No. 5092 -22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293 -23, and Mitigated Nega tive Declaration No. 1882 - 22, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at applicant’s expense, the City, its officers, agents, and employees (“City”) from and against any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City, including, but not limited to, any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the ti me period provided in Governm ent Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California Environmenta l Quality Act (“CEQA”) or to challenge the reasonablene ss, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action or procee ding to which the City receives notice and to cooperate fully with the applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any and al l costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to pay, including any expenses ordered by a court or expe nses incurred through the Office of the City Attorney in connection with said claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any claim, acti on or proceeding but such participation shall not relieve applicant of the obligations of this condition. In the event the ap plicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action or proceeding, City shal l have the right to approve counse l to so defend the City, approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approv e any all settlements, which approval(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld. The obligations set forth herein remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including any and all a ppeals of any lower court judgment rendered in the proc eeding. Further, Draft
679
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 10 of 23 ends

applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City for all costs an d expenses incurred in enforcing this provision.

10. The applicant shall c omply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations. Violation of any of thos e laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit.

11. The project approval includes certai n fees and/or other exactions. Pursuan t to Government Code Section 66020, these conditions or requiremen ts constitute written notice of the fees and/or exactions. The appli cant is hereby notified that the ninety (90) day protest period commencing from the date of approval of the project has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding these conditions or requirements, the applicant is legally barred from later challenging such exactions per Governmen t Code Section 66020.

12. Prior to building p ermits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not limited to: Ci ty sewer connection, Orange County S anitation District Connection Fee , Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Fire Facility, Police Facility, Park A cquisition, Library, Sanitation District, and School District, as required.

13. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall pay any out standing monies due to t he City for Planning Division entitlement activities related to this project.

14. Building permits sha ll be obtained for all future co nstruction work, as re quired by the City of Orange, Community Development Department’s Building Divisi on. Failure to obtain th e required building permits may cause for revocation of the entitlements provided.

15. All signage sha ll comply with Sign Regulations of the OMC, Chapter 17.36 . Project signage shall be subject to Community Development Director approval.

16. Grading operations shall be restricted to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with limi ted grading as necessary permitted on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Mechanics may service the equipment up to two hours after each shift.

17. All other construction activities (i.e. not grading operations) shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance, OMC Chapter 8.24, and shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity will b e permitted on Sundays and Federal holidays.

18. Any new lighting on the premise shall be installed in such a way to direct, control, and screen the lighting to prevent off site light spillage onto adjoining properties and shall not be maintained in a manner constituting a nuisance to adjacent and surrounding properties.

Draft
680
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 11 of 23 ends

19. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule a light reading inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confi rmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. The applicant shall use shielding so as to e nsure that the light standards meet the requirements of O MC Section 17.12.030 for areas beyond the property’s exterior boundaries . Light spillage or pollution to surrounding residential areas shall not exceed a maintained minimum of 0.5 foot-candle.

20. Prior to building permit s, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that all mechanical and air conditioning equ ipment shall be s hielded and screened fro m view from adjacent streets and properties. The screening shall be integrated architecturally with the building and painted to match the walls of the building.

21. Prior to building permit s, all requ ired parki ng spaces shall b e shown on construction documents as doubled striped to City standards at the time of approval.

22. Any graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours from ap plicant/property owner’s receipt of the City’s notification. Notification shall be deemed received if sent by certified mail to the address last provided by the applicant/property owner.

23. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall identify the precise location of existing walls proposed for d emolition, if applicable. If the location of the existing wall slated for demolition is wholly or partially upon an adjacent prope rty, the applicant shall secure the property own er(s) approval to demolish and replace the wall prior to building permit issuance. The applicant will be responsible for any site repairs to walls damaged through demolition activity.

24. Prior to building permit s, the applicant shall prepare a final landsca ping and irrigation plan consistent with the grading plans, site plans, and th e conceptual landscaping plan as proposed for the project for the review and approval of the Community Development Director in coordination with the Public Works Director.

25. Prior to City approval of the landscape plans, the ap plicant shall r eview the approv ed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and ensure the propose d landscape pl ans are consistent with the projec t grading plans and show the proposed structural storm wate r treatment BMPs incorporated into the project.

26. Prior to buil ding permits, all landscaping located within public areas shall be shown on the landscape plans and shall include the installation of root barrier s acceptable to the Public Works Department on the sid ewalk side of the tree or where conditions warra nt the installation of a Deep Root box as directed by the Public Works Director.

27. Prior to building permit s, final landscaping plans for the project shall be designed to comply with the City’s Water Effici ent Landscape Guidelines as described in Section IX et al of the Ci ty of Or ange Landscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation certifying complia nce with this Draft
681
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 12 of 23 ends

requirement (Appendix B of the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications) for review and approval by the Community Development Director in coordination with the Public Works Director.

28. Prior to certificate of occupancy, all landscaping improvements shall be com pleted according to the approve d plans, the City of Or ange Water Effici ent Landscape Guidelines, and Ci ty of Orange L andscape Standards and Specifications. The project landscape architect shall submit documentation certifying compliance with this requirement (Appendix E of the City of O range Landscape Standards and Specifications) for review a nd approval by the Community Development Director, in coordination with the Public Works Director.

29. Prior to building permit s, City required irrigation and landscape ins pection notes, in accordance with the City of Orange Landscap e Standards and Specific ations, shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director in coordination with the Public Works Director.

30. Prior to building permit s, the final landscape plan shall be re viewed and approved by the Public Works Director when landscaping is proposed within the public right-of-way and/or the project is constructing Storm Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) in landscaped areas.

31. Prior to buil ding permit s, the final landscape plan shall include a note that a fully automated irrigation system will be provided.

32. Prior to building permit s, landscape plans shall include landscape area calculations needed for State landscape water use reporting.

33. Prior to building permits, a Tree Removal Permit shall be approved by the Community Services Director in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. A plan is required for submittal to the City depic ting all of the exist ing on-site trees, the s pecifics of each tree, and the number of trees proposed for removal and replacement.

34. Landscape maintenance shall be performed in such a manner as to allow all trees to retain their full canopy height for screening and full canopy breadth for shade at poi nt of maturity, except as required for public safety purposes.

35. Landscaping shall be maintained so a s to not interfere with lighting or addressing. All landscape areas shall be maintained in a neat and healthy conditi on. Should th e plant material die, it shall be replaced at the earliest time with similar plant material.

36. Prior to building permit s, the applicant shall install three new Camphor street trees to fill in the gaps along the Katella Avenue frontage. Tree well s shall measure 6 feet by 6 feet, and tree spacing shall be 35 feet on center. Tree variety and placement shall be approved by the Public Works Department, Tree Services Coordinator.

Draft
682
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 13 of 23 ends

37. The Homeowner’s Association shall maintain the dense row of shrubs and trees planted along the norther n property line and northeast corner of the site in a neat and healthy condition. The trees and shrubs shall be irri gated, routinely trimmed, a nd adequately maintained so as to not interfere with the overhead utility lines or caus e overgrowth into adjacent neighboring properties. Dead or removed trees and landscape material shall be replaced by the Homeowner’s Association with a similar plant material at the earlies t feasible time.

38. The Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Homeowner’s Association for the project shall stipulate that the Homeowner’s Association will maintain the trees and shrubs along the north property line for Lots 1 through 12 to retain visual screeni ng of neighboring properties and require the trees and shrubs to be irrigated, routinely trimmed, and adequately maintained so as to not interfere with the overhead utility lines or cause overgrowth into adjacent neighboring properties and that dead or removed trees and landscape material shall be replaced by the Homeowner ’s Associatio n with a simil ar plant material at the earlies feasible time.

39. Patio covers, pergolas, canopies, umbre llas larger than five feet in diameter, or similar shade structures, unsecured furniture, and overhead patio string lighting , on roof top decks are prohibited. Heat lamps and other outdoor accessory fixtures shall be secured in place and shall not extend above the height of the roof parapet/balcony railing.

40. The CC&Rs of the Homeowner’s Assoc iation for the project shall include enforceable restrictions prohibiting patio covers, pergolas, canopies, umbrellas larger than five feet in diameter, or similar shade structures, unsecured furniture, and overhead patio string lighting on roof top decks , and require that heat lamps and other outdoor accessory fixtures be secure d in place and to not extend above the height of the roof parapet/balcony railing.

41. Storage of trash bins on the private street and within parking spaces is prohibited. A 20 feet by 20 fe et inside clear area in each garage is to be maintained at all times for its intended use as vehicle parking. Guest parking shall remain available for and is used by guests. Parking in fire access areas is prohibited. The Fire Chief can, at his/her discretion, require further street markings for fire lanes (inclu ding red curbing) if signage fails to keep fire lanes clear of vehicles or other obstructions.

42. The CC&Rs of the Homeowner ’s Association for the project shall contain enforceable restrictions prohibiting s torage of trash bins on the private street and with in parking spaces. CC&Rs shall also require a 20 feet by 20 feet inside clear area in each garage to be maintained at all times for its intended use as vehicle parking. CC&Rs shall contain enforceable restricti ons to en sure guest parking remains available for and is used by guests. The CC&Rs shall contain enforceable restrictions that prohibit parking in fire access area s. The CC&Rs shall co ntain a provision that the Fire Chief can, at his /her discretion, require further street markings for fire lanes (incl uding red curbing) if signage fails to keep fire lanes clear of vehicles or other obstructions.

Draft
683
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 14 of 23 ends

43. Any changes to the CC&Rs at any time after building permit issuance shall require review and written approval by the Community Development Director.

44. Each unit is to maintain a minimum of 120 cubic feet of storage within the garage and outside of the 20 feet by 20 feet inside clear area, as shown on the submittal floor plans.

45. The CC&Rs shall indicate that each unit is to maintain a minimum of 120 cubic feet o f storage within the garage and outside of the 20 feet by 20 feet inside clear area, as shown on the submittal floor plans.

46. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Final Tract Map shall dedicate to the City and its assigns, and the City shall approve th e method and language of the dedication, the right to enter the private streets and driveways for the maintenance of public utilities (if an y), emergency access, trash collection, and for any other reasons stated in the dedication mechanism.

47. The project shall maintain all structural, treatment and low impact development BMPs at the frequency specified in the approved WQMP. Upon t ransfer of ownership or management responsibilities for the project site, the applicant shall no tify the Public Works Department o f the new person(s) or entity responsible for maintenance of the BMPs.

Fire Department:

48. Plans submitted for Building Plan Review shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of appl ication for Building Permit. Onsite fire department access will req uire easement recording prior to issuance of a rough grading permit and shall be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to approval.

49. Because new p roperty lines extend into the shared roadw ays, the easement from Condition #4 9 shall include reciprocal access amongst all properties. Recording shall include a Declaration of Restrictions in perpetuity, to include impact and liability being created by the shared obligation of all property owners and future individuals with interest to e ach property. All maintenance of, i ncluding but not limited to , roadways, utility mains, fire lane signage, markings, fire lines, fire hydrants testing and servic e, and all equipment thereto with the reciprocal easement.

Police Department:

50. Prior to c ertificate of occupancy, residential dwellings shall display a street number in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numerals shall be no less than four inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. Single family dwellings shall have these numerals illuminated during the hours of darkness. In addition, any use which affords vehicular access to t he rear through any Draft
684
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 15 of 23 ends

driveway, alleyway or parking lot shall als o display the same numbers on the rear of the building.

51. Prior to building permit s, construction plans shall show that all structures comply with the requirements of OMC Chapter 15.52 Building Security Stand ards, which relates to the use of specific hardware, doors, windows, lighting, etc . (Ord. No. 7 -79).

Architectural drawings shall include sections of the Ordinance that apply under “Sec urity Notes”. An “Approved Products List 1/08” of hardware, windows, etc. is available upon request.

52. Prior to building permit s, the applicant shall include defensible landscaping in the greenbelt areas on the southeast and southwest perimeters of the s ite. Thorny vegetation will a llow for better access control into the site, deter criminal intrusion, and transient activity.

Public Works Department, Traffic Division:

53. Prior to grading permits, the east side on Cambridge Street shall be posted and painted for “No Stopping Anytime” to ensure that there are no obstructions within the sight triangles.

Public Works Department, Subdivision Section:

54. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Depart ment prior to start of any site demolition, clearing and grubbing, and grading.

55. Prior to building permits, the final map and CC&R s or Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded (model homes excluded).

56. Prior to certificate of occupancy, monuments shall be set based on a field survey.

57. Prior to certificate of occupa ncy, t he Surveyor -of-Record shall file a Certific ate of Monumentation to ensure completion of field survey.

58. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall dedicate on the tract map a three-foot right- of-way along Cambridge Street and corner cut -off on th e northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Cambridge Street to accommodate a sidewalk access ramp per City Standard Plans.

59. Prior to building permit s and final map recordation , t he CC&R s or Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to a joint review by the Co mmunity Development Director, Public Works Director, and City Attorney. The applicant shall be required to pay for the review of the CC& Rs by the City Attorney, Public Works Director and the Community Development Director at the City’s hourly billing rate.

Draft
685
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 16 of 23 ends

60. Prior to grading permit s, all works within the public right -of-way and public utility easements will require encroachment permits, includi ng sidewalk and driveway constructions and utility main and lateral constructions.

61. Prior to grading permit s, all p ublic infrastructur es, including street sections, sidewalk , driveway apron, and utilities shall comply with City of Orange Standard Plans and Specifications.

62. Prior to certificate of occupancy, u tilities serving the development, such as electric, cable television, street li ghting and communication shall be insta lled underground, completed, and approved by the appropriate utility provider.

63. Prior to certificate of occupancy, t he applicant shall remove unused driveway approaches and restore them to full he ight curb and gutte r, including any sidewalk restoration a t the driveway apron.

64. Prior to grading pe rmits, driveway aprons shall conform to Public Works Standard Pla n 115 for commercial driveways with ADA accessibility.

65. Prior to grading permit s, all d riveway approaches shall conform to ADA st andards for wheelchair access conforming to Public Works Standard Plans 115 and 116.

66. Prior to certificate of occupancy, an unobstructed pedestrian access way of 5 feet width shall be maintained at all time s for the sidewalk. The unobstructed access shal l increase to 6 feet when there is no planting strip between the sidewalk and the street curb.

67. Prior to certif icate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide adequate wheelchair accessibility around driveway aprons that do not conform to current ADA standards.

68. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any cracked, uneven, or damaged public sidewalk, curb and gutter along property frontage.

69. The applicant shall be required to install new streetlights or upgrade existing streetlights along Cambridge Street as required by the City of Orange Traffic Division. Contact Medel Llanes at (714) 744-5535 for further details.

70. Immediately following entitlement approvals , the applicant shall coordinate with Southern California Edison the point of connection for the street lighting.

71. Prior to grading permits, the applicant shall protect in place all existing street trees within the limits of the development per the Public Works Department Street Tree Coordinator.

72. Prior to certificate of occupancy, sanitary sewer system connections from the buildings to the public mainline shall be private and maintained by the property owner.

Draft
686
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 17 of 23 ends

73. Prior to grading permit s, the applicant shall submit a gra ding plan in comp liance wit h City standards for review and approval by the Public Works Director. All grading and improvements on the subject property shall be made in accordance with the Manual of Grading and Standard Plans an d Specifications to the satis faction of the Pu blic Works Director. The applicant may be required to include Phased Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, Site Demolition Plan, and Utility Plan as parts of the Grading Plan.

74. Prior to grading permits, plan preparation and submitt als shall be per the Development Services Plan Preparation Guidelines and C hecklist, and Checklist for Submittal Packages.

75. Prior to grading permit s, the applicant shall pro vide a geotechnical report to accompany the Grading Plan review.

76. Prior to grading permit s, a Hydrology Study/Report or Drainage Assessment Letter shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The Hydrology Study/Report shall comply wi th the Orange County Hydrology Manual and Addenda (OCHM). Design Storm Frequency at a minimum, sh all be 10 -year storm (25-year in a sump condition), and a 1 00-year storm event. Proposed improvements shall comply with freeboard requirements per OCHM and County Local Drainage Manuals.

77. Prior to grading permits, site grading shall conform to the latest California Building Code Section 1804. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of 5% for pervious surfaces, and 2% for impervious surfaces, at a minimum distance of 10 feet.

78. Prior to grading per mits, any soil imported or exported shall require a Transportation Permit from the Public Works Department, Traffic Division.

79. Prior to grading permits, approval by the City Council will be required prior to import or export of soil exceeding 30,0 00 cubic yards. A dirt haul route shall be approved by the City Council and the travel path is subject to pavement deterioration evaluation (O.M.C.

10.67.030(B).

80. Prior to submittal of the grading plan for plan check, th e applicant shall submit a deposit to cover plan check and inspection services fees related to the grading activities.

81. The Grading Plan shall detail all of the locations where retaining walls will be constructed. Geometric de tail of retaining walls shall be shown on the Grading Plan, including mat erial type, dimensions, backfill, and subdrains. A building permit i s also required for retaining walls over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall prior to construction. Structural details and design calculations shall be submitted as a separate docum ent and will be reviewed and pe rmitted by the City’s Building Division.

Draft
687
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 18 of 23 ends

82. Any grading outside of the owner’s propert y boundary shall require the applicant to either obtain temporary construction easements or permission by adjacent property owners in a form suitable to the Public Works Director.

83. The applicant shall show all sewer and storm drain lines on t he Grading Plan. Other utility lines, such as water lines, may also be shown on Grading Plan for reference.

84. The applicant shall show all structural BMPs for water quality purpose s on the Grading Plan. Water quality features shown on the Grading Plan must match the WQMP.

85. The applicant shall maintain in good condition all on-site driveways where heavy -duty trucks would travel.

86. Prior to grading permit s, and prior to building f oundation construction, a Certificate Letter of Line and Grade shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Construction Inspector demonstrating that the site grading and pad elevation ar e completed according to the Grading Plan.

87. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall submit an address number request, including an a ddressing plan, to the Public Works Department for review and approval in accordance with the following: An address shall be required for equipment structures.

Address numbers shall be illuminated, in a contrasting color, and between 6 and 12 inches in height. For any buildings in the back, not clear in sight from the street, and illuminated address sign shall be placed in the front. The building closes t to the street frontage shall have the closest address number.

Public Works Department, Water Division:

88. Prior to grading permit s, the applicant shall provide grading and utility plans that show the upgrade of the 6” cast iron pipe water main line to 8” diameter water main line. The limits of the upgrade will be along the Katella Avenue and Cambridge Street frontages of the property, approximately 730 feet total. Completion of the water main upgrade shall be prior to above grade vertical construction.

89. Prior to building per mits, the applicant shall submit improvement plans to the Water Division for review and approval for any new fire hydrants, domestic wate r services, fire services, landsc ape services, and any other prop osed improvements or relocations affecting the public water system facilities.

90. Prior to grading permit s, the applicant shall construct all public improvements to the satisfaction of the Water Division. The applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Orange, and post security in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer and/or Water Division to ensure construction of said improvements.

Draft
688
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 19 of 23 ends

91. Prior to buildi ng permit s, the applicant shall be responsible for the installation and/o r relocation of the proposed or existing public water system facilities to a location and of a design per the improvement plans approved by the Water Division.

92. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall be responsible for the install ation of necessary fire hydrants and fire services as approved by the Fire Department and Water Division.

93. Prior to building permit s, the Water Division shall ap prove the type and location of landscaping and fire service (backflow prevention) device for proposed City services.

94. Prior to building permits, construction documents shall show that the installation of sewer mains in the vicinity of water mains i s complete per the Depa rtment of Public Works Water Division Standard No. 113 and will be approved by the Water Division.

95. Prior to building permit s, construction documents shall show that a six -foot minimum horizontal clearance and a one -foot mini mum vertical clearance would be maintained between City water mains, laterals, services, meters, fire hydrants and all ot her utilities except sewer. The Water Division shall review and approve the construction documents.

96. Prior to building permits, construction documents shall show that an eight -foot minimum clearance is provided be tween City water mains, laterals, services, meters, fire hydrants, signs, or trees or other substantial shrubs and plants as required by the Water Division.

The Water Division shall review and approve the construction documents.

97. Prior to building permit s, construction do cuments shall show that pe rmanent signs, awning, surface water quality management features , or other structures are not built over water mains, laterals, services, meters, or fire hydrants as required by the Water Division.

98. Prior to building permit s, the applicant shall be respons ible for obtaining approval of all of the necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies for all public water construction work.

99. Prior to approval of a water improvement plan, the applica nt shall satisfy all water main connection, plan check, and inspection charges as determined by the Water Division.

100. Prior to approval of the wat er improvemen t plan, the applicant shall satisfy all water construction bond requiremen ts for the installation of the public water system improvements as determined by the Water Division.

101. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the water improve ment plans ar e consistent with the fire suppression plans and or fire master plan. The applicant’s consultant preparing the water improvement plans shall coordinate their plans with the consultant preparing the fire suppression plans and/or fire master pla n so that th eir designs concur.

Draft
689
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 20 of 23 ends

102. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the minimum separation requirements are met and that each of the various designer’s pla n sets match. The applicant’s consultant preparing the improvement and utility plans s hall coordinate their plans with the consultants preparing the landscape, architectural, surface water quality management, fire master and/or fire suppression plans so that their designs are consistent.

103. At least 14 calendar days prior to commencing construction, the applicant’s civil engineer shall prepare and provide product material submittals consistent with th e water improvement plans for all proposed public water sys tem facilities to the Water Division per the City of Orange General Water Construction Notes for review and approval.

104. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall furnish and install ind ividual pressure regulators on new services where the incom ing pressure exceeds 80-pounds per square inch.

Public Works Department, Water Quality Division:

105. Prior to grading permits, the applicant shall submit a Priority Project WQMP for review and approval to the Public Works Department that:

a. Prioritizes the use of Low Impact Development principles as follows: preserves natural features; m inimizes runoff and reduces impervious surfaces; and utilizes infiltration of runoff as the method of pollu tant treatment. Infiltration BMPs to be considered include the use of permeable materials such as concrete and concrete pavers, infiltr ation trenches , infiltration planters, and other infiltration BMPs as applicable;
b. Incorporates the applicable Site Design , Routine Source, Structural Control and Low Impact BMPs as defined in the Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance Document;
c. Maintains the hydrologic characteristics of the site by matching time of concentration, runoff, velocity, volume, and hydrograph for a 2-year storm event; d. Minimizes the potential increase in downstream erosion and avoids downstream impacts to physical structures, aquatic and riparian habitat; e. Generally, describes the long -term opera tion and maintenance requirements for structural and Treatment Control BMPs;
f. Identifies the entity or employees that will be responsible for long -term operation, maintenance, repair a nd or replacement of the structural and Treatment Control BMPs and the training that qualifies them to operate and maintain the BMPs; g. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of all structural and Treatment Control BMPs;
h. Includes a copy of the forms to be used in conducting maintenance and ins pection activities;
i. Meets recordkeeping requirements (forms to be kept for five years); and j. Includes a copy of the form to be submitted annually by the project owner to the Public Works Depa rtment that certifies that the project’s structural and treatment BMPs are being inspected and maintained in accordance with the project’s WQMP.

Draft
690
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 21 of 23 ends

106. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Public Works Department:

a. That all structural and treatment control BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been construct ed and installed in conformance with the approved p lans and specifications;
b. That the applicant is prepared to impl ement all non -structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP; and
c. That an adequate number of copies of the project’s approved final Project WQM P are available for the future occupiers.

107. Prior to certificate of occupancy or final signoff by the Public Works Depa rtment, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of Public Works, that the p reparer of the WQMP has reviewed the BMP maintenanc e requirements in Section V of the WQMP with the re sponsible person and that a copy of the WQMP has been provided to t hat person. A certification letter from the WQMP preparer may be used to satisfy this condition.

108. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall review the approved WQMP and Grading Plan to ensure the structure’s downspouts or drainage outlet locations are consistent with those documents. Copies of the building or architectural plans specifically showing the downspouts and drainage o utlets shall be submitted to the Public W orks Department for review.

109. The project applicant shall maintain all structural, treatment and low impact development BMPs at the frequency specified in the approved WQMP. Upon transfer of ownership or management r esponsibilities for the project site, the applicant shall n otify the City of Orange Pu blic Works Department of the new person(s) or entity responsible for maintenance of the BMPs.

110. Prior to grading permits, (including, as appropriate: clearing, grubbing, surface mining, or paving permits), the applicant shall demo nstrate that coverag e has been obtained under the State’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing. A copy of the SWPPP required by the Gener al Permit shall be kept at the project site and be available for review by City representatives upon request.

111. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall identify the location of the grease interceptor and provide evidence to the Building Official that the design meets and is consistent with the City’s latest adopted building codes.

Draft
691
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 22 of 23 ends

ADOPTED this 18th day of March 2024.

____________________________________
David Vazquez, Planning Commission Chair

I hereby certify that the foregoi ng Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSED:

ABSENT:

____________________________________
Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director

Draft
692
Resolution PC 08-24

Page 23 of 23 ends

Attachment A
Legal Description

THE LAND RE FERENCED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF

ORANGE IN TH E COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORN IA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THAT PORTION OF LOT H OF THE VAN DE GRAFF TRACT, IN THE CITY O F

ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 440 OF MISCELLANEOUS REC ORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4407, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 158, PAGES 28 AND 29 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT EASTERLY 575. 32

FEET THEREON, FROM THE NORTHEASTER LY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1963 IN BOOK 6733, PAGE 723 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG A LINE ESTABLISHED BY THAT CERTAIN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROBE RT E. HOLMES AND ROBERT L. TITTLE AND OTHER RECORDED NOVEMBER 7 , 1969 IN BO OK 9132, PAGE 960 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SOUTH 0 ° 55’ 48” EAST 303.77 FEET TO

SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT H, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE

TO THE CENTERLINE OF CAMBRIDGE STREET, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3 , PA GE 28 OF PARC EL MAPS, RECORDS OF S AID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERL INE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4407; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE INTEREST IN THAT PORTION OF SAID CAM BRIDGE

STREET AS CONVEYED BY A DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1963 IN BOOK 6733, PAGE 723 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE INTEREST IN THE SOUTHERLY 60.00 FEET AS CONVEYED BY PARCEL 3 OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE COUNTY RECORDED AU GUST 23, 1963 IN BOOK 6689, PAGE 430 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 375-461-41

Draft
693
Agenda Item
Planning Commission
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Monique Schwartz, Senior Planner

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a commercial site with 49 two-and three-story single-family small lot homes located at 901 E. Katella Avenue; and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22, Zone Change No. 1307-22, Tentative Tract Map No. 0051- 22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293-23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22).

2. SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing 2.71-acre commercial site with 49, two-and three- story single-family small lot homes (17 paired and 15 detached), open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements. To allow for the development at this location, the proposal includes a request to amend the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial Max.

1.0 FAR (GC) to Medium Density Residential 15-24 dwelling units per acre (MDR) and a request to amend the zoning from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential Multiple Family (R-3).

3. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 06-24 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 0004-22, a request to change the General Plan designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential on a 2.71-acre site located at 901 E. Katella Avenue.

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 07-24 recommending City Council approval of Zone Change No. 1307-22 and adoption of an Ordinance to change the zoning designation from Commercial Professional to Residential Multiple Family to establish consistency between the Medium Density General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classification in accordance with state law on a 2.71-acre site located at 901 E. Katella Avenue.

3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 08-24 recommending City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092- 22, Administrative Adjustment No. 0293-23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the redevelopment of a vacant AT&T facility with 49, two-and three-story single-family small lot homes, open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements on a 2.71-acre site located at 901 E. Katella City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 1 of 14
powered by Legistar™
694
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
Avenue.

4. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020 depicts the authority of the City’sreviewing bodies to make decisions and / or recommendations on land use applications. This project involves applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Major Site Plan Review, Design Review, Administrative Adjustment, and Mitigated Negative Declaration which require a final determination by the City Council. Table 17.08.020(b) states that when more than one type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council for the sum of applications for the project because the City Council is the final decision-maker for the General Plan and zoning change.

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant: Intracorp Homes, Emilie Simard
Property Owner Phoenix Power & Light, LLC, Jonathan Schurgin Property Location 901 E. Katella Avenue
Existing General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
General Commercial, Max. 1.0 FAR (GC)
Existing Zoning Classification Commercial Professional (C-P) Old Towne No
Specific Plan/PC No
Site Size 2.71-acres
Circulation The project site is located at the northeast corner of East Katella Avenue and North Cambridge Street. The City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways classifies East Katella Avenue as a Smart Street Major Arterial with an ultimate right-of-way width of 120 feet, and North Cambridge Street as a Secondary Arterial with an ultimate right-of- way width of 86 feet. The existing site is currently accessed by two-way driveways with gated entries along East Katella Avenue and North Cambridge Street. There is an existing bus stop located on East Katella Avenue near the intersection with North Cambridge Street.

Existing Conditions The site is currently developed with a 20,621 sq ft two-story vacant commercial building (AT&T switching and service truck facility), a 53- foot-tall wireless communication facility and equipment enclosure located to the east of the building, a surface parking lot with 152 spaces, mature trees and landscaping, perimeter walls, gated entries off Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, and site improvements. All structures and site improvements, including the wireless communication facility will be removed to accommodate the project.

Surrounding Land Uses and
Zoning
Surrounding development to the north includes single-story residences along Carleton Avenue, zoned Single Family Residential, 7,000 SF (R-1- 7). To the south is Katella Avenue. Further south are retail and commercial office buildings zoned Commercial Professional (C-P). To the east is a two-story retail and commercial office building, zoned C-P.

To the west is Cambridge Street. Further west is a gas station and two- story apartments zoned C-P and Residential Multiple Family (R-3).

Previous
Applications/Entitlements
On June 13, 2013, the Community Development Director approved Minor Site Plan Review No. 0733-13, a request to modify an existing Sprint monopole wireless communication facility. On September 12,2019, the city processed a preliminary review application (Minor Site Plan Review No. 0990-19) for the construction of a 8,500 sq ft retail center, 2,236 sq ft drive-through restaurant, 4,107 sq ft carwash, and relocation of an existing wireless communication facility. On June 9, 2020, the city processed a preliminary review application (Minor Site Plan Review No. 1015-20) for the construction of a 9,200 sq ft retail building and 3,100 sq ft drive-through restaurant. On July 14, 2021, the city processed a preliminary review application (Minor Site Plan Review No. 1056-21) to redevelop an existing commercial building into a residential care facility for the elderly, with residential amenities and parking. On May 4, 2022, the city processed a preliminary review application (Minor Site Plan Review No. 1097-22) submitted by this same applicant for a 54-unit townhome project.

City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 2 of 14
powered by Legistar™
695
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
Applicant: Intracorp Homes, Emilie Simard
Property Owner Phoenix Power & Light, LLC, Jonathan Schurgin Property Location 901 E. Katella Avenue
Existing General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
General Commercial, Max. 1.0 FAR (GC)
Existing Zoning Classification Commercial Professional (C-P) Old Towne No
Specific Plan/PC No
Site Size 2.71-acres
Circulation The project site is located at the northeast corner of East Katella Avenue and North Cambridge Street. The City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways classifies East Katella Avenue as a Smart Street Major Arterial with an ultimate right-of-way width of 120 feet, and North Cambridge Street as a Secondary Arterial with an ultimate right-of- way width of 86 feet. The existing site is currently accessed by two-way driveways with gated entries along East Katella Avenue and North Cambridge Street. There is an existing bus stop located on East Katella Avenue near the intersection with North Cambridge Street.

To the west is Cambridge Street. Further west is a gas station and two- story apartments zoned C-P and Residential Multiple Family (R-3).

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a request to demolish a vacant AT&T facility and develop 49, two-and three-story single -family small lot homes (17 paired and 15 detached), open space recreation areas, guest parking, and related site improvements (See Attachment 7 Project Plans).

To allow for the development in this location, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Element designation from General Commercial Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) to Medium Density Residential 15-24 dwelling units per acre (MDR), and a Zone Change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential Multiple Family (R-3) to accommodate a small lot subdivision in accordance with the city’sSmall Lot Subdivision Ordinance (OMC Section 17.14.270).

The proposed development will have a density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The proposal includes a Tentative Tract Map for the small lot subdivision including establishment of private and common use areas.

In 2021, Title 17 of the OMC was amended to provide development standards for small lot subdivisions. The Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards and Guidelines allow for the development of smaller fee simple, single-family residential lots in multi-family residential zones (R-3 and R-4) and the NMU-24 mixed use zone. The lots created under these standards are less than the typical minimum area of a traditional single-family lot, which allows for flexibility in lot configuration, and reduces the amount of land required for new-single family residences. The development standards include regulations for lot frontage, setbacks, stories, height, private open space, and parking. These development standards allow for a space-efficient and economical alternative to City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 3 of 14
powered by Legistar™
696
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
traditional options for home ownership.

The project includes small lots ranging from 1,468 to 2,442 sq ft. Residential units are configured around a 25-foot wide looped private interior roadway. There are 15 residences that have primary entries accessed from the Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue frontages, providing a pedestrian oriented sidewalk interface along both streets. There are 22 units located at the center of the site that have primary entries off an interior landscaped paseo, and 12 units along the northern boundary have primary entries off the interior roadway.

The project provides three different floor plans with units ranging from 1,604 to 2,001 sq ft (See Sheet A1.0 - Conceptual Site Plan of Attachment 7). Modifed floor plans will also be offered for Plan 2 styles with the option of an office or loft in lieu of a fourth bedroom (Plan 2 ALT). In addition, each unit plan provides garage space dedicated for the storage of three trash carts for the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and organics and a minimum of 250 cubic feet of overhead storage.

Floor Plan No. of
Units
Gross Area
(sq ft)
No. of
Stories
No. of
Bedrooms
No. of
Bathrooms
Garage
(sq ft)
Plan 1 17 1,965 3 + Roof
Deck
3 3.5 487
Plan 2 18 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
4 3.5 471
Plan 2 ALT
Units 47 and
49 2 2,001 3 + Roof
Deck
3 + Loft or
Office

The proposed project introduces a contemporary residential design that is intended to respond to the eclectic contemporary visual character of the area. The majority of units are three-stories with roof decks (35 feet tall), while the units along the northern boundary are two-stories (25 feet, 5 inches), with a first-floor setback of 10 feet and a second-floor setback between 12 and 15 feet from the north property line, abutting the one-story single-family residences to the north. The building orientations along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue consider the site’scharacteristics and the City’sSmall Lot Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment 19) in that the main entrances are oriented towards the streets and sidewalks to create a relationship between the buildings and pedestrian and to establish a strong tie to the street frontages.

