Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and the person that's doing that is me, so please stand.

One, two, three. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I would like to call for roll call.

Thank you, Chair. Committee Member Skirpanich?

Here.

Committee Member Deweese?

Here.

Vice Chair McDermott?

Here.

Chair Farfan?

Here.

And let the record show that Robert Gross is not present, but we do have a quorum.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to call for public comments. This is opportunity for the members of the public to address the committee on matters not listed on the agenda, which is within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the DRC. Proven that no action may be taken on or off agenda item unless authorized by law. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Skyler, is there any public comments? All right. Now we're moving on to number three, consent calendar. All matters listed, you okay? Oh, my computer went out too. Okay, consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the design review committee and will be enacted by one motion. Would anybody like to pull any items? No? All right. Then that leads us to 3.1, approval.

Oh, okay, are we gonna approve it?

Yeah, and 3.1, unless you wanna pull something.

No, I would like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Perfect, do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. And something's wrong with my computer here. Let me see.

There we go.

Yes. Yeah, I got it.

I think we're good. Are we good? Did I go through? Oh, perfect. All right. We got... All green, that's good. Okay, item number four, new business. This is 4.1, draft historical preservation ordinance. The recommended action tonight is provide comments on the working draft of the historical preservation ordinance. And so we'll like to start with a... Usually there's an area here for staff reports. Is there a staff report?

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Excuse me. Good evening, Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to be here this evening, along with the city's consultant, Debbie Howell-Ardilla of Heritage Channel, to share the draft historic preservation ordinance. The proposed ordinance before you this evening is here for review and comment, given the role that the DRC plays in the review of projects affecting the city's historic resources. The development of this ordinance is the culmination of work the city began in 2024 through an MOU with the Old Town Preservation Association and Orange Legacy Alliance, and has involved participation and input from these two organizations in its preparation. The present content of chapter 17.17 of the municipal code entitled historic districts is narrowly focused on procedures and criteria for establishing historic districts and associated applicability of development and design standards as well as the state historic building code to historic resources in the city. A copy of this chapter was provided as attachment to your reports. The proposed ordinance replaces the existing content of Chapter 1717 and its entirety with a comprehensive framework for addressing the city's historic and cultural resource management needs, including content related to historic properties and districts, as well as archaeological and tribal resources. It also provides procedural clarity to staff and the public about projects affecting these resources. The ordinance implements the cultural resources and historic preservation element of the 2010 general plan and importantly has been crafted to satisfy the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act for the city of Orange to become a certified local government or CLG. CLG status is common among many cities with significant concentrations of historic resources and provides local government agencies with access to grant funding and technical assistance for preservation efforts. Should the city council desire to pursue CLG status in the future, the ordinance would position the city for eligibility. As detailed in your staff report, the proposed ordinance addresses definitions associated with the new code content, establishment of a heritage commission to replace the DRC with a similar but expanded role in the review of activities affecting historic and cultural resources, establishment of the Orange Register of Historic Resources, criteria and procedures for designating local landmarks and historic districts, criteria and procedures for establishing neighborhood character areas. property maintenance responsibilities, tiered levels of project review, building demolition, building relocation, buildings older than 45 years but not located in a historic district, historic preservation incentives, economic hardship, identification, documentation, and management of archaeological and Native American resources, and application of adopted design standards in the state historic building code. I'd like to highlight some of the key content. With respect to the transition of the DRC to a heritage commission, the heritage commission is intended to serve a similar and expanded function of the present design review committee. The authority and responsibilities of the commission would continue to include design and demolition review of projects involving historic properties and go further to encompass recommendations for the inclusion of removal of properties from the historic register, recommendations for the designation and approval of historic districts and neighborhood character areas, review of Mills Act contract applications, and participation in public education related to historic and cultural resources. With respect to the historic register, the city has traditionally utilized its historic resources inventory developed through a series of windshield surveys conducted between 1982 and 2010 as its reference for historic property status. The inventory recognizes all properties identified as contributors in the Old Town National Register of Historic Places record as historic resources. It also includes contributing properties located in locally designated Orange-Eichler historic districts and surveyed properties outside of historic districts. The inventory is not technically a register in that there are no defined criteria or procedures for inclusion of a property. The proposed ordinance distinguishes between an inventory of resources and a register and formally establishes the Orange Register of Historical Resources as the city's authoritative list of properties that have been evaluated and found to meet local, state, and or national significance criteria for designation, whether individually or as contributors to historic districts. Associated with the register are criteria and procedures for listing, including formal action by the Heritage Commission. At its inception, the register will include all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register, as well as contributors to designated historic districts and individually designated properties. The ordinance establishes a process for designating neighborhood character areas, implementing a concept first identified in the cultural resources and historic preservation element of the general plan. An NCA designation would be a means of recognizing an area of the city with a cohesive concentration of related buildings or features that taken together are of interest to local history and planning. They may come in the form of historic development areas where many of the original buildings have been lost or significantly altered or areas associated with natural or landscape features where design guidelines could ultimately be developed to ensure that future development preserves the character of the area that remains. In terms of tiered project review, the proposed ordinance fine-tunes the city's current approach to project review. Major alterations would be subject to commission review in a public meeting, and minor alterations would be afforded one of two streamlined administrative review processes. Under the tier one review, commission review would be required for major alterations including alteration removal or obstruction of character defining architectural features, elevations and spaces or additions over 120 square feet that are visible from the public right of way. In the case of properties not visible from the public right of way, alterations visible from the front of the property would also be subject to tier one review. Tier 1 review is comparable to the present project review process by the DRC, and project approval would constitute a certificate of appropriateness. Tier 2 administrative review by staff would apply to projects that don't involve changes to or removal of character-defining features, as well as additions under 120 square feet that are not visible from the public right away. Tier 2 review is comparable to the present process for the minor design review, but establishes refined eligibility criteria for administrative review. It also broadens the types of projects eligible for administrative review to include small additions. Project approval by staff would constitute a certificate of appropriateness. And Tier 3 review eliminates the present need for minor design review related to ordinary maintenance and repair activities that don't involve a change of design, materials, or exterior appearance. Under the proposed ordinance, these activities would be exempt from a formal application review process. Tier 3 streamlines and simplifies property maintenance activities for property owners and eliminates the need for staff to perform an involved application review for straightforward activities. The proposed ordinance establishes preservation incentives to encourage designation, preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities. The Mills Act program continues to be an incentive identified in the ordinance with program procedures that would be established as a companion document incorporated by reference in the code and adopted by city council resolution. Draft program guidelines were provided as attachment three to your staff report. Other incentives identified in the ordinance include preservation easements and regulatory incentives, including continued application of the state historic building code, exemption for non-conforming uses, and reduction of commercial parking requirements beyond those accommodated by state law. The proposed ordinance establishes strong penalties for code violations, alteration or demolition without required review, and failure to obey an order issued by the city. Specifically, penalties include up to a five-year moratorium on the development of a property, court-ordered restoration, administrative restoration order, and civil action. And the final thing I'd like to highlight is the content related to archeological and tribal cultural resources. Given the prehistoric activity associated with Orange County, the known Native American presence in the early history of the city's geographic area, and common knowledge of early settlement activity, subsurface artifacts are likely to be encountered over time during the course of development activity. The proposed ordinance addresses the management and protection of archaeological and tribal resources. It establishes earth disturbance thresholds and considerations for preparation of cultural resource reports, commission authority for report review, requirements for on-site monitoring, and notification of the appropriate tribal representatives and cultural resource management agencies when appropriate. So in anticipation of tonight's meeting and future Planning Commission and City Council hearings, staff and our consultant reviewed the draft ordinance with representatives from OTPA and Orange Legacy Alliance on July 23. And a working draft of the ordinance was made available to the public on the city's website on July 28 with electronic notification of availability being sent to interested parties. Again, tonight staff is seeking feedback and comments on this draft of the preservation ordinance and your feedback along with the OTPA and Orange Legacy Alliance feedback will be taken into consideration in the refinement of the ordinance as it's prepared for hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. So that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions as well as Debbie.

