4.2. A request to construct a new residence and a detached rear residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to replace a fire destroyed residence.at 221 S. Earlham Street (Design Review No. 5090-22).
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed design for the Duplex and ADU in our neighborhood at 221 Earlham St.
First and foremost, the proposed design is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our neighborhood.
Furthermore, this development would bring in a large number of residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed development. While I recognize the need for a house, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood.Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Anna Romero
Dear Members of the City Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the permit application for the proposed duplex development at 221 S. Earlham Street, which is currently under review. I believe this development presents several significant issues that warrant serious reconsideration.
1. Inappropriate Density
The proposed density of the duplex development is disproportionately high for this area. Our neighborhood has historically maintained a balance between residential and open spaces, contributing to its unique character and quality of life. The introduction of a high-density development will disrupt this balance, leading to overcrowding and a strain on local resources and infrastructure.
2. Inappropriate Height
The height of the proposed duplexes is out of character with the surrounding buildings. The increased height will obstruct natural light and scenic views, and negatively impact the aesthetic coherence of our community. Such deviations from established guidelines undermine the integrity of our zoning laws and set a troubling precedent for future developments.
3. Inadequate Parking
The proposed development plans provide insufficient parking spaces to accommodate the needs of residents and visitors. Given the limited parking availability in our neighborhood, the influx of additional vehicles will exacerbate existing parking issues, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and decreased accessibility for current residents. We are already dealing with the overflow of cars from the 200 block of Earlham St on the 300 block of Earlham St. This is becoming a big problem for the neighborhood, we don't know who's vehicle is parked in front of our homes and am concerned about crime.
The cumulative impact of these issues—density, height, and parking—will not only degrade the quality of life for existing residents but also potentially lower property values and alter the character of our community in ways that are inconsistent with the city's long-term planning goals.
I urge the City Planning Commission to carefully review these concerns and reject the current permit application. It is crucial to ensure that any new developments are in harmony with the established standards and values of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will consider these points seriously and act in the best interests of our neighborhood.
Audrey Shapiro
I have reviewed the plans for 221 Earlham and I oppose. I was born and raised in the El Modena area. My concerns are as follows. We must preserve and respect the El Modena area as we preserve Old Town Orange. The area is already overcrowded and congested with people and cars. Parking is spewing into other newer communities and shopping centers. This area also suffers from illegal activity and with more people, crime becomes more prevalent. The proposed structure does not fit the craftsman small cottage-style, it looks more like an apartment complex with its three levels. The developer has not only taken land space, but has taken underground and air space as well to maximize profit. The developer will not have to directly address the issues, because it is not his primary residence and has no connection with the community. The developer needs to be more sensitive to the community and the burden it poses. Bottom line this structure is way too ambitious and will be the only two-story on that block. With homes being over 100 years old, this is a historic area in Orange and should be preserved as much as possible.
To whom it may concern. My name is Trinidad Sepulveda, I live on 260 s Earlham St Orange. I have lived on Earlham since 1947 and I am almost 77 years old. We are currently having issues here for parking due to the housing here. If you let this Duplex be built here , Earlham will be packed , as it is now we can't park or have close family over due to the parking . With a 9 bedroom duplex no one will be able to park here or have accessfor the elders who need to park near their home. What may solve this issues is a parking permit feom Earlham into chapmam. Please consider this.
This situation highlights the broader issue of socioeconomic inequalities. It is disheartening to see vulnerable populations in our city being disproportionately affected by policies and decisions that do not consider their well-being. Instead of adding to the overcrowding, the city should focus on improving infrastructure, cleaning up the neighborhood, and addressing the root causes of overcrowding.
As residents who have invested in and contributed to the character of this neighborhood for years, we feel strongly that decisions affecting our community should prioritize the needs and voices of its residents. The proposed development seems to be driven by the desire to maximize units and profit rather than genuinely enhancing our community.
I urge the Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee to reconsider this proposal and prioritize the needs and safety of our existing residents. A thorough assessment of the impact on public health and safety, traffic congestion, and infrastructure should be conducted before approving any new developments. Additionally, I request that the city explore alternatives that do not further burden already overcrowded neighborhoods.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and hope the City's committee will make decisions that benefit ALL community members.