Architectural elements include a combination of hip, shed, and flat roof forms, parapets, arched entries, distinctive window arrangements, recessed and simple door and window detailing, porch City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 4 of 14
powered by Legistar™
697
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
entries, distinctive window arrangements, recessed and simple door and window detailing, porch elements, use of trim and siding, and alternating plane changes to add visual interest. Window placement has also generally been considered to preserve the privacy of adjacent neighbors within the project, and the single-story residences to the north. The north facing second story windows on Units 1-12 will be clerestory. Although not illustrated on the plans, the applicant has indicated that the windows will be located approximately seven feet from the interior finished floor to the bottom of windows.

The use of varied rooflines, articulated building elevations (especially along the street frontages), and arches help soften the scale and rectangular massing of the buildings. The project’s rectangular building forms and openings, relationship to the street, and scale along the Katella Avenue frontage are generally visually compatible with the architecture of the two office buildings to the east. The proposed exterior building materials also contribute to the architectural character of the project, including composite roof shingles, painted stucco finish, metal canopies, vinyl windows, stucco over foam trim details, engineered wood siding, faux wood balcony railing, and painted metal sectional garage doors. The coordinated exterior color scheme consists of subtle natural tones, with contrasting colors used for accents and details. The project provides a residential design that is distinctive, yet compatible with the commercial and neighborhood area context, and scale of the adjacent roadways.

Project Access and Parking:

Vehicle access is provided by two-way entrance driveways along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. These entry drives connect to a looped private interior roadway that provides vehicle and pedestrian access to the main entrances and garages of the dwelling units. The internal roadway includes curb, gutter, and intermittent landscape planters. No unit driveways or sidewalks are provided along the interior roadway. Each unit is provided with an attached two-car garage, and there are 30 open parking spaces for occupants and guests for a total of 128 parking spaces provided for the development, which is compliant with the parking required by the Small Lot Subidivison Ordinance. Pedestrian access from the street frontages is provided via paved walkways at the Cambridge Street driveway, at the southwest corner of the site, and through gated courtyards for each unit along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The project is also within walking distance to nearby shopping, restaurants, office, and residential uses, as well as adjacent to a bus stop located on Katella Avenue near the southwest corner of the site. Interior walkways are provided on the east and west sides of the interior residential island that connect to a landscaped paseo that leads to the entries of Units 14-33 and at the entrance to the pocket park along the northern boundary providing access to the park. The private interior roadway, parking spaces, common open space, and landscape areas designated in green on Sheet L-5 (HOA Maintained Areas Plan) of Attachment 7 will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association for the development.

In addition, the Site Distance Analysis included in Appendix L of the MND (Attachment 10) analyzed inbound left turns to the project from Cambridge Street and determined that sight lines could be obstructed by vehicles queued in the southbound left-turn lane and/or southbound through lane at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, which could potentially create a dangerous turning movement. As a result, a traffic mitigation measure (MM Trans-1) is included in the MND (Attachment 9) that requires the applicant to install striping modifications or signage to prohibit southbound left turn movement from Cambridge Street into the project.

Common and Private Open Space:

The Small Lot Subdivision development standards require a project to provide common open space City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 5 of 14
powered by Legistar™
698
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
The Small Lot Subdivision development standards require a project to provide common open space only if the buildings on each lot exceed 75% lot coverage. As noted on Sheet A1.0 (Conceptual Site Plan) of Attachment 7, lot coverage for the project ranges from 44 to 57% and therefore the project is not required to provide common open space. However, in an effort to enhance the project aesthetics and provide amenities to the residents, the applicant has provided an enclosed pocket park with shaded picnic tables, barbeque, multipurpose lawn area, and enhanced paving along the northern boundary, a pocket park with bench seating, entry portals, signage wall, and lawn area at the southwest corner of the site, and a landscaped paseo between Units 13-34 in the interior residential island. The project also provides private open space in the form of roof decks for all three-story units, and 10-foot rear yards for units along the northern boundary.

Streetscape and Landscape
Sheet L-1 (Existing Conditions Plan) of Attachment 7 shows the removal of 19 existing mature trees in order to accommodate the new residential development. A total of nine existing street trees will be protected in place and three new street trees will be installed along the Katella Avenue frontage.

Sheets L-32 - L-34 (Plant Palette and Conceptual Planting Plan) of Attachment 7 illustrate the proposed landscape palette for the project. The project incorporates a variety of water efficient plant material along the street frontages, project interior, and perimeter boundaries, including a total of 54 new trees. Streetscape treatment includes retention of existing street trees, and the incorporation of three new Camphor street trees along Katella Avenue (Condition of Approval #36 of Resolution No.

PC 08-24). Detailed information about site landscaping is included in Attachment 15. The streetscape landscaping conveys the residential nature of the land use along the predominatently commercial Katella corridor, articulates and helps soften the three-story building design, and provides a friendly pedestrian-oriented interface with the buildings and sidewalk. The project interior includes a mix of small and medium-stature trees, shrubs and groundcover, including artificial turf in the pocket parks.

A dense row of Shrubby Yew Podocarpus and Bay Laurel shrubs will be planted along the entire north property line wall and at the northeast corner of the site to address neigbhorhood privacy concerns and soften the visual interface between the northern units and adjacent neighborhood. A large stature Southern Live Oak tree will be planted in the pocket park along the north property line to provide additional green screening for the single-story residences to the north. Condition of Approval #37 of Resolution No. PC 08-24 has been included to require routine trimming and maintainenance of trees and shrubs along the north property line so they do not grow to interfere with the overhead utility lines, and requires replacement of said trees and shrubs if they are damaged, removed, or die.

Enhanced paving is also proposed for pedestrian walkways, within the pocket parks, and within the fenced unit courtyards along the street frontages.

Fences/Walls:

Sheet L-3 (Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan) of Attachment 7 illustrates low stucco walls with wooden gates for the unit courtyards along both street frontages, contributing to the pedestrian interface of the project and sidewalks while also providing a physical cue of private property space. The southwest corner of the site is accentuated with 8-foot pedestrian portals and low stucco walls that will contain development identification signage. Two existing seven-foot parallel block walls will remain in place along the northern boundary, one on the project site, and the other on the adjacent Carleton Avenue residential properties. A variable height (3 feet, 6 inches to 8 feet) precision block wall is proposed along the eastern boundary between the project and the adjacent commercial site.

Side yard stucco walls and gates (6 feet tall) are proposed between the units, and low tubular steel fencing and gates will enclose the landscape area at the northwest corner and pocket park along the City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 6 of 14
powered by Legistar™
699
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
northern boundary.

Lighting:

Sheets EP1.1 - EP1.2 of Attachment 7 include the Photometric Plan and fixture designs for the project. New 16-foot-tall LED pole streetlights are proposed in landscape planters at the entry drives, adjacent to guest parking spaces, and in the pocket park along the northern boundary. These fixtures will have shields directed downward to prevent off-site light spillage. Three-foot-tall LED bollard lighting is proposed in the pocket park at the southwest corner, and various landscape lighting, including shade structure down lighting, in-ground flush mounted fixtures, tree and sign up-lighting will also be provided. Decorative LED wall light fixtures (shown on building elevations) are proposed at the front, rear patio (Units 1-12), and garage door entries of each unit. The proposed fixture styles are contemporary and compatible with the architecture of the buildings.

Signage:

Conceptual signage is included for illustrative purposes on Sheet L-24 of Attachment 7 and is not part of this project proposal. Monument signage is proposed on a low wall at the southwest corner pocket park for visibility at both street intersections. The sign concept appears compatible with the building design; however, the City’sBuilding Security Ordinance will likely require a lighted address on the monument sign and at each residential unit. All signage will comply with the City’s sign regulations.

Overall, the project’s coordinated architectural style, use of matching colors and materials for all structures, as well as landscape and streetscape design as proposed presents an integrated design theme. The project’scontemporary design attempts to provide a visual transition from the eclectic appearance of the Katella Avenue commercial corridor and immediately abutting residential neighborhoods, non-descript uses at the other three corners of the intersection, and at a key “gateway” location leading to the Fairmeadow Eichler Tract Historic District.

Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards
R-3 Zoning District
Required/Permitted Proposed Code Section
Maximum Permitted
Density

15.1 - 24 dwelling units per
acre or 65 units

18.1 dwelling units per acre
or 49 units

17.14.270
Dwelling Units per
Subdivided Lot
1 1 17.14.270
Lot Area n/a 1,467 to 2,476 sq ft 17.14.270
Lot Frontage 25 feet 25 - 35.83 feet 17.14.270
Lot Depth 50 feet 58 - 62.59 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Front (Cambridge
Street)
15 feet 15 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Street Side (Katella
Avenue)
10 feet 10 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Side (North Property
Line)
5 feet First story: 10 feet Second
story: 12-15 feet

17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Rear (East Property
Line)
10 feet 24 feet, 6 inches 17.14.270
Interior Setbacks No front, side, or rear yard is
required between interior lot
lines created within an
approved small lot subdivision.

Front: 8 feet Side: 3 - 6 feet
Rear: 14 feet

17.14.270
Building Height 35 feet or 3 stories 35 feet, 3 stories 17.14.270 Lot Coverage 75 percent of approved small
lot
44 - 57% 17.14.270
Private Open Space 150 square feet per dwelling
unit
356 - 921 sq ft per dwelling
unit

17.14.270
Common Open Space Only required when lot
coverage of each lot exceeds
75 percent.

Each lot does not exceed 75
percent lot coverage;
however, 4,855 sq ft of
common open space is
provided in the form of two
pocket parks and landscaped
paseo

17.14.270.C.3(f)
Fence height 3 feet, 6 inches: Front yard
setback areas along the
perimeter of the proposed
subdivision. 6 feet: Side and
rear yard setback areas along
the perimeter of the proposed
subdivision. 8 feet: When
adjacent to commercial
development.
3 feet, 6 inches Existing 7-
foot parallel walls along
north property line to
remain. 8 feet along east
property line

17.14.270,

17.12.070.B.1.c
Landscaping Setbacks and open areas of the
site not occupied by buildings
shall be landscaped, including
surface parking lot areas.
15,844 sq ft (open space
areas, streetscape, and
hardscape)

16.50,

17.14.270.C.9
Secured Storage 120 cubic feet / unit Must be
in addition to cabinets and
closets typically found within a
unit (such as kitchen and
bathroom cabinets, clothes
and linen closets)
250 cubic feet / unit in
garage

17.14.140
Parking 2 parking spaces per unit,
either enclosed or covered (i.e.
garage or carport). For units
with 4 or more bedrooms, 1
additional space shall be
provided which may be
enclosed or unenclosed.

Enclosed or covered parking
may be provided in a tandem
format, except for guest
parking in common parking
areas. A minimum of 0.25
spaces per unit (with a
minimum of 2 guest spaces)
shall be provided as easily
accessible and distinguishable
guest parking in addition to the
required parking for each unit.

Guest parking may be
unenclosed. 3 Bed: 2 spaces x
31 units = 62 spaces 4 Bed: 3
spaces x 18 = 54 spaces Guest:
.25 x 49 = 12 spaces
Total Required: 128 spaces
128 total provided 98 spaces
enclosed garage spaces 18
open resident spaces 12
open guest spaces

17.34.060(A).

17.14.270.C.8
Trash Enclosures A small lot subdivision shall
provide trash (including trash,
recycling, and green waste)
collection areas screened from
public view.

Unit garages have been
designed to accommodate 3
trash carts for the storage of
trash, recycling and green
waste.

17.14.270.C.11
City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 7 of 14
powered by Legistar™
700
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
Required/Permitted Proposed Code Section
Maximum Permitted
Density

15.1 - 24 dwelling units per
acre or 65 units

18.1 dwelling units per acre
or 49 units

Front (Cambridge
Street)
15 feet 15 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Street Side (Katella
Avenue)
10 feet 10 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Side (North Property
Line)
5 feet First story: 10 feet Second
story: 12-15 feet

17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Rear (East Property
Line)
10 feet 24 feet, 6 inches 17.14.270
Interior Setbacks No front, side, or rear yard is
required between interior lot
lines created within an
approved small lot subdivision.

Front: 8 feet Side: 3 - 6 feet
Rear: 14 feet

17.14.270
Common Open Space Only required when lot
coverage of each lot exceeds
75 percent.

Each lot does not exceed 75
percent lot coverage;
however, 4,855 sq ft of
common open space is
provided in the form of two
pocket parks and landscaped
paseo

17.14.270,

16.50,

17.34.060(A).

17.14.270.C.8
Trash Enclosures A small lot subdivision shall
provide trash (including trash,
recycling, and green waste)
collection areas screened from
public view.

Unit garages have been
designed to accommodate 3
trash carts for the storage of
trash, recycling and green
waste.

17.14.270.C.11
City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 8 of 14
powered by Legistar™
701
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
Required/Permitted Proposed Code Section
Maximum Permitted
Density

15.1 - 24 dwelling units per
acre or 65 units

18.1 dwelling units per acre
or 49 units

Front (Cambridge
Street)
15 feet 15 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Street Side (Katella
Avenue)
10 feet 10 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Side (North Property
Line)
5 feet First story: 10 feet Second
story: 12-15 feet

17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Rear (East Property
Line)
10 feet 24 feet, 6 inches 17.14.270
Interior Setbacks No front, side, or rear yard is
required between interior lot
lines created within an
approved small lot subdivision.

Front: 8 feet Side: 3 - 6 feet
Rear: 14 feet

17.14.270
Common Open Space Only required when lot
coverage of each lot exceeds
75 percent.

Each lot does not exceed 75
percent lot coverage;
however, 4,855 sq ft of
common open space is
provided in the form of two
pocket parks and landscaped
paseo

17.14.270,

16.50,

17.34.060(A).

17.14.270.C.8
Trash Enclosures A small lot subdivision shall
provide trash (including trash,
recycling, and green waste)
collection areas screened from
public view.

Unit garages have been
designed to accommodate 3
trash carts for the storage of
trash, recycling and green
waste.

17.14.270.C.11

7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Land Use
The project site has been vacant for several years, with the varous preliminary redevelopment concepts referenced in Section 5 of this report never submitted for fomal city review. With submittal of the subject development proposal that repositions the project site from commercial to residential General Plan and zoning designations, staff recognized the adjacent multifamily land use designations and development to the west on Cambridge Street (Cambridge Court Apartments, 1350 N. Cambridge Street) and Katella Avenue, between Glassell and Cambridge Street (Grove House Apartments, 501 E. Katella Avenue and Orangevale Townhomes, 1300 N. Shaffer Street). These multifamily developments have a MDR General Plan designation and are zoned R-3. Additionally, senior apartments are under construction a short distance east of the site at 1249 E. Katella Avenue.

While the length of the E. Katella Avenue corridor has a predominantly commercial and light industrial character, the segment between Tustin Street and Glassell Street consists of a mix of commercial and residential development. The presence of residential uses along this portion of Katella Avenue is logical given the neighborhood-serving goods and services in the area, proximity to elementary and City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 9 of 14
powered by Legistar™
702
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
middle schools, the Taft Library, and its interface with single-family residential neighborhoods.

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are necessary to allow for residential development on this site. The MDR General Plan designation and R-3 zoning are consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations to the west across Cambridge Street and along Katella Avenue between Glassell and Cambridge Street. The land uses allowed under the MDR land use designation and R-3 zoning are compatible with the abutting residential land use that would remain to the north, and commerical land uses that would remain to the east, south, and west, which accommodates a mix of retail and service commercial uses and professional offices. The land use changes also enable the implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards, which allows for alternative in-fill housing typologies within multiple-family residential zones. These development standards allow for the development of smaller residential lots which provides alternative options for home ownership in the City.

The proposed small lot development is also consistent with the intent of the MDR land use designation and R-3 zoning, in that the project provides private and common open space with amenities, a pedestrian-friendly integration along both street frontages, is adjacent to public transportation, and is in close proximity to commercial, retail, medical and professional offices, and recreational uses.

In addition, the project site is located within the Katella Avenue Corridor General Plan Focus Area where future land use change is contemplated. The Katella Avenue Corridor Focus Area consists of properties generally located on Katella Avenue between the Santa Ana River on the west and California Street on the east. The land use plan features both GC and MDR land use designations between Glassell Street and California Street. The proposed land use change for the project and implementation of the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards will provide additional housing options that contribute to the Medium Density Residential development in the Katella Avenue Corridor Focus Area between Glassell Street and California Street.

Issue 2: Project Design
The Design Review Committee commented extensively on the project design on December 6, 2023 and February 21, 2024. At the December meeting, the DRC provided comments to the applicant pertaining to the overall site layout, building architecture, two-story interface with the adjacent single- family neighborhood, privacy, shade and shadow, and landscaping. At that time, concerns were also raised by area residents about privacy, backyard shading, potential roof deck light sources and shade features, and the general imcompatibility of the project with the adjacent established single-family neighborhood (See Attachments 11 and 15).

In response to DRC and community member comments, the applicant revised the plans for the February DRC meeting and provided additional information responding to several concerns and recommendations by the Committee. The most notable design changes were the second story building step-backs between 12 and 15 feet, window size and location changes for Units 1-12, and the installation of green screening in the form of dense hedges and trees along the north property line to help minimize privacy concerns for the abutting single story residences to the north. In addition, a walkway was provided for pedestrian access to the pocket park along the north property line.

Detailed Committee comments, the applicant’sresponses to comments, and community concerns are provided in the February 21, 2024 DRC Staff Report (Attachment 15).

The applicant’s plan revisions resolved several concerns expressed by staff, the DRC, and the City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 10 of 14
powered by Legistar™
703
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
The applicant’s plan revisions resolved several concerns expressed by staff, the DRC, and the neighboring community. The stepped back second story setbacks and utilization of clerestory windows on the north building elevations of Units 1-12 help address privacy concerns along the north property line. The incorporation of dense green screening and larger canopy trees along the north property line wall help screen views from third story windows and roof decks toward the northerly neighbors. Landscape plans include sunlight sensitive plans, and the addition of three street trees along Katella Avenue will help soften the three story massing along the street frontage. The addition of a pedestrian walkway to the pocket park along the north property line will also provide residents with access to the common open space amenities.

At the February meeting, the DRC reiterated many of the same concerns, and neigborhood members also commented on the project. Project comments focussed on the following:

1. Failure to meet several of the requirements within the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines that ensure the development will fit into the existing neighborhood context.

2. Incompatibility of bulk and massing with residences to the north.

3. Inadequacy of adjusted second-story setbacks along the north property line.

4. Number of units in relation to size of site and site plan arrangement.

5. Shade and shadow effects on neighborhood and landscape sustainability.

6. Homogenous character of north elevations of northern units.

7. Visual exposure of new development from existing residences.

8. Boxy and repetitious design.

9. The safety of roof decks with respect to the use of umbrellas, canopies, furniture, cushions, lighting, and other fixtures.

10. The additional view studies provided regarding third story windows and roof decks, especially in the area of the pocket park are diagramatic, do not show the source of the views, and are not accurate. Sections A and B on Sheets L-11 and L-12 are incorrect because there are no roof deck views from either of these areas.

11.Adequacy and accuracy of the shade and shadow analysis.

12.Maintenance responsibilites of the hedges and trees along the north property line.

13. The location, canopy, and height of the Southern Live Oak tree in the pocket park along the north property line in relation to the building envelopes.

14. Suggestions were made to maintain consistent four-foot wide walkways in order to provide additional area for landscaping, to provide walkways for Units 1-12, and to install turf in the triangular landscape area adjacent to the Cambridge Street entrance.

15. The Committee recommended garage access to unit side yards and the removal of side yard gates in order to provide room for additional trees throughout the development.

16. The Committee commented that project landscaping was designed secondary to building design.

The DRC ultimately recommended project denial to the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote. The Committee concluded that findings could not be made that the project meets all of the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code, in particular, the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines, in that the project does not meet the goal to ensure the small lot subdivision fits into the existing neighborhood context; the project does not comply with the requirement that buildings should respect adjacent buildings by responding to their scale and massing, and follow the established size, shape, and form of surrounding neighborhoods; landscaping should be used to soften walls and fences; and there should be sufficient architectural variety within the overall design.

City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 11 of 14
powered by Legistar™
704
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
Subsequently, the applicant has chosen not to implement any further changes to the project plans in response to comments received by the Committee and neighboring community at the February meeting. The applicant is requesting Planning Commission consideration of the project utilizing those same plans (Attachment 7).

Issue 3: Administrative Adjustment
The applicant is requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow for a 2-foot, 5 inch to 3-foot reduction (10%) to the required 30-foot wide entry drive width off of arterial highways for both the Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue entries. The Planning Division, together with the Public Works Department, Subdivision and Traffic Divisions reviewed the request and found the reduced driveway widths adequate for the proposed development and determined that the reduction should not be detrimental to public safety or the general welfare of persons on or in the vicinity of the property.

Granting the administrative adjustment does not compromise the intent of the OMC because the requested reduction continues to accommodate a functional and efficient site plan and on-site circulation.

While the introduction of infill residential development into an existing urban setting comes with complexities related to site planning and community interface, staff believes that the change in General Plan and zoning designations from commercial to residential is logical for the site given the role that the intersection of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue plays in linking the neighborhoods north and south of Katella Avenue, as well as the residential uses to the east and west of the intersection. The intersection is also a short distance from the Fairmeadows Eichler Historic District and has the potential to serve as a “gateway” to that distinctive Orange neighborhood.

The project’s contemporary residential design is an appropriate transitional style and scale that responds to the surrounding development along Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue. The three- story building height integrates with the large scale two-story commercial buildings to the east and south that direct massing towards the Katella Avenue frontage. The two-story units, with stepped back second stories, located along the northern boundary take into consideration the adjacent one- story single family residential development to the north. The architectural design, exterior materials, and landscaping presents a unifying theme and results in an internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles in the surrounding area. Further, this residential development project implements the Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards allowing a space -efficient alternative housing type which would create an additional opportunity for homeownership in the City of Orange.

8. PUBLIC NOTICE
On March 7, 2024, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 125 property owners/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically requesting notice. The notice was also published in the Orange County Register newspaper on March 7, 2024. The project site was posted in two locations with the notification on that same date.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1882-22 (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110185) was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with local CEQA guidelines. The analysis City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 12 of 14
powered by Legistar™
705
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with local CEQA guidelines. The analysis contained in MND No. 1882-22 determined that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of Project Design Features relating to Air Quality and Noise, and Mitigation Measures related to Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final MND summarizes the Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and the responsible party for the implementation and monitoring (Attachment 9). On November 9, 2023, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 was filed with the Orange County Clerk Recorder, posted at the site in two locations, mailed to 122 property owners and tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site, potentially affected cities, public agencies, utility service providers, and published in the Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on November 9, 2023. The public review period began on November 9, 2023 and ended on December 11, 2023. The MND was made publicly available at the Community Development Department, City Clerk’soffice, and the City’swebsite. Public comments on MND No. 1882-22 were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and 37 neighboring community members.

Caltrans comments were in regards to an analysis that would assist in accommodating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, transportation system equity, multi-modal transportation and improving connections to housing, safety features for multi-modal transportation, Complete Streets, bicycle infrastructure, safety during construction, signage to transit locations, automated parcel systems for deliveries, lane size and freight deliveries, and potential traffic impacts to freeway facilities. General comments from the neighboring community were related to traffic, parking, privacy, light, and shade and shadow. Responses to comments were prepared and forwarded to the respective authors in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and in advance of the City’s consideration of any determination. Copies of the comment letters and responses to comments to address feedback relevant to environmental impacts received during the public review period were incorporated into the final MND (Attachment 9).

10. ADVISORY BOARD ACTION
Staff Review Committee:

The interdepartmental Staff Review Committee (SRC) conducted reviews of the project on December 14, 2022, July 26, 2023, and on September 20, 2023. On November 1, 2023, SRC recommended that the project proceed to the Design Review Committee.

Design Review Committee:

On February 7, 2024, the DRC voted 5-0-2 to continue the project once again to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff and provide the requested information and revisions on the plans (See Attachments 13 and 14).

On February 21, 2024, the DRC recommended denial of the project by a 5-2 vote (See Attachments 15 and 16).

11. ATTACHMENTS
City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 13 of 14
powered by Legistar™
706
Item #: 4.1. 3/18/2024 File #: 24-0112
· Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 06-24 · Attachment 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 07-24 · Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 08-24 · Attachment 4 Vicinity Map
· Attachment 5 Applicant’s Letter of Explanation
· Attachment 6 Existing Site Photographs
· Attachment 7 Project Plans, date stamped received February 23, 2024 · Attachment 8 Additional View Studies, date stamped received February 9, 2024 · Attachment 9 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated March 5, 2024
· Attachment 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 Appendices · Attachment 11 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated December 6, 2023 · Attachment 12 Design Review Committee Minutes dated December 6, 2023 · Attachment 13 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated February 7, 2024 · Attachment 14 Design Review Committee Minutes dated February 7, 2024 · Attachment 15 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated February 21, 2024 · Attachment 16 Design Review Committee Minutes dated February 21, 2024 · Attachment 17 Public Comments from the December 6, 2023 Design Review Committee Meeting
· Attachment 18 Public Comments from the February 21, 2024 Design Review Committee Meeting
· Attachment 19 Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines
· Attachment 20 Color and Material Boards; Physical Boards Provided at Meeting City of Orange Printed on 3/14/2024Page 14 of 14
powered by Legistar™
707
708
709
710
March 18, 2024
Planning Commission
Meeting
Written Public Comments
711
Item 4.1
712
Comments on Intracorp Residential
Project Proposal
For City of Orange Planning Commission Meeting on March 18, 2024 Introduction
My name is Alfred Tucker, I along with my wife Lily Tucker, have lived happily at for 48 years. Our home is the house from the entrance to Carleton Avenue located on the south side directly behind the proposed Intracorp Project. We are pleased to see that there is renewed interests in redeveloping the area behind our home considering it has been ignored for some time. With that said there are issues that need to be addressed in order to properly integrate a new development directly adjacent to an existing well established residential area such as ours. The remainder of this document discusses some of our concerns.

Overview of Concerns and Objections
After a review of the Intracorp Residential Project (The Project) Proposal and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 we have several concerns and objections to the The Project that we feel need to be considered as part of the Planning Commission Review. The following is a summary identifying our initial important areas of concerns:

1. Traffic Safety - The Project Cambridge Street Entrance creates an increased hazard level at the Carleton Avenue intersection due to a significant increase of traffic being injected into the Cambridge Street curve north of Katella Avenue just south of Carleton Avenue. Please note that this was not addressed in the 1882-22 initial study. We recommend that it be included, evaluated for any significant traffic safety issues, and appropriate mitigation actions be added to the development as proposed.

2. Privacy and Other Related Issues in regards to The Project single family units, multifamily two and three story dwellings placed with minimum property setbacks directly next to existing single level homes on Carleton Avenue and the frontage on Katella Avenue, and Cambridge Street.

3. Decrease of Property Value for homes on Carleton Avenue.

4. Unacceptable Carleton Avenue Street Parking Issues resulting from the limited street parking in the design of The Project as currently proposed. Please note that this was not addressed in the 1882-22 initial study.
1 of 10 pages
713
Traffic Safety Related to The Project Cambridge Entrance Background
The existing intersection at Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street has always been a dangerous intersection to enter or leave Carleton Avenue due to the Cambridge Street curve blocking the view of northbound traffic approaching Carleton Avenue. After living on Carleton Avenue for almost 50 years we still find exiting Carleton Avenue to be an anxiety filled and dangerous experience at various times during the day and night. I am sure that we are not the only ones to have this experience. The Project exit onto Cambridge Street will certainly impose added traffic safety risks to the Carleton Avenue intersection traffic.

The City 1882-22 Initial Study addressed the impact of The Project Cambridge Street exit/entrance including a Site Distance analysis (Site Distance Analysis for the 901 E. Katella Avenue Residential Project, Orange, CA, prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, dated July 22, 2022 and included in Appendix L). The 1882-22 Initial Study provides a good analysis of this exit/entrance direct impact on traffic from the perspective of Katella Avenue and Cambridge Street traffic flow and provides proposed mitigation actions to reduce the negative impacts. However, this Site Distance Analysis does not take into account the negative impact of The Project traffic exiting to the right which will immediately impact nearby traffic from Carleton Avenue entering or exiting Cambridge Street.

Traffic Concerns

1. Increased Carleton Avenue Intersection Safety Risk - as mentioned above the existing intersection at Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street is very dangerous, especially for traffic exiting Carleton Avenue due to the curve on Cambridge Street limiting the line of sight of oncoming northbound traffic. The detailed analysis provided by the City 1882-22 Initial Study for The Project Cambridge Street exit/entrance as indicated by the site distance analysis indicates that this traffic flow into and out of the Cambridge Street entrance can be made safe by incorporating the mitigation recommendations including prohibiting left turn entrance from Cambridge southbound traffic. However, since the analysis focuses solely on the impact of The Project traffic to northbound and southbound Cambridge Street the analysis does not consider the immediately following impact on Carleton Avenue traffic which is directly after the Cambridge Street curve. This is an oversight in the study that needs to be addressed to ensure that the Carleton Avenue traffic safety is not jeopardized. It is recommended that equivalent site distance analysis of the Carleton Avenue traffic be reviewed and updated as necessary for the current and proposed additional traffic conditions to ensure that the Carleton Avenue intersection is and will remain safe. Carleton Avenue homes were built at least 60 years ago considering our Carleton home was built in 1963. Any site distance analysis done originally most assuredly would be outdated with the current and proposed traffic conditions used in the 1882-22 Initial Study. The obvious concern is that based on the current and proposed conditions (traffic speed and amount of vehicles) the Carleton Avenue traffic may not be safe 2 of 10 pages
714
without additional mitigation. If there is a significant impact on the Carleton avenue traffic then its mitigation should be considered as part of The Project proposal before any approval is given.

This seems necessary to ensure that the full impact of The Project Cambridge Street entrance traffic is understood and mitigated as necessary to ensure that all Cambridge traffic is safe travel. Please note that just looking at the Carleton Avenue intersection location being immediately after the Cambridge Street curve that it most likely could not meet the same site distance criteria currently being imposed on the The Project Cambridge exit/entrance.

2. Safe Time Slot Analysis - Time for Carleton Avenue traffic to safely exit (safe time slots) will be reduced and possibly be eliminated during peak traffic periods. The result is that it may be impossible for Carleton Avenue traffic to safely exit onto Cambridge Avenue. There is a concern that this additional right turn traffic exiting from The Project may limit the the amount of safe time slots for vehicles exiting Carleton Avenue safely due to injection of additional traffic over and above existing conditions. The lack of sufficient line of sight visibility to northbound traffic and limited visibility to southbound Cambridge Street traffic from the nearby telephone pole north of the exit limiting the ability to make a safe decision to exit in a reasonable time. That is motorist have to wait until they are reasonably sure there is sufficient time available, due to anticipated traffic breaks, to allow for making the decision to proceed into this intersection. Reducing the available safe time slots will result in a hazardous situation.

The issue here is that the only safe times to exit is the limited amount of traffic breaks generated by the Katella Avenue intersection only allowing small windows of time (safe time slots) for exiting Carleton Avenue traffic between breaks in northbound traffic. The injection of the Project traffic directly into the north bound Cambridge traffic during peak traffic periods throughout the day may well take up some of these time slots and will reduce or eliminate the safe time slot periods for Carleton Avenue traffic to exit onto Cambridge Street traffic safely.

It is recommended to analyze this anticipated reduction in safe time slots to ensure unsafe conditions are not created due to The Project Cambridge Street exiting right traffic.

3. The Traffic Sign Mitigation for Cambridge Street Southbound Traffic is Minimal - The Left Turn traffic into The Project from Cambridge Street is planned to be prohibited but will be controlled with a traffic sign at The Project entrance. This sign may not be effective enough to reasonably stop people from trying to make this turn anyway, allowing an unsafe condition to still exist. Recommend that additional assurance be made to ensure mitigation is adequate if possible.

4. Consideration for a Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street Traffic Light - In order to reasonably eliminate the potential dangers to Carleton Avenue and The Project traffic as identified above additional mitigation maybe warranted. It is recommended that consideration be made for adding a second intersection traffic light at the intersection of Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street. This would significantly reduce the current and future safety risks due to the Cambridge Avenue curve with its reduced visibility to northbound traffic. Adding this traffic light will provide the added benefit that it would allow more time for the Katella Avenue and 3 of 10 pages
715
Cambridge Street intersection traffic to be flushed out making it easier and safer for The Project traffic making a left turn by allowing specific times during the break in traffic to do so.

Additionally, with coordination of the traffic lights it may we possible to allow safe left turns into The Project from Cambridge Street which would be a significant benefit to The Project residents.

Privacy and Other Related Issues
It is understood that developing a new residential community next to and existing R-1-7 (Single Family Residence, 7000 sq ft) zoned residential area will to some extent reduce the existing home’s privacy but when done in a minimally invasive way would provide benefits to the overall community and should be encouraged. The Project being proposed requires the rezoning from C-P (Commercial Professional) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential,MFR) with a Small Lot Subdivision overlay. While we have always believed that the C-P zoning was a good match for the area and assumed that the property would eventually be redeveloped with C-P zoning we are not in general opposed to changing it to a residential R-3 zoning even if it is not ideally located for that purpose. That is, as long as it is properly integrated into the existing area smoothly and properly as required by the Small Lot Subdivision City Codes and the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines required for this kind of the development. When we first were approached about The Project it seemed obvious to us that The Project as proposed would not integrate well into the existing home area as we know it. At the recommendation of the Intracorp representatives we determined we needed to review recently built Intracorp Home developments in the area to better understand what was being proposed. A quick review follows.