Okay, at this time, would Debbie like to make a presentation or anything you'd like to say? Okay, this time we'd like to open it to public comments. Do we have, I think we have a few cards over there I saw. Oh, there are the names. Okay, we can have a Robert Boyce and the next person is Tom, hello.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Design Review Committee, my name is Robert Boyce. I'm the current president of the Old Town Preservation Association and one of the six original founders over 40 years ago. I will be followed by five other speakers from our association speaking on the draft historic preservation ordinance and the Mills Act program guidelines of city council resolution that is before you tonight. We have made available to the members of the DRC and the city clerk copies of our comments to be entered into the official record. As stated before, on October 22nd, 2024, a coalition of the Old Town Preservation Association and the Orange Legacy Alliance entered into a memorandum of understanding with the City of Orange to help prepare a historic preservation ordinance and offer recommendations on improving the city's Mills Act program. This has been an ongoing effort with many meetings, and on July 23rd, the Coalition and Community Development Department and the Chattel Group met to review the most recent draft of the ordinance. What you have before you is not the draft that we reviewed on the 23rd, but it is similar. Also, the Mills Act program guidelines were not reviewed at that meeting. Although the coalition submitted MILSAC program recommendations to the city council and staff in November of 2025, we have heard nothing since then until this document was revealed a few days ago. Combined, these two documents are sizable and complex. In our opinion, both our organizations and the DRC have had precious little time to review and comment. However, we've tried to do our best. Turning to our analysis that you have, I'd like you to turn to pages 80 through 88. This is 17.08.20, Reviewing Bodies. This section appears to be formatted like an ordinance. Is this a new ordinance, a proposed ordinance, or is this a resolution? This includes language defining the historic Heritage Commission. When OTPA and OLA met with the staff and the chattel group, we were informed of this ordinance or resolution in our meeting on July 23rd. In the original ordinance, the Heritage Commission definitions, duties, and authority were included in the ordinance, but not in the one that you have in front of you. we believe that they should be in the ordinance and can also be referenced in the new ordinance or resolution regarding the Mills Act. I'm going to stop and the next speaker will take up at page 26. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. May I have Tom? Thanks, Tom. Next person, Sophia.

I'm Tom Lockery, a member of the OTPA and past president of OTPA. The historic preservation ordinance, pages 26 to 17.17.102, the purpose, the second paragraph of the last line, the city council also acknowledges the rights of private property owners and strives to balance the community's interest in historic preservation with the rights of individual property owners. OTPA would like the sentence removed. The provision is unnecessary because private property rights are already protected by law. It also creates an ambiguous balancing standard that could be interpreted to diminish the ordinance's preservation objectives. Under item E, affirm the role of the city's historical resources as important economic assets and catalysts for new growth, tourism, and investment. OTPA requests that this be revised to emphasize that the primary purpose of the HPO is the protection and stewardship of the city's historic resources. Please revise to read, protect and enhance the city's historic character, architectural and cultural heritage and aesthetic appeal for the benefit and enjoyment of residents, visitors and future generations while supporting a vibrant local economy, tourism and compatible investment. Under pages 27, 17, 17, 102, purpose continued, item F, revise this provision to emphasize the primary purpose of the HPO is the preservation and stewardship of historic resources. While preservation can contribute to property values and economic vitality, those benefits should be recognized as outcomes of preservation rather than the ordinance's primary purpose. OTPA would like this to promote the preservation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, and continued stewardship of historic resources to protect the city's historic character, cultural heritage, and sense of place while supporting a vibrant, sustainable, and economically healthy community. Page 29, 1717, 103, definitions. Demolition, revise the wording on the definition of demolition. Demolition means any act of process that is not in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and that destroys in whole or in part a building, structure, or site or permanently impairs its structural integrity. OTPA requests that demo by neglect be added to the definitions as it is commonly used and recognized in preservation ordinances. Definition, demonstration by neglect means the gradual deterioration of historic resources resulting from the property owner's failure to provide ordinary maintenance, repair, or protection to the extent that the resource's structural integrity, historic character, or architectural features are significantly compromised.

Thank you, Tom. If I can have Sophia as the next speaker.

Good afternoon, chair and DRC committee members. My name is Sophia, speaking on behalf of OTPA. Page 30, major alterations. Revise the wording to major alterations means any work to a property that A, alters, removes, or obstructs character-defining features, elevations, or significant spaces. B, includes an addition of 120 square feet or more that is visible from public view. Or C, affects character-defining features visible from the front of a property that is otherwise not visible from the public view. Major alterations to historical resources listed in the register or inventory require Tier 1. This improves clarity and readability, replaces public right-of-way with public view. Page 31, 17.17.103 definitions. Preservation, revise the definition to match the Secretary of the Interior standards. Again, why wouldn't this match? The definition is included in the printed copy, which we have included in our handout. But for the sake of time, we will not be reading this meeting. Preservation is defined as the active process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form integrity and materials of a historic property. Work including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property generally focuses upon ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code required to sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code required to work to make properties functional is appropriate within preservation project. However, no exterior makes properties functional is appropriate within a preservation property. However, no exterior... Additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The standards for preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building's historic form. Page 32. Rehabilitation and restoration. Revise the definitions to match the Secretary. of the interior standards. Again, why wouldn't these match? Definitions are included in the printed copy, which we have included in our handout. But for the sake of time, we will not be reading at this meeting. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need or alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of this removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code required to make properties functional is appropriate.

Thank you, Sophia. At this time, I'd like to call Carol Craig. Hi, Carol.

