City Council
Meeting Time: 05-28-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council 05-28-24
18:00
47 46 6 35 4
City Council
05-28-24 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
3.14. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 2.10.090 of the Orange Municipal Code removing Prohibition on Transfer of Contributions from Candidate Controlled Committees to City Candidate Committees and Committee Controlled by City Candidate or Elected Officer making a Contribution to another Committee Supporting or Opposing a City Candidate for Office.
Ordinance No. 09-24.
2 0 2 0
7.1. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a former utility property with 48 two-and three-story single-family small lot homes at 901 E. Katella Avenue, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 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).
36 3 30 2
8.2. Award of Contract to SP Plus Corporation for Parking Enforcement Services; Bid No. 23-24.23.
2 2 0 0
8.3. Declare the properties located at 171 Cypress Street and 174 Cypress Street as surplus to the City's needs; and authorize the disposal of the properties. Resolution No. 11554.
1 0 0 1
8.4. Fiscal Y ear 2024-2025 General Fund Budget Balancing Proposal. 3 0 2 1
8.5. Consider potential sales tax measure scenarios and provide direction to City staff.
1 1 0 0
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 7:24am 05-28-24
approval of home building project at corner of Katella and Cambridge (old AT&T site) because of increased traffic congestion caused by building new homes there and the noncompliance with OMC requirements. Also the two and three story structures causing invasion of site line and privacy of citizens whose homes back up to that site, Agenda Item: eComments for 3.14. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 2.10.090 of the Orange Municipal Code removing Prohibition on Transfer of Contributions from Candidate Controlled Committees to City Candidate Committees and Committee Controlled by City Candidate or Elected Officer making a Contribution to another Committee Supporting or Opposing a City Candidate for Office. Ordinance No. 09-24.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:07am 05-28-24
Transfer of contribution from Candidate Controlled Committees to City Candidate Committees, and the like, is just a way to hide the actual source of a campaign fund and should not be legal! This change in the Ordinance is wrong in many ways.DO NOT ADOPT!
Agenda Item: eComments for 7.1. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a former utility property with 48 two-and three-story single-family small lot homes at 901 E. Katella Avenue, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1882-22 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).
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:34pm 05-28-24
I would like to add a comment to vehemently oppose the building of this small lot sub-division and stand in solidarity with my neighbors on Carleton Ave. which backs up against this lot. These homes will impact the livelihood of my neighbors and my family and I quite considerably. The current design does not consider privacy of the inhabitants in my neighborhood as well as the larger impact to the surrounding neighborhood with a major increase in traffic to an already extremely dangerous intersection. Please consider the comments and testimonials from opposers to this project and set a precedent that forces these projects to design them to exist in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you!
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:32pm 05-28-24
Greedy developer trying to squeeze in as many units as possible. They don’t care about the livelihood of both the new and existing homeowners. The new units are a hazard without sidewalks, pathways and adequate community area to enjoy. The privacy will be a big problem for existing homeowners due to the 10’ setback.
Adequate screening cannot be provided given the density and power lines located along the northern border.
Please reject this proposal as outlined.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:26pm 05-28-24
Given the curve of the street, the risk of an accident is already on the higher side since it's difficult for people to see oncoming traffic that are coming from Carleton, the apartment building, the gas station, Katella and the side streets just north of Carleton. Adding another entry point into the street right at the curve that can have high traffic will create a situation where people can get seriously injured and possibly killed. If cars are allowed to park on the street, creating additional blind spots, this will greatly increase the risk.
Another issue is morning traffic. The cars in the left turn lane can often extend past the entryway to the complex and the people trying to get out may get more aggressive when they are stuck there for too long.
The narrow entry ways would make it difficult for large fire trucks to fight a fire or get to a dying person (or a drunk person who falls off the roof deck), creating a safety issue for the residents of the buildings as well as the surrounding neighborhood.
If any of the current residences on Carleton have solar panels, the loss of usage due to the blockage of the sun will increase their energy bill as well as lower the value of the property.
On Carleton, there are 14 homes in an area slightly bigger than the proposed lot. The 48 proposed homes is almost 4 times more dense than the existing neighborhood. That's way too tight to be properly feasible.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:10pm 05-28-24
The previous two meetings, Design Committee and Planning Committee, have already not recommending the projects. There are many reasons, but the most importance issues are privacy and traffic/parking concerns.
The existing residents on Carleton will no longer have privacy. The new proposed houses are too closed to the fence, with windows in the back and on the side.
The deleveloper squeeze as many units as possible. As a result, there is no space left, not even for trash bins.
The proposed houses are 4 bedrooms houses, with only 2 parking spaces. The overflow will invade the existing residents on Carleton Ave.
Those the two most basis things and the developer tried to make it work, as the expense of the existing residents.
Overall, the proposed plan is a terrible design, and the developer did not care about the well-being of the current residents.
Why not proposing like-for-like? Meaning propsing single story family houses, instead of 4 stories houses.
Please please take care of your existing Orange residents.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:05pm 05-28-24
Dear Honorable Mayor Slater and Members of the Orange City Council:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that have led to the production of new homes affordable to low income working families.
