Meeting Time: February 21, 2024 at 5:30pm PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

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

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    It's difficult to express all the reasons I am firmly opposed to this proposed development.

    Intercorp claims to have compassion towards the residents of Orange (and specifically E. Carleton Ave.), yet I have seen zero compassion!

    I'm appalled at this proposition and absolutely disgusted such a proposal (which includes a ZONING CHANGE) can be made, while requiring people only within 400 feet of the property needing to be notified. That is saddening and completely unacceptable! Personally I feel a zoning change such as this should require much more than that.

    This development will drastically impact the quality of life on E. Carleton Ave.! It will create additional traffic problems, most certainly create parking issues on Carleton Avenue (which I myself will absolutely not stand for!), It will crush our property values, which is completely unacceptable/unfair, and it will drastically diminish the look, feel and comfort of our beloved street! When completed, the residence of Carleton Avenue will have a three-story plus, towering, looming, massive structure towering over our single-family homes. Carlton Avenue and the surrounding streets are of a classic/traditional suburban setting… A small lot subdivision development has no place immediately adjacent.

    My understanding is this project would be the first of its kind in the city of Orange. My question is, who benefits from this project? Certainly not the residents of Carleton Avenue, most of whom have lived here for well over 20 years. We did not sign up for this when we bought our homes, took out 30 year mortgages and started families on this street.

    There is however one aspect of this project I am in favor of… That is the approximate 15' x 15' pocket-park Intercorp has proposed. My only suggestion is that it needs to be a little bit larger to the tune of approximately 2 acres. Let's start with that and make open, park space a priority for the existing residence Of Orange. I look at the city website and I see dozens and dozens of Development proposals, however I see virtually no additional open space, park square footage being proposed. Why is this? Shouldn't we have a certain amount of park space per home...!? If we put forth the proposal for a park to be developed I'd like to see what type of feedback we get for that…??? I believe as residents of Orange we need to take responsibility for making the best use of that space, and the opinions of the current residents, should weigh much more heavily than a foreign developer.

    When considering the approval or disapproval of this project, I believe one should ask themselves if they would approve of this project in their own backyard (10 feet on the other side of your back fence/wall)!?
    I myself do not, and I don't believe any other residents of the city of Orange would either.

    Should this project be approved and this development finished, I fear for the quick demise of Carleton Avenue. With the drastic drop in quality of life, many residents will be motivated to build an ADU, or do garage conversions, and exploit our properties to the maximum amount possible, renting out the house and the ADU and moving out and away from the city of Orange.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    I oppose the revised proposed design by Intracorp at 901 E Katella.

    The proposed project would rob us of our privacy, sunlight, and quality of life.

    This project will drastically impact the privacy and quality of life for me, my husband, my neighbors and their children. The revised proposed units will still have a direct line of site into the interior living spaces of our homes. The privacy and security of living in our homes will no longer exist. There will still be No privacy in our homes, backyards and front yards.

    As previously stated to DRC before and I will say it again:

    I will be living my life in a fish bowl, always wondering if someone is watching, looking over me.

    I DO NOT want to live my life with my curtains closed 24 hours a day.

    Let’s be very clear Intracorp does NOT care about the current or future residents of Orange, our privacy and quality of life means nothing to them. They do not care about our need for natural Sunlight into the windows of our house, our yards, gardens…

    The revised plans intracorp submitted to the city still does not allow privacy within the interior living space of mine and my neighbors homes. Many of us resident have been in our homes for over 20 years+

    Keep in mind if this was your home, would you want something built directly behind you 10 feet away that gets to look into your daily life and your security that you have known for the last 20 years is now taken away.

    For no other reason than pure profit. They actually said it would not be profitable for them to make the houses along the existing neighborhood property line walls single-story. They also know that they are not giving the future residence of the presented project any natural green living space of their own either. That is why they had to incorporate rooftop decks into units so they could give them outdoor living space which is required by the state of California. They just want to stack people on top of people for profit.

    They only care about maximizing their profit which has been made very clear through over density plan development and lack of revisions requested by the DRC and neighboring properties. Along with the lack of peoples safety with 4th floor rooftop decks.

    There are concerns, after concerns and opposition, after oppositions.

    If this project goes through and rezoning is approved, it will be the first of its kind ever in the city of Orange which means it will not be it’s last which means the city of Orange, that we know and love will no longer be.

    The Architectural design is not comparable or compatible to the surrounding existing neighbors. Especially the design lacks old town orange character. It’s a cookie cutter look that belongs in major downtown urban cities not our small town suburb of Orange.

    We are not opposed to having housing behind us, but we are opposed to having this specific design project behind us. If housing is to be built behind us, it should be mirrored to what already exist, which is single story homes with a 20 foot setback from the property line.