Sincerely,
Harvey Silva
PART 1:
Dear Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee,
I am writing to express my deep concerns and opposition to the proposed duplex development on Earlham Street. My family and I have lived and owned homes on this street for generations, and we built our homes to fit the community’s character and needs. The recent fire at one of our family homes highlighted the critical issues of overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure that plague our neighborhood. Despite the fire station being nearby, firefighters could not access the burning house in a timely fashion due to congested streets, resulting in a total loss. This house, a classic example of the cottage-style architecture that characterizes our neighborhood, was a cherished part of our community.
The proposed duplex development (including underground parking) raises significant concerns regarding public safety and exacerbates the existing issues of overcrowding. Building underground parking in an earthquake-prone region like Southern California poses additional risks, particularly regarding the potential impact on the foundation of surrounding homes. Excavating underground parking could compromise the structural integrity of nearby properties. Additionally, our streets are already congested, creating serious safety hazards. The construction process, involving large trucks and heavy equipment over several months, will further worsen traffic conditions and obstruct emergency access. Increasing housing density without addressing these underlying infrastructure challenges will strain our community even more.
The existing streetscape on the east side of S. Earlham Street features exclusively one-story, cottage-scale structures, including the properties adjacent to the project site. The proposed project design is inadequate to effectively integrate with the single-story cottage-scale of the neighborhood. The massing and scale of the new structure, along with the box-like design and lack of meaningful design, do not complement the existing architectural style and disrupt the neighborhood's character.
While we understand the need for development, we would agree more to a project that aligns better with the neighborhood's scale and character, such as a single-family home with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the back with a design that respects the existing cottage-style theme. The proposed six-unit, two-story complex is simply too much for our already overcrowded area.
It is disheartening to see that Farshad Shagoshtasbi, the developer, appears to be motivated solely by profit rather than the well-being of our community. His original plans did not consider the historic, cottage-style look of our neighborhood. Only after the staff report was published did he make some changes to his designs, which still fall short of fitting the neighborhood theme. As stated in Mr. Shagoshtasbi’s applicant narrative, he is “confident that this revised plan meets all City requirements and ensures a harmonious environment for the entire neighborhood.” I am here to tell you that this revised plan will not create a harmonious environment for our community.
I have been living on S. Earlham St. since 2008 and have never had a problem of unknown vehicle parking on the streets of our house. I enjoyed the wide open streets when coming home. But recently, there have been more and more vehicles I do not recognize parking along our streets.
With this building permit, 2 duplex and an ADU would mean a least 3 families, a conservative number, with at least 6 vehicles. The streets for the building permit are already over-saturated with vehicles parked.
Good Evening,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential impact of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on parking in our community.I am apprehensive about the strain this may place on our already limited parking resources. As you may be aware, our neighborhood is experiencing significant parking congestion, and the addition of more residences without corresponding parking solutions could exacerbate this issue.
Inadequate parking can affect the quality of life for all residents, leading to increased frustration and potential safety concerns, particularly for families with young children and elderly individuals who may have mobility issues.
We have observed that the number of cars occupied by individuals experiencing homelessness has risen in our area. These vehicles often occupy parking spaces for extended periods, leaving fewer spaces available for residents and their guests. This situation can lead to potential conflicts within the community.
I propose that, as a condition for approving these project plans, the implementation of permitted parking be required.
Thank you for taking the time to read through my comments.
This email is in concern over the real-estate project that is currently under review for construction at 221 Earlham st, Orange ca.
This 9 bedroom construction is going to burden an already burdened street from congested parking. For the last few years there has been a considerable amount of cars congesting the streets, this caused a decline in the quality of life to this neighborhood. As a result of this parking congestion, there has been a noticeable increase in noise, traffic hazards, and illegal activities.
To not address the issues that will arise due to the added congestion in parking from this construction, would be providing a disservice to this neighborhood.
I have seen many neighborhoods around Orange that have implemented permitted parking on their street, which seems to be a reasonable solution to alleviate the already congested parking.
I propose, as a contingency to the approval of these project plans, permitted parking be implemented.