Review of Similar New Intracorp Homes Developments
My wife and I have taken the time to look at several of the Intracorp Homes developments directly on site or on the internet through Google Earth along with additional website resources. In general, we feel developments like this could fill a need in a community if properly integrated into the city plan and existing adjacent areas. Based on what we found many of the Intracorp developments where not directly adjacent to long establish residential areas with single story homes. They were either buffered by existing commercial areas such as our home is today or they had full street or alley way separations from larger homes that reduced the concern for the minimal 10 foot setbacks as proposed for 901 Katella Avenue site development, therefore, making them better candidates for a high dwelling density.

Miren Development - We first visited the Miren Development at 2607 S. Santa Anita, Arcadia because it had two story single family homes similar to what is proposed for The Project in Orange. From the outside the homes looked nice and were indeed directly behind existing single family homes. We could not access the whole site due to construction but what we did see convinced us that the Arcadia development was a better fit than The Project in Orange allowing it to integrate better into the area.

Not perfect! But much easier to live with for the adjacent homes north of Miren Development. There are several reasons for this. First the Miren home development with its 33 homes on 2.8 acres has a lower dwelling density of 11.8 DU/AC (Dwellings per Acre) as compared to The Project in Orange 4 of 10 pages
716
which has 18.1 DU/AC. This allows the larger two story single family detached homes adjacent to the existing homes to have increased square footage resulting in fewer homes directly behind the existing homes. Additionally, these larger detached homes have a 20 foot setback to the fence as compare to the Orange development homes with a 10 foot setback to the fence. While the lower density of homes, larger homes, and 20 setbacks make it marginally more palatable it is a noticeable improvement over the development in Orange. We could not gain access into the already sold homes so we could not totally evaluate the impact of 20 foot setbacks on privacy from upstairs windows but from the outside they appear to have easy viewing into the existing properties.

It should be noted that on the east side of the development there is a well traveled street separating the development from existing structures. On the South side there are small business areas, and on the west side there are many existing homes which are separated from the Miren Development homes by an existing large cement drainage canal. All of this made the development setbacks less of an issue. So overall this site with its 20 foot setbacks to the north side homes and buffing on the other sides of the development makes it less intrusive to the existing community surrounding it than the proposed Orange development homes.

Docente Development - We then decided to travel to the Intracorp Homes Docente Development at 511 Colby Circle, Claremont which consists of two and three story townhouses totaling 95 homes on

4.9 acres with a dwelling density of 19.4 DU/AC which is slightly denser than The Project in Orange.

The only area with directly adjacent homes was on the north side of the development. These units have 10 foot setbacks to the existing properties similar to The Project in Orange. The other sides of the development appeared to be buffered by streets or other spaces making 10 foot setbacks less of a concern.

Fortunately, Docente had model units available for viewing so we were able to look at and enter the two and three story model townhouses. The two story townhouse model was built directly behind the existing homes on the North side with 10 foot setbacks to the fence. This model two story townhouse location was similar to the The Project in Orange single family homes except it was built with the townhouse having the side of the house adjacent to the existing property where The Project in Orange has the back of the home facing the existing homes. The home appeared to be nice inside and well built. We did notice it being very difficult to get around in due to the fairly steep stairways between floors with is a direct result of the higher dwelling density of these homes.

Our review of this development reinforced our concern that 10 foot setbacks would be quite intrusive to the existing homes. Basically, the look from the upstairs windows into the existing homes backyard was wide open leaving little to the imagination resulting in no privacy at all. We found this totally unacceptable for the Orange Katella development in our opinions, now knowing that it would destroy the openness and privacy of our home on Carleton Avenue. 5 of 10 pages
717
Concerns For Family’s Located Directly Behind the The Project In Orange Background
As may be expected we are opposed to the rezoning of the property to R-3 if it is necessary to allow for two and three story dwelling without significant setback distances between the existing adjacent residential housing because it provides no real regard to the impacts on the existing properties.

According to the City 1882-22 initial study The Project dwellings per acre (DU/AC) density will be

18.1 DU/AC yet in the same study it shows the zoning for poperies on Carleton Avenue where I live as R-1-7 zoning with a lot size is 7,000 sq ft which is about 6 DU/AC. This indicates that the new density is 3 times the density of the exiting homes. The significantly higher dwelling densities are a direct result of allowing for R-3 MFR) zoning coupled with the Small Lot Subdivisions.

The homes on Carleton Avenue were originally single story home with large back yards and in general remain that way with the exception of a few homes on the north side of the street adding two story additions. All the Carleton homes butting up against The Project homes and directly affected by the proposed development are single story with reasonable setbacks from the back fence to living spaces.

This is not true of the new development with setbacks of only 10 feet with two story dwellings. These homes have second story windows that will look directly in the back yards of Carleton Avenue homes totally eliminating their privacy. In addition, the first story windows may also pose a problem depending on the finish ground level of the Project homes and the resulting backyard fence height.

Allowing this significant increase in housing density is not ideal for many reasons but in our opinion placing three story residential dwellings directly on Katella Avenue (a key east/west thoroughfare) with 10 foot frontal setbacks will be overwhelming for the area and will create a negative visible indication that City’s open and beautiful layout and integration of both commercial and residential buildings is not important. The loss of harmony in the City layout will certainly be a loss to the City current and future residents. It is noted that 10 Foot setbacks are allowed per the Small Lot Subdivision Code it which is a minimum setback requirement that can be adjusted based on the integration into the existing adjacent community to meet the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines. We know that this is possible considering that is exactly what was done in Arcadia fpr the Intercorp Miren Development which was build to a lower dwelling density of 11.8 DU/AC. If The Protect being proposed had this much lower housing density then many of the issues with meeting the intent of the Small Lot Subdivision Guides could easily be met.

It is recommended that the current Intracorp proposed development dwelling density be reduced to the lower end of the of the 15.1-24 DU/AC range allowed for the Medium Density Residential Developments as specified in the Orange General Plan considering that the observable facts indicate that the design does not sufficiently conform to the intent of the Small Lot Subdivision requirements.

Note that this was validated by the recent Preliminary Design Review Committee that sent the Intracorp Proposed Development forward to the Planning Commission Review with a “Denial” noting that The Project would be a “Precedent Setting” event for all of Orange’s future developments due to the concerns resulting from the Intracorp chosen high dwelling density. 6 of 10 pages
718
The following topics highlights many of the other concerns related to the high 18.1 DU/AC Density chosen by Intracorp for The Project.

Loss of Privacy for Carleton Homes
An example of some of these issues with the proposed compact high density homes impact is our home which is particularly affected by The project proposed housing with only a 10 foot setback from the back fence. Based on the current planning two new two-story homes will be directly behind our home with and eight foot spacing between them. In addition, there will be homes on both sides of these homes with again 8 foot separation. Based on The Project current planning the two homes directly behind our Carleton Avenue home will have a clear view of our entire back yard, our family room, living room, patio, and our master bedroom. And if that is not enough, guess what, the two homes on each side of these homes will have views of very large portions of our home. We find this a very invasive and not a reasonable transition from out existing home with excellent privacy to the new development which essentially eliminates our privacy. To make matters worse several of the three- story homes in the middle and sides of the The Project complex will most likely have visibility into our home and backyard.

With these new homes 10 ft from my backyard fence there will be other obvious issues which I will just list a few so they can be addressed in the new development’s Planning Commission Review for impact mitigation.
(1) Th current pleasing backyard viewing and environment will be disturbed by the two and three- story homes. Basically, all we will see is the back side of the four single family residences behind us.
(2) Excessive occupant noise levels will surely be a problem in both directions. (3) We are concerned that the two-story homes with 10 foot setback will limit the natural lighting into the backyard, especially, during the winter months will cause issues with our backyard trees, grass, and plants.
(4) The lighting from second story windows and exterior lighting will be directed into our back yard.

Decrease of Property Value
Almost 50 years ago my wife and I purchased our Carleton Avenue home for some very specific reasons. That can be highlighted quickly as an area with more open and spacious lots, with good quality of life, spacious living areas with room to grow, nice neighborhoods, and convenient location with full access to stores and freeways. We specifically desired a single story home and reasonable yard space. We knew instantly when we found our Carleton home that it was the right place for us and our family. Just entering through the front door we could see all the way through the house to a beautiful and spacious back yard. We were sold on the property. We still feel the same today about the 7 of 10 pages
719
home and location. That is why we have never thought about moving. If we were a young couple today we would still want to move here with our family. Plenty of positives and very little negatives.

That will certainly change with the new development if it is approved as is. Intracorp Homes representatives came a few weeks back to let us know about the new development they were creating.

One of the benefits for the current owners like us was that our home values would go up. When ask why they believed that and they suggested at a new well maintained community next to us would promote higher prices for our home. A the time we suggested that it was unlikely because of the negatives related to the project they described to us. After a more careful review of the City 1882-22 Initial Study we are convinced that the proposed development will more likely result in lower prices for our property. With two and three story houses directly behind our home with minimum setback causing significant loss of privacy, loss of openness, more street parking issues, increased Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue traffic, and safety issues at the Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street intersection it is not reasonable to think there will be a jump in property values only due to the new development plan as it current exists.

Carleton Avenue Street Parking Issues
The Project as posed with narrow streets without street parking will immediately increase vehicle parking on Carleton Avenue. Besides being irritating and inconvenient it can hurt property values.

Nothing makes an otherwise good housing community less appealing than a street packed with cars and people jockeying for parking space. Who would want to fight that everyday. Building high density housing with streets that don’t allow for additional overflow parking puts the burden for this additional parking on the neighboring homes, especially for the adjacent Carleton Avenue homes. This is inherently unfair.

Initially Carleton Avenue street parking had it its up and downs over the years but in general had been more than reasonable. Why? Because the Carleton Avenue housing development allowed for significant parking variations by designing homes with two car garages, large driveways, and allowed street parking as part of the design. Things changed in the last few years with increased parking due to people renting rooms in their homes to Chapman students and others needling places to to live. This trend is gradually increasing street parking to this day. This can instantly cause parking issues on the Carleton Avenue due to the near by adult drivers increasing. For example, in a recent situation a homeowner rented to several college students who shared rooms resulting in 3 to 4 cars more on the street. Since we have street parking it allowed the parking to not get out of hand. With the dense dwellings per acre of 18.1 it will not take long for The Project to require additional parking since they only have 12 guest parking spots outside the homes two car garages with no street parking space available. Thus limiting the resident parking to two adult drivers per home plus 18 additional parking spaces for the 4 bedroom homes) . Our experience suggest that will be insufficient and that The Project excess parking will end up on Carleton Avenue. Note that this in turn increases the Carleton Avenue intersection traffic which has already been sited as a traffic safety concern. 8 of 10 pages
720
Our real life demonstration of this happening is how parking has rapidly increased in past years due to the apartment east of our block across Cambridge Street. Initially, it became a problem due to insufficient parking space for the renters. This improved when the apartment complex added onsite parking which alleviated the problem temporarily. But not for long. In fact, even with the new parking area we began to approach a serious overload of parking on the street in front of our homes and we could not understand why. Finally, we discussed it with some of the people that were parking on the street. As it turned out the apartments were having multiple families with added driving adults living in the apartments sharing the rent to make it possible to live there. So even with the new parking lot the apartments again required additional car parking off premises. Guess where they choose to park? Carleton Avenue, even though it is very perilous to cross Cambridge Street to get to their cars.

Basically, they had no where else to go. Again this is a direct result of adding high density housing into a community with little or no street parking. Fortunately, at the moment the Carleton Avenue parking situation has eased a little and is manageable. The point to all this is that if there is extra living space in a home development or an apartment complex there eventually will be a need for additional unplanned parking. If this additional parking is not designed into these multifamily housing areas it will impact the adjacent areas that do have it.

In the case of The Project being proposed if insufficient parking is available in the development then they will park on the nearest street. The proposed development has only 12 non-garage guest parking spots the remaining parking is dedicated to the home parking provide. This seems reasonable as planned if the number of adult drivers living in The Project is limited to two or three, unfortunately, this is not really feasible, and the 12 extra parking slots will not be sufficient to handle the guest and the extra adult drivers. As soon as resident families grow, or times get hard and home owners need more income, or have extended family that will need to live with them, this will result in more adult drivers than planned for. The new community does not have street parking like we do on Carleton Avenue so it is a sure thing that the added adult drivers from The Project will be parking on Carleton Avenue. As we said we have already experience this happening so we know it will be a problem! It is just a matter of time. The net result of this is frustration for the Carleton Avenue home owners and an unappealing neighborhood resulting in lower home prices. If the City is responsible they would not allow this situation to occur and add additional parking so the new development can handle the majority of their own parking issues. Adding the new development without taking this real world street parking issue into account is irresponsible and should not be allowed. It is noted that this is a direct result of trying to achieve the high density homes per acre of over 18 DU/AC and not having sufficient space for on street parking. This parking issue clearly demonstrates that The Project as proposed will create parking issue indicating the area is two small to accommodate the high density housing as planned.

It is recommended that as a mitigation measure the dwelling density of 18.1 DU/AC be reduced to a more suitable dwellings per acre level to allow sufficient additional parking to allow for reasonable realistic future dynamic parking needs to assure parking issues will be contained within The Project..
9 of 10 pages
721
Conclusions
This paper has brought many issues to light with the Intracorp Homes proposal which need to be addressed. Th most fundamental issue is whether or not a development with such a high dwelling per acre of 18.1 DU/AC is really suitable at The Project proposed location since to achieve this density requires the going vertical to two to three stories with setbacks from existing residential housing and major streets of only 10 feet. This high dwelling density is not sufficient to mitigate issue with the real world need for street parking. We believe that The Project as currently proposed is not suitable for this location because of its abrupt contrast to the existing community will be quite intrusive and destroy the existing harmony and quality of life as we know in the City of Orange. In addition, it places an untenable burden on the nearby home owners in terms loss of privacy and its related personal safety issues, quality of environment, property value loss, available street parking, and puts Carleton Avenue residents personal safety at risk at the Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Street intersection.

We think the proposed dwelling unit density is excessively high for the area and encourage everyone to step back and consider a more realistic dwelling density that allows for street parking, and limits the single family detached homes adjacent to the exiting Carleton Avenue homes to single story homes, and limits the maximum home height in The Project to two-stories. These changes will eliminate most of the issues identified previously with the exception of the safety issues relating to the Carleton Avenue and Cambridge Intersection.

We look forward to the continued review process and working with City personnel, our neighbors, and outside Development Company personnel (Intracorp personnel with this current proposal) to ensure that City successively develops the 901 E. Katella Avenue Property into the local community with minimal disruption in the the character of the City of Orange and is maximally beneficial to present and future City residents.
10 of 10 pages
722
Issue: Intracorp Proposed Development On-Site Parking Is Inadequate My Name is Al Tucker and I am a nearby local resident to the proposed Intracorp Development and strongly oppose the current development design as it is proposed. My opposition is concerned with the impacts of the significant increase in dwelling units per acre (du/ac) of the proposed Intracorp Development (18.1 du/ac) as compared to 6 du/ac of the existing single family homes in the adjacent neighborhood being excessive for the current development location.

It is noted that the actual City requirements for Medium Density Residential (MDR), R3 zoning with Small Lot Subdivision is not 18 du/ac but a range of 15.1-24 du/ac with an expected density of 16.3 du/ac based on the Orange General Plan Land Use Document. Additionally, requirements in the OMC, (Orange Municipal Code) Table 17.14.270 shows specifically in note (a) the following: “The permitted range shall be as indicated on the General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Typically, 6-15 du/ac for R-3 and 16-24 du/ac for R-4.”
While the Intracorp Proposal 18.1 du/ac is within the 15.1-24 du/ac requirement it is clear that it is above the expected du/ac anticipated in the Orange Land Use Policy and is above the typical range specified in the OMC 17.14.270 code. With the above clarification of the Cities intent and requirements for moving to the higher density developments the Intracorp proposed development should be considered a high dwelling density to be properly integrated into the nearby community making it very difficult to conform to the City of Orange Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines. These guidelines are impose in OMC 17.14.275 Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines as follows: “Small lot subdivision development shall conform to the City of Orange small lot subdivision guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council and available at the Community Development Department.” Conforming to these guidelines is not optional.

The issue is not the high density in and of itself but the compromises it necessitates in incorporating this higher density in the current proposed development location. The current proposal focuses on making dwellings that support three and four bedrooms dwellings each on smaller lots with the goal that the average cost of each dwelling will be less expensive. The obvious goal is to provide housing for more people per acre at a lower cost compared to the existing nearby neighborhoods. If that is the only goal then the Intracorp Proposal does exactly that. It does this by going vertical to two and three story housing units. My real concern here is that the Intracorp chosen high 18.1 DU/AC density to meet the goal of more people per acre is not by itself a sufficient practical goal. Why is that? Because it does not take into account the realistic needs of the people that occupy these dwellings and will unnecessarily have negative impacts the adjacent residential properties.

This is for many reasons but my immediate concern addressed in this comment is that the Intracorp proposal does not realistically address the parking needs of the residents of these new homes. The proposal complies with the current minimum city requirements by providing for 128 parking spaces consisting of two car garage parking for 49 units and 30 additional parking spaces within the development. The 30 additional parking spaces provide 12 guest parking spaces and one extra parking space for the 4 bedroom units. On the surface this may appear adequate but realistically this will not be sufficient. Why? Because the Southern California coastal and nearby inland areas are even now high population areas requiring people to commute significantly to find work. In Southern California it is a necessity to have vehicles to get around in. This trend is only going to be exacerbated by this move to higher dwelling densities. Additionally, the mix of drivers versus non drivers in the Intracorp

Page 1 of 2 ends

723
Development can not be effectively controlled. It is possible that all the development bedrooms would be filled with drivers needing their own vehicles to get to work.

To illustrate this issue the adjacent neighborhood was designed to accommodate this reality. It to has three and four bedroom homes with two car garages. In addition, it has large driveways that accommodate several cars and full street parking on both sides of the street. This allows for the neighborhood to be able to dynamically handle significant increases in neighborhood parking without impacting nearby city streets or parking areas. Living on Carleton Avenue for 48 years I know this has worked and is a considerable asset to our neighborhood.

The point is the current Intracorp proposal does not have this builtin dynamic parking space availability to allow for changes in its occupants changing needs. In fact, the current proposal meeting the minimum city retirements is sufficient to handle at best the current minimum parking needs assuming all the dwellings use only their allotted 116 spaces. This leaves only the 12 site guest parking areas to guest an very short term resident parking needs. Just look at how this could change rapidly. The three bedroom homes and the four bedrooms have master bedrooms which would typically sleep two adult drivers. Realistically, each of these driver will have separate vehicles. There goes 98 parking spaces plus the extra 4th bedroom parking spaces provided accommodate only 116 drivers. The remaining bedrooms could easily accommodate two or three drivers. Each of these could require a vehicle of their own. This equates to a 122.5 maximum based on an average of 2.5 additional drivers with vehicles. As stated above the extra 12 guest spaces will most likely still be needed for guest and transient resident parking so where will these parking spaces come from? OK, realistically, the real number of extra parking spaces is dynamic and will vary over time and maturity of the Intracorp Development and its residents and the current economic environment impacting the needs of the occupants of the development. So over time will the increase be zero? Will it be 30, 60, 100 or more? A realistic number for a mature development might be as high as 60 on average. Where will these cars park? The only places available are Katella Avenue, adjacent neighborhood streets or local businesses.

None of these places are positive solutions and are detrimental to the City.

The only real solution to this issue is for Intracorp to change its design to accommodate a significantly increased parking availability which will eliminate or significantly accommodate this very real dynamic parking need. How this is best addressed is up to Intracorp Homes and the City Planning Commission as a minimum. I was asked by one of the Intracorp representatives if I was asking for underground parking. My reply was no figuring that was not realistic. However, this small site does not lend itself well with other solutions, such as, added internal street parking, driveway parking, additional internal parking spaces, or reducing the number of homes all of which impact the dwellings per acre density. External options may require to City to eventually provide this parking outside the Intracorp development but at who’s cost? I don’t know what the best solution would be but I do know that this issue must be resolved before this new development is given the go ahead because it is a serious real issue that will only cripple the Intracorp Homes occupants and near by external community if it is not addressed.

Page 2 of 2 ends

724
725
726
727
Meeting: Planning Commission
Agenda Item

4.1. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a commercial site with 49 two-and three-story single-family small lot homes located at 901 E. KatellaAvenue; and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (General Plan Amendment No.0004-22, Zone Change No. 1307-22, Tentative Tract Map No. 0051-22, Major Site Plan Review No. 1111-22, Design Review No. 5092-22, AdministrativeAdjustment No. 0293-23, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22).

Legislation Text Staff Report Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 06-24 Attachment 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 07-24 Attachment3 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 08-24 Attachment 4 Vicinity Map Attachment 5 Applicant's Letter of Explanation Attachment 6 Existing Site PhotographsAttachment 7 Project Plans, date stamped received February 23. 2024 Attachment 8 Additional View Studies, date stamped received February 9, 2024 Attachment 9Final Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated March 5, 2024 Attachment 10 Mitigated NegativeDeclaration No. 1882-22 Appendices Attachment 11 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated December 6, 2023 Attachment 12 Design Review CommitteeMinutes dated December 6, 2023 Attachment 13 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated February 7, 2024 Attachment 14 Design Review Committee Minutesdated February 7, 2024 Attachment 15 Design Review Committee Staff Report dated February 21, 2024 Attachment 16 Design Review Committee Minutes datedFebruary 21, 2024 Attachment 17 Public Comments from the December 6, 2023 Design Review Committee Meeting Attachment 18 Public Comments from theFebrurary 21, 2024 Design Review Committee Meeting Attachment 19 Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines Attachment 20 Color and Material Boards; Physical BoardsProvided at Meeting Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 5:23pm PDTOppose
I must express vehement opposition to the current design and planning of this project. The development, as proposed, is a high-rise structure ranging from threeto four stories. This is starkly incongruous with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which primarily consists of single-story family homes. Thedeviation not only undermines the aesthetic and architectural harmony of the area but also raises significant concerns regarding privacy and the quality of life forexisting residents.

The crux of the opposition lies in the developer's apparent strategy to maximize profit margins at the community's expense. By attempting to squeeze anexcessive number of units into this development, the project falls short in providing adequate parking spaces, inevitably leading to parking overflow into theadjacent neighborhood. More distressingly, the elevated structure of the new houses poses a serious privacy invasion, enabling new residents to overlook into thebackyards of existing homes. This not only infringes upon the privacy of current residents, creating undue anxiety and discomfort but also stands to depreciatethe property values within our established community.

While we are not opposed to the development of additional housing in principle, it is imperative that any new construction takes into full account its impact onthe existing neighborhood. Development should be approached with sensitivity and respect for the current residents' rights and well-being, ensuring that any new 728
project blends harmoniously with the character and dynamics of the area. Should the City of Orange fail in its duty to safeguard the interests of its residents bycooperating with the developer in this contentious manner, we are fully prepared to escalate this matter to the state level, seeking intervention to ensure thatdevelopment practices within our community adhere to principles of fairness, respect, and legal compliance.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 3:48pm PDTOppose
The design review committee has already recommended denial of this project. We ask the planning commission to do the same, please deny this project.

The Mass and scale of this project does not fit within the city’s policies and guidelines. Why is it moving forward? Intracorp, the developer, are to trying force this unwelcoming, ugly, massive scale project onto the existing residents of Orange. The developer is who all aboutprofit and not our privacy, not our safety, not our quality of life.

If this project is approved, the developer leaves with profit in their pocket and will never live with or look at this Massive Ugly Development ever again, whilethe residents of Carleton and Orange will be forced to look and live with this Oversized Development that will diminish the our quality of life.

It simply does not fit in this location. Please vote No.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 3:47pm PDT
I am writing on the behalf of my concerns with the proposed property on 901 East Katella Ave. With being a direct neighbor behind this proposed property andknowing this area, I have a number of concerns with the proprosed property.

First off, I don't think it's appropriate to have homes 2 story only 10 feet from our wall especially without any raising of our wall. If we were to add on and makeour house a 2 story we have to have a 20 feet setback, the same rule should apply to the new buildings. My son loves to run around in the sprinklers naked, and Idon't want to have to worry about our privacy being compromised from these new buildings. Also the 3 story units proposed with a rooftop decks will also be anhuge invasion of privacy. It's not just one house that can look into our backyard, but all the 3 store units with rooftop decks as well as the houses with 2 storywindows. Not to mention all these units so close to us will block so much sunshine and the beautiful skyline for my son.

My second concern is the traffic. Cambridge is curvy and really hard for us to turn out of already because of the curvy road. It's a blind spot for us coming outand speeding cars coming down it. During traffic hours, it is especially challenging to turn out of our street with the blind curves. With 49 units - a minimum of100 cars, the traffic will increase tremendously. The left turn lane from Cambridge onto Katella already backs up as it is. I saw the approved traffic notice for thisproperty was from July 2020. That doesn't make sense to me to have that being the timeline during summer and a pandemic. I definitely think traffic needs to bere-evaluated and also to evaluate how that great increase of cars will affect my street as well. My third concern is parking. With 49 houses and only 30 guest parking spots, we are the closest street for extra parking and we will get a lot of their overflowparking. Especially since the proposed properties don't have driveways or street parking for them to park on, if they fill their garages with storage, then they willpark in the guest parking spots. Yes currently it states they will have to park in their garage but as we've found out after 2 years the HOA can change the rules forparking and allow parking other areas. We also already get cars parking on our street from the Cambridge apartments, so this will make it much worse. Also, thevery most importantly it will add alot more traffic where our kids play. * My fourth concern is this proposed 49 units doesnt fit it and make sense of our quaint, quiet neighborhood. We really researched neighborhoods to get thatfamily friendly atmosphere and these properties will make it more New York style, not the part of Orange we moved into. Continued in next comment Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 2:15pm PDT
The Developer is for Pure Profit…The residents of Carleton, were willing to work with the developer and asked them to reduce the number of dwellings, As well as reducing the mass scale in sizeof the two stories to single stories, and the three stories to two stories. We asked if they could redesign to have a 20 foot setback from the existing property linesalong Carlton, the current standard for all single-family residential homes in the city of Orange. The developer told us no because it would impact their profitmargin.

When PRIVACY was addressed about the INTERIOR Living space of our homes, the developers solution was to CLOSE OUR CURTAINS or use windowcoverings to have privacy!!! They do NOT care because they do not live here. They will build, walk away with a huge profit in their pocket and leave behind atidal wave of disaster Crushing the quality of life for the existing residents of Carleton Ave, the surrounding neighborhood and the entire City of Orange. Pleaseremember, this project design will set precedence for all future small lot subdivision projects within our City of Orange.

Please do not let the developer destroy what others before us have built and left behind for us to respect and enjoy. Please do not let them destroy our quality oflife, privacy and home Sanctuaries that we worked so hard for.

The developer has made it very clear that they do NOT care about the existing residents of Orange! The developer only cares about its bottom line and that’spure profit! PLEASE deny this project as it is currently presented. It is massive in scale to the existing homes only 10 feet from the property line. The existing families didnot purchase their properties with the mindset that their children would be playing with Massive buildings built behind them, looming over them and watching 729
over them. And ask yourself, if you lived in one of these properties on Carleton up against a 10 foot setback, how would you feel? Would you be asking the cityhelp by denying this project? Would you be fighting the developer? We are not saying no to new development. We are not saying no to new homes. We are saying no to a project of this size, scale and mass. It doesn’t fit thelocation.

We asked the planning Commission to show you care about the residence of Orange and vote NO on this project! Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 2:07pm PDTOppose
Take a moment to consider the reality in your daily routine. Think of your Safety and the Safety of others.

There are virtually NO Sidewalks!!! There are NO Driveways!!! The Private Drive/Fire Lane thoroughfare that is only 25’ wide (at ground level) for this project will be utilized by ALL at the same time = Pedestrians, ChildrenPlaying, Cyclist, Personal Cars, Delivery Trucks, Fire Trucks, Emergency Vehicles, Trash Truck, etc... Also add in the redeem driver trying to shortcut their waythrough from Katella to North bound Cambridge by avoiding the stopped bus or the line of cars backed up at the red light...

How did this get overlooked??? There are NO Sidewalks/designated pathways to the proposed 12 dwellings that will be up against the Homes on E CarletonAve.

The proposed design does not adhere to the City’s General Plan Land Use Policies 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 listed on page LU-4 and Policy 6.1 on page LU-8 of theLand Use Element of the General Plan listed below:

Policy 1.2: Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods.

Policy 1.4: Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development.

Policy 1.6: Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development is compatible with the style and design of established structures and the surrounding environment.

The proposed design does not adhere to the City’s Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines listed below:

Goals» Ensure that new small lot subdivisions fit into the existing neighborhood context.Design Guidelines A. Neighborhood Context1. Scale and MassingBuildings within a small lot subdivision should respect adjacent buildings by responding to their scale, massing, and need for light, natural ventilation, andviews. Small lot subdivision development should follow the established size, shape, and form of the surrounding neighborhood through the use of similarproportions and details.a. Design small lot homes to be similar in scale and to have similar forms and shapes to nearby and surrounding buildings to avoid the appearance of beingoverwhelming or disproportionate in comparison and to maintain existing massing patterns.

THERE are so many things wrong with the design of the proposed project... SAFETY, MASSIVE Units, 4th floor level rooftop decks (the danger just waiting tohappen).

Respect the Residents who already call Orange Home!
Irene Malmgren at March 18, 2024 at 10:29am PDTOppose
I am writing in opposition of the proposed project. I am a lifetime resident of Orange and the third generation living in the home my grandparents built in 1932on Cambridge. As such, I have seen tremendous growth and development and watched the City work to merge the needs for growth with the quality of life forexisting residents. I have reviewed the proposal, read the staff report, and read the Orange Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines.

The City Guidelines include goals for high quality design. First, to "ensure that new small lot subdivisions fit into the existing neighborhood context." I submitthat the proposed high-density, multi-story development is in direct contrast to the neighboring R-1 residential zone. Homes are established single story familydwellings. The proposed structures will create fully shaded properties, views into previously private yards and homes, and add significant traffic hazards to thesubdivision entrance.

The Guidelines also require that new developers "introduce new dwellings and a new housing typology that maintains and responds to the existing urban form."Your recent decision to add the 55+ residential development east of this proposed site significantly altered the environment. While staff now call the area"eclectic", I submit that thiss is no excuse for overdeveloping this piece of property. The 55+ development has the advantage of access to an existing trafficsignal, providing safe ingress and egress. This corner property has no such safe access on either Katella or Cambridge. Staff suggest that a sign requestingresidents to only turn right will mitigate the problem. I suggest that you watch traffic as parents leave the school drop-off points along Cambridge. While postedsigns say right turn only, many drivers ignore the signs and turn left. Of this who do turn right, many drive down the block and turn around in residential730 driveways, adding a different but equally dangerous traffic hazard. Cambridge curves just north of Katella, creating traffic dangers which will only beexacerbated by high-density development Further in the Guidelines document, policies are listed, including the following:"Policy 1.6: Minimize effect of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods". I believe that this development , as proposed,directly violates this policy. This development, as currently designed, brings drastic change which impacts all residents of adjacent properties and surroundingneighborhoods."Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development is compatible with the style and design of established structures and the surrounding environment." Again, I submitthat this project is over-developed, containing too many units with too much of a height difference between the new and existing buildings to allowcompatibility. There is insufficient green space to allow shared use and dependence on balconies and roof-top decks atop three story buildings, again increasingvisual and noise encroachment on neighboring homes.

In summary, I ask you to vote NO on all proposals included in this agenda item. Maintain the existing Commercial zoning until the time in which you have anappropriate commercial or residential plan before you. Maintenance of the existing zoning provides future developers the opportunity to bring forward a varietyof plans both compatible with the neighborhood and supported by the community.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 9:52am PDTNeutral
As former Planning Commissioner, this all starts with the CEQA document. Does it tell you everything you need to know about project impacts or not? If not, itneeds to be addresses. Please see my separate letter to you on this issue.

As to the project itself. It needs a GPA. You have no obligation to grant that. I think changing the land use here has merit. But should it be Medium DensityResidential or another option? What are the community benefits? What are the short and long-term impacts. What about the loss of sales tax with thecommercial ($$) land use going away? The Small Lot Subdivision regulations are new. This is the first project to use them. Your DRC team are the experts in getting the details correct on all projectsand they said its not there yet. They found SLS findings cannot be made. I would require a lot of proof on why I should go the other way. With this being thefirst project of this type, you need to consider if the regulations need further adjustments. One of the challenges with the SLS is lots can be whatever size youwant. The proposed lot sizes here are from 1,700 to 2,004 square feet. That's very small and I don't think we have lots this small anywhere in Orange. Add to thatits next to a neighborhood with 7,000 square feet lots.

Next, where are other R-3 sites in Orange that could use the SLS regulations next. I know the property between Collins and Mayfair along Shattuck Place is R-3.There is a church there, but in the future it could leave and this project could ask to go there. The staff report notes that 501 E. Katella is R-3, is where the GroveHouse Apartments are. They are one-story and I believe it has an overlay zoning of R-3a so it could go there if one-story is maintained. Where else in Orange arethere R- 3 and R-4 site next to R-1 where it could occur. That inventory should be done. Should the SMS regulations be expanded to include the mixed use zonesor not allowed next to R-1? I hope you all take the time you need to consider this project. Don't rush. Is there a project like this you and the community can tour? Get all your questionsanswered.

Adrienne
Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 9:50am PDTOppose
This development is not appropriate for this location. Most of the homes in the area are one story and high rises and so many of them will degrade theneighborhood in every way. There will be traffic, too many people crammed into a small area and it's an overdevelopment that should not be considered.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 2:36pm PDTOppose
Traffic. This may not be a main thoroughfare in the Traffic Study, but it is a main thoroughfare for anyone who has a child in any of the four schools (3elementary and 1 middle school) along Cambridge. Parents drive their kids to and from school. It is also the street that most people use driving to Old Townfrom this neighborhood. People use Cambridge instead of Tustin Ave.

When Katella gets bogged down at Cambridge, how many people are going to cut through the Intracorp project to get to Cambridge? Hope it’s not on trash day.

Two entrances out of this proposed project and the choice to turn left or right. I can’t even imagine the impact of allowing residents to turn left onto Katella oronto Cambridge, as it is too close to the signal.

Katella gets backed up certain times of the day, and it will be even more so when Katella Terrace rents out their low income senior housing with 74 units.