The Commission is submitting comments on the 901 E. Katella proposal and the requested General Plan Amendment. The Commission is writing to oppose the request unless affordable housing units are included in the housing development. The Commission is requesting that the city require a minimum of 15% of the units to be affordable at low and very low income in exchange for the General Plan amendment, zone change, development incentives and concessions requested.
As the city considers the proposal and General Plan amendment request, we encourage the city council to take additional steps to ensure that its land use decision and discretionary decision incentivize low and very low- income housing opportunities. This is especially important as the city’s current housing policies have not been effective at producing affordable housing units at low and very low income in the city. The city’s policies have predominately incentivized market rate development that is unaffordable to the most residents.
It is imperative that the city takes the opportunity to move market rate and affordable housing priorities concurrently by offering General Plan amendments and land use concessions where developments help the city address its housing goals for all incomes. In addition, the city must implement its Density Bonus law in the 901 E.
Katella proposal by offering the requested development incentives and concessions in exchange for the appropriate affordable housing on this site for lower income.
The developer is not entitled to the requested General Plan amendment, concessions and incentives, they are discretionary. The General Plan amendment, concessions and incentives ultimately allow the developer to build on a commercial site that does not currently allow for residential development. The discretionary land use changes will enhance property use and value. The requested discretionary actions requested from the council will make this development more profitable for the developer.
These discretionary actions should not only allow the developer to have greater land use and profit, but they should also result in community benefits, like much needed affordable housing in the City of Orange.
The Commission opposes approval of 901 E. Katella unless 15% of the proposed units are affordable at very low and low income. By approving this development without the required affordable housing, the city’s actions would circumvent its Density Bonus law and Housing Element policies. The implementation of the city’s Density Bonus and affordable housing policies is imperative to ensure their effectiveness in creating affordable housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
[email protected]
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:01pm 05-28-24
This project will set a dangerous precedent in the City of Orange. The developer didn’t follow the rules of the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines, Municipal Code and has no respect for the established neighborhood. It was denied by both Design Review and Planning Commission. There is a message there. Deny approval. Intracorp is in the business of making huge profits with their developments. They don’t care about the residents. Their Arcadia project would work in this lot with their respectful setbacks, two story homes with driveways, sidewalks and landscaping. A safer environment for families.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 4:56pm 05-28-24
my name is Angelina Cisneros, I have been an orange county resident for last 40 years, I strongly this project because It will negatively impact my health. That is all you need to know. My name is Angelina Cisneros Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 4:48pm 05-28-24
I urge the City of Orange City Council members to oppose this housing project within our community and to explore other options that address housing needs while preserving the integrity of the City of Orange, “Slice of Old Town Charm” and our neighborhood. This is important to the families on Carleton Avenue and adjacent neighborhoods to preserve the integrity of our street for generations to come. There are numerous topics of concerns:
Safety of community: no sidewalks, no pathways, the dangers of 4th floor decks (this is an accident waiting to happen). There are no driveways, no sidewalks, no ADA parking, no ADA pathways Traffic: increase in traffic, getting in and out of the development safely in both directions on Katella and Cambridge with its blind curve. There is also increase of cars parked overflowing onto Carleton and neighboring streets.
Privacy: due to the height of the housing, we are losing our privacy in our yards, homes and street Scale: Orange has one one or two story homes developed, these two and three story homes are NOT in character of the "Slice of Old Town Charm"!!
This project will de-value our homes!!
We urge you to oppose the project entirely and preserve the "Slice of Town Charm" as it says on the City of Orange website. Keep your promise to the City of Orange community!! Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 4:26pm 05-28-24
PUBLIC SAFETY ....
Concerns voiced by the Planning Commission on 3/18/2024 ultimately recommending denial of the project and Intracorp the developer has still failed to implement the changes requested regarding pedestrian PUBLIC SAFETY… It is clear Public Safety does not matter to the developer. They are blatantly choosing to not implement any changes to make the development pedestrian friendly.
Proposed development Residents will have to walk in the street in order to access the Mailbox location, dog relief area, and the pocket park along the north property line, this public safety concern with the confliction of vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation in the street… Concerned voiced by the Planning Commission on 3/18/2024 and the developer has failed to implement any changes to this public safety issue.
PLEASE look closer at the design of this project… There pedestrian safety risks for simple daily tasks because there are no pathways/no sidewalks… Picking your mail, walking your dog to “dog relief” area, or just simply stepping out the front entry door of one of the 12 north property units… Shadows... The Sun does shine after 9:30am or after 12 noon...RIGHT? There was a lack of assessment of the shade and shadow analysis which was requested multiple time in writing to Intracorp by City Staff, the DRC, and the Planning Commission for scenario throughout the entire day… the have only provide early morning (7am to 9am) scenarios. The developer again is blatantly choosing to not provide this information because they are aware of the worst case scenario daytime during winter solstice that will case shade and shadows on the existing residence of Carleton backyards and residential structures. The development will block sunshine into the interior windows of their during the winter days when natural sunlight most valuable for lighting and heating element within the interior homes. This action or lack thereof is one example of many of Intracorp's "Shady" tactics.
PLEASE VOTE NO!