City Council Members,
Sir/Madam I am writing this to you inform you about the current and future problems with proposed construction of a two-story residential unit with two attached SINGLE-CAR garages, and a second detached two story building at the rear of the same property with a “TUCK-UNDER” parking space.
We live on the next block south, also on Earlham street, and have considerable concern with this proposal to add two structures. First, the property site appears much too small for the proposed construction. I also have no doubt based on the building sites surrounding residential parking needs that there will be a need for more parking than currently proposed. This building sites entire neighborhood already has an extraordinary parking challenge. Parking in this sites neighborhood is an issue throughout the day, and gets ever worse in the evening when people return from work.
If City Staff were to visit the proposed building sites area and surrounding neighborhoods before and after 5p.m. they would clearly see the existing parking issues. It’s now a daily practice for existing residences to place orange cones, or trash containers in front of their properties to save their parking for when they return. The neighborhoods parking problem will eventually be a problem for first responders having to navigate the parking and traffic issues. The impact of this building sites neighborhood parking problem is growing and these proposed structures will only add to the impact of this issue.
Jess J. Rivera
(714) 501-2136
406 S. Earlham St.
Orange, Ca 92860
My opposition to the proposed request to construct at 221 S. Earlham Street (Design Review No. 5090-22) is as follows:
I am a former resident of this community. My former home and my Great-Grandmother's home still stand on the corner of Park and Washington. Over the years, this area has become congested and unsafe not only for those who reside in the area, but for those who visit there. On the occasions that I visit family, there is no safe street parking. I have even seen residents double-park in the middle of the street. I am almost sure that if an emergency vehicle was called to the area, it would become a safety issue for the citizens in the area. Having this proposed structure built will not only take away from the current look of the area but will increase the already taxing lack of parking space. Most of these homes are 100 plus years old and are small cottage like craftsman homes. This proposed structure will be so large it will be an eye-sore. The added residential space will add to the horrible congestion that already exists. I thank you for considering my comments and concerns.
Respectfully,
Lenora Silva, former resident who still has family in the area.
Good Afternoon,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed design for the Duplex and ADU in our neighborhood at 221 Earlham St.
First and foremost, the proposed design is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our neighborhood.
Furthermore, this development would bring in a large number of residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed development. While I recognize the need for a house, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood.Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Anna Romero
I oppose I agree with my neighbors
Bad for the El Modena community (Barrio)
Dear Members of the City Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the permit application for the proposed duplex development at 221 S. Earlham Street, which is currently under review. I believe this development presents several significant issues that warrant serious reconsideration.
1. Inappropriate Density
The proposed density of the duplex development is disproportionately high for this area. Our neighborhood has historically maintained a balance between residential and open spaces, contributing to its unique character and quality of life. The introduction of a high-density development will disrupt this balance, leading to overcrowding and a strain on local resources and infrastructure.
2. Inappropriate Height
The height of the proposed duplexes is out of character with the surrounding buildings. The increased height will obstruct natural light and scenic views, and negatively impact the aesthetic coherence of our community. Such deviations from established guidelines undermine the integrity of our zoning laws and set a troubling precedent for future developments.
3. Inadequate Parking
The proposed development plans provide insufficient parking spaces to accommodate the needs of residents and visitors. Given the limited parking availability in our neighborhood, the influx of additional vehicles will exacerbate existing parking issues, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and decreased accessibility for current residents. We are already dealing with the overflow of cars from the 200 block of Earlham St on the 300 block of Earlham St. This is becoming a big problem for the neighborhood, we don't know who's vehicle is parked in front of our homes and am concerned about crime.
The cumulative impact of these issues—density, height, and parking—will not only degrade the quality of life for existing residents but also potentially lower property values and alter the character of our community in ways that are inconsistent with the city's long-term planning goals.
I urge the City Planning Commission to carefully review these concerns and reject the current permit application. It is crucial to ensure that any new developments are in harmony with the established standards and values of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will consider these points seriously and act in the best interests of our neighborhood.