Hi, everyone. I will continue as we go. Page 32, 17-17-103, definitions. Add reconstruction. This is one of the four main tenets of the Secretary of Interior Standards and should be included in the preservation ordinance. For the sake of time, we won't read it aloud, but we'll include it here in the printed document. Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The reconstruction standards established a limited framework for creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials primarily for interpretive purposes. Page 33, 1717. 104, Heritage Commission. Almost all of the duties and description of the new Heritage Commission have been removed from this draft ordinance being presented to the DRC tonight and moved into a new proposed ordinance. We don't know, since it's not clearly identified, but appears on pages 80 through 88. As stated earlier, we request that the same information provided on pages 80 through 88 also be included in the historic design ordinance. The full description was included in the draft OTPA and OLA reviewed with the staff and chattel group on July 23rd. We were not informed that this would be pulled out of the ordinance. Why is that? This paragraph, subsection A, this paragraph refers, references OMC chapter 2.06, as mentioned to our staff in our July 23rd meeting. There is no 2.6. Staff clarified that it should be 2.60. When we found 2.60, it was for the Parks Commission. Asked staff to send a link to 2.60, but to date, have not received any information on this. Page 34, 17.17, 105. Orange Inventory of Historic Resources, D. Inventory updates. In this paragraph, change the verbiage from the director will endeavor to review to the director will review. Eliminate the word endeavor because it weakens the city's responsibility to periodically review and update the inventory. If periodic review is intended to be part of the director's duties, the ordinance should state that obligation directly using clear objective language. Thank you.

Thank you, Carol. At this time, I'd like to call Justin.

Thank you, Justin. Justin Ladd with OTPA. I'm gonna start here on page 34, 1717.105. E-inventory notifications revise copy to include and to promote awareness of historical resource statuses among owners. Potential owners and residents, the director, in conjunction with the commission, shall establish and oversee a system for identifying inventory listed properties within the city's building records. Page 37, 1717-109. Designation procedures and historic landmarks. A, application. Any individual may submit a historic landmark nomination for the property in orange when the landmark designation application is initiated by the city council. a city agency or commission. The director shall be responsible for preparing and causing the prepared and required application. OTPA requests the following sentence be added back into the ordinance as it was included in the draft ordinance OTPA and OLA reviewed on July 23rd. In addition, the commission may recommend the designation of the historic landmark to the registry on its own initiative or in response to a written request from any person, group, or city agency. Section C8, landmark application materials, please clarify the legal authority under which the director may establish fees without the city council approval in a public meeting. Page 38, designation procedures, historic landmarks, continued. F, city council determination. The city council may designate a property as a landmark following a recommendation from the commission or upon the appeal of negative recommendation. After a local landmark designation application is submitted, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Public notice for the hearing shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code Section 17.8. In considering the application, the City Council shall review the Commission's recommendations as well as any written objectives submitted by the owner of the nominated property. provided that the objection is filled with the director at least 10 business days before the City Council hearing. City Council shall act by resolution to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. OTPA requests the following sentence be added back into the ordinance as it was included in the draft OTPA and OLA reviewed on the 23rd. If the City Council does not take action with 180 calendar days of the Commission's recommendation, the application shall be deemed denied. Also, add the word local in front of landmark for clarity and specification. H, building and property records for registered listed properties defining marking as used the following. Maintain a system for marking and identifying and spelled out in this HPO. Page 40, 1717-110. Designation procedures in the historic district. F3. The director or commission shall in a timely manner.

Thank you. Thank you, Justin. Appreciate it. May I have Diane? Diana, sorry.

Good evening, Chair and members of the DRC. There's a lot more comments, as you can see, and I'm probably not going to get to them. So I'm going to skip them for now since you have them in front of you and appreciate that they will be entered into the public comments and the minutes. I would like to thank staff for meeting with us on July 23rd. I understand, as I had asked if our comments would be incorporated into this draft and was told no, that they wouldn't be. So I was a little bit surprised to see that some of our comments were incorporated into the draft. I'm wondering if any of our comments tonight, since there are additional comments, will be entered into a new draft going before Planning Commission. in a couple of weeks. Since the agenda doesn't come out until the Thursday before Monday's planning commission, that wouldn't give us much time to go through 52 to 80 pages once again. So if staff could clarify that to the DRC, if the draft will contain any additional changes or planning will be looking at this. as is, that would be appreciated. We asked DRC to consider our comments and staff to consider our comments and incorporate them into the Historic Preservation Ordinance. We would like to see the Mills Act and the definition of the HRC or Heritage Commission be included in the ordinance. I wasn't clear on if it would be if it's a separate ordinance or resolution i understand the mills act is going to be a resolution we would prefer it be an ordinance for all the obvious reasons thank you very much thank you diana at this time i'd like to invite edith

Hi, I'm Edith Reed. I've lived in the historic community since 1992. I'm a longtime resident. And I really appreciate the house built in 1904. And I really appreciate the city and the committee's to move forward with this ordinance. And just briefly say that I'm in full support of the OTPA's comments on the draft ordinance and hope everyone will work collaboratively together going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Edith. At this time, I'd like to call Reggie. Reggie, sorry.

Hi, I'm Reggie Montekes. I support the draft Mills Act Ordinance. The Mills Act is about historic preservation and this ordinance supports that. I have reviewed almost all of the Mills Act files. We think that I have like one more office visit to get the last little bit. So what I've seen is the way the program has evolved from being strictly about historic preservation to becoming more about general home remodeling for some people, where they are getting credit for putting on solar panels and granite countertops and other things that have nothing to do with historic character. So I think that this ordinance is a step in the right direction to bring it back to focus on the historic. I support the limit on the number of contracts a year because these contracts they take time for people to review and to work with the homeowners to make sure things are done in the right way and that you're staying on plan and with your contract. I also support the emphasis on dealing with structural issues and plumbing and electrical as a priority for awarding a contract. I think that this is a good ordinance which balances the desire to support historic preservation with fiscal responsibility. Each of these contracts takes away part of our property tax revenue. Cities only get paid sales tax money and property tax revenue and this takes piece of it away for each contract and then when a property is sold with the Mills Act contract rather than the property taxes being marked to market like they are with every other house they are suppressed sometimes to a half or a third of what they should be so there's a balancing act there there was a comment made about removing the statement about balancing private property rights and historic preservation in the historic preservation ordinance. I think that needs to stay in because this is all about balancing. It's not about you have to do this and this is what we want. It's about balancing. you know, for people really into historic preservation, it's about finding what's going to work long-term. So thank you, and I thank staff and the consultant for the work, because this is a very good ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you, Reggie. This time I'd like to call, hopefully I pronounced this right, Shandor Lair, is that right? And the next one's gonna be Patrick, and that'll be the last one.