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:50pm 05-28-24
The very motto of the City of Orange is “A slice of old town charm” and the city’s website states “Orange puts an emphasis on maintaining the small town atmosphere that is demonstrated by Old Towne and surrounding Orange Plaza”. This project is against everything that Orange is known for and stands for. The city wrote a policy specific to the development and rezoning of commercial property to medium density housing. Of the many criteria in the policy are 1) the housing project must look like surrounding homes, which clearly it doesn’t 2) can’t infringe on the privacy of the existing neighbors, which I don’t know how a 3 story home set 10 feet from the property doesn’t infringe on privacy. There are many other examples of this project not meeting the requirements of the policy. I commend the city for drafting a policy to have a uniform code as to what is and what is not acceptable to be built in the city. The DRC and the Planning Commission have already rejected this proposal for the obvious conflicts between the plan and the city drafted policy. What concerns me more is the precedent this will perhaps set. If this is allowed to go through, IntraCorp will be knocking on the door of the bank, the mattress store on the North and South sides of Katella and any other businesses they can buy to replicate the current proposed project. They have no interest in the safety, history or respect for the citizens most impacted by this project and that is simply because they don’t live here. Build the project leave the problems.
Jake Comer
Location:
Submitted At: 2:23pm 05-28-24
I don’t see any mention of Natural Gas Hooks ups to the proposed homes. I highly suggest that these not be included, and instead only install all-electric appliances to these homes, as well as Solar Panels. Ensure that this Development is in Compliance with the 2022 Energy Code, that encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. For example, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted in 2022 to ban the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters beginning in 2030. Homes will be required to install zero-emissions alternatives, like electric heaters. We are nearing that deadline, so why not get ahead? Lastly, please refer to the City’s new Sustainability Plan for further guidance and funding opportunities.
I support this Development to convert a vacant commercial property into residential housing, especially when considering the City is currently considering destroying natural lands to develop new homes (No Orange Heights).
Growing up in Costa Mesa we had a small marketplace in the center of our neighborhood where I would get popsicles with friends. When I was in High school it was converted into residential housing and at first, I missed my popsicles, but then I found another shop on the border our neighborhood about the same distance away. It wasn’t that big of a deal. Now these homes are where my parents’ neighbors reside and I don’t even think about it. No one will miss this vacant building and parking lot anyway.
Costa Mesa is currently planning much much larger Housing Developments in areas previously zoned for industrial, and I further agree with them due to the housing crisis. Its been recently reported that a homebuyer would have to make $349,200 to buy the Orange County’s $1.37 million median-priced, existing single-family home in the first quarter. This Development is about 5% of just one of Costa Mesa’s new Developments.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:01pm 05-28-24
Good afternoon and I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on this housing project on the corner of Katella and Cambridge. My family and I have lived on Vanowen Ave for the past 35 years. I am well aware that the State of CA is in need of housing, but to add 49 homes on 2+ acres is insane. I don't see the necessity of 3 story homes with roof top decks either. I am not against having the project scaled down to maybe half the number of homes. I believe the 2 story homes backing up to the Carlton homes need to be set back more than the projected 10 feet. These type of townhomes are being built in Tustin and in other cities, but the areas the homes are being built is designed for this type of home. This design does not reflect the surrounding area.
There are other concerns with the number of homes being built on the site - increase in traffic and not enough parking for the townhomes. Homeowners will most likely use their garage for storage vs parking cars in the garage.
I pray this project is not approved and the property stays registered as commercial use.
Thank you
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 1:18pm 05-28-24
Trash containers should be screened from public view by opaque walls or fences subject to the recommendations under these guidelines and to OMC Section 17.14.270(1). FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
17.14.270. C.11 Trash enclosures. All small lot subdivision developments 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.
Intracorp has the three trash barrels inside the garage. Who wants trash and table scraps inside your garage? So impractical to say the least. In Design Review, it was revealed that you could not access your trash cans without pulling out your car. Also, a person would have to move a car out of the garage to put their trash out. There are no driveways. Imagine just 5 people in the same row taking out their trash? Where do their cars go? Plus there is no visibility in getting your car out of the garage, except what is in your rear view mirror. That is a huge safety issue for drivers and pedestrians. This was brought up at both the Design Review and the Planning Commission, but nothing changed. Y ou can’t just build something, sell it and think that the HOA is going to handle everything that you didn’t want to deal with. That is irresponsible behavior. Vote NO on this project.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:01pm 05-28-24
my name is Lucy Aguirre, I have been a home owner in the city of orange for over 40 years. I strongly oppose the proposed project due to the dramatic affect it will create in terms of over crowding and worsening traffic , and lack of privacy- I sleep in the nude, How would you like it, if we built a 2 or 3 story building over looking your private home. Y ou have to share your parking, your sun , your privacy, your road, and your policing, and most of all your safety. My name is Lucy Aguirre.