Intracorp claims that since the blind curve is a pre-existing condition, that it does not have to address the increased traffic load. In reality, this development willadd 50+ trips a day (going to work, taking and picking up kids to and from school, etc) especially at peak traffic hours that will completely overload Cambridge, 731
or as we call it ‘The Cambridge Raceway.’
Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 10:06am PDTOppose
I'm not in favor of this plan to squeeze in so many homes in an area simply not capable of supporting them from roads, access, schools and so on right on downthe line. This development seems to be piggy backing on the other project to the east on Katella Av. and how that one got through with approval is troubling.Utilizing unused space is certainly a good thing but not at the expense of the neighborhood and the surrounding area/businesses.As the Planning Commision please hold fast against this kind of strategy of profits first and foremost and consideration for quality of life of all City of Orangecitizens affected at dead last.This project should be redesigned to trim it down significantly starting on the 4th stories and continued on down. Or it should be scrapped entirely to allow formore thoughtful proposals. Thank you.

Guest User at March 16, 2024 at 8:04am PDTOppose
The DRC Committee in a 5/2 vote recommended against this project to the Planning Commission. I hope the members of the planning commission takes thisinto consideration and follows suit. Let’s call this 901 E Katella Project for what it is. This project is a greedy, ill designed for profit proposal by Intracorp tobuild 49 2 and 3 story high density homes in a small lot with a 10 ft set back to the existing neighborhor’s yards with no parking, an invasion of privacy, as wellas a disregard for the existing design of the Orange community. This is NOT OK. This project will cause increased traffic, congestion, parking problems andaccidents on Katella and Cambridge. It will take away the privacy of the existing residents on E Carleton as well as take away sun in the backyards more than 4months out of the year. Look at the set backs of the existing commercial properties already there, at least a 100 ft set back and a parking lot between the homes ,not 10 ft!!!!! Nothing about the project is building a community like Intracorp says on their website , this project is going to destroy a neighborhood andcommunity. Do not set a precedence by approving a badly designed housing project here in Orange. We live here. Build like you live here. Hold developersaccountable that they cannot just build anything for pure profit.

Guest User at March 15, 2024 at 6:15pm PDTOppose
Every outcome regarding this project proves a disaster. The losers: The residents of Carlton (big time),the surrounding neighborhoods, the privacy, the trafficand potential for greater traffic accidents, parking, City-scape, and home values. Only one entity comes out a winner: the developer.If this project passes, great is the concern that this project will open the flood gates to other high density horrors. Please City of Orange support your citizens.

Guest User at March 15, 2024 at 4:11pm PDTOppose
My name is Steve Fingal, and I have lived on Carleton Avenue for 45 years.

Based on Santa Ana wind conditions, the approval of 37 rooftop decks is an inherently dangerous condition, and it is an almost statistical certainty, that ifapproved, these rooftop decks will be the cause of multiple deaths and serious injuries to the citizens of Orange.

1. Santa Ana winds generate winds from 25 miles an hour to wind in excess of 65 miles an hour.

2. Santa Ana winds always blow from the north east to the south west.

3. There are an average of 10 Santa Ana wind events per year lasting between three and eight days per event. Using minimum numbers, that is 30 Santa Anawind days per year, 300 Santa Ana wind days in a 10 year period. And over 1,500 Santa Ana wind days over a 50 year life of the project.

4. Intracorp proposes to build 37 fourth story rooftop decks within 20 feet to 60 feet of the north side of Katella Avenue and the east side of Cambridge Street.This means that any items blown off these patios will be deposited on the sidewalk or in the middle of Katella Avenue or Cambridge street.

5. The Santa Ana winds are strong enough to blow umbrellas, patio furniture, patio tables off the rooftop decks and onto people below. But there is an even morelikely danger based on the location of the project. Tablecloths, towels, blankets, sweaters, toys, etc., if left on the patios will be blown onto Katella orCambridge, any item that lands on the front windshield of a vehicle will block the drivers vision and may cause accidents, including head-on collisions, whichare likely to cause serious injury or death.

6. NO law, ordinance, CC&R restriction or homeowner association action can prevent danger. There is no practical way to police these fourth floor decks. Sadly,most of the problems will be based simply on the lack of the homeowners knowledge that Santa Ana wind are coming. 732

7. Here are the odds: there are 1500 Santa Ana wind days over the 50 year lifespan of the project. There are 37 separate rooftop launching points which equals55,500 chances that something will blow off one of these decks and injure or kill someone.

8. So, why take the risk? What is the purpose of these rooftop decks? The answer is simple. The sole purpose of these decks is to make the developer moremoney by increasing the density of the project. The Orange building code requires a minimum area of personal space for each home. The only way to cram 49houses on this small parcel is to move the required personal space from the ground adjoining these homes, to the “air“ thus the creation of the fourth floor deck.The developer is asking you to choose its profits over the safety of the people of Orange. In my mind, your duty is clear.

Guest User at March 15, 2024 at 1:58pm PDTOppose
My name is Jamie Fingal and I have lived on E Carleton Ave for over 37 years.My comments are based on the City of Orange’s Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines, there are areas in this proposed project that don’t meet the criteria:

Ensure that the new small lot subdivision fit into the existing neighborhood context. This project does not because they have 2 and 3 story homes with 4th floorroof top decks towering over 1 story homes and backyards.

Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods They haven’t minimized our privacy and their buildings arenot in line with the character of our neighborhood.Ensure that the new development is compatible with the style and design of establish structures and the surrounding environment. This development is notcompatible to our neighborhood of mainly 1 story homes that were built in the 60’s.

New lot development needs to occur through compatible, massing and thoughtful design. Small lot homes to be similar and scale NOT, and have similar formsand shapes to nearby and surrounding buildings to avoid the appearance of being overwhelming or disproportionate. In the comparison, and maintain existingmasking patterns. This proposed development is overwhelming and disproportionate and will loom over Katella, Cambridge and our neighborhood. Build adozen one story homes with yards and driveways that compliment the neighborhood.

Where the scale of proposed small lot homes, exceeds that of the immediately surrounding lots, use transitional design elements, such as architectural elementsand features, stepping back upper floors, varied forms, or articulated messing, or vertical and horizontal projections to provide a human scale and visual relief.Intracorp stepped back the second story a short distance, but still has a large picture window on the side which can easily take away our privacy. The three storyhomes with 4th floor roof top decks will tower over us and take away our privacy in our homes, kids playing outside, our routines, our lifestyles and our slice ofold town charm.

Intracorp was asked to give us a shade study in two hour increments of an entire day. They gave us 7:30-9:30am. Unacceptable. What happens at 2:00pm? Creation of a safe environment should be considered when planning the orientation of buildings in a small lot subdivision. Arrange window configurations thatbreak the line of sight between the houses. How much can people see when they stand on the edge of their 4th floor decks into our yards and households? Whois going to protect our privacy? Use translucent glazing, such as a glass block or frosted glass and windows and doors facing openings on abutting structures (not in the plans)Roof decks must, however, we designed with the privacy of residential neighbors in mind (no appropriate study was done about this).

Also, traffic. There are four schools (3 elementary and 1 middle school) along Cambridge. It is a main thoroughfare for them. Parents drive their kids to school.Two entrances out of this proposed project and the choice to turn left or right. I can’t even imagine the impact of allowing residents to turn left onto Katella oronto Cambridge, as it is too close to the signal. Accidents.

Katella gets backed up certain times of the day, and it will be even more so when Katella Terrace rents out their low income senior housing with 74 units.

Barry Ross at March 15, 2024 at 9:15am PDTNeutral
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to require at least 10% of the proposed units be used for affordable housing in response to the RHNA targets the Cityhas. The City has the opportunity to require this of the developer in return for the requested change in zoning. This would provide a needed community benefitto the City.

David Nelson at March 14, 2024 at 9:05pm PDTOppose
The proposed 49-unit development at 901 E. Katella Should not be approved as it will have major negative impacts on the surrounding area and the city.The proposed houses are only 10 feet away from the rear property line and the adjoining backyards. Thie will impact the privacy of these people. The two-storystructures will, also, throw a shadow on these yards for a considerable part of the year.Only having a two-car garage for a four-bedroom house is in adequate as there will most likely be more than two cars per household. These additional cars willuse up the on-site parking places and leave inadequate parking for guests. This will result cars parking on adjoining streets (Carleton Ave.) which has existingimpacts from the apartments on Cambridge.The added traffic from this development will create more problems for the vehicles exiting and entering Carleton Ave., just to the north. We will not be able to 733
see any traffic exiting the proposed development. The sight distance on the inside of the curve prohibits Carleton traffic from seeing any traffic exiting thedevelopment. There are already problems for us exiting Carleton Ave. as it is now with the amount of traffic on Cambridge increasing., especially during rushhours.The proposed deign for the development is not compatible with the surrounding area which is suburban in nature not urban. The roof silhouettes do not matchanything in the area.The roof top patios on the three-story houses poses a real danger from items that could be blown off in a Santa Ana wind or things that children might throw ofthe roof while playing there. There is also a danger to children playing the as they could fall off. These roof tops will be a main area for outdoor play as thehouses have no yards.I believe that the small lot development guidelines were meant for smaller development fill in projects not one of this size.This project is putting too much in too little space and does not deserve to be approved. 734
Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 5:25pm PDT
I am an Orange resident off of Cambridge and I strongly oppose the building plan by intracorp on Katella and Cambridge. The four story building will presentextreme privacy concerns for local residents. In addition, the insufficient parking would lead to overflow parking on Cambridge which is already a busy anddangerous street. Adding parked cars in Cambridge would lead to more pedestrians and no doubt car accidents, potentially fatal ones. My family and I workedhard to save money to purchase a home in our current neighborhood where it is safe and family friendly. These buildings will change that quality of life and willonly benefit a corporation. Please do not approve this! Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 5:21pm PDTOppose
I am a resident of this neighborhood and would like to express that this proposed plan is FULL of problems and will only benefit the large corporations bynegatively affecting the residents of Orange.1)There is not sufficient parking for cars per 3/4 bedroom units. This will cause parking to take over the nearby streets, and take away any parking for theresidents who own the homes in that location. There is no street parking connected to this proposed lot.2) Cars will not have easy access for entering or exiting the property. That specific area on Cambridge will cause residents to turn right only as they exit, and toturn right to enter the property. This will undoubtedly cause accidents and traffic as cars try to turn across the busy intersection.3) The plan is an extremely dense population grid, overwhelming the space with multiple story units, plus open rooftops.

Open rooftops will violate the privacy of home owners and will definitely make it a sexual harassment possibility for those of us with swimming pools in ourback yards. 735
Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 5:20pm PDTOppose
I oppose this type of development because it would cause more traffic congestions at this corner/intersection, which we do not need. Presently around the end ofworkday time frame, the traffic not only have cars passing by at this intersection, but all types of commercial trucks, from Small Van to Large CommercialTrucks. With the gas station on that corner, people who are leaving the gas station quickly want to exit and sometime just dash out in traffic without looking.Adding the extra cars, small trucks and even small commercial truck from people who may live there will add to the additional congestion. There are peoplewho cannot afford a car, so bicycle is their mean of travel and evening walking. This is also a concern that should be looked at. So again, I oppose thisdevelopment.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 5:05pm PDTOppose
As a resident of Carleton Ave., I express my strong opposition to the application by Intracorp to build a high-density small lot subdivision adjacent to our R-1zone property/neighborhood. I heavily encourage you to reconsider the action of this project. As a resident of the city of Orange since 2005, I am deeplyconcerned about the impact this high-density development will have on our community and neighborhoods. I urge you to reconsider this project for manyreasons such as overcrowding, traffic congestion, privacy, insufficient parking allocations, and incompatible use of property.For our Orange Community Character and Aesthetics: Our neighborhood has a unique character that will be altered significantly by the introduction of high-density housing. This change may diminish the appeal and charm that attracted many of us to live here in the first place. Since 2005, I have proudly called theCity of Orange my home. I have attended schools within the OUSD and want to continue to live in this city. On the City of Orange website, it states “Orange,CA, is a great place to live, work, and shop. From the Plaza to our top-rated hospitals, schools, and parks, we’re a “Slice of Old Towne Charm”, our communitywould like to keep with that statement and motto. I respectfully request that the City of Orange City Council members consider alternative development plansthat are compatible with the existing infrastructure and character of our city and neighborhood. I urge the City of Orange City Council members to engage in anopen dialogue with our community to explore options that address housing needs while preserving the integrity of the City of Orange, “Slice of Old TownCharm” and our neighborhood. This is important to me, my family and families on Carleton Avenue preserve the integrity of our street for generations to come.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 4:56pm PDTOppose
Poor design and not allowing enough mitigation to protect current residents’ privacy. 4th story balconies don’t belong so close to Katella as it’s a wind tunnelblowing everything off the roof making it a projectile. Not enough parking for 49 units creating overflow parking problems onto Cambridge. Minimum 100-150extra cars going in and out of the complex into the blind curve on Cambridge/Carleton intersection will definitely cause more accidents.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 4:50pm PDTOppose
I am writing on the behalf of my concerns with the proposed property on 901 East Katella Ave. With being a direct neighbor behind this proposed property andknowing this area, I have a number of concerns with the proprosed property.My main concern is regarding traffic, parking, and the additional factors that come with an area proposing 49 units. My family has lived in our house for 14years, daughters growing up on the quiet and safe street. The addition of 49 units with hardly no additional parking will have an affect on Carleton. This projectis just too big for the area chosen and I urge the committee to not allow this project to move forward.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 4:40pm PDTOppose
As a resident of Carleton Ave., express my strong opposition to the application by Intracorp to build a high-density small lot subdivision adjacent to our R-1zone property/neighborhood. I strongly urge you to reconsider this project. As a resident of the city of Orange since 1983, I am deeply concerned about theimpact this high-density development will have on our community and neighborhoods. I urge you to reconsider this project for numerousreasons...overcrowding, traffic congestion, privacy, insufficient parking allocations, and incompatible use of property.

For our Orange Community Character and Aesthetics: Our neighborhood has a unique character that will be altered significantly by the introduction of high-density housing. This change may diminish the appeal and charm that attracted many of us to live here in the first place. Since 1983, I have proudly called theCity of Orange my home. I have attended schools within the OUSD and chose to raise my family here. On the City of Orange website, it states “Orange, CA, isa great place to live, work, and shop. From the Plaza to our top-rated hospitals, schools, and parks, we’re a “Slice of Old Towne Charm”, our community would 736
like to keep with that statement and motto.I respectfully request that the City of Orange City Council members consider alternative development plans that are compatible with the existing infrastructureand character of our city and neighborhood. I urge the City of Orange City Council members to engage in an open dialogue with our community to exploreoptions that address housing needs while preserving the integrity of the City of Orange, “Slice of Old Town Charm” and our neighborhood. This is important tome, my family and families on Carleton Avenue preserve the integrity of our street for generations to come.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 4:35pm PDTOppose
This project does not reflect the City of Orange's General Land Use policy 1.4 to reflect the existing design standard, quality and feature, policy. I doubt this canbe refuted. 1.6 to minimize effects of new development on privacy and character and policy. Our privacy will be severely lacking. 6.10 to mitigate impact ofexisting neighborhood. The Intracorp project of 49 modern homes next to 1962 ranch style homes will be nothing but a stark or opposing contrast to say theleast. Please keep this area as commercial or better yet, green space with is lacking in our city.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 3:54pm PDTOppose
I am writing on the behalf of my concerns with the proposed property on 901 East Katella Ave. With being a direct neighbor behind this proposed property andknowing this area, I have a number of concerns with the proprosed property.

Fifth ,will lower our property values. I wouldn't have purchased my house with windows and rooftop decks facing my yard to see my kids play with high trafficand crowded cars street. Also, when you look at my house from the front you will then see these huge 2 and 3 story houses behind towering over.I really would love to see this land developed but I think the builder is just trying to get as much bang for his buck instead of actually researching, listening toneighbors and doing what's best for our community.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 3:20pm PDTOppose
If this development is approved: it will be a win, lose situation.

The winner – The Developer with Financial Gain
The Loser – The residents of Orange (Quality of Life, Privacy, Property Value, etc.) Orange General Plan: Land Use Diversity and Balanced DevelopmentPolicy 1.2: Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods. The developer’s designDOES NOT.Policy 1.4: Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development. The developer’sdesign DOES NOT.Policy 1.6: Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods. The developer’s design DOES NOT.

Protect the Residents and Preserve our City of Orange by Voting NO on the project. 737
Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 9:44am PDTOppose
Wrong piece of land for this type of project!! Highly OPPOSE. We have owned our home on Carleton Ave since 2011 and have saved up for the last decade tobuild our dream kitchen, which was recently completed. We would have never spent tens of thousands in putting in floor to ceiling glass bifold doors, had weknown that we would soon be a fishbowl for people living in 3-story homes to be peering into our family lives. This project is such an invasion of privacy! Ourhomes will depreciate in value, parking will be an absolute nightmare, and you will set the precedent that other established Orange neighborhoods could also beruined by greedy investors and builders. If you allow this, will the mattress store building and bank on Katella be rezoned next? This is so unfair to CarletonAvenue. We’re already dealing with the senior living facility huge build out. Enough is enough! Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 8:38am PDTOppose
Not only too many houses, bringing all the parking and traffic issues but 4 stories in a this area! I am opposed.Orange is a nice city to live please do not ruin it.

Guest User at March 18, 2024 at 8:38am PDTOppose
Not only too many houses, bringing all the parking and traffic issues but 4 stories in a this area! I am opposed.Orange is a nice city to live please do not ruin it.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 11:14pm PDTOppose
This development would greatly affect our neighborhood on E. Carleton Ave. The traffic would increase and it will be more dangerous to exit Carleton ontoCambridge. The reduction in privacy is not something the already existing residents can do anything about. The development does not fit into the existingneighborhood and I implore the planning committee to reject this proposal just as the design committee did.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 9:36pm PDTOppose
My wife and I have lived on Carleton Ave for 4 years with our 2 kids. We plan on being lifetime residents on this block, in this home and most importantly, inOrange. We have opposed this development since we first received notification but not because we don't want to see a new development in the vacant lot. Weoppose it because it is the wrong plan for this site. It will devalue the entire neighborhood and bring on a look that doesn't fit with the historical Orange vibe.

I'm not sure why this developer can propose this type of community when nothing surrounding it remotely resembles the current style of surrounding dwellings.The privacy issues it would cause for me, and my neighbors is unnerving. We could never leave windows or curtains open if our homes faced the property,especially at night when the lights are glowing from within. The bleed over parking and the additional traffic would cause huge headaches for the existingneighbors.

I think Intracorp is only looking to make a profit, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, they aren't investing in the City of Orange. They want to buildthe homes and get out after they pass off the community to an HOA. They need to completely redesign their proposal with less homes, less floors, and lesspotential residents/cars. It would be a joy to see the development resemble that of the local residential blocks.

I implore the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny/reject the proposed plan as it stands. Listen to the neighbors. We do not want this 49-homedevelopment.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 5:38pm PDT
738
Oppose
This project does not conform to the City of Orange's General Land Use policy 1.4 to reflect the existing design standard, quality and feature, policy 1.6 tominimize effects of new development on privacy and character and policy 6.10 to mitigate impact of existing neighborhood. A 10-15' setback affords no privacyand no amount of shading can buffer that. Rooftop decks do not belong on Katella as it is a wind tunnel causing hazards to fly onto Katella and Cambridgeduring frequent wind activities. This 1st of it's kind project in Orange County will set a bad precedence allowing developers to invade the privacy of existinghomeowners with no regard for their personal space.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 2:49pm PDTOppose
I am a resident on N. Cambridge near the proposed high-density development.There are multiple problems with this project.Location: The corner of Katella and Cambridge is extremely busy. Residents of the new project would need to slow to turn when cars are turning right offKatella onto Cambridge. Residents would cause congestion at this intersection. Up to 100 cars would be added to the traffic flow. This is a major route foremergency vehicles who would have to deal with the congestion.Parking: The plan does not even provide sufficient parking for 1 vehicle per unit. The proposed plan has 3-4 bedroom units. Where will the 3-4 vehicles per unitpark?Environmental issues: The smog, trash, traffic, impact on schools would be highly concentrated in this small area/high density housing project.Schools: The high bedroom project, obviously will attract families and impact the neighborhood schools. There are two grammar schools and a middle schoolwithin 2 blocks each direction of the project. The increased traffic on Cambridge will create a hazard to our children who are crossing Cambridge mid-block toenter the existing residential areas adjacent to the schools.I strongly oppose this project.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 2:34pm PDTOppose
The plan as proposed is full of problems. 1)There is not sufficient parking for the possible 3-5 cars per 3/4 bedroom units. This will cause parking to take overthe nearby streets, and take away any parking for the residents who own the homes in that location. There is no street parking connected to this proposed lot. 2)Cars will not have easy access for entering or exiting the property. That specific area on Cambridge will cause residents to turn right only as they exit, and toturn right to enter the property. This will undoubtedly cause accidents and traffic as cars try to turn across the busy intersection. 3) The plan is an extremelydense population grid, overwhelming the space with multiple story units, plus open rooftops.As a resident on Cambridge Street, I strongly oppose the approval of this project.

Guest User at March 17, 2024 at 8:06am PDTOppose
This is a little story about a BIG international developer coming into Orange and bullying the city of Orange and the neighbors on E. Carleton, claiming it isdoing the city a service by building 49 dense 3 and 3 story homes on a small lot on 901 E Katella Ave. Do not be fooled. This project proposed has been notrecommended by the Design and Review Committee, this project is opposed by all the residents of E Carleton Ave with support by the nearby streets. It will addtraffic, parking, noise and privacy problems. I propose the city buy this lot and put in a small park instead so the senior citizens living in the nearby housing twoblocks down have a place to exercise and get some sunshine. Who doesn’t need more green and parks in Orange. It will be a win win for all.

Guest User at March 15, 2024 at 4:47pm PDTOppose
Every outcome regarding this project proves a disaster. The losers: The residents of Carlton (big time),the surrounding neighborhoods, the privacy, the trafficand potential for greater traffic accidents, parking, City-scape, and home values. Only one entity comes out a winner: the developer.If this project passes, great is the concern that this project will open the flood gates to other high density horrors. Please City of Orange support your citizens. 739

INTRACORP SW, LLC
895 Dove Street, Suite 400 | Newport Beach CA 92660 | www.intracorphomes.com

April 30, 2024

City of Orange
Community Development Department
300 E Chapman Ave
Orange, CA 92866

RE: Summary of Changes
TTM 19253 – 901 E Katella

This written correspondence is intended to summarize changes made to support the proposed development at 901 E Katella.

The following material and responses are intended to help facilitate your review .

The included attachments are as follows:

Plans

1. Architectural Package

2. Civil Engineering TTM Package + Fire Master Plan

3. Landscape Package

4. Photometric Plan
Summary of Changes :

1. Removed Roof Decks
 Units 13 -23 – Eliminated roof decks on these units to increase sense of privacy for northerly neighbors ** See Pages A 3.1- A 3.3, A 5.1 – A 5.7 (Plan 1X and 2X = the at-grade deck units 13-23)

2. Decreased 4 -Bedroom Units
 Units 13-23: Now ALL 3-bedroom homes (X Plan).
** See Pages A 3.1- A 3.3, A 5.1 – A 5.7 (Plan 1X and 2X = the at-grade deck units 13-23)  Due to the removal of the roof decks, the private open space is now at ground level. This condition eliminating the 4th bedroom/bathroom on the first floor. This is now shown as a “flex space” room. ** See Pages A 3.1- A 3.3, A 5.1 – A 5.7 (Plan 1X and 2X = the at-grade deck units 13-23)  Remaining 4-bedroom units: To accommodate the needed parking space on the lot for the 4 -bedroom units, we now have EIGHT 4-bedroom homes (a loss of 10 4-bedroom units). Units: 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 46

3. Loss of one unit
 Removed what was previously Lot 24 to create room for the parking stalls between units along the south side of the paseo
 Total homes = 48 Units

4. Parking
 Each 4-bedroom home has a parking stall (on the lot). See civil TTM sheet 1 for lot line modifications.  Due to reduction in 4-bedroom units and the loss of one unit, parking requirement is now 116 total spots.

We provide 128.
 Surplus = 12 extra surface guest parking stalls
**See updated Parking Summary table – A 1.0

740

INTRACORP SW, LLC
895 Dove Street, Suite 400 | Newport Beach CA 92660 | www.intracorphomes.com

5. Added Landscaping
 Due to surplus parking, we were able to remove a total of 5 spots, which allowed for greater landscape opportunities.
 Adjacent to Lot 23: Removed three spots and incorporated a turf area with stone seating, intended for dog relief space, and four new trees.
** See Sheets L-20 – L-22, L-26 to see revised landscaping See Sheet L-34 for revised Planting Schedule
Landscape Package Notes:
 L-2 Revised Site Plan
Showing amenity schedule for central gathering space and new landscape pocket adjacent to Unit 23. See renderings L-20-22, L-26
 L-3 Revised Wall and Fence Plan
Shows new at-grade deck configurations for Units 13-23
 L-6 Trash Management Plan
A few placement assignments were adjusted to accommodate the new parking stalls between units, which impacted can placement

 L-11 Perspective Views: Removed the view cones from the roof deck since they were removed in Units 13-23, eliminating the line of sight to existing homes.  L-29 Added a perspective rendering for the at-grade patios (Units 13-23)

6. Siding Added to the Plan 3 rear elevation.
** See 7.3 – 7.10

7. New Building Types
 Plan 1X and 2X = “Building Type 2” – The new at-grade deck units (Units 13-23) **See Sheets A 3.1 – A 3.3 and 5.1 – A 5.7
 Building 3 – Paired Plan 2 Building Type – ONE occurrence (Units 32-33)

741

INTRACORP SW, LLC
895 Dove Street, Suite 400 | Newport Beach CA 92660 | www.intracorphomes.com

** See A 1.0 for Detail
Plan Type # of Occurrences Assigned Units Product

Single Family Detached
P2* 1 34 3 Story + Roof Deck
P2X 1 23 3 Story + At-grade Patio
P3 12 1 - 12 2 Story Detached
Paired Units
P1 11 31, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45,
47,25,27, 29
3 Story + Roof Deck
P2 6 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48 3 Story + Roof Deck
P2* 7 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 46 3 Story + Roof Deck P1X 5 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 3 Story + At-grade Patio
P2X 5 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 3 Story + At-grade Patio

If any additional information is needed, please let me know and I will facilitate getting to you. Thank you for your support.

Best regards,

Emilie Simard
Intracorp Homes
742
Small Lot Subdivision Development Standards Reference Table R-3 Zoning District

Required/Permitted Proposed Code Section
Maximum Permitted
Density

15.1 – 24 dwelling units/acre
or 65 units

17.7 dwelling units/acre or
48 units

17.14.270
Dwelling Units per
Subdivided Lot
1 1 17.14.270
Lot Area n/a 1,461 to 2,488 square feet 17.14.270
Lot Frontage 25 feet 25 – 35.67 feet 17.14.270
Lot Depth 50 feet 58 – 67.81 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Front
(Cambridge Street)
15 feet 15 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Street Side
(Katella Avenue)
10 feet 10 feet 17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Side
(North Property Line)
5 feet First story: 10 feet
Second story: 12-15 feet

17.14.270
Perimeter Setback:

Rear
(East Property Line)
10 feet 24 feet-6 inches 17.14.270
Interior Setbacks No front, side, or rear yard is
required between interior lot
lines created within an
approved small lot
subdivision.

Front: 7-10 feet
Side: 3 - 6 feet
Rear: 12 feet – 6 inches to
14 feet

17.14.270
Building Height 35 feet or 3 stories 3 stories: 34 feet - 10 inches
2 stories: 25 feet - 5 inches

17.14.270
Lot Coverage 75 percent of approved small
lot
41 - 56 percent 17.14.270
Private Open Space

150 square feet per dwelling
unit
356 - 921 square feet per
dwelling unit

17.14.270
Common Open Space Only required when lot
coverage of each lot exceeds
75 percent.

Each lot does not exceed
75 percent lot coverage;
however, 5,352 square
feet of common open
space is provided in the
form of two pocket parks,
dog relief area, and
landscaped paseo

17.14.270.C.3(f)
Fence height

3 feet -6 inches : Front yard
setback areas along the
perimeter of the proposed
subdivision.
3 feet-6 inches

17.14.270,

17.12.070.B.1.c
743

6 feet : Side and rear yard
setback areas along the
perimeter of the proposed
subdivision.

8 feet : When adjacent to
commercial development.

Existing 7-foot parallel
walls along north
perimeter side property
line to remain.

8 feet along east property
line
Landscaping

Setbacks and open areas of
the site not occupied by
buildings shall be landscaped,
including surface parking lot
areas.
15,844 sq. ft.
(open space areas,
streetscape, and
hardscape)

16.50,

17.14.270.C.9
Secured Storage 120 cubic feet / unit

Must be in addition to
cabinets and closets typically
found within a unit (such as
kitchen and bathroom
cabinets, clothes and linen
closets)
250 cubic feet per unit
provided as overhead
storage in garage

17.14.140
Parking

116 spaces required

OMC Section 17.14.270.C.8:

Parking requirements and
parking design shall comply
with the following regulations
and Chapter 17.34 (Off-Street
Parking and Loading) of this
title for small lot subdivisions.

Where there is a conflict with
Chapter 17.34, the
requirements of this section
shall apply.
a. The number of off -street
parking spaces shall be
consistent with the ratios
for small lot subdivisions in
Table 17.34.060(A) of this
title.
b. Required parking shall be
provided on each lot
except that guest parking
may be provided in an
easily accessible common
parking area, or on private
streets and alleys
128 total provided

96 enclosed garage spaces
(48 units)

10 unenclosed resident
spaces
(four-bedroom units)

24 unenclosed guest
spaces
(12 surplus)

17.14.270.C.8,

17.34.060(A)

744
associated with the small
lot subdivision.
c. Required parking spaces on
each lot shal l be provided
within a garage or a
carport. Guest parking may
be unenclosed.
d.Tandem parking is
permitted only for the
required parking spaces on
each lot and not for guest
parking in common parking
areas.

OMC Section 17.34.060(A):
2 parking spaces per u nit,
either enclosed or covered
(i.e. garage or carport). For
units with 4 or more
bedrooms, 1 additional space
shall be provided which may
be enclosed or unenclosed.

Enclosed or covered parking
may be provided in a tandem
format.

A minimum of 0.25 spaces per
unit (with a minimum of 2
guest spaces) shall be
provided as easily accessible
and distinguishable guest
parking in addition to the
required parking for each
unit. Guest parking may be
unenclosed.

Required Number of Spaces:
3 Bed:
2 spaces (on each lot) x 40
units = 80 spaces

4 Bed:
3 spaces (on each lot) x 8 units
= 24 spaces

Guest:
.25 x 48 = 12 spaces

745
Total Required: 116 spaces

Trash Enclosures A small lot subdivision
development shall provide
trash (including trash,
recycling, and green waste)
collection areas adequately
and conveniently placed
throughout the development.

These collection areas shall be
screened from view on three
sides by a six -foot high
masonry wall. A view
obscuring gate shall be
provided.

Unit garages have been
designed to accommodate
3 trash carts for the
storage of trash, recycling
and green waste.

17.14.270.C.11

746

CITY OF ORANGE

SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
JULY 2021
747
2 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
PURPOSE, GOALS, AND APPLICABILITY 4
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN 5
PROCESS 5
DESIGN GUIDELINES 6
748

INTRODUCTION
The City of Orange has a distinct community identity and a strong sense of place, attributable to the community’s efforts to preserve significant physical features, such as buildings, parks, and landscapes, that communicate
the City’s cultural, historical, and architectural past. Yet Orange is also a forward-thinking city that looks to adapt and innovate with respect to land development, while
ensuring the preservation of its community character.

In 2019, the City was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by
the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for the preparation of a small lot
subdivision ordinance to accommodate non-traditional
residential development, specifically on smaller infill sites. In concert with these guidelines, the ordinance is intended to streamline the design review and entitlement process for small lot subdivision development to create efficiencies for housing production in the City by reducing the time, uncertainty, and complexity of approval and
permitting for such projects.

The small lot subdivision ordinance allows for the
development of smaller fee simple, single-family
residential lots in the multi-family residential zones (R-3 and R-4) and in the NMU-24 mixed use zone. The single-
family residential lots created through the ordinance
are less than the typical minimum area of a standard
single-family lot (e.g., 5,000 sf. and minimum lot width of 50 ft. for an R1-5 lot). The ordinance amended Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC) to establish new development standards for small lot subdivisions.

These new development standards include regulations
for lot frontage, setbacks, height, private open space, and parking. Furthermore, under the ordinance, small
lot subdivision development is subject to final approval by either the Community Development Director or the
Planning Commission.

Small lot subdivisions provide a space-efficient and
economical alternative to traditional options for
homeownership in the City of Orange. They reduce the
amount of land required for new single-family residences, which potentially creates opportunities for more
affordable homeownership through lower land costs. In
addition, small lot subdivisions allow a greater variety in lot sizes and flexibility in lot configuration, which promote urban infill, a diversity of housing types, and neighborhood stability.

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
3 749
These potential benefits can come with development
complexities. Small lot design and layout require unique considerations with respect to small lot sizes and irregular lot configurations, parking and vehicle access, adequate access to air and light, and outdoor space and privacy.

In addition, a small lot subdivision’s relationship with surrounding existing developments in an established
neighborhood and public areas, such as streets and
sidewalks, also plays a critical role in shaping its design and layout. The purpose of this document is to address
these spatial complexities and ensure neighborhood
compatibility through design guidelines. These guidelines are intended to be used to support the implementation
of the small lot subdivision ordinance.

PURPOSE, GOALS, AND

APPLICABILITY
Purpose of the Guidelines
These guidelines are intended to convey to property
owners and developers the fundamental expectations the
City has for the development of small lot subdivisions. This document offers guidance to promote context-sensitive
small lot subdivision development.

Goals
These guidelines provide direction for the design of a small lot subdivision project. They illustrate options, solutions, and techniques to achieve high-quality design in new
small lot subdivision development. The guidelines aim to accomplish the following goals:
» Ensure that new small lot subdivisions fit into the
existing neighborhood context.
» Introduce new dwellings and a new housing typology
that maintains and responds to the existing urban form. » Promote walkable urbanism through infill development. » Achieve high-quality new urban design.

