9.2. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a commercial property with 71 three-story single-family small lot homes at 2375 N. Tustin Street, the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 06-26 approving Zone Change No. ZC25-0002, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV25-0001 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I am providing my input on 9.2. My input covers three points:
Strategic Policy
Good Governance & Vision
Fairness
Strategic Policy: Is it a good strategic public policy to change the general plan designation from Commercial to Residential? Is it wiser to consider it along with any land use change(s) for the Mall? Or on Tustin Street?
Based on the current commercial real estate market, changing the designation from commercial to residential gives it value. Although that’s speculation, the property tax valuation falls around 70 million that could change due to various economic circumstances. Do we have factual data & proven long-term examples where this works & that it will never need general fund $ or cost the taxpayers a dime? It’s a gamble to approval this proposal.
There’s the typical default view, “well, it could be worst”. “It could be 6 stories with 100s of units”. To be clear, if you approve the project as is, there is no binding contract that locks in the development to only 71 units. The tract map &/or the major site plan entitlements could be ditched but the residential land use/R-3 zoning would stay in place. A six-story residential project could still occur. There’s no land use contract that gives recorded assurances that only this precise project will happen. There’s no certainty. Once the commercial use is extinguished, it’s gone forever along with future sale tax revenue.
Good Governance & Vision: The plans show that the project fails to comply with the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance & Guidelines. Those requirements are easy to read & follow to achieve the required legal findings. Attached are two approved documents (Small Lot Subdivision regulations) highlighting in yellow showing the areas of noncompliance along with drawings that indicate the locations where egress window relocation could shift to. If not, make the units two-stories. These 3 items were provided along with the HOA “ask” letter of May 14, 2026, & not included in Attachment 15. Plus, there is some confusion on what was said & provided to the applicant on these regulations/precedent issues of similar projects. And there’s the cleanup matter of correcting the ordinance removing these projects from DRC oversight.
Also, the project was submitted to the City in March 2025, but the Coco Palms property owners weren’t aware of it until March 2026. This is not proper, nor is it good public engagement. In my opinion, this cloud puts the Council in an extremely difficult position. In this time of uncertainty, what does this project bring to the table? Does this inform developers that “desire to partner with Orange” what Orange is looking for? Does this represent our economic vision?
Fairness: The Coco Palms one-story community wants to be treated with fairness. They are very aware of what the Viewpoint & Fletcher project neighbors got. That important precedent which should be emulated. It’s fair for Coco Palms, Park 72, the mobile home park to receive the same respect & consideration.
I ask you to get all the answers you require before making any decision. I will be interested in your reasoning Tuesday night & hope it will be based upon the required legal findings supported by irrefutable facts.
May 25, 2026
Mayor/Members - Orange City Council.
I am providing my input on 9.2. My input covers three points:
Strategic Policy
Good Governance & Vision
Fairness
Strategic Policy: Is it a good strategic public policy to change the general plan designation from Commercial to Residential? Is it wiser to consider it along with any land use change(s) for the Mall? Or on Tustin Street?
Based on the current commercial real estate market, changing the designation from commercial to residential gives it value. Although that’s speculation, the property tax valuation falls around 70 million that could change due to various economic circumstances. Do we have factual data & proven long-term examples where this works & that it will never need general fund $ or cost the taxpayers a dime? It’s a gamble to approval this proposal.
There’s the typical default view, “well, it could be worst”. “It could be 6 stories with 100s of units”. To be clear, if you approve the project as is, there is no binding contract that locks in the development to only 71 units. The tract map &/or the major site plan entitlements could be ditched but the residential land use/R-3 zoning would stay in place. A six-story residential project could still occur. There’s no land use contract that gives recorded assurances that only this precise project will happen. There’s no certainty. Once the commercial use is extinguished, it’s gone forever along with future sale tax revenue.
Good Governance & Vision: The plans show that the project fails to comply with the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance & Guidelines. Those requirements are easy to read & follow to achieve the required legal findings. Attached are two approved documents (Small Lot Subdivision regulations) highlighting in yellow showing the areas of noncompliance along with drawings that indicate the locations where egress window relocation could shift to. If not, make the units two-stories. These 3 items were provided along with the HOA “ask” letter of May 14, 2026, & not included in Attachment 15. Plus, there is some confusion on what was said & provided to the applicant on these regulations/precedent issues of similar projects. And there’s the cleanup matter of correcting the ordinance removing these projects from DRC oversight.
Also, the project was submitted to the City in March 2025, but the Coco Palms property owners weren’t aware of it until March 2026. This is not proper, nor is it good public engagement. In my opinion, this cloud puts the Council in an extremely difficult position. In this time of uncertainty, what does this project bring to the table? Does this inform developers that “desire to partner with Orange” what Orange is looking for? Does this represent our economic vision?
Fairness: The Coco Palms one-story community wants to be treated with fairness. They are very aware of what the Viewpoint & Fletcher project neighbors got. That important precedent which should be emulated. It’s fair for Coco Palms, Park 72, the mobile home park to receive the same respect & consideration.
I ask you to get all the answers you require before making any decision. I will be interested in your reasoning Tuesday night & hope it will be based upon the required legal findings supported by irrefutable facts.
It’s not too late to do this correctly.
Adrienne J. Gladson, AICP