Reggie Mundekis
Location:
Submitted At: 10:51am 05-28-24
Council must consider how a decision to deny this project appears against a background of HCD scrutinizing and dissecting the Housing Element with regards to intent to build infill housing. A denial may be seen as the City not wanting to build infill housing.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:38am 05-28-24
When the city of Orange is facing a great financial deficit, why are we looking to change the general plan? This is a commercial zoned property at 901 E. Katella, and for financial reasons alone should stay that way. Both the DRC and the Planning Commission denied this project. I am not against building, and I not agreeing with the basic design scheme of 48 multi story homes. This needs to stay commercially zoned.
Eric Higuchi
Location:
Submitted At: 9:20am 05-28-24
To the City of Orange City Council:
My name is Eric Higuchi and I am writing in support of Intracorp's proposal to redevelop 901 E. Katella Avenue as a 48-unit, residential community.
I am not a citizen of Orange, however I have direct experience with Intracorp as a citizen of Tustin and as volunteer on the Tustin Planning Commission. Intracorp has been a key partner with the City and a good neighbor as they've redeveloped two major parcels in the City of Tustin that has greatly improved the aesthetics of our Town and provided additional housing opportunities for young families.
In addition, their project merits also include:
The current assessed value of 901 East Katella is ±$7,000,000. If approved, the property in total would be re- assessed at, in my estimation, around $49,000,000. Ad valorem property taxes would increase from $70K to $490K of which annual proceeds to the City, I'm guessing, would increase from $8,400 to $58,800 for this parcel alone.
The property is clearly outdated and there is no other economically viable use for the property allowable by the current zoning. If this project is denied, AT&T probably has no motivation to improve the building until the market for office returns. The building will be a drain on the City's already overstretched resources.
From a statewide perspective, a project denial by the Design Review Committee is: (i) a direct reason why California has a housing crisis; and (ii) why the State Legislature has effectively removed discretionary land use control from local municipalities.
If we want to return jurisdictional control over residential projects back to local municipalities, we need to govern justly and not let fear mongering and selfish entitlement drive decision making.
Further, Intracorp did have the option to subvert local jurisdictional control via Builder's Remedy, however they chose to respect the City's planning process in an effort to "partner" with the community. Denial of this general plan amendment and zone change would only prove to the marketplace of home builders that allowing community input is a mistake. Denial of the Project will also be touted by the proponents of the State's aggressive housing laws as further evidence that local jurisdictions cannot be entrusted with discretionary land use control.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:43am 05-28-24
Design Review asked Intracorp to contact the residents early on which was about 19 months ago. They arrived on our porches in Oct of 2023 at night. They informed us there would be a community meeting on Nov 13 at a library down the street. El Modena Library is across town, not down the street. A letter was sent in a plain white envelope which would be considered trash mail. It seems that they hoped we wouldn’t show up. When privacy was brought up, a suggestion to install curtains was suggested. The developer has tried a number of scare tactics which are red flags. Love your development, stand by your project without playing games. Design Review asked for a shade study of how the development would impact our backyards - 2 hour increments over the entire day.
The developer provided 7:30-9:30am and nothing else and it was based on the AT&T building, not the actual development. The bottom line is the developer doesn't care about us and our neighborhood. They have threatened us at each meeting with scare tactics of the police being called to the building on a daily basis...not true. They care about making money, walking away and let the HOA deal with any issues that arise. Why should all of us who love living on this street, who have carved out our own slice of Old Town Charm have to live with this unsightly, huge, big windows that take away our privacy, 2 and 3 stories with roof top decks, and the value of our homes will be decreased, because of this development? Build like you live here. One story houses behind one story houses.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:44pm 05-27-24
I oppose this project. I would love to see this area developed, unfortunately this is not a good option for development. These single family homes don't help the need for affordable housing our city and state are asking for. It is listed as medium density, according to the guidelines medium density is condos, apartments and townhomes - this is actually too impacted for single family homes from what the city guidelines states. It's very clear the developer is looking to make the most money on this project and not looking out for the people that will live here and those living in the surrounding as well. This design has so many flaws in its function. How would you like to have no storage in your garage because your only option to park is in the garage and also have to move your car out of the garage just to move out your trash cans because your trash cans are required to be in the garage? Even more so move your car to put trash in your trash can, because it's that tight. It's so tight if a car isn't in its parking spot correctly it will be extremely hard for fire trucks to get through. There also is not sidewalks to each home even though it's required in the guidelines of this city. Also required in the guidelines, All 4 bedrooms require 3 parking spots and because one of my neighbors called out the lacking of a 3rd parking spots, some of the 4 bedrooms are now being proposed as 3 bedrooms with a "bonus" room, to get away with the lack of parking spots. How many guidelines do we as the community have to point out this build is going against? Did the builder even take the time to read the city guidelines? This isn't affordable housing, it's packing people in like sardines and charging a huge price tag.
I live directly behind this proposed development. It will greatly affect my children's childhood, fruit trees and garden just by the amount of sunlight I will loose to my backyard. The design committee requested a full sunlight report, which is still failed to be submitted by the builder for every hour and every season because it will show the huge impact on our lives. It will be a huge invasion of our privacy, lower my property value, increase traffic on a very blind curve already and greatly increase parking on my street. If I wanted to add a second floor to my house I can't go as close as 10 feet to my wall, why should this allowed to be so close to my wall on the other side? Windows facing my yard while my kid places in our backyard is completely inappropriate and a huge invasion of privacy.