Hi. Good afternoon. I just want to point out some things about this preservation ordinance that I've looked at. I haven't had much time. I was gone last month, so I didn't get to go to the previous menu on it. And it's quite a long ordinance. So I think like two minutes is kind of a short period of time to go through a lot of it. So I think we need to actually extend the time on it. And I don't think I can get any more time out of you guys. Let me start out with a house isn't just an investment. It's where homeowners have the right to use and enjoy their historical property peacefully for a lifetime. The proposed historical preservation and cultural resource ordinance removes homeowners' protected property use rights by giving Old Town Preservation, OTPAA, City of Orange, and the proposed newly created Orange Heritage Commission, quote, the commission authority to employ heavy-handed legal means with thumb-on-scale enforcement tactics, including financial threats, by City of Orange attorneys. The City of Orange historical planners and OTPA should be ashamed of themselves for trying to create a self-proclaimed homeowners association, HOA, by grifting homeowners rights with rigid penalties and overbearing control instead of reasonable or flexible methods, forcing homeowners to give their property rights away. OTPA president and members are overly reckless with obsessed with their own importance acting as if the OTPA organization is invincible and above the law with this proposed to spearhead this ordinance. OTPA president and members are overly reckless with their own importance, acting as if OTPA organization is invincible and above the law with this proposed spearhead ordinance. In addition, OTBA's president aggressively steamrolling this ordinance with bankrupt city of Orange taxpayer-funded $50,000 sole source contractors just to get it passed with the city council members before November 2026 election is decided. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, I'd like to call Patrick. This will be our last speaker, correct?

Just kidding. Good evening. My name is Patrick Obrey. I am the owner and contractor. Some of you here in this room may know of the fire-damaged house on West Palmyra Avenue. I purchased this property to save it and return it to residential use. I didn't propose demolition, addition, increase of height, larger footprint, or change in use. non-conventional as a multiplex, and I try to turn it back to a home is what I'm trying to do. It was fire damaged about 11% of the residents, yet after months of architectural plans, engineering revisions, and review involving several city departments, I have learned that the current process has no clear path for accidental casualty loss to a historic home. And I brought this up in the March meeting also. hoping that there's gonna be some pages in there in this draft. A fire damage historic building is not the same as voluntary remodel. It requires immediate stabilization, weather protection, structural repair, code upgrades, and accurate replacement of materials that were destroyed or cannot be repaired. Every additional month of uncertainty increases costs, exposes surviving historic fabric to further damage, and makes preservation harder. The ordinance should create a specific casualty loss rehabilitation category for fire, earthquake, flood, vehicle impact and similar events. When a project preserves the building's use, footprint, height, massing, orientation, roof form and historic character, Repair, stabilization, selective reconstruction, and accurate in-kind replacement should remain eligible for administrative review streamlined. Replacing a window destroyed by fire is not the same as redesigning a historic elevation. Repairing a foundation without changing the building's appearance is not a major alteration. The ordinance should also require the California Historical Building Code to be applied at the beginning of plan review, not after repeated corrections under standards written primarily for new construction. Planning, building, fire, and historic preservation staff, if we get one, should complete one coordinated review and issue one consolidated correction notice. Hopefully one. If the city rejects a historical building code alternative, it should provide a written findings explaining the specific safety concern why the alternative is insufficient, and which complaint option causes the least damage to historic material. The ordinance also needs firm timelines Addressed and finally any demolition by neglect provision must protect its owners I do support historic preservation But preservation must include a reliable path to perform the preservation The ordinance should not only tell an owner what cannot be done It might also tell the city how promptly it is by what standards it is to approve.

Thank you Thank you very much At this time, before I turn it over to the committee, I'd like to give the city and Debbie a chance to respond to any of the questions that were asked. Specifically, the one I have is what we're looking at tonight, the same as what was presented to OPTA on the 23rd.

There are some changes to what was presented to OTPA that came as a result of direction from the city clerk's office and city attorney's office specific to the item that was mentioned about the duties and composition of the Heritage Commission. This is something as a typical practice, the city does not include in ordinance format, but establishes through adoption of resolution. So that is why that content was removed.

I see. Let me see. At this time, I'd like to open to the committee. I believe we have a few more questions.

And if I may add, I had the privilege of leading that coalition developing the initial draft ordinance and participated in that earlier meeting and understood from there that the municipal code has a section that lays out each one of the city's boards and commissions what their terms are, what their compensation is, and so forth, how many members and whatnot. And that the language that was in the original draft of the ordinance would be then incorporated into that. And I think there was even a note about which section of the code. 17.02 or some section. And it looks like attachment number three is that section. And I will point out that what could be downloaded from the website has that attachment three that has some portions of it redlined to replace, oh no, I'm sorry, that isn't the right one. That's Mills Act, it's number three. Number four, attachment number four has the language for all the cities, boards, and commissions, even the city council. And the first five pages are redlined, but then starting at page seven, it still reverts back to the original language and uses the name Design Review Committee. So there no doubt were changes proposed to that language that don't appear in the handout. Just so you know, pages seven through nine don't have any red line and still say Design Review Committee with seven members and their terms and whatnot. So I will point that out.

Thank you very much. I think I'd like to open it to, I forgot to introduce our new member, Donnie. Donnie, I know we met a little bit earlier this past week, and it looks like we have shared history. And so it's nice to see you. I'd like to welcome you.

Thank you.

And I'd also like to thank the previous members of the DRC. I didn't get a chance to say goodbye, but there's three that are no longer with us, and we'll miss them. We appreciate their contributions to the DRC. Donnie, I believe you have some items to bring up.

Yes, I do.

Before we go, excuse me, Mr. Chair and Mr. Deweese, before we get into the substantive part of this, could I ask staff, it sounded like you said comments received tonight from the public and our members will be used to create a revised package for the Planning Commission rather than a transmittal of here's what happened at the DRC meeting. Do I understand that correctly?

Yes, we will go through the ordinance once again and just take a look at the feedback received and where comments seem appropriately addressed. And then there will be some content in future staff reports moving forward summarizing the nature of the comments that were received from the community and also the minutes from this meeting will be included in the packet.

Okay, great. Thank you. It helps to understand the context of what we're going to be commenting on.

Definitely. That's a great point. This is not a typical meeting where it's a project. So there's a lot of documentation, and I appreciate OPTA's opinion in terms of the document they provided. It's great that someone had more time to look at this. There's a lot of pages. And with that, I'd like to pass it to Mr. Deweese.