Applicability
These guidelines shall apply to all small lot subdivision development that is subject to design review as outlined in OMC Section 17.14.270.

Small lot subdivision development located within
the boundaries of a historic district is also subject to compliance with the relevant historic preservation design standards. Where these guidelines conflict or overlap with the historic preservation design standards, the historic 4 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
750
preservation standards shall prevail. Likewise, small lot subdivision development located within the Single
Story Overlay District is also subject to the development standards of the overlay, and therefore the height of all buildings within the Single Story Overlay District shall be limited to one story or 20 feet, whichever is less.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan provides the blueprint for long-term
development in the City of Orange. It identifies a number of goals and policies related to housing production,
preserving community character, and encouraging and
accommodating new development. Included in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan are the following policies:
» Policy 1.3: Provide a range of housing densities and
types to meet the diverse needs and lifestyles of
residents.
» Policy 1.6: Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods.
» Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development is compatible with the style and design of established structures and the surrounding environment.

In addition, a specific Housing Element policy supports small lot subdivision development:
» Policy Action 7: Facilitate Infill Construction
The Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines are consistent with and further the General Plan goals and objectives.

PROCESS
Any small lot subdivision development involving four
or fewer lots and to which the parcel map provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Orange Subdivision
Ordinance apply, is subject to review and approval by
the City’s Design Review Committee (DRC) and the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance
of building permits.

For small lot subdivisions involving five or more lots, the tract map provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Orange Subdivision Ordinance apply. In this case, the project requires approval by the DRC and the Planning
Commission.

Furthermore, some small lot subdivision projects may
also require approval by the Planning Commission if they involve the need for a variance, conditional use permit, or major site plan review in accordance with Chapter 17.10 of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC). City staff will work with

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
5751
applicants to determine the appropriate approval process for your project. The review process is initiated through the filing of a Land Use Application with the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department.

Application materials and submittal requirements can
be obtained from City staff or by visiting the Planning Division webpage at: https://www.cityoforange.org/287/
Planning-Division.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. Neighborhood Context
The successful fit of a new small lot subdivision project into an existing context depends on how well it relates to neighboring buildings and with the public realm, such as the street and the sidewalk. New small lot development
needs to occur through compatible massing and
thoughtful design. When considering neighborhood
compatibility, the focus should be on basic patterns, which are defined by recurring characteristics such as building scale and massing in the vicinity, and the streetscapes in the neighborhood.

1. Scale and Massing
Buildings within a small lot subdivision should respect adjacent buildings by responding to their scale, massing, and need for light, natural ventilation, and views. Small lot subdivision development should follow the established
size, shape, and form of the surrounding neighborhood
through the use of similar proportions and details.
a. Design small lot homes to be similar in scale and
to have similar forms and shapes to nearby and
surrounding buildings to avoid the appearance of being
Figure 1: Small lot subdivision development should follow the established size, shape, and form of the surrounding neighborhood through the use of similar proportions and details. In this example, the house in color is disproportionate in scale compared to the surrounding houses. 6 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
752
overwhelming or disproportionate in comparison and
to maintain existing massing patterns.
b. Where the scale of proposed small lot homes
exceeds that of the immediately surrounding lots, use
transitional design elements, such as architectural
elements and features, stepping back upper floors,
varied forms or articulated massing, or vertical and
horizontal projections to provide a human scale and
visual relief.
c. Provide variation in building massing and placement
to create contrast in the façades and to allow for more articulated building design.
d. Small lot homes shall be unique in design so that there is variety between the dwellings within a subdivision.

Variations in building design may include changes
in building orientation, primary entryways, façade
articulation, doors and windows, varied roofline, etc.

2. Access and Connectivity
An important determinant of whether a small lot
subdivision development fits into the existing context
is how it connects to the public realm and completes
the streetscape. The character of the public realm is
compromised when parking, driveways, and garages
dominate the streetscape and undermine the aesthetic
quality and walkability of the street. Access to a small lot subdivision should be designed to reinforce the residential and pedestrian-friendly character of the street.
a. Coordinate the placement of curb cuts to minimize
the width and frequency of curb cuts, to maximize the
number and size of on-street parking spaces available,
and to promote continuity of the sidewalk.
b. When an alley is present, utilize the alley for vehicular access.
c. Provide pedestrian pathways from the public street (or right-of-way) to all primary entryways and common
areas, such as common open space areas, guest
parking, mailboxes, and centralized trash enclosures.

Pathways shall be a minimum width of 3 feet.
d. Provide pedestrian pathways separate from the
driveway whenever possible. When the driveway
provides pedestrian access to individual dwellings, a
distinguishable path shall be provided and treated
with a change of materials, finishes, pattern, or paving that differentiates the pathway from vehicular traffic.

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
7 753
B. Site Planning
A small lot subdivision’s site layout and circulation,
the façades and entryways of the dwellings, and the
landscaping along the development’s perimeter all
contribute to the overall quality of the streetscape and to the subdivision’s relationship with the street. Yet
by its very nature, small lot design is confronted with spatial challenges. A small lot subdivision’s topography, geometry, location, and orientation are all factors that must be considered when site planning.

1. Building Orientation
Buildings should have a strong relationship to the street they front and should be oriented to positively define and frame adjacent public streets. However, the dimensions of a project site play a critical role in determining the layout of a small lot subdivision.
a. Small lot homes that have street frontage shall be
oriented toward and have direct pedestrian access to
the public right-of-way. Where there is a physical site constraint, a clearly identifiable entry to the site shall be provided from the right-of-way (Figure 2).
b. Small lot homes located in the interior of the
subdivision shall orient the primary entryway toward
and be visible from a pedestrian pathway that is
connected to the public right-of-way or private street
(Figure 3).
c. Small lot homes that front an alley shall orient
the primary entryway toward the alley, or shall be
connected to a pedestrian pathway that leads directly
to a public right-of-way (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
d. Creation of a safe environment should be considered
when planning the orientation of buildings in a small
lot subdivision. Primary entryways should be easily
identifiable and accessible to emergency services,
and windows, lighting, and landscaping should be
designed and properly placed to allow for maximum
visibility and natural surveillance of the site.
8 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
754

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
9 Figure 2: Small lot homes that have street
frontage shall be oriented toward and have
direct pedestrian access to the public right-of-
way.

Figure 4: Small lot homes that front an alley shall
orient the primary entryway toward the alley, or
shall be connected to a pedestrian pathway that
leads directly to a public right-of-way..

Figure 3: Small lot homes located in the interior of
the subdivision shall orient the primary entryway
toward and be visible from a pedestrian pathway.

Figure 5: Small lot homes shall be connected to a
pedestrian pathway that leads directly to a public
right-of-way.

RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAYRIGHT-OF-WAY
Back PatioPRIVATE ROAD

ALLEY/ DRIVEWAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY
Garage
Garage
Garage
Front Entryway
Front Entryway
Garage
Driveway
755

2. Primary Entryways
Building entrances are an important building feature,
providing the connection between the public realm of
the street and sidewalk, and the private realm of the
dwelling. A well-designed building entrance will appear welcoming and inviting to the pedestrian, making the
neighborhood a pleasant place to live. In addition to the doorway itself, the entry may be comprised of stairways, landings, porches, and other elements.
a. Place the primary entryways of street-fronting small lot homes on the front façades so that the entryways
face the street.
b. Incorporate transitions such as landings, porches, and patios in the articulation of the primary entryways.
c. Primary entryways shall provide the address or unit
identification, and ornamental low-level lighting to
illuminate the entry area.
d. Primary entryways shall be well-articulated in order to enhance the overall quality of the entrance.

Elements may include raised landings, recessed
doorways, overhangs, side window panels, decorative
hardscaping in the landing area, etc.

3. Existing Site Features
Unique natural characteristics, such as mature trees and topography, on both the project site and adjacent sites should be respected and taken into account in new
building design and subdivision layout.

4. Privacy
As with any infill development, some loss of privacy to existing neighboring buildings can be expected with the introduction of a small lot subdivision in an urban setting.

To mitigate against any unusual impact on privacy to
neighboring interior living spaces, design modifications can be integrated to minimize the impacts
a. Incorporate landscaping and green screens, where
appropriate, between buildings on adjacent properties.
b. Use solid railings on upper-level balconies and decks. c. Arrange window configurations that break the line of sight between houses.
d. Use translucent glazing such as glass block or frosted glass on windows and doors facing openings on
abutting structures.
10 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
756
C. Building Character
Thoughtful architectural design means that buildings are conceived holistically. Once a small lot subdivision has been fitted into its neighborhood context, and its relationship to the streetscape has been set, the various architectural issues of the small lot homes can be resolved. There are many opportunities in the building design, including
the selection of materials, window and door assemblies, colors, finishes, balcony orientation, and landscaping
and hardscaping where architects and builders can offer creative solutions to further enhance the overall character of a building and improve the livability within a small lot subdivision.

1. Building Articulation
A building’s architectural details, openings, and materials provide the finishing touches that convey a sense of
quality and define the building’s character. Architectural details have a great impact on how a building is perceived, and provide visual interest, texture, and richness. Small lot homes with virtually identical forms can appear
dramatically different due to their details. Meanwhile, the use of compatible details visually unifies a small
lot subdivision with neighboring buildings, providing
continuity and reinforcing the architectural character of an area.
a. All building façades and exterior building elevations facing a street or the project perimeter shall be treated with an equal level of detail and articulation.
b. Use a combination of materials, textures, colors,
architectural treatments, and details to accentuate
variations in building massing and to add visual
interest to the building elevations.
c. Avoid the creation of uninterrupted blank wall surfaces on the building elevations, especially those facing a
street or common open space area, by breaking the
wall plane a minimum of 6 inches in depth at least
every 20 linear feet and employing varied massing
and architectural elements.
d. Strategically place doors, windows, and other openings to create visual interest and provide visibility from the street-fronting small lot homes to the street.
e. Use porticos, awnings, terraces, balconies, or trellises to provide variations in the building plane.
f. Apply additional architectural enhancements to the
ground floor at the primary entryway, so as to create

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
11 757
a human scale to the building. Enhancements may
include handrails, fixed planters, and ornamental
details, such as lighting, molding, or tiles.

2. Roof Form
The roof is one of the most distinguishing elements on a building or home, and the collection of roofs in a small lot subdivision or along a streetscape create a “roofline,” which is the profile of the buildings against the sky. To design a visually stimulating house, varied roof types may be used together or the same roof type may be utilized in different ways. This creates a home that uniquely responds to both its interior function and its exterior individuality. Small lot home roofs should be well-articulated and should
consider the types of rooflines found on surrounding
buildings.
a. Rooflines and roof shapes should be consistent with
the design and structure of the building itself as
well as with the rooflines found in the surrounding
established neighborhood.
b. Roof forms should reflect the facade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof
over an articulated facade.
c. Roof articulation may incorporate varying roof planes, sloped roofs, open decks, corner balconies, step backs, or any form of roof modulation that adds visual interest and decreases the perceived scale of the residence.

Figure 6: All roof decks along the project perimeter and abutting residential uses shall be stepped back a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge, so that they are oriented away from and screened to prevent direct views of abutting residential neighbors.
12 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES

STEP-BACK

ROOF DECK
758

3. Private Open Space and Roof Decks
Outdoor living spaces can make a small lot home feel
more like a traditional single-family residence and provide a number of other benefits toward creating healthy and
livable communities. Private open space in a small lot
subdivision can be in the form of a fenced yard or patio at ground level, or balconies or decks above ground level.

Private open spaces should be designed to be inviting
and usable for seating, dining, play equipment, gardening, and other outdoor living activities.
a. When feasible, locate private usable open space next to primary living areas so that the private usable
open space functions as an outdoor extension of the
adjacent living room, family room, dining room, or
kitchen.
b. Provide ground level private usable open space that
is directly accessible from an indoor living space with a door that opens onto it. Ground level open space
should have a minimum width and length of 10 feet.
c. Provide upper-level private usable open space,
such as balconies or decks, that is large enough to
accommodate several chairs. Balconies and decks
should have a minimum dimension of 7 feet.
d. Roof decks are a way to maximize access to private
outdoor space, light, and air in a small lot subdivision.

Roof decks must, however, be designed with the
privacy of residential neighbors in mind.
i. All roof decks along the project perimeter and
abutting residential uses shall be stepped back a
minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge, so that they
are oriented away from and screened to prevent
direct views of abutting residential neighbors. Roof
decks facing a right-of-way are not required to be
stepped back (Figure 6).
ii. Rooftop guardrails, trellises, and other structures should be designed in a manner that is consistent
with the architectural language of the rest of the
building.
iii. Rooftop structures, including guardrails, shall be counted towards building height.

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
13 759

4. Landscape and Hardscape
Landscape and hardscape within a small lot development
should add to the character of the new buildings, facilitate sustainable water use, and be relatively easy to maintain.

The landscape design should be integrated with the small lot homes and enhance the natural environment of the
neighborhood.
a. All setback and open areas not used for buildings,
parking areas, driveways, pedestrian pathways,
and utilities shall be attractively landscaped and
maintained.
b. All yards abutting the street shall be improved with landscaping (combination of groundcover, shrubs,
and trees) and amenities. Amenities may include:
decorative fencing, garden walls, pedestrian pathways,
uncovered patios, seating areas, and/or decorative bike racks.
c. Plants adapted to the local climate, soil, and hydrology should be used to reduce the need for irrigation. For
suggested plant and tree species, please refer to the
City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications.
d. Landscaping should be used to soften walls and
fences and provide a green screen, where appropriate,
between buildings on adjacent properties.
e. Walls and fences exposed to public view (e.g., along the street or common open space areas) are subject
to the following:
i. The form of walls and fences and their materials
should be consistent with the architectural style of
the homes within the small lot subdivision.
ii. Walls and fences should be articulated in a manner
that adds architectural interest.
f. Trash containers should be screened from public view by opaque walls or fences subject to the rest of the
recommendations under these guidelines and to
OMC Section 17.14.270(I).
14 ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
760

ORANGE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES
15761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Action for use of Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Funding.

2. SUMMARY
Request to approve the funding for proposed public projects, non-profit agency programs, and administration under the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Approve the draft Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Memorandum of Understanding with City departments, subrecipient agreements with non-profit agencies, and all related U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development documents.

2. Authorize staff to incorporate comments received at the Public Hearing or make changes if needed into the Annual Action Plan before submitting to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
All public projects, programs, and administration will be fully funded by the Community Development Block Grant Fund (310) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (317).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community e: Develop and strengthen collaborative partnerships to enhance and promote quality of life programs, projects, and services.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The City receives annual federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs for the benefit of primarily low- and moderate-income residents. The funds are allocated to projects and programs that include street improvements, handicap accessibility improvements, after-school programs, transitional housing, and supportive services.

City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
774
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
Citizen Participation Plan Process
The City advertised the notice of CDBG funding availability on November 16, 2023 in the Orange City News. Two Public Hearings and one Public Meeting were held to solicit input from nonprofit organizations and encourage residents to participate in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan process. The Action Plan is required annually by HUD and outlines the City’splan for the use of funds in order to receive the funds
The first Public Hearing was held on February 15, 2024 with the CDBG Committee (Committee) to hear eligible applicant presentations. This Public Hearing is the second required Public Hearing required for City Council consideration and adoption of the funding recommendations made by the Committee. A Public Meeting was held on March 15, 2024 with the Committee to deliberate on the proposed funding recommendations presented to City Council this evening CDBG
The FY2024-2024 allocation for CDBG will be $1,037,099. The category limits are based on not-to- exceed caps set by HUD as follows:
· 20% or $207,419.80 for administration
· 15% or $155,564.85 for public service activities
· 65% or $674,114.35 for public facilities projects
This year, the City received a total of eleven applications for a total request of:
· $240,000 for public service activities
· $772,166 for public facilities projects
Factors used to determine funding recommendations include:
· Project eligibility
· Program description
· Organizational capacity and experience
· Goals and outcomes
· Budget
· Past performance goals
· Audit review
· Funding/Local priorities
In order to increase available resources for public services, Fair Housing Foundation is recommended to be paid out of the administrative category as it is a qualifying expense.

HOME
The allocation for HOME will be $354,054. The category limits are based on caps set by HUD as follows:
· 10% or $35,405.40 for administration
· 15% or $53,108.10 for CHDO - Community Housing Development Organization nonprofit organizations that are rooted in neighborhoods and support the idea of community-led revitalization, which the HOME Program and other HUD programs promote. · 75% or $265,540.50 for developer projects
At this time, the CDBG committee did not make recommendations for allocations to specific projects.

If an application for HOME funding is received by the City, staff will return to Council for consideration City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
775
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
If an application for HOME funding is received by the City, staff will return to Council for consideration at a later date.

Staff recommends the approval of the CDBG funding recommendations and authorization to include the recommendations in the FY 2024-25 Annual Action Plan.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Draft Annual Action Plan
· Fiscal Year 2024-2025 CDBG Funding Recommendations Summary City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
776
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Action for use of Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Funding.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2. Authorize staff to incorporate comments received at the Public Hearing or make changes if needed into the Annual Action Plan before submitting to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
All public projects, programs, and administration will be fully funded by the Community Development Block Grant Fund (310) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (317).

City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
777
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
Citizen Participation Plan Process
The City advertised the notice of CDBG funding availability on November 16, 2023 in the Orange City News. Two Public Hearings and one Public Meeting were held to solicit input from nonprofit organizations and encourage residents to participate in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan process. The Action Plan is required annually by HUD and outlines the City’splan for the use of funds in order to receive the funds
The first Public Hearing was held on February 15, 2024 with the CDBG Committee (Committee) to hear eligible applicant presentations. This Public Hearing is the second required Public Hearing required for City Council consideration and adoption of the funding recommendations made by the Committee. A Public Meeting was held on March 15, 2024 with the Committee to deliberate on the proposed funding recommendations presented to City Council this evening CDBG
The FY2024-2024 allocation for CDBG will be $1,037,099. The category limits are based on not-to- exceed caps set by HUD as follows:
· 20% or $207,419.80 for administration
· 15% or $155,564.85 for public service activities
· 65% or $674,114.35 for public facilities projects
This year, the City received a total of eleven applications for a total request of:
· $240,000 for public service activities
· $772,166 for public facilities projects
Factors used to determine funding recommendations include:
· Project eligibility
· Program description
· Organizational capacity and experience
· Goals and outcomes
· Budget
· Past performance goals
· Audit review
· Funding/Local priorities
In order to increase available resources for public services, Fair Housing Foundation is recommended to be paid out of the administrative category as it is a qualifying expense.

If an application for HOME funding is received by the City, staff will return to Council for consideration City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
778
Item #: 7.2. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0330
If an application for HOME funding is received by the City, staff will return to Council for consideration at a later date.

Staff recommends the approval of the CDBG funding recommendations and authorization to include the recommendations in the FY 2024-25 Annual Action Plan.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Draft Annual Action Plan
· Fiscal Year 2024-2025 CDBG Funding Recommendations Summary City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
779
Annual Action Plan
2024
1 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
AP‐05 Executive Summary ‐ 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Orange qualifies as an Entitlement Jurisdiction for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and a Participating Jurisdiction for HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates these funds to the City annually. The FY 2024‐25 Action Plan is the fifth Annual Action Plan of the 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan and provides a concise summary of the actions, activities, and the specific federal and other resources that will be used to address the priority needs identified by the Consolidated Plan.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This could be a restatement of items or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs assessment, the housing market analysis or the strategic plan.

The City of Orange conducted community needs assessment during the preparation of the five‐year strategic plan (The 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan) and identified the following high priority needs:
 Increase the supply of affordable housing through rental assistance, new construction, and acquisition/rehabilitation projects.
 Provide fair housing for all economic segments and special needs households.  Continue to financially support homeless facilities and agencies that address service needs of the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless.
 Improve the quality of existing community services, facilities, and infrastructure to serve low‐ and moderate‐ income neighborhoods.

3. Evaluation of past performance
This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or projects.

The City and the CDBG Program Committee considered the past performance of the CDBG subrecipients when determining the allocation of CDBG funds to proposed FY 2024‐25 activities. The CDBG Program Committee considered funding requests from nonprofit organizations based upon the proposed benefit to low‐ and moderate‐ income residents, their experience in carrying out the proposed activities, and meeting the CDBG requirements. CDBG funding was allocated only to activities that address the high priority needs of the 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Summary from citizen participation section of plan.
780
Annual Action Plan
2024
2 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The City advertised the availability of CDBG funds on November 16, 2023, in the Orange City News and held two Public Hearings on February 15, 2024 (CDBG Program Committee), and May 28, 2024 (City Council) and one public meeting on March 14, 2024 (CDBG Committee).

5. Summary of public comments
This could be a brief narrative summary or reference an attached document from the Citizen Participation section of the Con Plan.

The 30‐day public review period for the Draft Action Plan started Thursday, April 18, 2024 and ended on Monday, May 20, 2024. However, the City continued to accept public comments up until submittal to HUD. No public comments were received during the public review period.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them.

No comments or views were received.

7. Summary
The City allocated the CDBG funds to primarily benefit low‐ and moderate‐ income households. The CDBG beneficiaries are either income‐qualified residents that receive direct services or residents of neighborhoods where at least 51 percent of the population is low and moderate Income.

The City received the following amounts for FY 2024‐25:

1. CDBG ‐ $1,037,099

2. HOME ‐ $354,054
See Section AP‐35 Projects for a detailed description of each activity. Below is a summary of the CDBG activities and allocations:
 Program Administration ‐ $207,419.80 in CDBG funds for program administration and fair housing activities.
 Public Facilities ‐ $674,114.35 in CDBG funds for street improvements and public facilities projects.  Public Services ‐ $155,564.85 in CDBG funds for public services activities.

For the HOME funds, the City is considering applications for subsidy gap assistance for affordable housing development proposals received. Eligible proposals will be subject to CDBG Program Committee review and City Council approval. The city is exempt from the 25% match requirement. HOME specific percentage cap requirements for the HOME Allocation of $354,054 and the amounts planned for Administration, and caps are calculated as follows:
 Program Administration ‐ $35,405.40 in HOME funds for the planning and administration of the program.
781
Annual Action Plan
2024
3 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
 Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set‐Aside ‐ $53,108.10 for affordable housing developments by a CHDO.
 Affordable Housing Development ‐ $265,540.50 for affordable housing development.

782
Annual Action Plan
2024
4 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR‐05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator ORANGE Community Development
Department
HOME Administrator ORANGE Community Development
Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative (optional)
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Jessica Herrera
Senior Administrative Analyst
Community Development Department
300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California 92866
Telephone: (714) 744‐7270 Fax: (714) 744‐7222
Email: [email protected]
783
Annual Action Plan
2024
5 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
The City advertised the availability of CDBG funds, solicited input from nonprofit agencies, and encouraged residents to participate in the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through a variety of methods. This included publishing an ad in the Orange City News, announcing its availability on the City’s website, and notifying local nonprofit agencies by email.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
Staff maintains a close working relationship with the Orange County Housing Authority. The City is home to regional hospitals including UC Irvine Medical Center, Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC), and St. Joseph Hospital of Orange. In our continued commitment to assist our medical partners, the city approved new medical office buildings for the St. Joseph Campus and the CHOC campus. The St. Joseph facility was completed in 2024 and specializes in women’s and family health, the CHOC facility will house a variety of pediatric outpatient services and is anticipated to be completed in 2025. Ensuring access to quality medical care is an important priority for our assisted housing providers. The City also supported the Orange County’s Mental Health Agency efforts in setting up a mental health facility in Orange to serve low‐ income populations faced with mental health issues.

In addition, the City used Community Development Block Grant CARES Act (CDBG‐CV) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program American Rescue Plan (HOME‐ARP) funds towards supportive services at the Hub Resource Center (HRC), located in the City of Orange, that provides services and resources to the city’s most vulnerable populations. As part of the services offered, on‐site appointments and consultations with private and government health, mental health, and services agencies are coordinated and facilitated. Referrals and assistance is also provided to clients seeking public and assisted housing by HRC partners including the Orange Police Department’s Homeless Engagement Assistance & Resources Team (HEART), Volunteers of America (VOA), and the Orange County Health Agency.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

The County of Orange is the lead agency coordinating Continuum of Care for the entire county. The City of Orange supports the County of Orange's efforts to develop effective programs to address the needs of homeless persons, including the 10‐Year Plan to end Homelessness. The City supports the Orange County Housing Authority’s (OCHA’s) applications for a variety of programs to address needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness.

Additionally, the City used CDBG‐CV and HOME‐ARP funds for the HRC where Continuum of Care services to the homeless, both individuals and families, and persons at risk of homeless are centralized to allow the greater access and opportunity for follow‐up with service agencies. Continuum of Care partners hold one‐on‐one consultations with clients on site, and if needed, the HRC will also arrange for transportation or other assistance to clients with access to care and services needed. 784
Annual Action Plan
2024
6 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS The City of Orange is not a recipient of ESG funds.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
785
Annual Action Plan
2024
7 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Assistance League of Orange Agency/Group/Organization Type Services‐Children
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non‐Housing Community Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.
2 Agency/Group/Organization Friendly Center, Inc.

Agency/Group/Organization Type Services‐Children
Services‐Elderly Persons
Services‐Persons with Disabilities
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non‐Housing Community Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.
3 Agency/Group/Organization Fair Housing Foundation
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Service‐Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
786
Annual Action Plan
2024
8 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.

Agency/Group/Organization Boys & Girls Club of Central Orange Coast Agency/Group/Organization Type Services ‐ Children
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non‐Housing Community Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.

Agency/Group/Organization Families Forward
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services‐Children
Services‐Elderly Persons
Services‐Persons with Disabilities
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non‐Housing Community Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.

Agency/Group/Organization Orange Unified Public Schools Foundation 787
Annual Action Plan
2024
9 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services‐children
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non‐Homeless Special Needs
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.

Agency/Group/Organization The HUB OC
Agency/Group/Organization Type Homelessness
Services‐Children
Services‐Elderly Persons
Services‐Persons with Disabilities
Services‐Vulnerable Communities
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?

Homelessness and Non‐Housing Community Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization
was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of
the consultation or areas for improved coordination?

The City consulted the appropriate agencies for the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through holding a series of meetings and public hearings before the CDBG Committee and the City Council. The outcome of these consultations is the result of the proposed activities for funding with FY2024‐ 25 CDBG funds.

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting 788
Annual Action Plan
2024
10 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The City issued a Notice of Funding Availability inviting all eligible agencies to participate.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care County of Orange The City collaborates with the County of Orange to implement strategic goals and policies under the Continuum of Care.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Narrative (optional)

789
Annual Action Plan
2024
11 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation. Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal‐setting.

The City advertised the availability of CDBG and HOME funds, held public meetings, solicited input from nonprofit agencies, and encouraged residents to participate in the development of the FY 2024‐25 Action Plan through a variety of methods. The feedback received through this process was considered when setting program goals.

Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comme
nts not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Newspaper Ad
Non‐
targeted/broad
community

nonprofits and city
departments

Notice of Funding
Availability was
published in Orange
City News, City's web
site.

N/A N/A N/A
2 Email nonprofits and city
departments
Notice of Funding
Availability was
emailed to nonprofit
agencies on the City's
CDBG Program
interest list and those
N/A N/A N/A
790
Annual Action Plan
2024
12 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
who expressed
interest.
3 Public Hearing
Non‐
targeted/broad
community
nonprofit agencies
and city
departments
The CDBG Committee
held a public hearing
on February 15, 2024
with representatives
from nonprofit
agencies to receive
presentations on the
project/program
proposals by
nonprofit agencies
and various city
departments.

Agencies in
attendance
discussed
programs, projects,
and community
needs.

N/A N/A
4 Public Meeting
Non‐
targeted/broad
community
nonprofit agencies
and city
departments
The CDBG Program
Committee held a
public meeting on
March 14, 2024
discuss funding
recommendations on
the project/program
proposals by
nonprofit agencies
and various city
departments.

The CDBG
committee
discussed
programs and
projects and
developed funding
recommendations
with contingencies
for the final
allocation
announcement.

N/A N/A
5 Public Hearing
Non‐
targeted/broad
community
nonprofit agencies
The City Council held
a public hearing on
May 14, 2024 to
review and approve
No public
comments were
received at the
public hearing.

N/A N/A
791
Annual Action Plan
2024
13 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
and city
departments
the FY2024‐25 AAP
draft funding
recommendations.
792
Annual Action Plan
2024
14 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Expected Resources
AP‐15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. The City allocates CDBG funds for a variety of activities including fair housing services, public services, and street improvements.

Eligible activities under the HOME Program include acquisition, rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance. The City will allocate HOME funds for tenant based rental assistance and other eligible activities such as acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of affordable rental housing.

The City may access federal, State, and local resources to achieve its housing and community development priorities. Specific funding sources will be used based on the opportunities and constraints of each particular project or program. The City will focus its resources and efforts on a variety of activities and leverage federal and local funds to maximize the number of households that can be assisted. The uses of funds shown in the following table are potential uses. The City does not allocate its CDBG or HOME funds to all of the categories listed.
793
Annual Action Plan
2024
15 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Anticipated
Resources
Program
Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 5 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources: $
Total:
$
CDBG public ‐
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services

$1,037,999 0 0 $1,037,999 $0
The City allocates
CDBG funds for a
variety of activities
including fair
housing services,
street
improvements, and
public services.

HOME public ‐
federal
Acquisition,
Homebuyer
assistance,
Homeowner
rehab,
Multifamily rental
new construction,
Multifamily rental
rehab,
New construction
for ownership,
and
TBRA $354,054 0 $333,636 $687,690 $0
The City allocates
HOME funds for the
acquisition,
rehabilitation, or
development of
affordable rental
housing.

Additionally,
Tenant‐based rental
assistance will be a
new activity in the
new program year.

Table 5 ‐ Expected Resources – Priority Table
794
Annual Action Plan
2024
16 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied.

The City's primary funding sources are CDBG and HOME funds. Other sources of competitive funding to address housing and community development needs include: former Redevelopment Agency set‐aside funds to assist with affordable housing development funding, Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds used to fund two navigation centers in Buena Park and Placentia, and HOME American Rescue Plan (HOME‐ ARP) to assist the most vulnerable populations, including those experiencing homelessness.

Developers will seek additional funding sources to leverage developer HOME funds for their respective projects. The City of Orange has been exempted from the match requirement.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.

Discussion
AP‐35 lists all of the FY 2024‐25 Community Development Block Grant projects. 795
Annual Action Plan
2024
17 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Annual Goals and Objectives

AP‐20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Public Facilities
Improvements
2020 2025 Non‐Housing
Community
Development
City of
Orange
Public Facilities and
infrastructure improvements
CDBG:
$674,114.35
HOME: 0
Public facility or
infrastructure
activities for
low/moderate
income housing
benefit: 61,730
households
assisted.
2 Public Service
Projects
2020 2024 Non‐Housing
Community
Development
City of
Orange
Public services/homeless/non‐
homeless special need
CDBG:
$155,564.85
HOME: $0

Public service
activities for
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit: 40796
Persons Assisted
796
Annual Action Plan
2024
18 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
3 Multi‐Family
Affordable Housing
Development
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
City of
Orange
Housing Rehabilitation and
Housing Development – New
Construction.

HOME
CHDO:
$53,108.10
HOME
Developer
Projects:
$265,540.50
11 Housing Units
4 Administration/
Planning
2020 2024 Administration City of
Orange
Public facilities infrastructure
and improvements; public
services/homeless/non‐
homeless special need; housing
rehabilitation and development
– new construction.

CDBG:
$207,419.80
HOME:
$35,405.40
Successful
administration of
program year and
management of
funds.

Table 6 – Goals Summary
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Multi‐Family Affordable Housing Development Goal
Description
Multi‐Family new housing development or acquisition/rehab of existing housing for low‐to‐moderate income residents. 2 Goal Name Homelessness
Goal
Description
No FY23‐24 CDBG funds will be allocated to homeless programs. 3 Goal Name Public Service Projects
Goal
Description
Activities such as services for low to moderate income individuals and families, fair housing, resources for homeless individuals
797
Annual Action Plan
2024
19 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
4 Goal Name Rental Assistance
Goal
Description
Rental Assistance to low‐and moderate‐income individuals and families. 5 Goal Name Public Facilities Improvements
Goal
Description
Public facilities improvements: infrastructure improvements including sewers, ADA, sidewalks, streets, etc. 6 Goal Name Administration/Planning
Goal
Description
Administration and planning for grant management.

798
Annual Action Plan
2024
20 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Projects
AP‐35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The FY 2024‐25 Action Plan identifies priority housing and community development activities that will be undertaken to provide community services, public facilities, and decent, affordable housing to address the needs of low‐ and moderate‐income residents.

Note each project below begins with one of the following codes to indicate the type of activity it is:

PS – Public Service
PF – Public Facilities and Infrastructure
AH – Affordable Housing
AD – Planning and Administration

Projects
# Project Name
1 PS – Orange Fair Housing Program
2 PF – ADA Wheelchair Access Ramps
3 PF – Plumbing and Sewage Upgrade at the Family Care Center 4 PF – 24‐25 Street Rehabilitation
5 PS – Affordable Housing Supportive Services in Orange 6 PS – After School Community Programs
7 PS – Bike Patrol Program ‐ Community Oriented Policing 8 PS – Operation School Bell
9 PS – Community Food Orange
10 AD – Planning and Administration

Table 7 ‐ Project Information
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The City allocates CDBG funds to activities that address the priorities of the 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan and comply with CDBG regulations. The City and the CDBG Program Committee consider funding requests from nonprofit agencies based upon the proposed benefit to low‐ and moderate‐income residents, the agencies’ demonstrated capacity to carry out the proposed activities, the financial feasibility of the 799
Annual Action Plan
2024
21 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
proposed activities, and the amount of funding available. 800

Annual Action Plan
2024
22 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP‐38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
1 Project Name Orange Fair Housing Program
Target Area CDBG eligible areas within the City of Orange Goals Supported Fair housing
Needs Addressed Fair housing counseling
Funding CDBG: $25,000

Description Providing Fair Housing Services to low and moderate income Orange residents.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
150 low‐ and moderate‐income persons
Location Description Low‐ and moderate‐income areas.