    This project does not belong in the proposed location. The city of orange Council members should strongly consider the quality of life of its residents and oppose this project.
    Thank you.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    I stand in solidarity with my neighbors on Carleton street who back yard privacy is threatened and who have major concerns with the current design. Intracorp and any builder needs to be very cognizant of how these high density projects encroach on the privacy of the surrounding neighborhood and design their projects with them in mind.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    This project belongs on an entirely different parcel of land, somewhere off a main road (Katella) and away from a single story .25 acre lot single family home neighborhood (Carleton, Van Owen, Trenton)
    Please tell the developers to find a new location to build this proposal.
    The residents of Carleton Avenue, especially the 10 whose privacy and sunshine would be stolen deserve a much better and less dense development on this parcel. Thank You for upholding the City of Orange regulations of making sure any new developments fit the existing properties surrounding.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    I, unlike most here, am neutral on the proposal. Firstly, I would like to state that affordable housing is a tantamount issue. No housing matters if people cannot afford that housing, point blank. However, I will acknowledge that there are problems with the development, however when looking at its integration into the existing area, I think it is important to realize that there are apartments almost directly across the street, at 1350 N Cambridge St. There's an even more similar proposal on 1300 N Shaffer St, sure there are valid concerns, however, Anaheim is not home to only suburban sprawl, and I believe that critics need some additional reasons as to why some aspects of this build are uniquely bad compared to other structures, especially considering the fact that it would benefit affordable housing. That being said, I am concerned over whether it will- what mechanisms are in place to ensure there will be affordable units that wont have abusive price rises? Will there be rent controlled units? Additionally, I am also concerned with the landscaping, yes they are removing trees and planting more- however their landscaping is primarily, if not entirely, non-native species. This, at best will be a net neutral impact on the environment, and not provide adequate homes for native species, be they bats, butterflies, bacteria, or any of the numerous species that are indigenous to this land. Ultimately, this project must be looked at in its totality.

  • Default_avatar
    David Nelson 9 months ago

    I am still opposed to the project in its latest form.
    The design is not consistent with the surrounding area.
    The close proximity of the two-story units to the north property line infringes on the Privacy of the existing properties.
    and shades their yards for an excessive amount of time.
    The roof top patios are a hazard when there Santa Ana winds as items will be blown on to adjacent streets and yards.
    The on-site parking is not adequate in that are only 12 visitor spaces. Two car garages for four-bedroom houses will not be large enough.
    The Cambridge access will impact ingress and egress for vehicles on Carleton Ave. to the north in that cars exiting the development will be obscured from view of the Carleton traffic.
    Requiring the HOA to enforce parking and roof top usage is not a workable option in that they will not have police powers.
    This project will have an overall negative impact on the neighborhood.
    and should not be approved.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 9 months ago

    As an E. Carleton Ave. resident, I strongly oppose this project and have grave concerns related to the Intracorp application of building a high-density small lot subdivision adjacent to our R-1 zone property.
    The primary purpose of zoning laws is to separate incompatible uses of property. These 2, 3, and 4 story buildings will tower over our homes blocking out the sun, increase traffic issues, devalue our homes, and rob us of our privacy. Putting 49 units on two acres of property consisting of 12 two-story units ten feet from our fences and allowing 37 three-story units with 37 roof top decks which can be lighted and used day and night less than 50 feet from our single-story homes is an invasion of our privacy and will create horrible environmental impact. This invasion of privacy would affect us inside of our homes, and in both our front and back yards, as well as, create substantial noise and light pollution, parking overflow onto our block, less sunshine for our yards and gardens, etc. In short, this density project on a 2-acre parcel of land is the definition of an incompatible use.
    This project will create serious traffic problems and additional dangers to our families as residents of East Carleton Avenue. The Cambridge street adjacent to the AT&T property is incredibly poorly designed with a curve in the road that makes it impossible for drivers on East Carleton to see cars in the curve that are going north, while attempting to make a left turn onto Cambridge. This project seriously increases this dangerous driving condition with a higher likelihood for traffic accidents and most importantly increases safety risks to us, our children and pedestrians.

    Rather than approving a General Plan Amendment to allow this small lot subdivision next to single family zoned property, the General Plan should be amended to prohibit small lot subdivision from being allowed next to R-1 zoning anywhere in Orange. Such a General Plan Amendment would relieve other neighborhoods in Orange from the necessity of fighting this incompatible use in the future. I did not choose to move my young family to this beautiful city with high property taxes to live next to 4-story buildings with roof top decks invading the privacy and sanctity of our home.
    Please reassess this plan and consider these grave concerns.