I'd like to come out of the gate here on a positive note. It's a privilege to be on this, like Mayor Slater for the appointment and for DRC for being part of this. You're gonna hear me say this a lot over the next few months, but I was on the Design Review Committee from 2003 to 2005, and that was an enormous privilege and one of the highlights of my career. It's one of the building blocks of my entire career was the time I spent that I spent on the DRC. And so, anyway, I just wanted to start off on a positive note there. My biggest concern going into this, and it's sort of punctuated by everything that was said, and even was said from other people that were besides OTPAs, the timing of this whole thing and the whole documents. As I said, everything was received last Friday. As far as when I got it, it was posted Thursday at about five o'clock. Then it was a big scramble to get through and try to compare the two documents. In the interest of full disclosure, I was part of the process with OTPA, as I've been on OTPA since January before I accepted this mission, and I was part of the group that went through all these to compare the different documents. This is the one that was done on the 28th with substantial changes to it. This is the one that's here. To say some changes is not accurate. This took a tremendous amount of time over the last six days to go through to compare this document to this document and fleshed out. I mean the format of it was jumbled. Just the way the chapters were set up, the way the format was done. It was sort of just gutted and gutted and reassembled. That's a concern for me because, again, having done this for five years, this is a significant thing. This is a historic, this is an ordinance here. This is something that's going to be put into law, and it needs to be done carefully. From my experience, this is not a two-car garage that's being converted to an ADU where the DRC can review the drawings in a couple of hours and go see the site and do it. This was a long haul to get from there to this, and so it was an extraordinary amount of changes between the two documents. I guess it'll be saved till the end, but I would agree with the one person that said this should probably be continued. What is the rush to Planning Commission? Architecture and things like that are a patient search. You can use whatever analogy you want to. Nine women can't have a baby in one month. Things take time. It's like making a cake. You have to have all the ingredients that are there and they all have to be there. Then you have to sit down and mix all the ingredients. Then you have to take them and put them in the oven and they need to be baked. Things take time. This is being rushed through. Just the fact that there's so many questions just about definitions because there's a deviation being made between standard definitions that are in the Secretary of the Interior standards to many of them being rewritten. This is a preliminary, preliminary draft, and I'd say it wouldn't be ready to go to Planning Commission for quite some time. We'll have to get to how the, you know, the possibility of it moving, but That's kind of my largest concern right now is the timing and how this is being rushed through.

Don, before we move on, is there any specific recommendations that you have that you could share with us?

It would take so much time. That's the whole point. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of different things. the way the DRC was structured. I have questions about the name. How did it go to Heritage Commission when this was a historic preservation cultural ordinance? How did it change from that? There's the section where many, many of the things are pushed to the community development director. And then as you go through those things, those are gonna be under the auspices of that and under the auspices of staff. Probably my biggest concern, and... along with me talking about me being on the DRC for five years. The other thing is, how are we going about all this historical document and all this work, and we do not have a historic planner on staff? In my career, because I am part of the architecture design community here, I had the privilege of working with all three of the previous you know, historic planners that were there. And they were outstanding. And to be absent of that, I don't know how some of this stuff is gonna possibly get done until you have that very specific expertise of a historic planner. And that goes from years and years of professional experience at this city on historic projects in this town.

Thank you Donnie. At this time, But do you have any comments? Do you want to go page by page?

I will go through and get into a little bit more of the details of the pages that I found some things that possibly we can discuss, some questions, some of the language, some of the things that were mentioned in OTPA. And I have different page numbers than what OTPA marked out. I never had 80. I'm just going with page one of the 47 pages that we had. Is that what everybody else has?

That's what I had.

We had 47 for attachment one. There were 47 pages of the working draft. So I'm going to make a comment about the purpose, which is on page three, which it Is stated F, part of the purpose is to improve and stabilize property values and expand the economic and financial benefits available to the city. I think that what we're looking for is more of protecting and preserving the historic district, not necessarily turning it into a financial benefit. So I'd like to see that reworded. I also agree with OTPA on page five that in the definitions there should be demo by neglect should be defined in there. On page Six, I have a question, historical resources, which comes up later on, you know, that's why it's defined here. I wonder if this, is the historical resource the entire lot, everything on the lot, including the accessory structures? Because, for example, in the relocation section, talks about the historical resource. We need to show the necessity of relocating the resource. But we move garages a lot. Is there a necessity to move a garage? You know what I'm saying? Are we considering accessory buildings, garages, as part of the entire historical resource? I think that needs to be clarified. because this term is used later on. Also, on that same page six, under major alterations, the last line says inventory are subject to a tier one certificate of appropriateness through commission review. Well, that's correct. I don't know why I noted that. Because we're called. I was just looking at this at the beginning and I realized that it's not always Heritage Commission is referred to as commission. So sorry, never mind about that. Non-contributing resources on the next page seven. Are we going to note anything about non-contributing resources have the ability to be contributing resources if they are restored or rehabilitated, reconstructed? Perhaps there should be some some note in there about, some more about non-contributing resource. And one of the reasons I bring that up is a lot of times we see non-contributors come before us with a project and they assume that historic preservation doesn't really apply to them because they're not contributing. And so since a lot of alterations have been made, more alterations should be made. Whereas if they restored something, they could be a contributor, be eligible for a Mills Act contract. Just something that I think should be considered on that page. Page eight, OTPA mentioned reconstruction. I agree that should be listed as a definition. And I also noted that on page 10, where the inventory updates, the director will endeavor to review. I think more than, I would get rid of endeavor as well. Going a little bit more quickly through here on page 14. Okay, commission review and recommendation. The application can be approved, continued, or denied. I noticed that later on, and I'll mention this when we get into the OMC red line, that's a little inconsistent. and I'm just looking for consistency of how decisions are going to be made that will be approved, continued, or denied, because it's a little different in other parts. And let me see. Keep going. There's a lot of printing to do with this business. Okay, so on page 22, The minor design review section, this is tier two, minor alterations. Maybe this is addressed somewhere else, but I was wondering about things like fences, patio covers, driveways, various other driveway covers and things that we see in Old Town in particular. Are they addressed as to whether they will be reviewed or how they're going to be reviewed, what the requirements are, and how the public knows that these things are supposed to be reviewed? And further down on this same page, 22, under 4B, Number five, replacement of existing electrical panels, roof sheathing materials, window screens. These are all things that are considered ordinary maintenance and do not require tier one or tier two. Awnings that have the same materials form and shape that are compatible. How do homeowners know that something that they have is not compatible and should not be replaced exactly the way it was before? I don't have an answer for that, but I think that we need a way to let homeowners know that replacing your inappropriate, doing maintenance on something that's already inappropriate should be revised to be appropriate. So make sure that that's in the review. On the next page, 23. Oh, yeah, comment, please. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm looking for some discussion.

Sorry. That's one of the main ones that I had here, and this just gets into an architectural nomenclature thing. It kind of concerns me reading this. They're talking about these things, and they're unrelated things, electrical panels, things that are other here. Roof sheathing materials is something that's hidden underneath the roof. It is not about

It's not about the shingles, no.

That's just, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm playing my, it's incorrect. That whole thing should be done. And then the other thing that should happen with some of this that we should, and I think this is in, I think this is in the OTPA thing, I believe we put it in there. There's a number of times when you have something like that, it should include the words including but not limited to. Because otherwise, if you're trying to make a list of that, it's going to be 14 pages long of definitions of various materials that can possibly be on part of a, on a building or a landmark or a landscape or.