Planned Activities The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) will provide fair housing education, counseling, and enforcement; and
related housing activities to affirmatively further
housing laws on behalf of the City to comply with
federal regulations.
2 Project Name ADA Wheelchair Access Ramps
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas within the City of Orange Goals Supported Infrastructure improvements to benefit individuals with disabilities in low to moderate income areas
Needs Addressed Public Infrastructure improvements
Funding CDBG: $100,000
801

Annual Action Plan
2024
23 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Description This project includes the construction of sidewalk access ramps at various locations throughout the
City. These access ramps will improve accessibility for the disabled to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
1000 low‐ and moderate‐income disabled persons
Location Description Various city locations.

Planned Activities This project includes the construction of sidewalk access ramps at various locations throughout the
City. These access ramps will improve accessibility for the disabled to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
3 Project Name Plumbing and Sewage Upgrade at the Family Care Center
Target Area 1130 N. Citrus Street
Goals Supported Public Infrastructure
Needs Addressed Community Development
Funding CDBG: $34,997
Description Improve the facilities at the Family CareCenter, an emergency shelter, by performing a deep fix and
improvement of the plumbing and sewer system.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
319
Location Description 1130 N. Citrus Street
Planned Activities Descaling and epoxy relining of worn internal plumbing, installing new piping and new perma‐liner
in the connection piping between the project site and
city plumbing.
4 Project Name 24‐25 Street Rehabilitation
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas within the City of Orange 802

Annual Action Plan
2024
24 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Goals Supported Infrastructure Improvements
Needs Addressed Infrastructure Improvements in low to moderate income areas
Funding CDBG: 539,117.35
Description Roadway pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian facilities
Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
5,661
Location Description Various streets in eligible areas Planned Activities Street improvement will include addressing issues with pavement distress and raveling of roadways;
replacement of segments of sidewalks, driveways,
curb ramps, curb and gutters.
5 Project Name Affordable Housing Supportive Services in Orange Target Area 67 W. Struck Avenue
Goals Supported Community Development
Needs Addressed Supportive services to extreme low, low and moderate households
Funding $20,000
Description Supportive services for families living in affordable housing at the Valencia Gardens community in
Orange
Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities

122
Location Description 62‐unit affordable housing complex 803

Annual Action Plan
2024
25 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Planned Activities Dedicated Care Team, comprised of multi‐disciplinary specialists and subject matter experts, who work
together to identify suitable housing options and
create a plan for short and long‐term goals.
6 Project Name After School Community Programs ‐ El Camino, Grijalva, and Killefer Parks
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas within the City of Orange Goals Supported Public Services for low to moderate income persons.

Needs Addressed Public Services for low to moderate income persons.

Funding CDBG: $43,709.90
Description The programs will provide supervised after‐school recreation with a homework assistance component
for children of ages five to 13.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
175 low‐income and at‐risk youth.

Location Description El Camino Real Park‐400 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92866
Grijalva Park‐368 North Prospect Street, Orange, CA
92869
Killefer Park‐615 N. Lemon St., Orange, CA 92868
Planned Activities The programs will provide supervised after‐school recreation with a homework assistance component
for children of ages five to 13.
7 Project Name Bike Patrol Program ‐ Community Oriented Policing Target Area Low and Moderate Income Areas within the City of Orange
Goals Supported Homeless outreach and resources
Needs Addressed Public services for homeless individuals Funding CDBG: $60,000
804

Annual Action Plan
2024
26 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Description This program will provide a community‐oriented policing strategy designed to improve the quality of
life in high density housing located in Low Income
areas of the City.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
10,000 low‐income persons
Location Description City Parks in CDBG areas
Planned Activities This program will provide a community‐oriented policing strategy designed to improve the quality of
life in high density housing located in Low Income
areas of the City.
8 Project Name Operation School Bell
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas within the City of Orange Goals Supported Public services for low to moderate income persons Needs Addressed Public services for low to moderate income persons Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description This program will provide school clothing/uniforms, undergarments, shoe vouchers, and hygiene kits to
Low Income elementary school (Kindergarten to Sixth
Grade) students in the Orange Unified School District
(OUSD).

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
205 low‐ and moderate‐income students
Location Description 124 South Orange Street
Orange, CA 92866
Planned Activities The program will provide school clothing and hygiene kits to Low Income OUSD elementary school
(Kindergarten to Sixth Grade) students.
9 Project Name Community Food Orange
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas within the City of Orange 805

Annual Action Plan
2024
27 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Goals Supported Public services for low to moderate income persons Needs Addressed Public services for low to moderate income persons Funding CDBG: $16,854.95
Description This program will provide free food to low‐income residents.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
600 low‐ and moderate‐income persons
Location Description 147 West Rose Avenue
Orange, CA 92867
1820 North Meats Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Planned Activities Food will be distributed on a weekly basis at two Friendly Center sites.
10 Project Name Planning and Administration
Target Area City of Orange
Goals Supported Planning and Administration of grant
Needs Addressed Public facilities infrastructure and improvements; public services/homeless/non‐homeless special need;
housing rehabilitation and development – new
construction.

Funding CDBG: 182,419.80
HOME: $35,405.40
Description Planning and administration of grant funding.

Target Date 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of
families that will benefit from the
proposed activities
Low to moderate income individuals throughout the
City of Orange.

Location Description 300 E Chapman Avenue
Planned Activities Administration and planning of grant funding. 806

Annual Action Plan
2024
28 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low‐income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed The City selected projects for funding that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods. Activities that provide direct/individual benefit will also be offered on a citywide basis to low‐ and moderate‐ income households.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Areas 100
Table 8 ‐ Geographic Distribution

Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Funds are targeted to meet the National Objective of benefitting low‐ and moderate‐income persons.

Discussion
The City allocates its CDBG funds to public facilities projects such as street improvements, as well as public services that benefit low‐ and moderate‐income persons.

807

Annual Action Plan
2024
29 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Affordable Housing
AP‐55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
During the needs assessment process, the City identified affordable housing as a priority need. The City takes every opportunity to allocate CDBG and HOME funds to affordable housing projects. The City will continue to solicit and work with developers to fund qualifying affordable housing in the City in FY2024‐

25. The Orange County Housing Authority will continue providing Section 8 Rental Assistance/Housing Choice Vouchers to approximately 345 low‐income households.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0
Non‐Homeless 11
Special‐Needs 0
Total 11
Table 9 ‐ One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement

One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 345
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 0
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 345
Table 10 ‐ One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type

Discussion
See the previous portions of this section for discussion.

808

Annual Action Plan
2024
30 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
There is no public housing in the City of Orange.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not Applicable
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
Not Applicable
If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not Applicable
Discussion
Not Applicable
809

Annual Action Plan
2024
31 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
The City identified unmet needs for homeless and special needs population during the needs assessment process. The City did not receive applications for homeless‐related programs to allocate FY 2024‐25 CDBG and HOME funds. However, the City plans to use other funding sources to provide financial assistance for the operation of the two homeless navigation centers in Buena Park and Placentia.

Additionally, the City used CDBG‐CV, HOME‐ARP, and will be using Senate Bill 104 funding received for the HRC which services those experiencing homelessness and the most vulnerable populations. Services that meet special needs are provided including food, laundry, and shower services are provided, as well as one‐stop location for the coordination with continuum of care agencies.

Describe the jurisdictions one‐year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
While the City does not receive Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, the City supports the County of Orange Continuum of Care strategies to address homelessness. Additionally, the City is part of the North Orange County Service Planning Area and actively collaborates with the County of Orange and other local cities to address homeless related needs. Finally, the City gives priority and allocates CDBG funds to projects benefiting the homeless population whenever it receives applications for CDBG funds.

The City also supported the services at the HRC with CDBG‐CV funds. Services at the HRC specifically focused on helping homeless individuals with accessing services and resources they need to improve their situation, including food, water and services for mental and physical well‐being, job training resources, and housing needs. Due to the centralized and unique structure of the HRC, the staff is very familiar with the individual needs of clients, helping to maximize the effectiveness of the services offered and leverage other resources.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The City continues to support projects related to homelessness by allocating CDBG funds to these projects.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were 810

Annual Action Plan
2024
32 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
The City collaborates with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 rental assistance to homeless families. The City is always working on implementing its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations mandated through the California Department of Housing and Community Development by supporting projects that create permanent housing for the homeless population (extremely low and very low income).

The City supports OCHA’s applications for Continuum of Care Program Permanent Supportive Housing Program projects. Currently, 23 households are residing in Orange with certificates for this program.

The City also supports OCHA's applications for the Housing and Urban Development‐Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD‐VASH) Program vouchers, which combines rental assistance with case management and clinical services for homeless veterans. The VA Medical Center in Long Beach screens and selects veterans for participation in the Program, and refers qualified veterans to OCHA, which administers the housing component of the Program. Currently, 26 Orange households are participating in the HUD‐VASH Program as of April 5, 2024.

Furthermore, the City used CDBG‐CV and HOME‐ARP funding for services at the HRC that provides basic needs services including food, clothing, showers, and laundry, and in addition, offers access to continuum of care partners on‐site in a centralized setting to ensure that individuals are able to receive the support they need. On‐site partner agencies offer support for connection to housing, mental and physical wellness, and childcare needs to allow parents more opportunities to improve their situation.

The City is also getting ready to launch a TBRA program at the City in order to assist families and individuals from becoming homeless by offering housing assistance.

Helping low‐income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low‐income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

The City supports OCHA’s applications for the Rental Assistance for Non‐Elderly Persons with Disabilities (NED) Program, which provides incremental Section 8 vouchers. The goal of the Program is to enable Non‐Elderly, Disabled households to transition from health care institutions or skilled nursing care to independent living with appropriate services. As of April 5, 2024, one Orange household was participating in this Program.

The City also supports OCHA’s applications for the Family Unification Program (FUP), which provides 811

Annual Action Plan
2024
33 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Section 8 Rental Assistance to eligible families whose lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation or threat of imminent separation of children from their families. The Program also provides vouchers for up to 18 months to emancipated youth (18‐ to 21‐year‐old children that left foster care at age 16 or older and lack adequate housing). The Orange County Social Services Agency refers potential FUP participants to OCHA, which administers the housing component of the Program. As of April 5, 2024, 19 Orange households were FUP participants.

Discussion
The City supports nonprofit applications for Continuum of Care funds to provide services and housing to the homeless. The City also seeks to provide CDBG funds to nonprofit agencies that serve the homeless.

The Orange Police Department has a Homeless Engagement Assistance and Resource Team (HEART) to reach out to the homeless and connect them with the services. Officers work with the Orange County Mental Health Department and the Centralized Assessment Team to address homeless issues and find long term solutions.

In addition, the City used CDBG‐CV and HOME‐ARP funds for services to the most vulnerable populations at the HRC which offers access with continuum of care partners on‐site, including social services, mental and physical wellness services, and resources to help individual improve their situation.

812

Annual Action Plan
2024
34 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

The City has limited vacant land for residential development. Considering the high cost of land, it is challenging to develop affordable housing projects that are financially feasible. Furthermore, the City’s historic downtown area has its own zoning regulations and requirements that provide further barriers to development of affordable housing projects. While the City recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing to low‐ and moderate‐income residents, the City allocates HOME funds and local funds to affordable housing projects to the extent possible.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
The City grants regulatory incentives and concessions to housing developers through its discretionary process. Concessions such as increased density (density bonus ordinance) or deferred impact fees may be granted for a project when the project includes a certain number of long‐term affordable housing units.

Discussion:

See the previous portions of this section for discussion. 813

Annual Action Plan
2024
35 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP‐85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

The City of Orange will undertake a variety of activities aimed at addressing the needs of the low‐ and moderate‐income households. This includes providing affordable housing to the extremely low‐income population, addressing homelessness, and providing public services to low income children and families in need of food and shelter. Moreover, the City allocated CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to carryout fair housing activities, resolve any issues regarding fair housing, and hold workshops for tenants and landlords. Beginning July 1, 2024, the City also plans to launch a tenant based rental assistance program to assist qualifying individuals and families struggling with housing stability.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City supports services and projects aimed at addressing homelessness, social services, and housing affordability. The City collaborates with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 rental assistance to low‐income families. Furthermore, the City allocates CDBG funds to public services projects benefitting low‐ and moderate‐income households. The allocation of CDBG and HOME funds is based on the high priority unmet needs that were identified during the preparation of the 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan.

Additionally, beginning July 1, 2024, the City will be launching a Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA) to assist qualifying populations struggling with housing stability.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City preserves existing affordable housing stock by financing rehabilitation of affordable housing projects or negotiating with the new owners of affordable housing projects. The City continually supports the preservation and development of affordable housing to maintain and increase affordable housing supply.

Actions planned to reduce lead‐based paint hazards
Given the limited CDBG funds, the City does not directly fund lead‐based paint evaluation and reduction.

The City supports the County of Orange efforts to reduce lead‐based paint hazards in the City. If funding is available in the future, the City and the County plan to intensify their efforts to reduce the risk of lead poisoning for young, low income children that reside in El Modena, a lower income neighborhood. The City also conducts annual inspections of HOME funded properties and looks for evidence of lead based 814

Annual Action Plan
2024
36 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
paint in an effort to reduce the hazard.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty‐level families Per Section 3 HUD Act of 1968, the City will encourage jobs generated through CDBG funded construction projects be advertised to low‐income residents where the construction project is located. Moreover, the City collaborates with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) to provide Section 8 Rental Assistance/Housing Choice Voucher Program for low‐income residents. The Family Self‐Sufficiency (FSS), that is part of the Section 8 program, uses a step‐by‐step process that helps Section 8 participants identify and reach career goals, overcome impediments to success, locate needed resources and support services, and develop confidence. FSS advisors provide guidance and referrals to participants for services including child‐care, job training and placement, education, transportation, and medical assistance. Finally, the City supports applications for CDBG funds for job training and placement for youth and adults.

Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City’s Community Development Department includes the following Divisions: Administration, Building, Code Enforcement, Planning, and Housing. This enables the City to effectively coordinate its housing activities. The Planning Division performs functions that directly affect the development and rehabilitation of housing including preparation of the State‐mandated Housing Element. The Planning Division also oversees the permit process, regulates compliance with zoning and building codes, and administers the Density Bonus Program required by State law.

The Housing Division administers the CDBG and HOME programs and is responsible for updating the Consolidated Plan every five years, preparing Annual Action Plans, and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). This Division works with various City departments that carry out CDBG‐funded projects.

The city also works with non‐profit (CHDO) and other affordable housing developers to develop or rehab affordable housing projects. The developers the City has worked with have provided attractive, affordable housing for low and moderate income low‐ and moderate‐income households. The City encourages nonprofit agencies to apply for CDBG funds for programs that primarily benefit low‐ and moderate‐income residents.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City will continue to work with public and private agencies to coordinate the delivery of housing and related services. City staff sits on the Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee to provide input on housing issues that affect the community. The City also maintains a collaborative relationship 815

Annual Action Plan
2024
37 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
with nonprofit organizations that provide social services to the community.

Discussion:

See the previous portions of this section for discussion. 816

Annual Action Plan
2024
38 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Specific Requirements
AP‐90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next
program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0

5. The amount of income from float‐funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 0

Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit ‐ A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00%

817

Annual Action Plan
2024
39 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)

1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows:

The City uses “Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Housing Asset” funds to leverage its HOME funds.

However, this funding source is limited. The City will consider other funding sources such as federal and state tax credits in conjunction with the HOME funds to finance affordable housing projects.

2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:

The City does not use HOME funds for homebuyer activities.

3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:

The City does not allocate HOME funds to for‐sale affordable housing projects. Therefore, the City is not required to have guidelines for the resale or recapture of homeownership units acquired with HOME funds.

4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:

The City does not use HOME funds to refinance existing debt on multifamily housing projects.

None
818
$1,037,099.00
Public Services (15% of Grant)
Amount Funded in 2024 Amount Requested
Recommended
Award
Assistance League School clothing assistance to kids 15,000.00$ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Bike Patrol Program Community Policing & Crime Prevention 60,000.00$ $60,000.00 $60,000.00 Boys & Girls Club of Central Orange Coast College mentorship and workforce development -$ $25,000.00 $0.00 Families Forward Comprehensive housing services and homeless prevention -$ $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Hub OC (Youth Centers of Orange) Child care, homeworks assistance, nutrional activies, etc 40,000.00$ $50,000.00 $43,709.90 Orange Unified Public Schools Foundation (OUPSF) Wellness Center at Taft Elementary 25,000.00$ $25,000.00 $0.00 Friendly Center Food and Personal Hygiene Distribution 15,166.00$ $20,000.00 $16,854.95 $215,000.00 $155,564.85
Facilities and Construction
Amount Requested Recommended Award
Street Rehab Various Streets 282,390.00$ $637,169.25 $539,117.35 ADA Ramps Various Streets 90,000.00$ $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Shelters of Orange (HOMEAID) Family Care Center deep fix and improvement of plumbing and sewer system -$ $34,997.00 $34,997.00 $772,166.25 $674,114.35
Admin (20% of Grant)
Amount Requested Recommended Award
Fair Housing Fair housing 25,000.00$ $25,000.00 $25,000.00 CDBG Administration Adminstration 181,888.00$ $182,419.80 $182,419.80 $207,419.80 $207,419.80
$1,194,586.05 $1,037,099.00
Total Administration
FY25 totals
Summary of Funding Requests for CDBG 2024-2025 Program Year Activity
Total Public Services
Activity
Total Facilities and Construction
Activity
819
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.3. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0265
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider approval of the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) Final Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Resolution No. 11552.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution 11552 is the second step and will complete the process of the annual assessment for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing). Staff recommends no increase in the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and that they remain $293.08 per unit. The total assessment to be levied in Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) will be $47,877.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 11552. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving the Engineer’s Report and providing for the annual assessment for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing).

2. Establish the assessment for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) at $293.08 per single family unit per year.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. The approval of the annual assessment will generate $47,877 in revenue with a proposed expenditure of $47,696 in the Sycamore Crossing Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Fund (293):
293.0000.40330.0000 Assessment 15-1 $47, 877

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community. a: Renovate, maintain, develop and/or expand public use places and spaces.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
In 1995, Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1 (LMD 94-1) was established to maintain the landscape and flood control improvements along Santiago Creek that were constructed by Tract No. 14752 (Sycamore Crossing). Resolution No. 8462 approved Conditional Use Permit 2088-94 for Tentative Tract 15053 (Sycamore Crossing) and Resolution No. 8463 approved Tentative Tract Map City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
820
Item #: 7.3. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0265
15053, which is part of Tract 14751.

Annually, staff performs a detailed accounting of expenses and calculates a new assessment for the benefiting property owners. All assessments are recommended to remain the same for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (FY25) as they are for the current fiscal year. The 124 units in the interior of the Tract are currently assessed annually at $293.08. The 36 units adjacent to the landscape improvement have a 2% premium and are currently assessed at $298.94 per unit, per year. The senior housing site (Harmony Creek) is currently assessed at $597.88 per year. In addition, the City owns two lots within the district that pay into the District. The larger lot which remains as open space is assessed at $117.23 per year and the smaller lot for a future water well is $58.62 per year.

The total expenditure for FY25 is estimated to be $47,696. The proposed assessment will generate $47,877 in revenue. The projected year-end Reserve fund balance is $118,330 and the District is funded entirely by annual assessment revenue. The surplus revenue between the annual assessment and the expenditure is $181 and will contribute to the fund balance. The fund balance will be used as needed for repairs and replacement of infrastructure such as fences, irrigation, and landscape.

The attached Final Engineer’s Report contains detailed information about the assessment.

Each year, the process for setting the assessment of the Landscape Maintenance Districts is initiated. The process began on April 23, 2024 with the City Council’sApproval of Resolution No. 11541 which approved the Preliminary Engineer’sReport for LMD 94-1 and set May 28, 2024 as the date for the public hearing. This public hearing is the second step in the process and is held in accordance with the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Act of 1972 as outlined in the “Order of Procedure”. At this time, property owners will have an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11552
· Final Engineer’s Report - Landscape Maintenance District 94-1 City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
821
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.3. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0265
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider approval of the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) Final Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Resolution No. 11552.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2. Establish the assessment for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) at $293.08 per single family unit per year.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community. a: Renovate, maintain, develop and/or expand public use places and spaces.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
In 1995, Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1 (LMD 94-1) was established to maintain the landscape and flood control improvements along Santiago Creek that were constructed by Tract No. 14752 (Sycamore Crossing). Resolution No. 8462 approved Conditional Use Permit 2088-94 for Tentative Tract 15053 (Sycamore Crossing) and Resolution No. 8463 approved Tentative Tract Map City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
822
Item #: 7.3. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0265
15053, which is part of Tract 14751.

The attached Final Engineer’s Report contains detailed information about the assessment.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11552
· Final Engineer’s Report - Landscape Maintenance District 94-1 City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
823
RESOLUTION NO. 11552

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVING THE
ENGINEER’S REPORT AND PROVIDING FOR

THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 94-1 (SYCAMORE

CROSSING)

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orange has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” being part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, in what is known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1 (“Assessment District”); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated proceedings for the levy of the annual assessment for the Assessment District; and

WHEREAS, at this time, a public hearing has been held in the manner and form as required by law, and the City Council has considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by all interested persons; and

WHEREAS, this City Council is now satisfied with the assessment and diagram and all other matters as contained in the Engineer’s Report as now submitted for final consideration and approval, and now desires proceeding with the levy of the annual assessment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange as follows:

Section I:

That the above recitals are all true and correct.

Section II:

That all protests and objections of every kind and nature by, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied.

Section III:

That the Final Engineer’s Report consisting of the final submitted assessment and diagram for the proceedings, is hereby approved and confirmed and a copy of said Report is hereby filed with the City Clerk.

824
2 Section IV:

That the assessments for fiscal year 2024-2025 be established as approved by the City Council, and are hereby confirmed and levied upon the respective subdivisions of land in the Assessment District in the amounts as set forth in said final approved Engineer’s Report.

Section V:

The City Clerk shall immediately accomplish the following:

A. Deliver to the City Engineer the assessment, together with the diagram attached thereto and made a part thereof, as confirmed, with a Certificate of Confirmation attached and the date thereof. Said City Engineer shall then immediately place for a record said diagram and assessment in his office in a suitable book as a permanent record and attach a Certificate of Recordation.

B. Cause to be filed a certified copy of a diagram and assessment with the County Auditor, said filing to be completed no later than the 3rd Monday in August.

Section VI:

That the above confirmed assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County property taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of these assessments.

ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2024

Daniel R. Slater, Mayor, City of Orange

ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mike Vigliotta, City Attorney

825
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )

I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

826
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
1 CITY OF ORANGE
FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT

FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY ASSESSMENT

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 94-1
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 94-1

SYCAMORE CROSSING

Intent Meeting: April 23, 202 4
Public Hearing: May 28 , 202 4

LMD 94-1 Final ER FY 2024-25
827
2 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ENGINEER’S REPORT
This Report describes the City of Orange Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1 and proposed changes or modifications related thereto including the improvements, budgets, parcels and assessments to be levied for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, pursuant to the City’s Resolution of Intention. Reference is hereby made to the Orange County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the District. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated this ________ day of _________, 2024.

By:_____________________________________
Frank Sun
Assistant Public Works Director/ City Engineer

828
3 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ENGINEER’S REPORT .......................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4 PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................... 6 A. Description of the District ...................................................................................................... 6 B. Improvements and Services .................................................................................................... 6 PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ............................................................ 7 A. Background ............................................................................................................................... 7 B. Method of Assessment ............................................................................................................ 7 C. Financial Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET ................................................................................. 10 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS .............................................................................. 12 PART V — ASSESSMENT ROLL ................................................................................... 14

829
4 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 o f Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing wit h Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “1972 Act”), and in compliance with the substantive and p rocedural requirements of the California State Constitution Articles XIIIC and XIIID (hereafter referred to as the “California Constitut ion”) , the City Council of the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California (hereafter referred to as “City”), in connection with the annual levy and collection o f assessments of the special benefit assessment district designated as:

Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
(hereafter referred to as the “District”), which includes all lots and parcels of land that specially benefit from the improvements within the District. This Engineer’s Report (hereafter referred to as “Report”) has been prepared in connection with the annual levy and collections of assessments for said District pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 of the 1972 Act.

The City Council proposes to levy and collect annua l assessments on the County tax rolls to provide ongoing funding for the costs and expenses required to service and maintain the landscaping improvements originally installed in connection wit h the development of properties within the District. The improvements to be provided by the Di strict and the assessments described herein are made pursuant to the 1972 Act.

This Report describes the District, the improvement s, and the proposed assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 against properties in connect ion with the special benefits the properties will receive from the maintenance and servicing of the District improvements. The annual assessments to be levied on properties within the District will pr ovide a funding source for the continued operation and maintenance of local landscaping improvements installed in connection with the development of properties within the District. The assessments des cribed in this Report are based on an estimate of the direct expenditures, incidental expenses, and fund balances that will be necessary to maintain and service the improvements.

The word “parcel,” for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) by the Orange County Assessor’s Office. The Orange County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to identify properties to be assessed on the tax roll for the special benefit assessments.

This Report has been prepared and presented to the City Council to address any proposed changes to the District or improvements, if any, and the proposed budget and assessments for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025. The City Council will conduct a noticed public hearing to consider public testimonies, comments and written protests regarding the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, if majority protest does not exist the City Council may approve this Report (as submitted or amended) and levy the asses sments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. In such case, the assessments for fiscal year 2024-2025 shall be submitted to the Orange County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for each par cel. If the proposed annual assessments for this District exceed the maximum assessment described herein (as approved by the property owners), the new or increased assessment must be confirmed throu gh another property owner protest ballot proceeding before such an assessment may be imposed.
830
5 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

This Report consists of five (5) parts:

Part I
Plans and Specifications: A description of the District boundaries and the improvements associated with the District. The District has been formed as a single benefit zone encompassing all properties within the territory identified as Landscape and Maintenance District No 94-1.

Part II
The Method of Apportionment: A discussion of benefits the improvements and servi ces provide to properties within the District and the method of calculating each property’s proportional special benefit and annual assessment.

Part III
The District Budget: An estimate of the annual costs to operate, maintai n and service the landscaping and appurtenant facilities installed an d constructed as part of the development of properties within the District. This budget includes an estimate of anticipated direct maintenance costs and incidental expenses. The special benefit assess ments are based on the overall operation costs minus any costs that are considered general benefit. The proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025, and each subsequent year shall be based on th e estimated net annual cost of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements for that fiscal year as well as funds to be collected in installments to perform maintenance activities that cannot be reasonably collected in a single fiscal year’s assessments.

Part IV
District Diagram: A Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Di strict is provided in this Report and includes all parcels that will receive special benefits from the improvements. Reference is hereby made to the Orange County Assessor’s Parcel Maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District.

Part V
Assessment Roll: A listing of the proposed assessment amounts to be levied on Assessor’s Parcel within the District for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The proposed assessment amount for each parcel is based on the parcel’s proportional special benefit as outlined in the method of apportionment. 831
6 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. Description of the District
The assessment district boundary is shown on a map entitled Assessment Diagram, Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1, City of Orange, which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Orange.

A reduced scale copy of the Diagram can be found in Part IV of this document.

All parcels of real property affected are more particularly described in maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which are on file in the Office of the Orange County Assessor, and which are made a part of this report by reference.

B. Improvements and Services

Improvements and Services Permitted Pursuant to the 1972 Act The location of the works of improvement to be maintained under these proceedings is described as follows:

A. Lot E Tract 14752 - Generally a 23-foot wide strip of land along the northerly upper banks of Santiago Creek within Tract 14752;
B. Lot F Tract 14752 - Generally a 55-foot wide strip of land along the southerly upper banks of Santiago Creek with Tract 14752;
C. Lot C Tract 14752 - Generally an irregular shaped parcel adjacent to Lot F Tract 14752.

A general description of the works of improvement to be maintained under these proceedings are those generally described as follows:

A. Ornamental shrubs, trees, and ground cover
B. Habitat area including natural shrubs, trees, and ground cover C. Complete irrigation system including pipes, valves, sprinkler heads, and controller D. Soil cement erosion protection

The following items are excluded from the Maintenance District:

A. The center low flow channel of Santiago Creek.

B. Complete recreation trail/maintenance road including asphalt, signing, striping, and lighting.

Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to:

A. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any included improvement; B. Providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and treating for disease or injury; and C. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. 832
7 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. Background
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 provides t hat assessments may be apportioned by any formula or method, which fairly distributes costs a mong all lots or parcels within the district in proportion to the estimated benefits received. It i s necessary to identify the special benefit that th e Works of Improvement will render to the properties within the Assessment District. It is also necessary that the properties receive a special and direct benefit as distinguished from benefit to th e general public.

B. Method of Assessment
Identify the Special Benefit

First of all, it is necessary to identify the special benefit that the public improvement will render to the properties within the boundaries of Landscape Maint enance District No. 94-1. The improvements consist of landscaping and a recreation trail/maint enance road along the upper banks of Santiago Creek. The creek was a natural flood control channe l running through Tentative Tract 14752. As a condition for developing the tract, it was necessar y to improve the creek to provide 100-year flood protection consistent with the National Flood Insur ance Program. Alternative designs were looked at ranging from a concrete lined channel to a multi-use natural looking channel. The later was chosen to provide a visually pleasing channel with landsca ping along both banks, erosion control bank protection, a useful recreation trail and a maintenance road. An interesting biotic habitat was added to fulfill 404 & 401 permit requirements.

The Orange County Flood Control District owns and m aintains the center 96-foot wide low flow channel. The City of Orange owns and LMD 94-1 maintains 23 feet on the north side and 55 feet on the south side of the channel.

The special and direct benefits that each property owner will receive are:

• The Landscape Maintenance District fulfills the fin ancial obligation of the property owners to maintain the improvements in Santiago Creek installed by the Tract development and as required by Conditional Use Permit 2088-94, condition of app roval of Tract 15053 and the Development Agreement for Sycamore Crossing.
• A pleasing landscape visible at the entrance to the tract. • Enhanced desirability of district properties through association with the improvements. • Enhancement of the urban environment by providing open space and landscaping. • Necessary flood protection provided by the improvements. • Improved erosion resistance, dust control and fire prevention. • There are many homes in the District that back up t o Santiago Creek and the landscape improvement. Their back fences are made of wrought iron so they can enjoy the beauty and spaciousness of the landscape improvement.
833
8 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

Prior to 2011, the recreation trail, which begins within the Tract boundary and provides direct access to Hart Park, a City park with numerous recreation facilities, was considered as a special benefit. The recreation trail has been extended through the District and is now incorporated into the City regional trail system. This altered the special benefit of t he recreation trail within the District. District f unds are no longer used for the maintenance of the trail pavement, stripping and rail safety fence.

Apportionment of Cost

In further making the analysis, it is necessary tha t the property owners receive a special and direct benefit distinguished from that of the general public. In this case, an in-depth analysis was made, and several factors are being used in the final method and spread of assessments. In analyzing the overall district, it is noted that there are two types of d evelopment. There are 160 single family detached residential units on the north side of Santiago Cre ek and a 1.385 acre commercial site on the south side recently developed with senior housing.

All 160 residential units are relatively the same except for the fact that 36 units back up to the landscape improvement. The developer has placed an approximat e 2% lot premium on these lots. This same differential was used in determining the assessment. A unit cost factor of 1.02 is assigned to these 3 6 units and the remaining 124 units have a cost facto r of 1.0. The commercial site has been developed as low income housing for senior citizens.

The unit cost for the current FY 2023-2024 is $293. 08 per unit for a total levy of $47,877.49. No increase is recommended for fiscal year 2024-2025. The levy will remain at $293.08. Therefore, the assessment levied on the 124 interior residential units will be $293.08, and for the 36 residential units along the channel it will be $298.94. In analyzing the special benefit to the senior citizen housing site we recognize the fact that seniors are generally not mobile enough to use the bike and pedestrian trail and therefore have limited access to the landscape improvement. The special benefit is limited to the visibility of the landscaping from the north facing units. With this in mind, a unit cost factor of 2. 04 was assigned to the seniors housing site and the assessment levied will be $597.88. Since the enactment of Prop 218, publicly owned property within the District is no longer exempt from assessment. There are two lots within the boundaries of the District that are owned by the City of Orange. One is a small lot to be used in the future for a domestic water well. The other is a larger lot that will some day be used for recreation purposes. The special benefi t to these lots is minimal at this time. A unit cos t factor of 0.20 is assigned to the well site and a unit cost factor of 0.40 to the recreation site. The City will be levied $58.62 and $117.23 respectively. The total of the assessments levied on all the parcels will be $47,877.49.

834
9 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1

C. Financial Analysis
The facilities, which are to be maintained by this landscape maintenance district, were installed by the developer of Tract No. 14752. The estimated costs of maintenance, operation, and administration of the facilities are shown in Part III.

Resolution 8462 approved Condition Use permit 2088- 94 for Tentative Tract 15053 and Resolution 8463 approved Tentative Tract Map 15053, which is a part of Tract 14751. Both resolutions contain the following condition:

“To the satisfaction of the City of Orange’s Public Works Department and City Engineer, prior to the recordation of Final Tract M ap 15053, the City shall form a landscape maintenance district which shall include the project for the purpose of levying and collecting an assessment to maintain the open space dedicated to the City by Tentative Tract 14752 and defining in Exhibit E- 1 of the development agreement for this project. Said assessment shall not exceed the sum of $28.00 per month per residential unit in the project but may increase an nually in accordance with the applicable increase maintenance cost index as provi ded in the Engineering News Record or such other comparable index as the partie s shall agree. The future homeowner’s contributions (financial payments) towards the maintenance of Santiago Creek open space shall be included in the disclosure requirement to future buyers.”

The individual 2024-2025 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's Parcel Number, are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Orange, and can be found in Part V, Assessment Roll.

The 1972 Act permits carrying forward surpluses or recovering deficits in subsequent fiscal years.

Costs for the District are reviewed annually and su bsequent year's assessments will be credited or debited, as necessary.

The total assessment to be levied for fiscal year 2024-2025 by the district is recommended to be $47,877.49. This assessment is the same as fiscal year 2023-2024.

The assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1, City of Orange, have been apportioned in direct accordance with the special a nd direct benefits that each parcel receives from the maintenance, operation, and administration of the Works of Improvement. 835
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
10 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET
The following budget outlines the estimated costs to maintain the improvements for 2024-2025.

ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 94-1
City of Orange

ESTIMATED COSTS

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FUND BALANCE FROM PRIOR YEA RS
Estimated Fund Balance as of March 2024 $118,330

The estimated budget necessary for the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year for the District is as follows:

BUDGET ITEM COST

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Salaries & Benefits

$7,407
Telephone $0
Water $7,500
Electricity $400
Landscape Maintenance $17,944
Landscape Maintenance, Irrigation Repairs $0
Landscape Maintenance, Landscape Repairs $0
Other Professional & Consulting $500
Contractual Services, Tree Trimming Contract $9,985
Contractual Services, Electrical Maintenance $0
Contractual Services, Misc. Contract Services $1,500
Office Supplies & Operating Expenses $0
City Administrative Services $2,460
TOTAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES $47,696
836
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
11 SURPLUS FUNDS TO BE ADDED TO RESERVE $181

● This Budget Estimate is for the purpose of establis hing an Annual Assessment. It may vary from the adopted City Budge t. All assessments collected by the District may only be used for Dist rict expenditures regardless of the Budget Estimate.

BALANCE TO LEVY (maximum assessment) $47,877
837
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
12 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS
The following diagram incorporates all parcels within the District, as the same existed at the time this Report was prepared. The combination of this map and the Assessment Roll contained in this Report constitute the Assessment Diagram for the Landscape and Maintenance District No. 94-1, also known as Sycamore Crossing.
838
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
13 839
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 94-1
14 PART V — ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District is based on available parcel maps and property data from the Orange County Assessor’s Off ice, as they existed at the time this Engineer’s Report was prepared and the City Council adopted th e Resolution of Intention. A listing of the lots and parcels to be assessed within this District along with the assessment amounts is provided herein.

If any parcel submitted for collection is identifie d by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the fiscal year, a corrected parc el number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Co ntroller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel or parcels shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate described in this Report as app roved by the City Council. Therefore, if a single parcel is subdivided to multiple parcels, the asses sment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment for the parcel.

The following is a list of the parcels and proposed assessment amounts for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for each of the parcels within the District as determin ed by the assessment rates and method of apportionment described herein:
840
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.4. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0266
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider approval of the Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 86-2 (Santiago Hills), and 15-1 (Santiago Hills Overlay) Final Engineer’sReports for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025. Resolution No. 11551.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution 11551 is the second step and will complete the process of the annual assessment for Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 86-2 (Santiago Hills) and 15-1 (Santiago Hills Overlay). The total assessments to be levied from 86-2 and 15-1 for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 are $533,651 and $378,606, respectively. The annual assessment per unit for 86-2 will remain at $369.44 for a single family detached unit and $221.66 for a condominium. For 15-1, staff recommends a 3.0% Consumer Price Index adjustment, the maximum allowed, which increases per unit assessment from $263.27 to $271.17 for a single family detached unit and from $186.92 to $192.53 for condominiums.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 11551. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving the Engineer’s Reports and providing for the annual assessment for Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 86-2 (Santiago Hills) and 15-1 (Santiago Hills Overlay).

2. Establish the assessment per single family detached unit per year for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 86-2 (Santiago Hills) and 15-1 (Santiago Hills Overlay) at $369.44 and $271.17 respectively for single family detached, and $221.66 and $192.53 respectively for condominiums.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. The approval of the annual assessment for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 will generate $938,814 with a proposed expenditure of $938,086 in the Santiago Hills Landscape Maintenance Assessment District (291) Fund.
291.0000.40350.0000 Assessment 86-2 $533,651
291.0000.40360.0000 Assessment 15-1 $378,606
291.7026.48230.0000 Reimbursement $ 26,557
Total $938,814
City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
841
Item #: 7.4. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0266

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community a: Renovate, maintain, develop and/or expand public use places and spaces.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
In 1987, Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 86-2 (LMD 86-2) was established to maintain the landscape improvements constructed by Assessment District 86-1 in Santiago Hills. Annually, a detailed accounting of expenses is compiled, and a new assessment is calculated for the benefitting property owners.

This year’s assessment for a single family detached unit is $369.44. The assessment for a condominium is $221.66. This is the same as last year and the largest assessment currently allowed.

Revenue in the District is derived from assessments paid by property owners, both residential and commercial, as well as the Rancho Santiago Community College District who reimburses the District for the cost to maintain the parkways adjacent to the school.

On April 14, 2015, the City Council approved the formation of a new district (LMD 15-1) to exactly overlay the existing LMD 86-2 and to provide additional funding necessary to serve the District. The annual assessment for LMD 15-1 was approved by the property owners on June 9, 2015.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (FY25) budget for the combined LMD 86-2 and LMD 15-1 indicates the amount of funding required to maintain the Districts landscape and provides a capital budget to replace aging landscaping and infrastructure over time. Additional revenues to fully fund the Districts would be obtained through the overlay district, LMD 15-1, and a separate agreement with the Rancho Santiago Community College District. The existing LMD 86-2 will stay at the maximum assessment; however, the assessment for LMD 15-1 will include a 3.0% Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase. The Assessment for LMD 15-1 is permitted to increase annually consistent with CPI increases for the Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim area that is 3.5% as of December 2023.

Public Works Department staff recommends assessing the CPI adjustment for FY25 the maximum

3.0% allowed, to continue capital renovations of the aging landscape. The annual assessment for 15- 1 for a single family detached unit will increase by $7.90 from $263.27 to $271.17. The annual assessment for 15-1 condominiums will increase by $5.61 from $186.92 to $192.53.

The maximum assessment total for LMD 86-2 for FY25 is $533,651. The assessment total for LMD 15-1 for FY25 is $378,606 including the 3.0% CPI adjustment. Revenues of $26,557 from Rancho Santiago Community College District are included as a reimbursement for landscape maintenance costs paid by LMD 86-2 and LMD 15-1. This totals $938,814 in revenue. Expenditures in FY25 are anticipated to be approximately $938,086 which is $728 less than revenues. Excess funds will be used to supplement the reserve fund balance. The City continues to actively work with District residents on developing a renovation plan for their 30 year old landscape that is both fiscally and environmentally sustainable. The projected FY24 combined year-end reserve fund balance is $523,760, which takes into account an anticipated $600,000 capital replacement project during FY24.

The attached Final Engineer’s Report contains detailed information about the assessment.

Each year, the process for setting the assessment of the Landscape Maintenance Districts is initiated. The process began on April 23, 2024 with the City Council’sApproval of Resolution No. 11540 which approved the Preliminary Engineer’sReports for LMD 86-2 and 15-1, and set May 28, 2024 as the date for the public hearing. This public hearing is the second step in the process and is City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
842
Item #: 7.4. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0266
2024 as the date for the public hearing. This public hearing is the second step in the process and is held in accordance with the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Act of 1972 as outlined in the “Order of Procedure”. At this time, property owners will have an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11551
· Final Engineer’s Report - Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2 · Final Engineer’s Report - Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1 City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
843
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 7.4. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0266
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community a: Renovate, maintain, develop and/or expand public use places and spaces.

This year’s assessment for a single family detached unit is $369.44. The assessment for a condominium is $221.66. This is the same as last year and the largest assessment currently allowed.

Public Works Department staff recommends assessing the CPI adjustment for FY25 the maximum

The attached Final Engineer’s Report contains detailed information about the assessment.

Each year, the process for setting the assessment of the Landscape Maintenance Districts is initiated. The process began on April 23, 2024 with the City Council’sApproval of Resolution No. 11540 which approved the Preliminary Engineer’sReports for LMD 86-2 and 15-1, and set May 28, 2024 as the date for the public hearing. This public hearing is the second step in the process and is City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
845
Item #: 7.4. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0266
2024 as the date for the public hearing. This public hearing is the second step in the process and is held in accordance with the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Act of 1972 as outlined in the “Order of Procedure”. At this time, property owners will have an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S

REPORT AND PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL

ASSESSMENT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICTS 86-2 (SANTIAGO HILLS ) AND 15-1
(SANTIAGO HILLS OVERLAY)

WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated proceedings for the levy of the annual assessment for the Assessment District; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange as follows:

Section I:

That the above recitals are all true and correct.

Section II:

That all protests and objections of every kind and nature by, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied.

Section III:

847
2 Section IV:

Section V:

The City Clerk shall immediately accomplish the following:

B. Cause to be filed a certified copy of a diagram and assessment with the County Auditor, said filing to be completed no later than the 3rd Monday in August.

Section VI:

ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2024

Daniel R. Slater, Mayor, City of Orange

ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mike Vigliotta, City Attorney

848
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

849
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
1 CITY OF ORANGE
FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT

FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 86-2
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 86-2

SANTIAGO HILLS

Intent Meeting: April 23, 202 4
Public Hearing: May 28 , 202 4

LMD 86-2 Final ER FY 2024-25
850
851
3 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ENGINEER’S REPORT ........................................................ 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................. 6 A. Description of the District .................................................................................................... 6 B. Improvements and Services .................................................................................................. 6 PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ......................................................... 10 A. General .................................................................................................................................. 10 B. Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................................... 10 C. Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................... 12 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET ................................................................................ 14 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS ............................................................................. 16 PART V — ASSESSMENT ROLL .................................................................................. 18

852
4 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 o f Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “1972 Act”), and in compliance with the substantive and p rocedural requirements of the California State Constitution Articles XIIIC and XIIID (hereafter referred to as the “California Constitut ion”) , the City Council of the City of Orange, County of Orange, St ate of California (hereafter referred to as “City”), in connection with the annual levy and col lection of assessments of the special benefit assessment district designated as:

Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
(hereafter referred to as the “District”), which in cludes all lots and parcels of land that specially benefit from the improvements within the District. This Engineer’s Report (hereafter referred to as “Report”) has been prepared in connection with the annual levy and collections of assessments for said District pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 of the 1972 Act.

This Report describes the District, the improvement s, and the proposed assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 against properties in connect ion with the special benefits the properties will receive from the maintenance and servicing of the D istrict improvements. The annual assessments to be levied on properties within the District will provide a funding source for the continued operation and maintenance of local landscaping impr ovements installed in connection with the development of properties within the District. The assessments described in this Report are based on an estimate of the direct expenditures, incident al expenses, and fund balances that will be necessary to maintain and service the improvements.

The word “parcel,” for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) by the Orange County Assessor’s Office. The Orange County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers a nd specific Fund Numbers to identify properties to be assessed on the tax roll for the special benefit assessments.

This Report has been prepared and presented to the City Council to address any proposed changes to the District or improvements, if any, and the pr oposed budget and assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The City Council will conduct a noticed public hearing to consider public testimonies, comments and written protests regarding the levy an d collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, i f majority protest does not exist the City Council may approve this Report (as submitted or am ended) and levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. In such case, the assessments for f iscal year 2024-2025 shall be submitted to the Orange County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on t he property tax roll for each parcel. If the proposed annual assessments for this District excee d the maximum assessment described herein (as approved by the property owners), the new or increa sed assessment must be confirmed through another property owner protest ballot proceeding before such an assessment may be imposed.

This Report consists of five (5) parts:
853
5 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

Part I
Plans and Specifications: A description of the District boundaries and the im provements associated with the District. The District is being formed as a single benefit zone encompassing all properties within the territory identified as Landscape and Maintenance District No 86-2.

Part III
The District Budget: An estimate of the annual costs to operate, maintai n and service the landscaping and appurtenant facilities installed an d constructed as part of the development of properties within the District. This budget include s an estimate of anticipated direct maintenance costs and incidental expenses. The special benefit assessments are based on the overall operation costs minus any costs that are considered general b enefit. The proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, and each subsequent year shall be based on the estimated net annual cost of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements for that fiscal year as well as funds to be collected in installments to perform maintenance activities that cannot be reasonably collected in a single fiscal year’s assessments.

Part V
Assessment Roll: A listing of the proposed assessment amounts to be levied on Assessor’s Parcel within the District for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The proposed assessment amount for each parcel is based on the parcel’s proportional special benefit as outlined in the method of apportionment. 854
6 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. Description of the District
The assessment district boundary is shown on a map entitled Assessment Diagram, Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2, City of Orange, whic h is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Orange. A reduced scale copy of the Diagram can be found in Part IV of this document.

B. Improvements and Services

Improvements and Services Permitted Pursuant to the 1972 Act As generally defined by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and applicable to this District, the improvements and associated assessments may include one or more of the following:
1) The installation or planting of landscaping;
2) The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities;
3) The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof; 4) The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
a) Land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage.
b) Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms. 5) The maintenance or servicing, of any of the foregoi ng including the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, o peration, and servicing of any improvement including but not limited to:
a) Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvements; b) Grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities; c) Providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; d) The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; e) The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti;
f) Electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; g) Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
6) Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
855
7 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

a) The cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
b) Compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; c) Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; d) Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements;

Description of Planned Improvements
The landscape improvements are generally described as follows:
a) Parkway and Recreation Areas:
• Newport Boulevard - approximately 18-foot wide zone (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on the east side from Chapman Avenue to 312 feet south of the centerline of Skylark Place.
• Chapman Avenue - approximately 18-foot wide zone (i ncluding the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on south side from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • Canyon View Avenue - approximately 30-foot wide zon es (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on both sides from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • White Oak Ridge – approximately 17-foot wide zones (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on both sides from Newport Boulevard to Canyon View Avenue. • Trails End Lane - approximately 17-foot wide zone o n the west side and approximately 28- to 32-foot wide zone on the east side (includin g the width of the sidewalks), both zones from the back of the curb to the property lin e, and corner cutoffs at intersections, from White Oak Ridge to Chapman Avenue.
• Handy Creek Corridor - from the intersection of Cha pman Avenue and Newport Boulevard to White Oak Ridge and from White Oak Rid ge to the intersection of Canyon View Avenue and Handy Creek Road (Lot 20, a portion of Lot 11, and Lot D of Tract No. 12417) including concrete walkways which also serve as emergency access ways. • Paseo - approximately 50-foot wide zone from the Pa rk to White Oak Ridge and from White Oak Ridge to Old Camp Road (Lots A and B of T ract No. 12417) and approximately 35-foot wide zone from the Paseo to W hite Oak Ridge (Lot C of Tract No. 12417) including surface and subsurface drainag e facilities and concrete walkways which also serve as emergency access ways.
• Handy Creek Road - approximately 10-foot wide zone (including the width of the sidewalks) on south side from the back of the curb to the property line form the end of Handy Creek Corridor (Lot D, Tract No. 12417) near Canyon View Avenue to the northerly terminus of the street.
856
8 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

• Fort Road - approximately 17-foot wide zones (inclu ding the width of the sidewalks) from the back of the curb to the property line on s outh side from White Oak Ridge to Jamboree Road.
• Santiago Canyon Road - approximately 18-foot wide z one (including the width of the sidewalk) from back of curb to back of sidewalk on north and south sides from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road.
• Old Camp Road - approximately 4-foot wide zones fro m back of curb to property line on both sides from Canyon View Avenue to the northerly terminus of the street. • Skylark Place - approximately 18-foot wide zones (i ncluding the width of the sidewalk) from back of the curb to the property line on both sides from White Oak Ridge to Newport Boulevard.
• Jamboree Road - variable width zone (including the width of the bike trail-sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line on t he west side from Canyon View Avenue to Chapman Avenue.
• Additional Areas - areas adjacent to the 18-foot wi de zones along Skylark Place, Chapman Avenue, and Jamboree Road have been dedicat ed to the City with tracts 12672,12741,12711,15398 and PM 92-195. Such areas h ave been landscaped by the developers and the sprinkler systems tied into the District's. b) Medians
• Chapman Avenue - 14-foot wide median from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • White Oak Ridge - 14-foot wide medians at Newport B oulevard and Canyon View Avenue.
• Trails End Lane - 14-foot wide median from White Oak Ridge to Chapman Avenue. • Jamboree Road - 24-foot wide median from southerly City limits to Santiago Canyon Road.
• Santiago Canyon Road - Variable width from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • Newport Boulevard - 22-foot wide median from Chapma n Avenue to Santiago Canyon Road.
c) The following items are excluded from the Maintenance District:
• The 8 +/- acre Santiago Hills Park is excluded from this Landscape Maintenance District. • Sidewalks along all Maintenance District streets ar e excluded from this Landscape Maintenance District.
• The equestrian trail along Canyon View Avenue is ex cluded from this Landscape Maintenance District.
857
9 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2

d) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to:
• repair, removal, replacement or installation of all or any part of any included improvement such as storm drains and pedestrian walkways in the paseos; • providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and treating for disease or injury; and • the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.

The maintenance of the District improvements genera lly include, but are not limited to all materials, equipment, utilities, labor and incidental expenses including administrative expenses for annual operation of the District as well as the performance of occasional repairs, replacement and expanded maintenance activities associated with those improv ements. Detailed maps and descriptions of the location and extent of the improvements to be maint ained by the District are on file at the City and by reference are made part of this Report.

The estimated annual cost to provide and maintain t he improvements within the District shall be allocated to each property in proportion to the spe cial benefits received. The Method of Apportionment described in this Report utilizes commonly accepted assessment engineering practices and has been established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the provisions of the California Constitution. 858
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
10 PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. General
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessmen t districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the construction, maintenance, and servicing of public landscaping and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formu la or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to th e estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”

The method of apportionment described in this Repor t for allocation of special benefit assessments utilizes commonly accepted engineering practices and have been established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the provisions of the California Constitution. The formula used for calculating assessments in this District reflect the composition of the parcels, and the improvements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on benefit to each parcel.

B. Benefit Analysis
Each of the proposed improvements, the associated c osts and assessments have been carefully reviewed, identified and allocated based on special benefit pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution and 1972 Act. The improvements provided by this District and for which properties will be assessed have been identified as necessary, required and/or desired for the orderly development of the residential properties within the District to t heir full potential. As such, the ongoing operation , servicing and maintenance of these improvements would be the financial obligation of those properties.

Therefore, the improvements and the annual costs of ensuring the maintenance and operation of the improvements are a distinct and special benefit to the residential properties within the District.

Special Benefit
The method of apportionment (method of assessment) established herein is based on the premise that each assessed parcel within the District receives s pecial benefits from the improvements and the desirability and security of those properties is enhanced by the presence of well-maintained landscaping in close proximity to those properties.

The special benefits associated with the landscaping and open space improvements are specifically:
• Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the improvements. • Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive representation of the area and properties.
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment from adequate green space and landscaping.
• Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.
• Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the District resulting from well- maintained improvements associated with the properties. 859
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
11 • Enhanced quality of life through well-maintained green space and landscaped areas. • Reduced criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the District through well-maintained surrounding s and amenities including abatement of graffiti.
• Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by m oderating temperatures, providing oxygenation and attenuating noise.

The parkways and medians consist of landscaped areas along the edge of or within the middle of streets and highways in the District. The District also has landscaped corridors extending through the developed area, which provide access to Santiago Hills Park. The improvements in these areas consist of trees, shrubs, ornamental vegetation, and appurtenant improvements.

The improvements extend throughout the development area and serve several purposes. The landscaped parkways along the streets and highways enhance the public walkways throughout the District and allow pedestrian access to the residents in the area. These parkways also provide passive and active recreational uses as well as the aesthet ic enhancement for the total development area.

Landscaped median islands also provide similar enhancements for the residents in the area.

The landscaped recreation/pedestrian corridors throughout the District provide for open space and recreational uses, which connect to the park site throughout the development area. Besides contributing to the active and passive recreation use in the are a, the corridors aesthetically enhance the area within the District.

Maintenance of these public improvements primarily renders a people oriented benefit to the properties within the boundaries of the District and, as such, relates to the number of persons in each dwelling unit on each property. These benefits are direct and special to the properties within the District.

The preceding special benefits all contribute to the overall esthetic value and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby pr ovide a special enhancement to these properties.

Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack o f funding to properly service and maintain the improvements would likely have a direct negative impact on the properties within the District.

General Benefit
In reviewing the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District as well as the reasons for installing and constructing suc h improvements, it is evident that the improvements are solely the result of developing properties within the District and the ongoing maintenance and operation of these improvements will directly affect the properties within the District. Although the improv ements are visible to the public at large, the construction and installation of these improvements were necessary for the development of properties within the District and are not required nor necess arily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public access or use of the improvements by others is incidental.

Therefore, it has been determined that the improvements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those improvements provide no measurab le general benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large, but clearly provide distinct and special benefits to properties within the District.
860
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
12 C. Assessment Methodology
The benefit formula used to determine the assessment obligation for each parcel should be based upon both the improvements that benefit the parcels as well as the use of each property as compared to other parcels that benefit from those specific improvements. The method of apportionment established for most benefit assessment districts utilizes a weight ed method of apportionment known as an Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) methodology The Equiv alent Benefit Unit method of apportionment uses the single-family home site as the basic unit of assessment. A single-family residential property equals one Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”). Every other la nd use is converted to EBUs based on an assessment formula that equates the property’s specific development status, type of development (land use), and size of the property, as compared to a single-family home site.

The EBU method of apportioning benefit is typically seen as the most appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for districts formed under the 1972 Act, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements are apportioned as a function of land use type, size and development.

EBU Application by Land Use:

Single-Family Residential — This land use is defined as a fully subdivided re sidential home site with or without a structure. This land use is assessed 1.0 EBU per lot or parcel. This is the base value that the other land use types are compared and weighted against (i.e. Equivalent Benefit Unit or EBU).

Multi-Family Residential — This land use is defined as a fully subdivided re sidential parcel that has more than one residential unit developed on the property. This land use is assessed 0.6 EBU per dwelling unit.

Mixed Use Property — This land use is defined as property developed fo r either commercial or industrial use. This land use type is assessed at 11.0 EBUs per gross acre.

Exempt Parcels — This land use identifies properties that are not assessed and are assigned 0.0 EBU.

This land use classification may include, but is not limited, to lots or parcels identified as public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN b y the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and right-of-ways including greenbelts and parkways; utility right-of-ways; common areas, sliver parcels and bifurcated lots or any other pro perty that cannot be developed; park properties and other publicly owned properties that are part of th e District improvements or that have little or no improvement value. These types of parcels are consi dered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore exempted from assessment.

Lots 9, 10, 11, 15, and 19 of Tract No. 12417 have been assigned 0.0 EBU because they have been excluded from the District. The cost of maintaining the landscape improvements on these publicly owned parcels is not paid by the District but rather from the general fund of the public agency owning the parcel. Therefore, these publicly owned parcels do not receive any special benefit from the District.

The following table provides a listing of land use types, land use code designations, the Equivalent Benefit Unit factor applied to that land use type, and the multiplying factor used to calculate each parcel’s individual EBU.
861
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
13 Land Use Codes and Equivalent Benefit Units

Property Type Equivalent Benefit
Unit
Multiplier
Single-family Residential 1.000 Unit/Lot/Parcel
Multi-family Residential 0.600 Units/Dwelling Units
Mixed Use 11.000 Acreage
Exempt 0.000 Parcel

The benefit formula applied to parcels within the D istrict is based on the preceding Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) table. Each parcel's EBU correla tes the parcel’s special benefit received as compared to the other parcels benefiting from the improvements.

The following formula is used to calculate each parcel’s EBU (proportional benefit).

Parcel Type EBU x Multiplier (Acres or Unit) = Parcel’s EBU The total number of Equivalent Benefit Units (EBUs) is the sum of all individual EBUs applied to parcels that receive a special benefit from the imp rovement. An assessment amount per EBU (Rate) for each improvement is established by taking the t otal cost of the improvement and dividing that amount by the total number of EBUs of parcels benef iting from the improvement. This Rate is then applied back to each parcel’s individual EBU to det ermine the parcel’s proportionate benefit and assessment obligation for that improvement.

The Maximum allowable assessment rate of $369.44 EB U (single family) generates an assessment total of $533,650.77.

Total Balance to Levy / Total EBU = Assessment Rate per EBU Assessment Rate per EBU x Parcel’s EBU = Parcel’s Assessment

862
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
14 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET
The following budget outlines the estimated costs to maintain the improvements for 2024-2025.

ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 86-2
City of Orange

ESTIMATED COSTS

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FUND BALANCE FROM PRIOR YEA RS
Estimated Fund Balance (Includes 15-1 & 86-2) as of March 2024 $1,123,760 The estimated budget necessary for the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year for the District is as follows:

BUDGET ITEM COST

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Landscaping $383,562
Tree Trimming $145,870
Electrical Maintenance $40,000
Misc. Contract Services $0
Repair/ Maintenance Services $82,051
Supplies $5,300
Other Professional Services $1,000
Telephone $1,000
Electricity $13,000
Water $168,000
Salaries & Benefits $51,842
City Administrative Services $46,461
Capital Replacement/ Dedicated Reserves $0
TOTAL EST. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES $938, 086

ESTIMATED REVENUE
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2 $533,651
Rancho Santiago Community College District $26,557
Proposed Benefit Assessment FY 2024/25 (LMD 15-1)
(See LMD 15-1 Engineer’s Report for specifics)
• CPI Adjustment (Current Year 3.0%)
• Unused CPI Adjustment (Carry over from prior years)

$367,579
$11,027
$0
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $938,814

863
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
15 SURPLUS FUNDS TO BE ADDED TO RESERVES

$728

●This Budget Estimate is for the purpose of establis hing an Annual Assessment. It may vary from the adopted City Budge t. All assessments collected by the District may only be used for Dist rict expenditures regardless of the Budget Estimate.

BALANCE TO LEVY FOR 86-2 $533,651
864
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
16 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS
The parcels within the Landscape Maintenance Distri ct No 86-2 consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land located in the planned residential development known as Santiago Hills.

The following diagram incorporates all parcels with in the District, as the same existed at the time this Report was prepared. The combination of this m ap and the Assessment Roll contained in this Report constitute the Assessment Diagram for the Landscape and Maintenance District No. 86-2. 865
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
17 866
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2
18 PART V — ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District is based on available parcel maps and property data from the Orange County Assessor’s Off ice, as they existed at the time this Engineer’s Report was prepared and the City Council adopted th e Resolution of Intention. A listing of the lots and parcels to be assessed within this District along with the assessment amounts is provided herein.

The following is a list of the parcels and proposed assessment amounts for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for each of the parcels within the District as dete rmined by the assessment rates and method of apportionment described herein:
867
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
1 CITY OF ORANGE
FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT

FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY

ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 15-1
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 15-1

SANTIAGO HILLS

Intent Meeting: April 23, 202 4
Public Hearing: May 28 , 202 4

LMD 15-1 Final ER FY 2024-25
868
869
3 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ENGINEER’S REPORT .................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 4 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 4 District’s Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 4 Assessment Background ........................................................................................................... 4 PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 5 FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ESTIMATE OF COST AND BUDGET ............................. 8 Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 ............................................................................................... 8 METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ...................................................................... 10 Method of Apportionment .................................................................................................... 10 Discussion of Benefit .............................................................................................................. 10 Benefit Factors ......................................................................................................................... 11 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................................ 14 Zones of Benefit ...................................................................................................................... 17 Method of Assessment ........................................................................................................... 18 Residential Properties ............................................................................................................. 19 Commercial Properties ........................................................................................................... 20 Vacant/Undeveloped Properties........................................................................................... 21 Other Properties ...................................................................................................................... 21 Annual Cost Indexing ............................................................................................................. 22 Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property ....................................................................... 22 Assessment Funds Must Be Expended Within the District Area .................................... 23 ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 24 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ...................................................................................... 25 ASSESSMENT ROLL .............................................................................................. 27

870
4 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

INTRODUCTION
Overview
The City of Orange (the “City”) services and maintains perimeter and median landscaping, interior walkways and paseos, and other improvements (“Impro vements”) in the Santiago Hills neighborhoods in the eastern part of the City. This Engineer’s Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the Improvements (as descr ibed below) that will be funded by the new 2024-2025 assessments, if approved, and other reven ue, to determine the general and special benefits received from the Improvements by property within the Improvement District (“District”), and to determine the method of assess ment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Stree ts and Highways Code (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).

Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 15-1 was f ormed in 2015. This assessment district is identical to the existing Landscape Maintenance Dis trict No. 86-2 in its geographic boundaries, parcels to be assessed, Improvements to be serviced , maintained, or repaired and budgeted cost centers. The assessments collected, if approved, wi ll be in addition to those collected for Landscape Maintenance District 86-2.

District’s Facilities
The City’s landscape facilities to be funded by ass essments within this District are located in the Santiago Hills neighborhoods of the City. The Impro vements generally include entrance signs, traffic islands and medians, parkways, recreation a reas, paseos, lighting, and the infrastructure required to support these Improvements.

Assessment Background
The City formed Landscape Maintenance District No. 86-2 in 1987 to service and maintain the specific landscape facilities and improvements rele vant to this report. Revenues from that district remain relatively flat, there is not an inflation a djustment provision, while the costs to maintain and service these facilities and improvements have risen steadily. In 2007 the City began to decrease service levels in an effort to contain cos ts within available revenues. The service levels continued to decrease to offset the effects of risi ng utilities, labor and materials costs until the creation of LMD No. 15-1.

In order to restore service levels and make needed repairs and improvements to the District’s facilities, the LMD No. 15-1 that exactly overlaid the existing assessment district, was formed. 871
5 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS
The City maintains landscaping and other improvemen ts in locations within the proposed Assessment District’s boundaries. The work and impr ovements proposed to be undertaken by the Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1 and the cos t thereof paid from the levy of the annual Assessment provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. In addition to the definition s provided by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, (the “Act”) the work and improvements are generally described as follows:

Entrance Sign
The entrance signs with landscape improvements to be maintained are to be located at the following locations within the District:
• Chapman Avenue at Newport Boulevard (southeast corner) • Newport Boulevard at Canyon View Avenue (northeast corner) Parkways and Recreation Areas
The landscaped parkways and recreation areas to be maintained by the District are located as follows:
• Newport Boulevard – approximately 18-foot wide zone (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on the east side from Santiago Canyon Road to 312 feet south of the centerline of Skylark Place. • Chapman Avenue – approximately 18-foot wide zone (i ncluding the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on both sides from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road.
• Canyon View Avenue – approximately 30-foot wide zon e (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on both sides from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road.
• White Oak Ridge – approximately 17-foot wide zone ( including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line, and corner cutoffs at intersections, on both sides from Newport Boulevard to Canyon View Avenue.
• Trails End Lane – approximately 17-foot wide zone o n the west side and approximately 28- to 32-foot wide zone on the east side (including th e width of the sidewalk), both zones from the back of the curb to the property line, and corn er cutoffs at intersections, from White Oak Ridge to Chapman Avenue.
• Handy Creek Corridor – from the intersection of Cha pman Avenue and Newport Boulevard to White Oak Ridge, and from White Oak Ridge to the intersection of Canyon View Avenue and Aspen Street (Lot 20, a portion of Lot 11, and Lot D of Tract 12417) including concrete walkways which also serve as emergency access ways.
• Paseo – approximately 50-foot wide zone from Santia go Hills Park to White Oak Ridge and from White Oak Ridge to Old Camp Road (Lots A and B of tract No. 12417) and approximately 35-foot wide zone from the Paseo to W hite Oak Ridge (Lot C of Tract No. 12417) including surface and subsurface drainage fa cilities and concrete walkways which also serve as emergency access ways.
• Aspen Street – approximately 10-foot wide zone (inc luding the width of the sidewalk) on south side from the back of the curb to the propert y line from the end of Handy Creek 872
6 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

Corridor (Lot D, Tract No. 12417) near Canyon View Avenue to the northerly terminus of the street.
• Fort Road – approximately 17-foot wide zone (includ ing the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line on south side from White Oak Ridge to Jamboree Road.
• Santiago Canyon Road – approximately 18-foot wide z one (including the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line on north and south sides from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road.
• Old Camp Road – approximately 4-foot wide zone from the back of the curb to the property line on both sides from Canyon View Avenue to northerly terminus of the street. • Skylark Place – approximately 18-foot wide zone (in cluding the width of the sidewalk) from the back of the curb to the property line on both s ides from White Oak Ridge to Newport Boulevard.
• Jamboree Road – variable width zone (including widt h of the bike trail-sidewalk) from back of the curb to the property line on the west side f rom Canyon View Avenue to Santiago Canyon Road.
• Additional Areas – areas adjacent to the 18-foot wi de zones along Skylark Place, Chapman Avenue, and Jamboree Road have been dedicated to th e City with tracts 12672, 12741, 12711, 15398 and PM 92-195. Such areas have been la ndscaped by the developers and the sprinkler systems tied to the District’s.

Traffic Islands and Medians
• The landscaped islands and medians to be maintained by the District are located as follows:
• Chapman Avenue – 14-foot wide median from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • White Oak Ridge – 14-foot wide medians at Newport Boulevard and Canyon View Avenue. • Trails End Lane – 14-foot wide median from White Oak Ridge to Chapman Avenue. • Jamboree Road – 24-foot wide median from southerly City limits to Santiago Canyon road. • Santiago Canyon Road – Variable width from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road. • Newport Boulevard – 22-foot wide median from Chapma n Avenue to Santiago Canyon Road.

Excluded Improvements
The following items are excluded from the District:
• The 8+/- acre Santiago Hills Park is excluded from this District • The City’s public safety facility on East Fort Road is excluded from this District • Chapman Hills Elementary School is excluded from this District • Santiago Canyon College is excluded from this Distr ict (Note that while some public improvements along the College frontage are maintained along with District Improvements, the College pays directly into the District’s fund to compensate for that work) • Sidewalks along all streets within the District are excluded • The Equestrian trail along Canyon View Avenue is excluded from this District Definitions
Installation, maintenance and servicing of Improvements, may include, but are not limited to, turf and play areas, landscaping, ground cover, shrubs and trees, irrigation systems, sidewalks, parking 873
7 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

lots, drainage systems, lighting, fencing, entry mo numents, recreational facilities, security patrols to protect the Improvements, graffiti removal and repa inting, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities and equipment, as applicable, at each of the locati ons owned, operated or maintained by the District.

As applied herein, “Installation” means the constru ction of Improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation (such as grading, leve ling, cutting and filling), sod, landscaping, irrig ation systems, walkways and drainage, lights, and recreational facilities. “Maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of any Improve ment, including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any Improvement; providing fo r the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, tri mming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disea se or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste, and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other Improvements to remove or cover graffiti. “Servicing” means the furnishing of electric curren t, or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other Improvements; or water fo r the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other Improvements.