Audrey Shapiro
Good evening Design and Review Committee
I have reviewed the plans for 221 Earlham and I oppose. I was born and raised in the El Modena area. My concerns are as follows. We must preserve and respect the El Modena area as we preserve Old Town Orange. The area is already overcrowded and congested with people and cars. Parking is spewing into other newer communities and shopping centers. This area also suffers from illegal activity and with more people, crime becomes more prevalent. The proposed structure does not fit the craftsman small cottage-style, it looks more like an apartment complex with its three levels. The developer has not only taken land space, but has taken underground and air space as well to maximize profit. The developer will not have to directly address the issues, because it is not his primary residence and has no connection with the community. The developer needs to be more sensitive to the community and the burden it poses. Bottom line this structure is way too ambitious and will be the only two-story on that block. With homes being over 100 years old, this is a historic area in Orange and should be preserved as much as possible.
Thank you for your time
Mrs. Vega
To whom it may concern. My name is Trinidad Sepulveda, I live on 260 s Earlham St Orange. I have lived on Earlham since 1947 and I am almost 77 years old. We are currently having issues here for parking due to the housing here. If you let this Duplex be built here , Earlham will be packed , as it is now we can't park or have close family over due to the parking . With a 9 bedroom duplex no one will be able to park here or have accessfor the elders who need to park near their home. What may solve this issues is a parking permit feom Earlham into chapmam. Please consider this.
PART 2:
This situation highlights the broader issue of socioeconomic inequalities. It is disheartening to see vulnerable populations in our city being disproportionately affected by policies and decisions that do not consider their well-being. Instead of adding to the overcrowding, the city should focus on improving infrastructure, cleaning up the neighborhood, and addressing the root causes of overcrowding.
As residents who have invested in and contributed to the character of this neighborhood for years, we feel strongly that decisions affecting our community should prioritize the needs and voices of its residents. The proposed development seems to be driven by the desire to maximize units and profit rather than genuinely enhancing our community.
I urge the Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee to reconsider this proposal and prioritize the needs and safety of our existing residents. A thorough assessment of the impact on public health and safety, traffic congestion, and infrastructure should be conducted before approving any new developments. Additionally, I request that the city explore alternatives that do not further burden already overcrowded neighborhoods.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and hope the City's committee will make decisions that benefit ALL community members.
Sincerely,
Harvey Silva
PART 1:
Dear Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee,
I am writing to express my deep concerns and opposition to the proposed duplex development on Earlham Street. My family and I have lived and owned homes on this street for generations, and we built our homes to fit the community’s character and needs. The recent fire at one of our family homes highlighted the critical issues of overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure that plague our neighborhood. Despite the fire station being nearby, firefighters could not access the burning house in a timely fashion due to congested streets, resulting in a total loss. This house, a classic example of the cottage-style architecture that characterizes our neighborhood, was a cherished part of our community.
The proposed duplex development (including underground parking) raises significant concerns regarding public safety and exacerbates the existing issues of overcrowding. Building underground parking in an earthquake-prone region like Southern California poses additional risks, particularly regarding the potential impact on the foundation of surrounding homes. Excavating underground parking could compromise the structural integrity of nearby properties. Additionally, our streets are already congested, creating serious safety hazards. The construction process, involving large trucks and heavy equipment over several months, will further worsen traffic conditions and obstruct emergency access. Increasing housing density without addressing these underlying infrastructure challenges will strain our community even more.
The existing streetscape on the east side of S. Earlham Street features exclusively one-story, cottage-scale structures, including the properties adjacent to the project site. The proposed project design is inadequate to effectively integrate with the single-story cottage-scale of the neighborhood. The massing and scale of the new structure, along with the box-like design and lack of meaningful design, do not complement the existing architectural style and disrupt the neighborhood's character.
While we understand the need for development, we would agree more to a project that aligns better with the neighborhood's scale and character, such as a single-family home with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the back with a design that respects the existing cottage-style theme. The proposed six-unit, two-story complex is simply too much for our already overcrowded area.
It is disheartening to see that Farshad Shagoshtasbi, the developer, appears to be motivated solely by profit rather than the well-being of our community. His original plans did not consider the historic, cottage-style look of our neighborhood. Only after the staff report was published did he make some changes to his designs, which still fall short of fitting the neighborhood theme. As stated in Mr. Shagoshtasbi’s applicant narrative, he is “confident that this revised plan meets all City requirements and ensures a harmonious environment for the entire neighborhood.” I am here to tell you that this revised plan will not create a harmonious environment for our community.