That's all. If I could add another comment regarding these tier three projects, I think it would behoove the public to better understand what rules to follow, essentially, in going forward with this. And for tier three in particular, to identify that even though they don't need review for historic purposes they may still need a building permit so as I understand it the ordinance is to help clarify for property owners for the general public what procedures are and and so I think it would help to have that clarification put in there at some point yes it's a good a good point on

On page 23, under the Tier 1 procedures application D, it asks for detailed architectural plans, including floor plans, elevations, drawings, et cetera. And I only include this because this has occurred before. With dimensions, they should I think call out that these things need to be dimensioned because we have had the experience of getting these drawings with no dimensions on them. And the site plan, same thing, where the trees are and put in the dimensions. Okay, and so then... I can add to that. Yeah, go ahead.

In addition to that, since we're talking about environmental things, another thing is a simple north arrow and dimensions of these amenities. The reason why that's important, trees are living organisms and they have certain requirements, whether it's water, air, and light. And a lot of times the plants that Ruby's seen, I think tier one's a perfect example, you sort of need to, you need to know where this tree either is existing or being proposed. And where, is it a north-facing, south-facing, east or west? It's very important whether that tree's gonna be successful or that plant material. But if I can dive a little bit deeper, I think, What would be important is not to list a specific tree or specific shrub that's going to make this important. I think it's a collection of things that make certain neighborhoods a neighborhood. As you enter the City of Orange and you enter other cities, what makes the City of Orange special? Is it just the architecture? Is it the landscape? Is it a combination of both? Is it the materials? And I kind of hinted at that. Donnie and I worked at a previous place Where if you have this ordinance and you're rebuilding the city of Orange or any city, does this ordinance help you build it to what it is today? And I think today, or what I'm seeing at this draft, it doesn't. It kind of hints at it, and it kind of uses very careful wording, but it doesn't give you specifics.

So that's what I want to bring up on this section of tier one. Thank you. May I pile on on this one paragraph? I have Mark up there too, because I mean, even on this one, you're missing the simple site plans. This is another one where it shouldn't just be a listing of that. There needs to be, a set of, and I know staff tries to do that to give guidance to people that come in under, one of the problems we've had lately, and this has come in my direction because part of my duty in OTPA is I've helped some of the people in the general public that have struggled with their project, sorry. Ah, don't hit the mic, I just learned a message. Learned a very important lesson. They will show up and they're trying to do their own drawings, they're trying to save money because there's so many fees involved with everything and they're trying to, but they just don't have the normal drawing dimensions. Staff, I've seen them jump through hoops to try to help and do that. I think staff would be better to have that written out. Here is tier one. This is site plan, floor plan, details, boom, boom, boom, boom. This is the whole thing. Just like you do when you look, When you look on the website for someone that's doing a room addition, there's things that are on there. Break it down. Everything for tier one, everything for tier two, everything for tier three. And just list it and just be very specific and give criteria about scale and north arrows on that. Floor plans shall include overall dimensions, individual dimensions. Exterior elevations shall include Keynotes calling out exact materials by their proper names and have a whole criteria for that as opposed to a four sentence. Four sentence doesn't cover this. This needs pages and pages of work. To do it right.

Thank you. Good point. And then again, on commission review, it just needs to coordinate with what is in the I think this stays the approving, conditionally approving or denying, but it's different in the red line, which I will get to in a minute. Keep going here. So we're still under Tier 2, the minor design. review on page 26 C addresses the replacement of doors of windows and doors and I just I I just question if this will if if this is going to catch the the that will solve the problem that we currently have of people replacing their doors and windows with inappropriate products and trashing the historic doors and windows and then saying, well, I didn't know or nobody told me I needed to do this or I did it and it was done over the weekend and it's all gone now. Is this going to be, Is this going to solve that by having this under minor, minor review? So this is administrative, right? This is done over the counter, is that right? The tier two minor alterations, so doors and windows. I'm going to ask for a little clarification from staff.

Yes, committee member. The tier two review would be an application intake, not just over the counter.

So it's not just over there. But how do people know that they are required to do this?

This is the age-old problem. It's a public education effort.

Yes, I noticed also in the ordinance, it says that the Heritage Commission will promote this, will participate and promote public education. And I'm not sure how we're going to do that exactly. Because it seems like the recurring issues that we have with things like doors and windows, it's like there's no remedy once it's once it's been done. Or people, I mean, once they rip out their historic windows and replace them with vinyl, they almost never, it's an economic hardship then for them to change it. You never see them go back to the replacement window, to the wood windows. Do you have a comment, please?

Yeah, just very briefly, it's a great question. How can we as a commission support education efforts, and why did I add that? Both as a consultant and as a former cultural heritage commissioner with my town, South Pasadena, we would schedule workshops. We invited CPF to town when we had questions and pushback on our MILZAC program. We We took it upon ourselves in our volunteer capacity to plan sessions, to have an all-day workshop on the Mills Act, for example, supporting those house tours. You guys already are very active, of course, with the wonderful preservation stakeholder organizations that you have. but keeping up that level of engagement, it's a wonderful way to be ambassadors for your own preservation program. You can generate enthusiasm for the program, but you can also get out there to address some of the common misperceptions that folks might have about historic preservation. So that's kind of the idea is to, you're already doing a lot of that, but that's the intention there to state it, because then it's something that you can continue with.

Thank you for that very much. Please.

Yeah, I had something. Sorry, I haven't got used to this yet. I'm used to the old dais where we would just talk to people right in front of them. There's... On a positive note, there's been a number of conversations between OTPA and the community development director about doing specifically that, about doing educational, about doing resale, door-hanging things, workshops, something like that. That's been discussed. Like I said, that was between OTPA and the community, and Russell, and OTPA. I think that would be a good thing for the other. I think it would also be good if OTPA and the city were able to sit down and work on a project together and work together on something. I think that has another tangential sort of positive aspect to it.

So I'm going to go back to the same page, 26, under G, sign refacing maintenance, where there's no change in method of attachment or style of illumination. I'd definitely add material to that, because the material could be changed, and that would be a major difficulty. And make sure that the installation of exterior lighting K includes you know, all of the requirements for exterior lighting. So on the next page, there's more of... Wait one second.

Yes, go ahead. An eye on landscape alterations and removal or installation of a tree and plant material not specifically designated. or listed as character-defining features in a landmark nomination application. I keep seeing that word, character-defining, throughout the whole document, but nowhere does it define what that is. There's different historical homes. We have the Eichlers. you know, the Craftsman, we have the Victorian, and et cetera, et cetera, but nowhere in this document does it list, what are those character defining features of each of those neighborhoods? Maybe I missed it, I'm not sure, Debbie.