The city has laws and regulations for a reason and rezoning this with so many things against the city's code doesn't make any sense. A few of the points in the Orange general plan LU-4 it goes against are:
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 6:10: Mitigate adverse air, noise, circulation, and other environmental impacts caused by new development adjacent to existing neighborhoods through use of sound walls, landscaping This build is not only so impactful to the current residents, those that will live here but also a huge downgrade of our beautiful city's design. These buildings have no design elements , just big rectangles.
We would love this to be developed into similar ranch style houses to match the neighborhood.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 8:53pm 05-27-24
I live in the surrounding area and traffic is already an absolute nightmare near this weird curved part of Cambridge. The magnitude of this project and the amount of additional people and cars just doesn't make sense at this corner. Why not build something like this over at the abandoned Bestbuy building area? Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 8:25pm 05-27-24
For the past few months, I have taken the time to research this proposed project. I have attended both Design Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings where the project was REJECTED both times. The DRC and the Planning Commission are respectable people and understand that the project, as it is currently proposed is the wrong project for this lot. There are other areas in Orange where this would be welcomed but not at 901 Katella. My neighbors and I will greatly suffer many negative impacts this project would bring.
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, in Orange. 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. We oppose 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 existing neighbors.
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 build the 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 less potential residents/cars. It would be a joy to see the development resemble that of the local residential blocks.
I hope the City Council understands the negative impact this proposed project will bring and votes to oppose/reject. Please listen to the Orange residents and your neighbors. We do not want this Intracorp development as it is currently designed.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:55pm 05-27-24
I live on the north side of Carleton Ave at the corner at Cambridge St., directly behind the property under consideration by the City Council for development of 48 homes. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the project as it is being proposed. The row of two story units, that are set back only 10 feet from the back wall of our homes on the north side of Carleton Ave, will be a real threat to our privacy we enjoy in our own backyards.
They also will block sunlight from our property, affecting our plants/ landscaping. Another aspect that will be very detrimental is the insufficient amount of parking spaces. If each unit only had 2 cars ( very likely 3 or 4), the garages would be full and there are only 25 or so spaces for visitors. So, it it is going to be a real parking problem for our neighborhood as visitors or extra cars will be parking on our street, seeing that it is the first and most opportune place to go. Also, with such density, and two small entries/exits onto Katella Ave and Cambridge St, the traffic dangers for commuters who will need to turn left onto each to get to the nearby freeway will greatly increase. There is also the reality to be acknowledged that it is very likely that many of the proposed units will be purchased for use as a short term rental ( think “Air B&B”) where each room in the unit would be occupied by persons with their own car, making the traffic/parking problems even worse. Then there are the three story units with a fourth floor rooftop patio posing the same threat to our privacy, as well as dangers possible in the event of Santa Ana winds that come through several times each year. This sort of urban, high density housing does not fit with the nice one story neighborhood design that we have paid for and enjoyed for decades, so I am writing , along with my neighbors, to protest and plead for you, our City Council, to reject this proposal tomorrow.
Sincerely, R. Housky , Orange
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:53pm 05-27-24
No, No, No! I am begging our elected officials to do the right thing and listen to their constituents, especially the Carleton Avenue residents that have the highest level of negative impact from this project, as well as their own city’s Design Review team and Planning Commission. We OPPOSE this project as it currently stands. If these were single story ranch style homes that fit with the existing community, different story. This current design of tall cookie cutter tiny McMansions is something you would see in Irvine or Tustin, not in our beloved city of Orange.
Now we have safety concerns of people staring into our backyards, watching our kids swim, new roof lines blocking our existing solar panels, horrible traffic in an already congested area, etc. When we purchased our home over a decade ago, it never crossed our mind that businesses behind our home could be rezoned from
commercial to residential, and to something potentially as horrific as this. If approved, it sets a horrible precedent for the rest of the city. Please, please listen to the people that voted you into office, not the wealthy developers sitting at their office in Newport Beach. - Katie Polzer Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:38pm 05-27-24
The first request the City Council must decide, before you consider any of the project issues, details, and valid concerns from adjacent property owners, is the applicant's request to change the land use. Do you find changing the land use designation from General Commercial (CG) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) is in the city's short and long-term best interest. If the answer to that question is no, the General Plan request should be denied. No further discussion or action is needed. Direct staff to bring back a resolution to deny and move on to the next item on agenda.
If the answer is yes, then, you must consider the intent & purpose of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (SLSO). Like the GPA request, you have a second critical policy question to decide. Do you find the recently adopted SLSO proves to work well when it is applied next to a well established single-family neighborhood. Is the intensity too much? Is this the outcome our planning team expected when this development tool was adopted? Is this the project you want to be the bar as well as set precedent for future SLSO projects in town? Is this your vision for the new neighborhoods you want to see in Orange. Are our SLSO standards incomplete, needing further adjustments, and refinements. Should the SLSO be expanded to include Mixed Use sites and not be applied to sites next to R-1? Is it proper to expect an affordability element or a development agreement be part of housing projects changing the General Plan or using the SLSO? What is the fiscal hit of the project to our General Fund? We do have a serious structural deficit.
