Attachment 18 Written Public Comments from the March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

March 18, 2024
Planning Commission
Meeting
Written Public Comments
Item 4.1
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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

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 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 residential 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, 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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
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.

Orange City CouncilMay 28, 2024

Orange City Council
May 28, 2024