Character-defining features is covered in definitions in a kind of holistic way, and then when we get to the level of a survey or an evaluation or designation, that's when we would, the character-defining features are going to depend upon the significance of every resource. So that's really a case-by-case. resource by resource assessment, since not all properties have the same reasons for significance, right? So for example, if a property were eligible for its association with an important individual, the character defining features and the period of significance might look at that person's tenure in the house, right? So it's less about in that way, it's not strictly about architectural style, it's more about looking at that period of significance and determining what features might be conveying that significance. But we cover that, and that's why we try to, we include that in definitions to set the stage so folks understand what a character defining feature is.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So I do also have a question. We have these requirements for Tier 2 requirements. But tier three is not mentioned at all because, and should it be? Should the tier three things that don't need review be, or is that, I don't know. That's a question that I have. Yeah. Whether anything should be mentioned about that. And then after that comes the relocation. So on page 28, the requirements for relocation Relocation, number four is necessity. Relocation is necessary. If the relocation is necessary to retain the historical resource, et cetera. And it made me think about garages and how you could say that usually the garage is relocated for convenience so they can build an addition. It's not, is it necessity? I'm bringing that, I'm raising that as a question that I think You should consider that. And that's where it goes back to the historical resource. Define the historical resource. Is that just the house? Is it everything on the site, including the accessory structures, the garages and everything? Because it's often those accessory structures that want to be relocated, not the whole house. So I'm just raising that. I'm not telling you what it should be. Very few other comments that I have. I'll just let you know. Let me see. In this document, I think that is most of what I have. Let me go through all 47 pages. Then the other comments I have are in the OMC under, let's see, reviewing bodies. I have... And these are page, they don't have page numbers, but the third page that I have, which is 17.08.020, under the authority to hear and decide, where it says applications for design review. I think, is it design review? Are we gonna call commission review design review, or is it project review? This is just a language question. I don't know if that comports with what you've got in the working draft. And then, later on that page, C, authority to act upon an appeal. design review board. So that's gotta be updated, because we haven't had a design review board in many, many years, so that's outdated. Nothing on the next page. And then on the next page, D, which is all red lined with design review committee is struck out and heritage commission is put in. There on the second line, okay, well the first line reads now heritage commission, the heritage commission, and then committee is still in there, so you're gonna have to strike out committee. And then at the bottom of that page, number two, powers and duties, that also says design review committee, that needs to be updated. The next page. Okay, this is where I think that this needs to coordinate with the language that's in the working draft. Let's see. E, it says approve or deny in whole or in part. And I don't think that the DRC has ever been allowed to deny anything in part. or approve it in part. It's either approve, approve with conditions, or deny. So I'm just asking for coordination there. And the same above there, D, where it says approve or deny in whole or in part. And then there are a whole lot of typos in H. On the second line, utilized is misspelled, and historical is misspelled. And then on the bottom of the page, make final determination on design review. Again, I'm not sure if that's what we're calling commission review. So that's just a coordination thing. The next and last page. Let's see. It's not the last page. The next page under meetings, again, design review committee should be updated. B has committee. That needs to be updated. And then how many people are going to be on the committee? This says... Four members shall be a quorum, and that would be if there's seven on the committee. Is it going to be seven? Okay, so. And then committee is listed in here. It should be commission. Under membership, again, design review committee. and that should be updated, and committee members, so that should be commissioned. Same with B and C, all these places. See A and B also have committee listed where it should be commissioned. And then on the next page, six, same thing, design review committee and committee, that should be updated. And those are all the comments that I have made. I think there were a lot of good comments made tonight, and I agree that they should be updated. they should be reviewed. I don't have anything further, though, Chair.

Thank you very much. That was very comprehensive.

Could I jump in on the tail end of that then? Go for it. So... If we go to the same section where section D, where it's talking about heritage commission, and if you go to that section, so if you go to, well, it's AB and it's green, it's all, but it talks about where, it's where final determination was crossed out twice. And then it says prepare and maintain the orange register. And then below that, it's prepare and maintain the orange inventory. That falls within the commission. Where are we going to have the time to do that? I mean, that's registries and inventories are a tremendous amount of work. How was that suddenly? And I'd like to point out specifically, that wasn't in the draft. So that landed very recently.

If I may, I understood the intent to be that it would be more of an oversight role that staff would actually be housing that inventory, adding to it, the register likewise would be Physically maintained by staff, but the Commission has an oversight role So perhaps that could be if that's accurate It was that if that was if my understanding was is correct then perhaps that there could be some clarification Staff clarify that yes that that is a correct understanding the Heritage Commission would be the body of

with authority to maintain the inventory and register, but the day-to-day hands-on work of managing the lists falls to staff.

Okay, so we could get that rewritten then?

Yes.

Okay. If you go down to the bottom of that, the question I had is a big deal was made out of the one that Emma just mentioned, make final determination for additional bedrooms or bathrooms in a historic district pursuant to, why was that singled out as being more significant than everything else? I mean, it's a big, giant red box around it. Now, I know what it means for my thing, but it has to do when you're adding bedrooms and all this other stuff. It's commonly referred to as the Chapman University effect. And so, is there anything else about that besides just watching out for how many more rental How many more boarding houses are allowed to pop up in the city?

This is content that was marked for us to revisit.

Okay.