Can the applicant (or a subsequent buyer) decide not to build the project using the plans for 48 homes in their SLSO request? If they can, could that mean a shift to another residential project (density bonus, townhomes, apartments, senior community) could happen that may only require building and life safety permits? Is proper parking provided, safe access to and from Cambridge and Katella, impacts to Carleton, useable open space, undergrounding of power lines, cleaned up site for residential development due to the past uses on the site, etc. And last, is their strong community support for the project? That's why your DRC and PC denied the project.
I say, focus on the first question. It's easier to answer.
Adrienne Gladson, AICP
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:45pm 05-27-24
PUBLIC SAFETY is a BIG concern issue... NO Pathways, NO Sidewalk, NO ADA consider... Pedestrians (you, me, the elder, the children, the pets...the fast walker, the slow walker, the person in a wheelchair to the baby in the stroller) will share the roadway with Cars, Driveway Trucks, Emergency vehicles, etc.... I agree with The Planning Commission (who recommended Denial of the project) "a public safety concern with the confliction of vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation in the street." & "The project does not adequately address the Small Lot Subdivision Guidelines"
Say, NO to this very poorly designed project. A better design with more Orange Charm and lower density is something we would all like to see.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:18pm 05-27-24
The Planning Commission on the ultimately recommended DENIAL of the project to the City Council: "The project is too intense for the site"
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 1:35pm 05-27-24
I am a resident of Carleton Ave., while I do not backup the project sit, I firmly oppose the proposed development While there have been some changes to the project that was denied by both the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission There are still many concerns with the as proposed project.
The two-story houses only 10' from the rear of the existing yards on Carleton is an invasion of privacy. Would you like this in your backyard?
Two car Garages for 4- bedroom houses do not meet code. How many of the garages will be able to accommodate two cars when parts of most garages are used for storage? HOA will not be able to handle the enforcement necessary.
Access to the site will be severely limited as left turns on to and from Katella and Cambridge will be difficult due to existing traffic volumes and striping configurations
The proposed design is not at all compatible with the surrounding community, as required by the small lot guidelines, which is primary one-story ranch style houses.
The roof top patios adjacent to Katella will be a danger when there are Santa Ana winds because of the potential for items to be blown on to the street.
This large of a project should not fall under the small lot guidelines. I do not believe this size project was envisioned when the guidelines were adopted.
No one in the immediate vicinity is in favor of this project. Also, in cannot fall under the affordable housing category.
I am not opposed to redevelopment of this site, but this project is too much for the size of the parcel.
David Nelson
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:55pm 05-27-24
To the lone person in support of this project . This project is NOT affordable housing . These are 2 and 3 story cramped units that will go for $1.1M each on the market. The developers are trying to make a quick buck while taking advantage of the existing neighborhood residents and housing conditions. I mean who would want to live in such tight quarters with no space at an expensive price if this gets developed? Very desperate people. I am not in support of this project for a number of reasons including all the negative impacts it will do to the existing neighbors and neighborhood . Nothing about this project is positive. Increased traffic , increase parking problems , privacy concerns. It is unacceptable!!!! city council please listen to the complaints about this proposal. Anyone sane reading the background information will know that you all need to vote NO and oppose this project.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:15pm 05-27-24
We are against this proposed Intracorp Katella development. No matter how many times the developers have tried to change this proposal, it is still unsatisfactory and does not meet the small sub lot division guidelines. The Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission have both voted not in support of this proposal. The residents of E Carleton and nearby neighborhood residents have also strongly opposed this ill planned development. I am urging the city council members to listen to your constituents and also deny this proposal. It is in the wrong location next to single story old ranch style homes, will create traffic congestion and parking nightmares and increase privacy concerns for existing residents. It is aesthetically unpleasant for the neighborhood and will take away sunshine for the backyard of our homes. Please vote your conscience and deny this proposal. This is purely about profit and not about improving the Orange neighborhood at all! It would be quite the opposite and detrimental if this is built on that corner of Katella and Cambridge lot. Please vote NO!!!!! Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:23am 05-27-24
The proposed design by Intracorp does not follow the small lot guidelines. Scale and massing of the buildings are not compatible. Two and three story buildings with rooftop decks DO NOT belong adjacent to single story homes. The density proposed is for an urban development and not in a suburban area. Privacy is practically nill with a 10' setback on the Northern border of existing single story residents. Large 8-foot egress windows on the 2nd story units start at a height of 34-36" off the finished floor. There is a reason why both the Design Review Committee and the Planning Review Committee both denied the project. Please do not change the zoning just to allow an incompatible housing development to be built on the backs of existing R-1 single family residences.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:27am 05-27-24
I am a resident of Carleton Street and I am not opposed to Housing, I am opposed to this project. The city should enforce the plain language of the Small lot subdivision ordiance, First,the project must fit into the neighborhood! The how is simple. Require all houses built within 10 feet of my neighbors back yards to be single story homes, make the rest of the homes two stories. Get rid of the fourth floor decks. The extra benifit is that the units will be smaller, thus more affordable. We do not need another 48 $1,300,000.00 homes. The small lot concept is to build affordable homes . Let's use it for its purpose. Please enforce ALL of the requirements of that ordiance and reject this project as proposed. Steve Fingal.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 8:38am 05-27-24
As a single family home owner very close to this proposed housing structures, I understand my neighbors concerns due to increased traffic, sunlight issues, privacy etc BUT our single family homes are no longer single family due to unaffordable housing. The single family homes on our block contain multi-generations or dual families already. Our compassionate city MUST make tough decisions to provide additional affordable housing and we may be personally impacted but it’s needed. Thank you for considering this tough decision.