- Harvey Silva
To Whom It May Concern:
Please do not approve this building permit.
I have been living on S. Earlham St. since 2008 and have never had a problem of unknown vehicle parking on the streets of our house. I enjoyed the wide open streets when coming home. But recently, there have been more and more vehicles I do not recognize parking along our streets.
With this building permit, 2 duplex and an ADU would mean a least 3 families, a conservative number, with at least 6 vehicles. The streets for the building permit are already over-saturated with vehicles parked.
Yours very concerned residents,
Thai
Good Evening,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential impact of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on parking in our community.I am apprehensive about the strain this may place on our already limited parking resources. As you may be aware, our neighborhood is experiencing significant parking congestion, and the addition of more residences without corresponding parking solutions could exacerbate this issue.
Inadequate parking can affect the quality of life for all residents, leading to increased frustration and potential safety concerns, particularly for families with young children and elderly individuals who may have mobility issues.
We have observed that the number of cars occupied by individuals experiencing homelessness has risen in our area. These vehicles often occupy parking spaces for extended periods, leaving fewer spaces available for residents and their guests. This situation can lead to potential conflicts within the community.
I propose that, as a condition for approving these project plans, the implementation of permitted parking be required.
Thank you for taking the time to read through my comments.
Good afternoon,
This email is in concern over the real-estate project that is currently under review for construction at 221 Earlham st, Orange ca.
This 9 bedroom construction is going to burden an already burdened street from congested parking. For the last few years there has been a considerable amount of cars congesting the streets, this caused a decline in the quality of life to this neighborhood. As a result of this parking congestion, there has been a noticeable increase in noise, traffic hazards, and illegal activities.
To not address the issues that will arise due to the added congestion in parking from this construction, would be providing a disservice to this neighborhood.
I have seen many neighborhoods around Orange that have implemented permitted parking on their street, which seems to be a reasonable solution to alleviate the already congested parking.
I propose, as a contingency to the approval of these project plans, permitted parking be implemented.
Thank you,
Russell
City Council Members,
Sir/Madam I am writing this to you inform you about the current and future problems with proposed construction of a two-story residential unit with two attached SINGLE-CAR garages, and a second detached two story building at the rear of the same property with a “TUCK-UNDER” parking space.
We live on the next block south, also on Earlham street, and have considerable concern with this proposal to add two structures. First, the property site appears much too small for the proposed construction. I also have no doubt based on the building sites surrounding residential parking needs that there will be a need for more parking than currently proposed. This building sites entire neighborhood already has an extraordinary parking challenge. Parking in this sites neighborhood is an issue throughout the day, and gets ever worse in the evening when people return from work.
If City Staff were to visit the proposed building sites area and surrounding neighborhoods before and after 5p.m. they would clearly see the existing parking issues. It’s now a daily practice for existing residences to place orange cones, or trash containers in front of their properties to save their parking for when they return. The neighborhoods parking problem will eventually be a problem for first responders having to navigate the parking and traffic issues. The impact of this building sites neighborhood parking problem is growing and these proposed structures will only add to the impact of this issue.
Jess J. Rivera
(714) 501-2136
406 S. Earlham St.
Orange, Ca 92860
My opposition to the proposed request to construct at 221 S. Earlham Street (Design Review No. 5090-22) is as follows:
I am a former resident of this community. My former home and my Great-Grandmother's home still stand on the corner of Park and Washington. Over the years, this area has become congested and unsafe not only for those who reside in the area, but for those who visit there. On the occasions that I visit family, there is no safe street parking. I have even seen residents double-park in the middle of the street. I am almost sure that if an emergency vehicle was called to the area, it would become a safety issue for the citizens in the area. Having this proposed structure built will not only take away from the current look of the area but will increase the already taxing lack of parking space. Most of these homes are 100 plus years old and are small cottage like craftsman homes. This proposed structure will be so large it will be an eye-sore. The added residential space will add to the horrible congestion that already exists. I thank you for considering my comments and concerns.
Respectfully,
Lenora Silva, former resident who still has family in the area.