Orange Planning Commission recommends approval of 71‑home North Tustin small‑lot project, 4–2

The City of Orange Planning Commission voted 4–2 April 6 to recommend that the City Council approve a proposal to redevelop the vacant commercial site at 2375 North Tustin Street with 71 small‑lot single‑family homes and related approvals, including a general plan amendment, zone change and a tentative tract map.

Monique Schwartz, the city’s principal planner, told commissioners the project seeks to reclassify the parcel from general commercial to medium‑density residential and to apply the city’s small‑lot subdivision standards. She said a mitigated negative declaration prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concluded potential environmental impacts could be reduced to less‑than‑significant levels through proposed conditions and mitigation monitoring. “The item before you this evening is the North Tustin Street residential project located at 2375 North Tustin Street,” Schwartz said in her presentation.

Chad Brown, vice president of planning and development for Malia Homes, presented the developer’s design and fiscal analysis. Brown said the proposal includes five floor plans with units ranging roughly 2,008 to 2,117 square feet, three‑story buildings concentrated toward the interior of the site, rooftop decks clustered only on interior units, and a total of 179 parking spaces (five more than required). He also cited the project’s fiscal benefits, saying the analysis estimates roughly $183,000 in annual property‑tax revenue and over $1.5 million in development impact fees if the project proceeds. “We accept the conditions of approval and I do ask for your positive recommendation to Council at tonight's hearing,” Brown said.

Opponents and nearby residents urged the commission to deny or slow the project, citing privacy, scale and traffic concerns. Lisa Ackerman Baldwin, a Cocoa Palms resident, said the development’s three‑story massing does not respect established one‑story neighborhoods and urged the commission to deny the proposed zone change. “It seems that we are so desperate to do something with this property that we’re willing to irrevocably change the zone even though it may harm the neighbours that are already here,” she said. Cynthia Hesketh, president of the Cocoa Palms homeowners association, said outreach had not reached all homeowners and asked for more time and concrete design proofing for adjacent properties.

Commissioners focused questions on privacy and sight lines, roof‑deck visibility, parking use and enforcement through CC&Rs, and a secondary fire access requirement. The applicant said he is negotiating a 1,500‑square‑foot connecting easement with an adjacent homeowners association to meet the City of Orange Fire Department’s secondary access requirement and offered to work directly with affected neighbors on window modifications and landscaping.

After deliberations, the commission included instructions to staff as part of its recommendation: require additional sight‑line renderings and “roof‑deck proof” views for the properties with identified concerns, and have staff work with the applicant to explore specific window modifications and landscaping measures to reduce visibility into neighboring yards and windows. The motion to recommend approval, with those recommendations to staff, was made by a commissioner and seconded by Commissioner Martinez; it passed on a 4–2 vote. The record indicates the commission named two commissioners during the final tally; the transcript does not show a roll‑call mapping of each commissioner’s yes/no vote.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation advances the project to the City Council for de novo review; City Council will consider the general plan amendment, zoning change, tentative tract map, site plan review, design review and the IS/MND. The city staff report and the project plans are included in the project packet for Council consideration. The Planning Commission noted that final conditions and any required modifications will be considered and enforced through the Council approval process and the project’s conditions of approval, CC&Rs and building permit review.

The commission adjourned at the end of the hearing; the next regular meeting is scheduled for April 20.