I'm prepared to share my comments. Sure. And I'll start with the ordinance document going in order of presentation. So starting with definitions on page six, major alterations now has a new concept being introduced that major alterations excludes additions measuring 120 square feet, Oh, I'm sorry. It says, sorry, let me skip to minor alterations because that's the part that needs correcting. Minor alterations is introducing a new concept saying you don't need to go to the commission for additions that are under 120 square feet on an elevation that's not visible from the public right-of-way, that visibility being determined by the director. And from my read, this is inconsistent with both the historic preservation design standards for Old Town as well as the Eichler preservation design standards. And so introducing that conflicting language I think will be problematic going forward and I'd like to see that provision about those small additions being struck. I understand the city's looking to be able to have projects they can streamline through the process, In this case, unless you're going back and changing the design standards, I think it will be problematic. In Section 109C8, someone noted this earlier, but applicable fees established by the Director should be corrected by just striking established by the Director because the default is, as noted earlier, fees are adopted by the City Council. In section 114D3, some paragraph two, it talks about exterior or interior paint color, except, so these are things that are considered tier three projects, except where the project includes painting over an exterior character defining feature that was historically unpainted, or painting an interior character defining features specifically identified in the landmark designation. I'd like to see added to that paragraph painting over historic signage. We have some really nice remnants of historic signage that's painted right on the buildings, and we have lost some of that over the years with property owners painting over them. Section 117, paragraph A2. Again, this speaks to that exemption for additions under 120 square feet and just point out that that's another place that would need to be changed to remove that from Tier 2 projects. Going to section 120, paragraph G1. This is just a minor item. Upon receipt of an application for a certificate of determination, the applicant shall post a notice of intent to demolish on the property. And I believe it's the city's responsibility to have that notice posted. So again, it's a minor thing, but I think that could benefit from some language cleanup. Section 123A, this is dealing with certificates of economic hardship. And it says the council may issue such a certificate to allow for the alteration or demolition of a historic resource. when denial of the request would impose an undue economic hardship on the owner. And I think to that list of alteration and demolition, I'd like to see relocations, because it may be the case that there's an economic hardship if the building can't be moved, and I'd like to see that explicitly laid out as an option rather than demolition. And again, in section 123, paragraph E3, it's talking about adaptive reuse or rehabilitation of the property isn't feasible due to structural, whether due to structural limitations or physical constraints, et cetera. To that, I would like to see relocation added, so it would read adaptive reuse, relocation, or rehabilitation of the property is not feasible. And then one thing that I don't find addressed in any of these that perhaps could be incorporated into this ordinance, for the review of projects, there's language about meeting standards. But other than the districts that we have, there are no preservation design standards adopted. So every other property that's outside of our of our districts, current or future, don't really have standards by which to judge these proposed changes to the property other than the Secretary of Interior standards. And I think it would be appropriate to extend the Old Town historic preservation design standards citywide to any buildings that were constructed during the same period of significance as the Old Town district. If you know about the history of this town, it was the typical agricultural community. So there was a town surrounded by farm sites. Some people lived within the town proper. So what essentially now is, for the most part, the district. But really, that was part of the same community being built by some of the same people, the same communities, different community members that had their house out on the farm, for example. And so it seems like it would be appropriate to be able to use those standards. So if that could be incorporated, I think that would help going forward in clarifying expectations for property owners as to the kinds of changes to their property that are most appropriate that still preserve that for generations to come. I had a question about attachment two. We have the section 17.17010 on historic districts. I don't see any red line for that. Is that just, is that all new language or is that, could you clarify what this document is presenting to us?

That, excuse me, that document is the existing code content specifically addressing historic resources.

Okay. So there wouldn't need to be any action by city council to enact this, it's already existing, just for informational purposes?

This is existing and was included in your packet just to represent the limited content in the code currently specific to historic districts and historic property guidance. That section will be replaced entirely with this new ordinance. Oh, OK. That makes sense.

Great. I like what I'm seeing in the Mills Act program. Yeah, certainly, go ahead.

Just because I just want to jump in on this one thing. I only have one comment that I had on that anyway, but I think it's significant. When you go to B, it says providing and encouraging preservation and complementary new development. Complementary is about as broad and vague a term as you could use it. It's incredibly subjective. Something else needs to be used to describe that. That's all.

Thank you. I don't have any further comments on the Mills Act guidelines. I like them very much. I like what I'm seeing there. And I would say the same for the package overall. I'm more than pleased that this is finally coming forward after so many years where we have had parts of historic preservation program in place here in the city, but we have not had an ordinance that really looks at it and ties it together in a comprehensive way. So I applaud the city council for bringing this forward. I applaud the staff and the consultant team for for the great job they've done on this. I really could not be more pleased that this is coming forward. And I will just make some comments about attachment for the portions that are not redlined. I support the draft that the volunteer coalition put together on the membership of the Heritage Commission. that it be five members, I think it would be stretched way too thin in this community, trying to find seven qualified members at any given time. And we did see that proposal in the working draft from a few weeks ago. So I'm looking forward to this being redlined again. And I like even the qualifications for membership. That's in paragraph 4A. People with training, knowledge, and experience to analyze said projects. And that at least two of the members shall have experience in urban planning, architectural history, or historic preservation. I actually like... this language better than what I saw in the administrative draft. So congratulations on getting this to us. I'm really happy. Support what's going forward.

Thank you. If I can add one thing on the historical preservation. I just found my notes. Sorry, it's a big document. In addition, you keep seeing cultural landscape. And the comment I have is there's good cultural landscape and there's bad. And an example of bad is seeing ficus trees that are planted. And that's an appropriate one. It lifts sidewalks too. It's not a native species. Three, it's underneath power lines a lot of the time. So they just chop the top in a lot of the situations. So if there can be I keep saying, is there specifics? And you're saying, well, it has to be broad. But I think there needs to be specifics of what gets preserved and why and what doesn't as it pertains to landscape. And there's some good history and there's some bad. There's a new street, new development. If there's appropriate trees, species, size, types, water usage, water is gonna become more precious as you guys have heard. It's gonna be more regulation and limit the water from Colorado. what's going to happen with all our current existing inventory in the city of Orange where it requires a lot of water and we have domestic water. So there just needs to be some sort of help in terms of determining what is a good, understanding cultural landscape, but also what is good planning, what is good design going forward. Yeah, your microphone.

So when we say, and this, you pointed, you found an omission that we can add to our definitions. A cultural landscape is a term of art defined by the National Park Service. There are different categories of cultural landscapes that can be organic, that can be planned. We will add that to coordinate with the city to define determine whether or not that's appropriate to add. But since a cultural landscape can be a historical resource, which is to say it can qualify for a landmark designation, we should define it. Since when we say cultural landscape, it's not necessarily just, you know, kind of the landscaping. It's that it's a category of resource. Yeah.

Got it. So thank you. You caught that. I was going to suggest the definition section might be the way to address that. Okay. Thank you. Definitely. And I think the plaza is actually a great example of a cultural landscape. Perfect. Yeah, definitely.

That's all the comments I have. Is there any other comments? There's no motion to make tonight. This is just review and our comments. Hopefully that helps. And I appreciate the audience here that stayed and those that have spoken. A lot of... A lot of information. Hopefully, we have another opportunity to look at this. I know things need to be pushed forward before the next election, but I think it's important. It's what makes City of Orange special. This committee up here, we're volunteers, and we put our expertise into what we feel is important. As you said, you come from the city of Pasadena, grew up in L.A., in Glendale, and being a neighbor in the city to Pasadena, where a city... you know, respects historical preservation. And another one that I was living at didn't. It's night and day what you see. And one of the main reasons why I'm in this committee is because I appreciate all the character of what the City of Orange has. And I would hate to see that go away just because of economic, you know, need. And we end up with, you know, just an urban community. Island. Yeah, that's my soul box. But I appreciate everybody's time and thank you everybody for coming.

Thank you. Could we get reminded when, is there a date set for Planning Commission or an anticipated date?

We have been looking at dates. I think we will, based on the comments tonight, I'd like to stop short with announcing another date until we have a chance to regroup the feedback okay thank you very much and then after that will it be made available one more time before it goes to planning commission or will the general i mean we'll be able to see it prior to that it will be made available again i think we need to have kind of an internal regroup before we determine the path forward

Okay, there's no more comments. I'd like to adjourn this meeting. Next meeting will possibly be August 19th, 2026 at 4.30 p.m. at this council chamber. Thank you. Appreciate it.