Incidental expenses include all of the following: ( a) The costs of preparation of the report, includin g plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and Asse ssment; (b) the costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices ; (c) compensation payable to the County for collection of Assessments; (d) compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part; (e) any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the I mprovements; (f) any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Streets & Hi ghways Code Section 22662.5; and (g) costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment (Streets & Highways Code §22526).

Modifications to the District structure could inclu de, but are not limited to, substantial changes or expansion of the Improvements provided, substantial changes in the service provided, modifications or restructuring of the District including annexati on or detachment of specific parcels, revisions in the method of apportionment, or proposed new or increased assessments.

The Assessment proceeds will be exclusively used fo r Improvements within the District plus incidental expenses.
874
8 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ESTIMATE OF COST AND BUDGET
Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The following budget shows the cost of the Improvem ents that would be funded by the District in Fiscal Year 2024-25. This table shows the total com bined expenditures associated with the Improvements for both Landscape Maintenance Distric ts (No. 15-1 and No. 86-2). Accordingly, revenues from both Districts are also shown.

BUDGET ITEM COST

$367,579
$11,027
$0
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $938,814

875
9 Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1

SURPLUS FUNDS TO BE ADDED TO RESERVES

$728
District Expenditures will be adjusted to match the maximum allowable assessment.

●This Budget Estimate is for the purpose of establis hing an Annual Assessment. It may vary from the adopted City Budge t. All assessments collected by the District may only be used for Dist rict expenditures regardless of the Budget Estimate.

BALANCE TO LEVY FOR 15-1 $378,606

Notes to Estimate of Costs:

1. The Act requires that proceeds from the Assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures o f the District. Moreover, funds raised by the Assessment shall be used only for the purposes stat ed within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carrie d over to the next Fiscal Year. The District may also establish a dedicated reserve fund for conting encies and special projects as well as a dedicated capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would eithe r be placed in the dedicated reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' Assessments.

2. The rate shown here is for a single family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term SFE and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment Apportionment” and the sections following it in this report.

3. The total cost of the services and Improvements is the total assessment amount of $ 356,873 plus the value of the general benefit contributions from the City described in the section titled, “Method of Assessment Apportionment.”

4. The Assessment allows for an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index (the “CPI”), as detailed in the section titled “Method of Apport ionment – Annual Cost Indexing.” For Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the CPI is 3.5% for the Los Angeles -Long Beach-Anaheim area as of December 2023. Due to the remaining fund balance from Fiscal Year 2023-24, the Public Works staff recommends setting the CPI adjustment at 3.0% (maximum allowed) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. 876
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
10 Enhanced Level
of Service + Baseline Level
of Service = Final Level
of Service

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
Method of Apportionment
This section of the Engineer's Report explains the benefits to be derived from the Improvements and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to properties within the District.

The method used for apportioning the Assessment is based upon the relative special benefits to be derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The Assessment is apport ioned to lots and parcels in proportion to the relative special benefit from the Improvements. The apportionment of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvements and the second step is to allocate the Assessments to p roperty based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.

This section of the Engineer’s report includes a di scussion of the benefits to be provided by the proposed Improvements and the method of apportionme nt of assessments within the District. The formula below identifies the final level of service as the sum of the baseline level of service (witho ut this proposed Assessment) and the enhanced level of service to be funded by the proposed Assessment.

Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the Assessments can only be levied base d on the special benefit to property. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formu la or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to th e estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of th e California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property and that the value of the special benefits must be equal to or exceed the cost of the assessment:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional spe cial benefit conferred on that parcel."
The following benefit categories summarize the type s of special benefit to residential, commercial, industrial and other lots and parcels resulting fro m the Improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These types of special benefits are summarized as follows:

A. Proximity to Improved Landscaped Areas and Other Public Improvements within the District.

B. Access to Improved landscaped areas and Other Publi c Improvements within the District. 877
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
11 C. Improved Views within the District.

D. Extension of a property’s outdoor areas and green s paces for properties within close proximity to the Improvements.

E. Creation of individual lots for residential and com mercial use that, in absence of the Assessments, would not have been created.

In this case, the recent Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (SVTA) decision in 2008 provides enhanced clarity to the d efinitions of special benefits to properties from similar improvements in three distinct areas:
• Proximity
• Expanded or improved access
• Views
The SVTA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel and that indirect or d erivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are g eneral benefits. The SVTA decision also provides specific guidance that Improvements are a direct advantage and special benefit to property that is proximate to a facility that is improved by an assessment:

The characterization of a benefit may depend on whet her the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g. proximity to a park) or receives a n indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g. general enhancement of the district’s property values).

Proximity, improved access and views, in addition t o the other special benefits listed herein further strengthen the basis of these Assessments.

Moreover, the Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Prop. & Bus. Improvement Dist . ( Dahms) decision in 2009 further clarified that certain services and Improve ments funded by assessments, that are over and above what otherwise would be provided and that oth er property in general and the public do not share or receive are 100% special benefit. The assessment-funded services upheld by Dahms included streetscape maintenance and security services.

Benefit Factors
The special benefits from the Improvements are further detailed below:

Proximity to Improved Landscaped Areas within the District The boundaries of the District were developed in co njunction and concurrent with the planning and design of the subdivisions and Improvements, and th us have been carefully drawn to only include the properties in the City of Orange that are proxi mate to the Improvements and that would materially benefit from the Improvements. In other words, the District has been narrowly drawn to include the properties that receive special benefit s from the Improvements. Therefore, property in the District enjoys unique and valuable proximity t o the Improvements that the public at large and property outside the District do not share.

In the absence of the Assessments, the Improvements would not be provided and the public improvements funded in the District would be degrad ed due to insufficient funding for maintenance, upkeep and repair. Therefore, the Asse ssments provide Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided. Improve ments that are over and above what otherwise would be provided do not by themselves tr anslate into special benefits but when

878
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
12 combined with the unique proximity and access enjoy ed by parcels in the District, they provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the District.

Access to Improved Landscaped Areas within the District Since the parcels in the District are nearly the on ly parcels that enjoy close access to the Improvements, they directly benefit from the unique close access to improved landscaping areas and other public improvements that are provided by the Assessments. This is a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the District.

Improved Views within the Assessment Districts
The City, by maintaining permanent public improveme nts funded by the Assessments in the District, provides improved views to properties in the District. The properties in the District enjoy close and unique proximity, access and views of the specific Improvements funded in the District; therefore, the improved and protected views provide d by the Assessments are another direct and tangible advantage that is uniquely conferred upon property in the District.

Extension of a Property’s Outdoor Areas and Green Space s for Properties within Close Proximity to the Improvements
In large part because it is cost prohibitive to pro vide large open land areas on property in the District, the residential, commercial and other ben efiting properties in the District do not have larg e outdoor areas and green spaces. The Improvements wi thin the District provide additional outdoor areas that serve as an effective extension of the l and area for proximate properties because the Improvements are uniquely proximate and accessible to property in close proximity to the Improvements. The Improvements, therefore, provide an important, valuable and desirable extension of usable land area for the direct advantage and special benefit of properties in the District because such properties have uniquely good and close proximity to the Improvements.

Creation of Individual Lots for Residential and Commerci al Use that, in Absence of the Assessments, Would Not Have Been Created
In most of the District, the original owner/develop er(s) of the property within the District agreed unanimously to the Assessments. The Assessments pro vide the necessary funding for public improvements that were approved as a condition of d evelopment and subdivision approval.

Therefore, such Assessments allowed the original pr operty to be subdivided and for development of the parcels to occur. As parcels were sold, new own ers were informed of the Assessments through the title reports, and in some cases, through Depar tment of Real Estate “White Paper” reports that the parcels were subject to assessment. Purchase of property was also an “agreement” to pay the Assessment. Therefore, in the absence of the Assess ments, the lots within most of the District would not have been created. These parcels, and the Improvements that were constructed on the parcels, receive direct advantage and special benefit from the Assessments. 879
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
13 Special
Benefit +
General
Benefit =
Total
Benefit

Summary of Relative Weight of Benefit Factors
A solid argument could be made that the Creation of Individual Lots benefit comprises 100% of the benefit because the Improvements were incorporated into the original planning and design of the subdivision, and thus were deemed to be necessary a nd required for the development of the lot.

Without those Improvements and associated benefit, the lots would not have been created in the first place. Nevertheless, four other definitive be nefits accruing to the parcels within the District are identified, and an allowance should be made within the overall relative importance of benefits. The table below illustrates the relative benefit level of the five identified benefits used in this Report.

Benefit Factor

Proximity

Relative Weight

10%
Access 10%
Views 10%
Outdoor Area or Green Space Extension 10%
Creation of Individual Lots for Development 60%
Total Benefit 100%

General Versus Special Benefit
Article XIIIC of the California Constitution requir es any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the genera l benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying fo r general benefits. An assessment can fund special benefits but cannot fund general benefits. Accordin gly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

In other words:

There is no widely-accepted or statutory formula fo r general benefit. General benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. SVTA provides some clarification by indicating that general benefits provide “an ind irect, derivative advantage” and are not necessaril y proximate to the improvements.

In this Report, the general benefit is liberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.
880
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
14 Benefit
+ to the
Public
at Large
Benefit to Real
Property Inside
the Assessment
District that is
Indirect and
Derivative
+
Benefit to Real
Property
= Outside the
Assessment
District
General
Benefit

The starting point for evaluating general and speci al benefits is the current, baseline level of servi ce.

The Assessment will fund Improvements “over and abo ve” this general, baseline level and the general benefits estimated in this section are over and above the baseline.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in t he state constitution as “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred o n real property located in the district or to the public at large.” The SVTA decision indicates that a special benefit is confer red to a property if it “receives a direct advantage from the improvement ( e.g., proximity to a park).” In these Assessments, as noted, properties in the District h ave close and unique proximity, views and access to the Improvements and uniquely improved desirabil ity from the Improvements and other properties and the public at large do not receive s ignificant benefits because they do not have proximity, access or views of the Improvements. The refore, the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property is special, and is o nly minimally received by property outside the Assessment Districts or the public at large.

Benefit Finding
Quantification of General Benefit
In this section, the general benefit from landscapi ng and other types of Improvements is liberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.

Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment Districts
Properties within the District receive almost all o f the special benefits from the Improvements because properties in the District enjoy unique clo se proximity and access to the Improvements that are not enjoyed by other properties or the public a t large. However, certain properties within the proximity/access radius of the Improvements, but ou tside of the boundaries of the District, may receive some benefit from the Improvements. Since t his benefit is conferred to properties outside the District boundaries, it contributes to the over all general benefit calculation and will not be funded by the Assessments. The general benefit to p roperty outside of the District is calculated with the parcel and data analysis performed by SCI Consulting Group.

Since the properties outside the District but with frontage abutting the Improvements receive benefit but cannot be assessed by the District, thi s is a form of general benefit to other property.

The primary ways that parcels outside the district benefit by the Improvements is from proximity, 881
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
15 Assumptions:
47 parcel outside the District
1517 parcels in the District
Calculation:

General Benefit to property outside the
District =
47/(47+1517) * 40% = 1.20%

access, views and extension of outdoor space, which account for 40% of the available benefit.

Therefore, parcels that abut the landscape areas an d are not separated from the Improvements by a privacy fence are counted for this general benefit. The general benefit to property outside of the District is calculated as follows.

Benefit to Property Inside the Assessment Districts that is Indirect and Derivative The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property w ithin the District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the District is special, because the Improvements are clearly “over and above” and “part icular and distinct” when compared with the baseline level of service and the unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the District.

Nevertheless, the SVTA decision indicates there may be general benefit “co nferred on real property located in the district.” A measure of the general benefits to property within the Assessment area is the percentage of land area within the District tha t is publicly owned and used for regional purposes such as major roads, rail lines and other regional facilities because such properties used for regiona l purposes could provide indirect benefits to the pub lic at large. Approximately 7.15% of the land area in the District is used for such regional purp oses, so this is a measure of the general benefits to property within the District.

Benefit To The Public At Large
The general benefit to the public at large can be e stimated by the proportionate amount of time that the District’s Improvements including landscaping a re used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers or property owners in the District. It should be noted that these Improvements do not attract the public at large in the same way as park improvements – and they confer far less benefit to the public at large than do similar park improvements.

One way to measure the special benefit to the gener al public is by the car trips through an area with Improvements. Of the five ways benefits are conferr ed (proximity, access, views, extension of a property’s green space, and creation of lots), the only benefit that is conferred by way of pass-by ca r trips is views, which accounts for 10% of the total benefits. For pass-by car trips, the benefit of views is found to be approximately half that of res idents, employees, customers or property owners in the District due to the brevity of the views. Therefore the relative benefit factor is reduced to 5%. 882
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
16 1.16%

11.31% 11.3% = 10.0%
= 11.6%

21.6% TOTAL GENERAL BENEFIT
100.0% x 11.6% Out -of -District General Benefits
Property within the District 7.15%
Public at Large 3.00%
Total In -District 11.35% 11.4% x 88.4%

1.20%
In -District General Benefits
Outside the District
Relative Percent of
General Overall General
Benefit Benefit Benefit

Next, the views factors are weighted by the relevan t number of car trips. Using the lane miles as representative of pass-by traffic, an analysis show s that 60% of the lane miles are on arterial or collector streets where the general public has view s of the landscaping. Therefore (60% of 5% =)

3.0% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large.

Special Considerations of Improvements Outside of District The benefits are categorized into to two geographic groupings of Improvements: In-District Improvements that include parkways, medians and pas eos that are either inside the district boundaries, or are traffic medians that directly ab ut or front the district; and Out-of-District Improvements that are parkways or medians that are both outside the District boundaries and are not abutting, fronting or lying adjacent to the Dis trict. Based on weighted square footage of the various types of Improvements, Out-of-District Impr ovements count for approximately 11.6% of the total benefits. These Out-of-District benefits are found to be entirely General Benefit. For example some Improvements at Santiago Canyon Colleg e are maintained, but the funding for this work comes entirely from the College as general benefit funds.

The In-District Improvements, conversely, provide a pproximately 88.4% of the total benefits. The general benefits provided by these Improvements are discussed above.

Total General Benefits
Using a sum of these three measures of general bene fit plus the special considerations of general benefit from Out-of-District benefits (both weighted accordingly), we find that approximately 21.6% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may b e general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the Assessment. This calculation is shown below.

Although this analysis finds that 21.6% of the Asse ssment may provide general benefits from the Improvements, the Assessment Engineer establishes a requirement for a minimum contribution from sources other than the Assessments of 22%. Thi s minimum contribution above the measure of general benefits will serve to provide additional coverage for any other general benefits.

883
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
17 Final Step – Calculate the Current General Benefit Contribution from the City This general benefit cannot be funded from the Asse ssments; it must be funded from other sources such as the City’s General Fund or other non-Distri ct funds. These contributions can also be in the form of in-lieu contributions to the installation a nd maintenance of the Improvements such as other City assets that support and protect the Improvemen ts. The City of Orange will contribute both monetary and in-lieu resources to ensure that the g eneral benefits conferred by the proposed Improvements are not funded by the District’s property owners.

A summary and quantification of these other contributions from the City is discussed below:

The City of Orange owns, maintains, rehabilitates a nd replaces curb and gutter along the border of the District Improvements. This curb and gutter ser ves to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City towards general benefit from the maintenan ce, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 5%.

The City owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the District Improvements. This system serves to prevent floodin g and associated damage to the Improvements, and manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the Improvements.

The contribution from the City towards general bene fit from the maintenance, and operation of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 5%.

The City owns and maintains local public streets al ong the border of the District Improvements.

These public streets provide access to the Improvements for residents’ enjoyment as well as efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City towards general benefit from the maintenance of local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 5%.

The value of the construction of the Improvements c an be quantified and monetized as an annuity.

Since this construction was performed and paid for by non-assessment funds, this “annuity” can be used to offset general benefit costs, and is conservatively estimated to contribute 10%.

The total General Benefit is liberally quantified a t 22% which is entirely offset by the conservativel y quantified total non-Assessment contribution toward s general benefit described above of 25%.

Therefore, no additional General Benefit must be funded by the City.

Zones of Benefit
The boundaries of the District were developed in co njunction and concurrent with the planning and design of the subdivisions and Improvements, and th us include only the properties in the City of Orange that are proximate to the Improvements and t hat would materially benefit from the Improvements. Certain other properties surrounding the District were not part of the designed association between the Improvements and the assess ed areas, and are generally less proximate to the Improvements. In other words, the boundaries of the District have been narrowly drawn to include only properties that will specially benefit from the Improvements, and would receive a declining level of service if the Assessments were not approved.

The SVTA decision indicates:

In a well-drawn district — limited to only parcels r eceiving special benefits from the improvement — ev ery parcel within that district receives a shared special benef it. Under section 2, subdivision (i), these benefit s can be construed as being general benefits since they are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” the benefits received by other properties “located in the district.” 884
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
18 We do not believe that the voters intended to inval idate an assessment district that is narrowly drawn t o include only properties directly benefiting from an improve ment. Indeed, the ballot materials reflect otherwise . Thus, if an assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whet her the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improve ment (e.g., proximity to park) or receives an indire ct, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefit s of the improvement (e.g., general enhancement of the district’s property values).

In the District, the advantage that each parcel rec eives from the Improvements is direct, and the boundaries are narrowly drawn to include only parce ls that benefit from the Assessment. Therefore, the even spread of Assessment throughout the narrow ly drawn district is indeed consistent with the SVTA decision. For the most part, the benefits from the Improvements within the District do not vary further based on proximity of the parcels to t he Improvements because the increased benefits of greater proximity to the Improvements are genera lly offset by a parallel increase in negative factors such as higher levels of traffic, noise, etc. that comes with increased proximity.

There are two distinct neighborhoods within the Dis trict: Santiago Hills and Hillsdale. Santiago Hills is a complex neighborhood with arterial and c ollector streets traversing the residential areas and a commercial area on the northeast portion. In addition, Santiago Hills has a system of walking paths, or paseos, that provide additional benefits not found in the Hillsdale neighborhood. Hillsdale is a relatively small neighborhood, linear in shape centered on one residential street (Hillsdale Driv e) with Improvements along only one exterior frontage (Santiago Canyon Road).

In order to most conservatively assure that Assessm ents are proportional to the relative level of special benefits in the District, two zones have be en created. Zone of Benefit A (or “Zone A”) consists of all of the parcels that lie within the Santiago Hills neighborhood bounded generally by Chapman Avenue, Jamboree Road, Canyon View Avenue, Skylark Lane and Newport Boulevard.

Zone A receives the full complement of special benefits.

Zone of Benefit B (“Zone B”) consists of all the pa rcels that lie within the Hillsdale neighborhood lying generally north of Santiago Canyon Road. A de tailed analysis of the proportionate benefits received by the Hillsdale neighborhood as compared to the Santiago Hills neighborhood based on the weighted areas of parkways, paseos, and traffic medians within or proximate to the two zones shows that the Hillsdale neighborhood (Zone B) rece ives approximately 75% as much special benefit as the Santiago neighborhood (Zone A). Ther efore Assessments for parcels in Zone B are reduced approximately 20% from the rates for Zone A (see Assessment Diagram).

Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the proposed Assessments w ill provide comprehensive Improvements that will clearly confer special benefits to properties in the District. The allocation of special benefits to property is partially based on the type of property and the size of property. These benefits can also partially be measured by the occupants on property in the District because such parcel population density is a measure of the relative benefit a parc el receives from the Improvements. It should be noted that many other types of “traditional” assess ments also use parcel population densities to apportion the Assessments. For example, the assessm ents for sewer systems, roads and water systems are typically allocated based on the popula tion density of the parcels assessed. Therefore, the apportionment of benefit is reasonably based on the type of parcel, the size of parcels and the population density of parcels.
885
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
19 The next step in apportioning Assessments is to det ermine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the rel ative benefit received by each property in relation to a single family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single Family Equivalents (SFE). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute Asse ssments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing th e basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of Assessments. For the purposes of this Engineer’s Re port, all properties are designated a SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relati on to a single family home on one parcel. In this case, the "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling which is one Single Family Equivalent or one SFE.

Not only residential improved property will be asse ssed, because commercial and other properties may also receive direct benefits from the Improvements, and will be assessed.

A fixed or flat Assessment is proposed for all sing le family residential properties regardless of occupancy or parcel size. Assessments on multi-fami ly residential parcels vary based on the number of dwelling units. Assessments on commercial proper ty are levied on an acreage basis because larger properties generally support larger buildings and h ave higher numbers of employees, customers and guests who would benefit from proximity and improve d access to well-maintained and improved landscaping.

Finally, the special benefits to be derived from th e proposed Assessments will be conferred on property and are not based on a specific property o wner’s use of the improvements, a specific property owner’s occupancy of property, or the prop erty owner’s demographic status such as age or number of dependents. The benefits conferred to pro perty are related to the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at, or o therwise could occupy a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Th erefore, the number of people who could or potentially live on, work at or otherwise occupy a property is one indicator of the relative level of benefit received by a property.

In conclusion, the Assessment Engineer determined t hat the appropriate method of assessment apportionment should be based on the type of proper ty, the relative size of the property, property location, its relative population and its proximity to Improvements. This method is further described below.

Residential Properties
Certain residential properties in the District that contain a single residential dwelling unit are assigned one Single Family Equivalent or 1.0 SFE. D etached or attached houses and zero-lot line houses are included in this category of single fami ly residential property. If there is more than one single family detached dwelling on a parcel, it wil l be charged one SFE per single family detached dwelling.

Properties with more than one residential unit (oth er than parcels with more than one detached single family dwelling as described above) are designated as multi-family residential properties. These properties benefit from the Improvements in proport ion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property, the average number of people who reside in multi-family residential units versus the average number of people who reside in a single family home (Population Density Factor) and the relative size of each type of residential d welling unit (Square Foot Factor). The population density factors for the area in Orange County encom passing the District, as depicted in the following table, provide the basis for determining the SFE factors for residential properties. Using the total population in a certain property type in the area of the District from the 2010 Census and 886
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
20 dividing it by the total number of such households, finds that approximately 3.21 persons occupy each single family residence, whereas an average of 2.93 persons occupy each condominium. The ratio of 3.21 people on average for a single family residence and 2.93 people per dwelling unit in a condominium unit results in a population density eq uivalent of 0.91 for condominiums. Next, the relative building areas are factored into the analysis because special benefits are related to the average size of a property, in addition to average populati on densities. For a condominium, this calculation results in an SFE factor of 0.71 per dwelling unit.

Table 1 – Residential Density and Assessment Factors

Type of Residential Property
Pop. Density
Equivalent
SqFt
Factor
SFE
Factor

Single Family Residential

1.00 1.00

1.00 Condominium 0.91 0.78 0.71

There are no other multi-family property types (e.g ., duplex, triplex, fourplex, apartments) in the District, and none are foreseen in the future. Therefore no SFE-based assessment rate is calculated.

Commercial Properties
SFE values for commercial land uses are based on th e equivalence of special benefit on a land area basis between single family residential property an d the average commercial property. The SFE values for various commercial land uses are further defined by using average employee densities because the special benefit factors described previ ously can be measured by the average number of people who work at commercial properties.

In order to determine employee density factors, the findings from the San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study (the “SANDAG S tudy”) are used because these findings were approved by the State Legislature as being a g ood representation of the average number of employees per acre of land area for commercial prop erties. As determined by the SANDAG Study, the average number of employees per acre for general commercial property is 24.

In comparison, the average number of people residin g in a single family home in the area is 3.21.

Since the average lot size for a single family home in the District is approximately 0.12 acres, the average number of residents per acre of residential property is 26.8.

The employee density per acre is roughly equal to ( or 0.9 times) the population density of single family residential property per acre (24 employees per acre / 26.8 residents per acre). However, the benefit derived by employees on commercial properti es is less than that derived by a resident on residential property, generally due to less time of use of services and Improvements. The Assessment Engineer determines that this factor is 0.5 for commercial to 1 for residential. Table 2 below shows the average employees per acre of land area or portion thereof for various types of commercial properties and lists the relative SFE fa ctors per 0.12 acre for properties in each land use category.
887
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
21 Commercial properties in excess of 5 acres generall y involve uses that are more land intensive relative to building areas and number of employees (lower coverage ratios). As a result, the benefit factors for commercial property land area in excess of 5 acres is determined to be the SFE rate per

0.12 acre for the first 5 acres and the relevant SFE rate per each additional acre over 5 acres.

Table 2 – Commercial Density and Assessment Factors

Type of Commercial Land Use
Average
Employees
per Acre 1
SFE Unit
per

0.12 Acre
s

2 General Commercial

24 0.500
Office 3 68 1.420
Shopping Center 24 0.500

1. Source: San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study.

2. The SFE factors for commercial and industrial parce ls are applied by the 0.12 acre of land area or portion thereof. (Therefore, the minimum assessment for any assessable parcel in these categories is the SFE Units listed herein.) The rates apply up to first 5 acres of parcel size. Additional acreage i s benefited at the rate shown above per acre or portion thereof.

3. Currently there are no parcels in the District in t he Office category. This rate is included in the event General Commercial space is converted to Office space.

Vacant/Undeveloped Properties
The benefit to undeveloped properties is determined to be proportional to the corresponding benefits for similar type developed properties, but at a lower rate due to the lack of improvements on the property. A measure of the benefits accruing to the underlying land is the average value of land in relation to Improvements for developed prop erty. An analysis of the assessed valuation data from the County of Orange found that approximately 55% of the assessed value of improved properties is classified as the land value. It is r easonable to assume, therefore, that approximately 55% of the benefits are related to the underlying l and and 45% are related to the improvements and the day-to-day use of the property. Using this rati o, the SFE factor for vacant/undeveloped parcels is 0.55 per parcel.

Other Properties
Article XIIID stipulates that publicly owned proper ties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the Assessment.

All properties that are specially benefited are ass essed. Certain other publicly owned property that lie within the District boundaries, including Santiago Canyon College, Chapman Hills Elementary School, Santiago Hills Park, and City of Orange pub lic safety facility on East Fort Road, are not assessed. These are discussed below.

Santiago Canyon College: The College lies within th e District and certain Improvements lie on their property. Although the College is not assessed in this District, the College pays for any special 888
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
22 benefit through a separate agreement with the City, and that monetary contribution is shown in Table 1. In addition, all benefit attributable for the College property is included in the General Benefit calculation shown above.

Chapman Hills Elementary School: Any special benefi t attributable to the School buildings and parking lots are entirely offset by the benefit pro vided to the neighborhood by the outdoor fields.

This facility was also included in the list of regi onal facilities in the calculation of general benef it to properties inside the district that is indirect and derivative above.

Santiago Hills Park: Any special benefit attributab le to the Park is entirely offset by the benefit provided to the neighborhoods by park facilities. T his facility was also included in the list of regional facilities in the calculation of general b enefit to properties inside the district that is in direct and derivative above.

City of Orange Public Safety Facility on East Fort Road: Any special benefit received by this facility is entirely offset by the benefit provided back to the neighborhood similar to other in-lieu contributions to the General Benefit contributions that are funded by the City’s General Fund or other non-District funds.

Miscellaneous, small and other parcels such as road s, right-of-way parcels, and common areas typically do not generate significant numbers of em ployees, residents, customers or guests, and have limited economic value. These miscellaneous parcels receive minimal, if any, benefit from the Improvements and are assessed an SFE benefit factor of zero SFEs.

Annual Cost Indexing
The Assessment is subject to an annual adjustment t ied to the Consumer Price Index-U for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area as of December of e ach succeeding year (the “CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. Any cha nge in the CPI in excess of 3% shall be cumulatively reserved as the “Unused CPI” and shall be used to increase the maximum authorized assessment rate in years in which the CPI is less t han 3%. The maximum authorized assessment rate is equal to the maximum assessment rate in the firs t fiscal year the Assessment was levied adjusted annually by the minimum of either 3% or the change in the CPI plus any Unused CPI as described above.

Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who feels that the Assessment le vied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the City of Orange City Manager or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an Assessment during the t hen-current Fiscal Year and applicable law. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City Manager or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Manager or his or her designee finds that the Assessment should be modified, the a ppropriate changes shall be made to the Assessment Roll. If any such changes are approved after the Assessment Roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Manager or his or h er designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction . Any dispute over the decision of the City Manager or his or her designee shall be referred to the Orange City Council, and the decision of the City Council shall be final.
889
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
23 Assessment Funds Must Be Expended Within the District Area The net available Assessment funds, after incidenta l, administrative, financing and other costs shall be expended exclusively for Improvements within the boundaries of the District or as described herein, and appropriate incidental and administrati ve costs as defined in the Plans and Specifications section.
890
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
24 ASSESSMENT
The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expense incidental thereto, to be paid by the District for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 is generally as follows:

Table 3 – Summary Cost Estimate
For Landscape Maintenance District No. 15 -1
For Fiscal Year 2024-25

BUDGET ITEM COST

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Operating Expenses

$839,783
Salaries & Benefits $51,842
Administration and Project Management $46,461
Capital Expenses/ Revenues $0
Total for Services $938,086
Less Other Revenue ($560,208)
Reserve Funds $728

Net Amount of Assessment $378,606
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram showi ng the exterior boundaries of the Improvement District is hereto attached and incorpo rated herein by reference. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Distric t is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.
891
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
25 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The parcels proposed to be assessed in Landscape Ma intenance District No. 15-1 are shown on the Assessment Diagram, which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Orange, and includes all those properties included in the original formation of LMD No. 86-2. The following Assessment Diagram is for general location only and is not to be considered the official boundary map. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within t he District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Orange, for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report. 892
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
26 893
Engineer’s Report
City of Orange
Landscape Maintenance District No. 15-1
27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assess ed within the Assessment District and the amount of the Assessment) will be filed with the City Cler k and is, by reference, made part of this Report and is available for public inspection during norma l office hours at the City Hall at 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California 92866.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by referenc e made part of this Report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. 894
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.1. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0289
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tom Kisela, City Manager

1. SUBJECT
Receive and file a presentation by Townsend Public Affairs on the State of California budget; and adopt Resolution No. 11549 memorializing the Orange City Council’ssupport for Assembly Bill 2309 (Muratsuchi and Pacheco).

2. SUMMARY
Receive and file a presentation by Townsend Public Affairs on the State of California budget and adopt Resolution No. 11549, memorializing the Orange City Council’sposition on Assembly Bill 2309 and authorizing the City Manager to sign letters or utilize other formal means of expression supporting Assembly Bill 2309.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Receive and file a presentation on the State of California budget and Assembly Bill 2309 by Townsend Public Affairs.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11549. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, supporting Assembly Bill 2309.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and Promote Quality of Life in the Community e. Develop and strengthen collaborative partnerships to enhance and promote quality of life programs, projects, and services.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
State of California Budget
On Friday, May 10, 2024, Governor Newsom released the 2024-2025 State Budget May Revise (May Revise). The May Revise incorporates changes to Governor Newsom’s proposed January 2024 budget to reflect tax returns as well as changes to inflationary pressures and federal monetary policies. Governor Newsom estimates a $27.6 billion deficit with ongoing deficits of around $30 billion per year beginning in 2025. Attached for reference is an overview of the May Revise.

Assembly Bill 2309
California Government Code Section 41803.5 authorizes general and charter law city attorneys to prosecute state misdemeanors with district attorney consent. As currently written, Assembly Bill (AB) 2309 allows local legislative bodies to pass an ordinance authorizing city attorneys to prosecute state City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
895
Item #: 8.1. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0289
2309 allows local legislative bodies to pass an ordinance authorizing city attorneys to prosecute state misdemeanors without prior district attorney approval.

In recognizing that cities are best suited to understand the public safety challenges within their communities, Resolution No. 11549 memorializes the Orange City Council’ssupport for AB 2309.

Should the City Council adopt Resolution No.11549, staff will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· May Revise Overview
· Resolution No. 11549
· California State Assembly Floor Analysis on AB 2309
City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
896
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.1. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0289
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tom Kisela, City Manager

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Receive and file a presentation on the State of California budget and Assembly Bill 2309 by Townsend Public Affairs.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11549. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, supporting Assembly Bill 2309.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Assembly Bill 2309
California Government Code Section 41803.5 authorizes general and charter law city attorneys to prosecute state misdemeanors with district attorney consent. As currently written, Assembly Bill (AB) 2309 allows local legislative bodies to pass an ordinance authorizing city attorneys to prosecute state City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
897
Item #: 8.1. 5/28/2024 File #: 24-0289
2309 allows local legislative bodies to pass an ordinance authorizing city attorneys to prosecute state misdemeanors without prior district attorney approval.

In recognizing that cities are best suited to understand the public safety challenges within their communities, Resolution No. 11549 memorializes the Orange City Council’ssupport for AB 2309.

Should the City Council adopt Resolution No.11549, staff will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· May Revise Overview
· Resolution No. 11549
· California State Assembly Floor Analysis on AB 2309
City of Orange Printed on 5/23/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
RESOLUTION NO. 11549

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA,
SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 2309.

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2309 amends California Government Code Section 41803.5 so local legislative bodies may pass an ordinance authorizing state misdemeanor prosecutorial authority to the City Attorney without prior District Attorney consent; and

WHEREAS, local governments possess a thorough understanding of the public safety challenges and needs their communities face; and

WHEREAS, state misdemeanors, like any legal violation, impacts communities suggesting that local agencies should have a voice in how to handle these occurrences; and

WHEREAS, in nearby agencies, state misdemeanors have been dismissed even when the local City Attorney made attempts to secure permission from the District Attorney to prosecute the case; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2309 recognizes the value in extending local control to cities, empowering them with the tools to secure justice for their communities; and

WHEREAS, this legislation will reinforce accountability in prosecuting state misdemeanors, promote local control, and help preserve the safety of the Orange community.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orange resolves as follows:

Section 1: The Orange City Council does hereby support Assembly Bill 2309.

Section 2: The Orange City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign letters or utilize other formal means of communication to support the passage of Assembly Bill 2309.

Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this_______ day of _____________________, 2024

____________________________________
Daniel R. Slater, Mayor, City of Orange

ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
910
2 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mike Vigliotta, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

911
AB 2309

Page 1 ends

Orange City CouncilMay 28, 2024

Orange City Council
May 28, 2024