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!

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.

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.

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.

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
cesarc@kennedycommission.org

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.

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

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!!

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!

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.

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.

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

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. You 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.

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. You 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?