Christine and Tom Clarke
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 9:32am 05-26-24
Please vote “No" to this housing project on Katella/Cambridge! The planning and design committees voted no for many reasons! The project is too intense for this site and will negatively effect the residents in the single family homes that are adjacent to the site. This development does not fit in the suburban area of single family homes and will increase parking and traffic issues on that corner that already has a dangerous blind curve. Please vote NO!
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 9:32am 05-26-24
Please vote “No" to this housing project on Katella/Cambridge! The planning and design committees voted no for many reasons! The project is too intense for this site and will negatively effect the residents in the single family homes that are adjacent to the site. This development does not fit in the suburban area of single family homes and will increase parking and traffic issues on that corner that already has a dangerous blind curve. Please vote NO!
Barry Ross
Location:
Submitted At: 9:41am 05-24-24
The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 3,936 housing units, of which 1,671 are for lower- income households. This project provides the City Council with an opportunity to require the developer to ensure that a minimum % of homes are affordable. I encourage the Council to require at least 154% of the units be affordable in return for the requests the developer is asking. The City of Orange needs workforce housing for its teachers, police officers and other essential workers and the City Council can help make this happen. Thank you.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:37am 05-24-24
"No" to the Katella Ave/Cambridge housing project. It was a "no" in both the design and planning committee's for good reasons. The residents of Carlton are negatively affected, the Cambridge and Katella intersection would become even more dangerous. The esthetic of the project is not a fit with the surrounding neighborhoods. Please City Council also say "no" to this project.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.2. Award of Contract to SP Plus Corporation for Parking Enforcement Services; Bid No. 23-
24.23. Overall Sentiment
Reggie Mundekis
Location:
Submitted At: 2:46pm 05-27-24
I support this effort. A contractor will be able to supply consistent staff to enforce parking. Volunteers, such as what I have seen enforcing street sweeping marking on my street, are not consistent.
AJ Ricci
Location:
Submitted At: 11:07pm 05-26-24
This is overall a good contract that will help maintain consistency in enforcing Municipal Code in regards to vehicles and the California Vehicle Code. I will only point out the hourly cost of the enforcement officers that we are contracting out is high. I encourage the city to direct the Police Department to expand their volunteer program to help mitigate future enforcement costs towards the end of this proposed contract (5 Y ears).
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.3. Declare the properties located at 171 Cypress Street and 174 Cypress Street as surplus to the City's needs; and authorize the disposal of the properties. Resolution No. 11554.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:58pm 05-27-24
The narrative in the Agenda Item 8.3 is incorrectly written. First, the initial narrative fails to designate "North" Cypress Street and second, it indicates "174" as an address, which is inconsistent with the narrative in the Recommended Action, which states the addresses are 171 N. Cypress and 177 N. Cypress. Also note this does not designate if these are "streets, avenues, or lanes." Corrections need to be made before a vote is made.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.4. Fiscal Year 2024-2025 General Fund Budget Balancing Proposal.
Overall Sentiment
Reggie Mundekis
Location:
Submitted At: 11:04am 05-28-24
****Support: I support reductions in Police and Fire not because I oppose those departments but this the only way to get people to understand there is a problem.
**** Oppose: I object to increasing the number of STRs because STRs take away housing and are so problematic that they come with their own Code Enforcement operations. I object to the sale of Taft Library because the land will be used for housing which brings costs not fully paid for by property taxes remitted to the City. I object to cuts to overnight security in parks which will lead to homeless encampments and damage to park property. I object to cuts to Orange Elderly Services because this is a vulnerable population with limited resources. **** Future is bleak for City of Orange unless more revenue is obtained via a sales tax measure and economic development.
There is already little to cut from the budget without causing damage due to neglect by prior Councils. If the sales tax measure does not pass, the City needs to look at long term viability and needs to act before the City fails to be a going concern. Our City may need to go out of business or merge with another city if we can't turn this around this year.
Doug Hamilton
Location:
Submitted At: 7:52am 05-28-24
City Councilmembers and Mayor Slater,
I oppose any expansion in the number of short-term rentals in Orange. STR businesses have the effect of removing affordable housing from Orange’s housing market. Expanding the number of STRs would have the opposite effect of the agreements made by the city to increase affordable housing in the Housing Element.
Please review our full set of comments on the attached document.
Expanding the program by doubling the number of STR permits will prove to be a big mistake over time. The city is making a false assumption that by doubling the number of permits issued will also double the TOT tax revenues collected by the city. To achieve this goal, it would also require doubling the number of STR guests who want to stay in Orange at the very same time.
Applying simple supply and demand principles will prove to contradict this assumption. As you increase supply it will increase competition among current permitted STRs and will most likely lower nightly rental rates or spread the same level of demand over twice as many STRs. Thereby having the effect of reducing the amount of nightly TOT collected from our current permit holders.
Looking at the current list of STR permit holders there are currently 107 permits issued and 5 pending. This indicates a high turnover ratio and probably provides evidence that more permits should not be issued. If this STR proposal fails, the city will have doubled the number of staff hours required to implement and regulate the STR program by administrative staff, code enforcement, police and fire. This would be done without any guarantee of recouping these fixed costs to the city. This is the exact opposite of what Councilmember Gyllenhammar has been talking about on the Dais.
Additionally, the council has talked about raising the TOT from its current rate to possibly 15%. That may mean that the current STR operators will also have the burden of paying 50% more TOT tax.
Regarding the paragraph 4 proposal to “annual impact fees for all residential investment properties” I support a bigger concept of having each and every business operating in Orange apply for a business license. This should be applied across the board to residential, commercial and industrial properties.
I am the owner of 2 long-term residential rentals in Orange. As a result, I create affordable housing opportunities for Orange residents. I do not support the concept of singling out a subset of residents without cause or justification to levy some sort of “annual impact fees for residential investment properties”.
Owners of long-term residential rentals pay their fair share of property taxes and both state and federal income taxes. How will you justify to the voters that occupy long-term residential rentals in Orange that they are somehow different than other Orange residents and should be charged, whether directly or indirectly, some sort of arbitrary “impact fee”?
Y es, the city is in a budget crisis. The best decisions will be made in a fair, level-handed and reasonable manner with a justifiable need to charge impact fees. Snap decisions without proper justification will harm affordable housing. In the case of STRs, doubling the number of STRs in Orange will further degrade the quality of life in our City. Just ask someone who lives in the vicinity of an STR.
Doug and Karen Hamilton
Orange Residents for 37 years
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:01pm 05-27-24
Honorable Mayor and council members,
The Orange Short-Term Rental Alliance would like to share thoughts on 4 of the recommendations listed in the FY 2025 Proposed Revenue Enhancements report:
1. Increase STR permits to 250 - $500k
At the May 14, 2024 council meeting, we submitted a public comment that this might not be the appropriate time to raise the cap on STRs, ldue to the city’s limited resources to monitor and issue new permits.
We propose the city complete the issuing of the 125 permits allowed under the current code. Issuing the 10-15 outstanding permits – with associated revenue in permits, licenses and TOT – could add another $100k/year without changing the current code; simply just activating it.
In the future, we suggest the City of Orange consider implementing a process to vet new permits and add to the total number of permits progressively, say in increments of 25 annually so they can be properly monitored and evaluated as a net-positive small business model in our community.
2. Expand STR definitions to Include Residential Rentals of 1-year or less Some questions:
• Would this include all the same requirements as STRs, including pulling a business license, permit and paying monthly TOT?
• What is the estimated revenue that could be generated from this proposal? • What would stop a landlord from creating a 366-day contract and rebating months of non-use (i.e. how would these private contracts be monitored)?
• Would it be possible to consider instead the LTR landlord business license and add an additional fee for student housing (similar to STRs who currently pay a higher business license rate)?
3. Implement Long-Term Rental Fee - $500k
Our recommendation from the May 14, 2024 council meeting was not for a fee but instead to consider a business license requirement for landlords operating long-term rentals (LTRs). This recognizes the business in a residential area and would provide equal footing with short-term rentals (STRs) who already pull business licenses to operate. Based on the number of non-owner occupied units in Orange, we estimate this revenue would be north of $1m/yr if licenses were required for each property at the current City of Orange business license rate of $80/yr (even though STR rates for business licenses are higher than $80/yr).
58.9% of homes in Orange are owner occupied (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/orange-ca/) out of 45,308 housing units (https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/Orange-Demographics).
That means 18,822 are possible rental units. At $80/license, that’s a potential $1.5m in net-new revenue. This could be adjusted for apartments vs homes and/or higher rates for different rental use cases (e.g. student or single family housing).
4. Implement Annual Impact Fee for all Residential Investment Properties ($250) $2.5m STRs are newer small businesses in our community, and STRs have come on-board in a methodological way considering neighborhood impact and STRs already contribute into the city budget in multiple ways, including:
STR permit fees, business license fees, real estate tax, sales tax and TOT. With potential future additional contributions for the City of Orange TDI and a state-imposed STR tax of 15%, further fees will severely impact our ability to operate profitably. Our suggestion is to avoid one-time impact fees or placing further burden on STRs, instead focusing on businesses which can become new and annual contributors to the city budget.
Susan Tillou
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.5. Consider potential sales tax measure scenarios and provide direction to City staff.
Overall Sentiment
Reggie Mundekis
Location:
Submitted At: 2:50pm 05-27-24
I support the 1% tax rate. OCTA has passed Measure M and M2 sales tax measures to fund streets, roadway and transportation improvements we all enjoy. If we don't pass the sales tax measure, we are on a path of continuing financial decline where the City become an undesirable place to live and work.