Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting of August 17th, 2026 to order. Commissioner Vasquez, will you lead us in the pledge? Yes. If you're able, please stand and join me as we pledge allegiance to the flag.

Ready? Begin. 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,

Okay, Mr. Beckman, please call the roll.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening. Commissioner Vasquez? Present. Excellent, thank you. Commissioner Benson?

Present.

Thank you. Commissioner Maldonado? Here. Thank you. Commissioner Vahar?

Here.

Thank you. Commissioner McCormick? Here. Excellent, thank you. Vice Chair Tucker?

Here.

Thank you. And Chair Leslie? Here. Excellent, thank you. Tonight, I'd like to note we have full quorum.

Very good. Okay, at this time, public comments. Members of the public may address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda, which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission, provided that no action will be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Have we received any requests to speak tonight? Okay, very good. We will start with, apologize for the last name, Pamela Kowarski.

I'm here to speak about the loss of a beloved community venue. The holiday skate rink in Orange has closed due to the landlord's wish to sell the property. You think of bowlers skating as a recreational pastime with no other value, but it has many other benefits, and it has over the years for the community. I started skating there in the late 1970s. Yes, I'm an old relic. When the city offered parks and recreation courses, It's offered many of those through the years, taught little children up to mature adults how the joy of skating, created a venue for kids and adults alike, including a 90-year-old, to have birthday parties. We've had a celebration of life there, other opportunities for kids to grow, fundraisers for schools and churches. The college, the local college has used the rink for cinematography classes and just all sorts of things. And we do know, and I did send an email asking to not rezone the property, but that may not keep the rink alive. So what we're asking in... Instead, or as another option, is that City of Orange offer us a public property where we might establish a public rink similar to what you've done with the skateboard park at Grijalva Park. So I know it's not on the agenda for tonight and not under consideration for a while, but we hope you will consider the value of to the community and how it has really had a positive impact on many people throughout the years. And even tonight, you'll see a variety of ages and interests here to speak to you about that very issue. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for those comments, Pamela. We appreciate it. Next up is Chloe Frecchetti.

Good afternoon, members of the Orange Planning Commission.

My name is Chloe Frechette, and I'm 11 years old.

I'm a competitive artistic roller skater at Holladay Skate Center. I started skating around four years ago, and because of the coaches, friends, and practice time at Holladay, I won several first place medals, and recently, a show group medal at the Nationals in Lincoln, Nebraska. None of this would have been possible without the skating rink and community it represents. For almost 15 years, this rink has been far more than just a random building or property. It has been a second home to so many children, teenagers, and adults. If this center is rezoned and demolished, there will only be one skating rink remaining in the entire county. Getting rid of a historic place is not the answer to the housing crisis, as there are many other options. Please listen to your community and reject developers' requests to rezone this commercial site into residential townhomes and keep Holiday Skate Center alive. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments, Chloe. We appreciate it. Next up we have Billy Crowder.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm a skating coach. Chloe's skating coach is actually at the Holiday Skate Center. And thank you for your time. I'm opposing this rezoning of Holiday Skate Center. The property is not really ideal for housing anyways, it's kind of like, it's on a dead end street, there's hardly any parking. It's a bad place to have new housing anyways. Of course, I want the rink to be there because we love it. I grew up skating and competing as a kid and went on to coach. Holiday means a lot to a lot of families. This also affects the private school, or the school parties, the private parties they have for the schools, they have a lot of them. And this is one of two remaining roller rinks in Orange County left. There aren't many family-friendly places left to take your kids in Orange. This has been heartbreaking, not just for our skating club, but for many locals who have made holiday their home as well. I can't begin to tell you what a loss this would be to tear down this rink. Housing can go anywhere. This rink is a landmark. Please reconsider, thank you.

Thank you for those comments, Billy. Next up we have Faith Shimono.

Hi, I'm just here to echo what everybody's saying. I have skated there since I was 11 years old and I know you're the planning commission and I was planning my life also and Holiday was gonna be part of my planning of my life. So I just hope you reconsider and leave it there so I can continue skating there. Thank you so much.

Thank you Faith. Next up we have Maggie Sussleman.

I just want to say holiday skate has been a lot to me and I really wish it wasn't going away because I just want it to be saved so much and I'm just learning how to do new tricks, new everything and I'm being taught how to skate and if I'm just being taught how to skate, then I don't know where to skate because I just have all these cool tricks that I have and there's nowhere to let them out. And I just want to say holiday skate just means a lot to me. It's really fun to go there and be with all my friends. And I'm just making more friends, and we've been asking some people to, like, save Holiday Skate Center because it means so much to us, a lot. Thank you.

Thank you, Maggie. That was very good to hear you say that. Thank you. Next up, we have Valerie Sussleman.

It's a fact to follow. I should always go before her because I just cry. I am also here tonight to request that you do not rezone Holiday Skate Rinks land. I have felt a noticeable difference in our city since it has closed. I talk about all the time that the City of Orange is a special city. We're not like any other city. We value history. We value family. And Holiday Skate Rink is one of those places where all of those values come together under one roof. And as residents of Orange, we can purvey those values to our next generations. And without it open, I feel it. The vibe is different here. And it's not just because holiday means something to me and my family. It's because everyone is just bummed out. Everyone is bummed out that something so historical, something so meaningful, someplace that kids and families can go, where there's no alcohol being served, it's a safe spot for all of us to go. People are bummed out that the city is not valuing this place. And I know that the landowners are the first to cause the problem, but you guys are the first to change the problem and to give hope and to continue the legacy that the City of Orange has already worked for decades to establish. Think about if somebody on a commission back when the fountain was deemed so important, what if they were like, no, it's just something in the middle. Just take it out. We got to go through it. We don't want to go around it. That's annoying. And then we just booted the fountain. The city wouldn't have that heart. The city wouldn't have the center of the plaza. And Holiday has been a center for It's been a part of the heart of the City of Orange for over 50 years, and I know that it's only going to grow. The heart is only going to grow bigger. People flock to this place, over 1,500 people a week, people from all over. I'm lucky. We're lucky. We're five minutes away. We can go there willy-nilly. Other people travel far to come to Holiday Skate Rink, and without it, Not only do we change the history, but we change the future. And I don't want to change the future in that direction for anybody, for my family, and for all of the people that care about it. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments, Valerie. Next up, we have Jane Holiday Sussman.

Hi, my name is Jane Holiday Sussleman and I am here to talk about Holiday Skate Center. Holiday Skate Center has been a home to me and I'm just learning how to do all these new cool tricks and it's really cool. My friend Natalie taught me, and she's really cool, and she taught me really cool tricks, and my mom likes to roller skate with me. I roller skate with my sister, all my family, and I just love Holiday Skate Rink because I get to go there, like, A LOT AND NOW I'M HAVING LESSONS AND NOW I GET TO DO ALL THESE FUN THINGS AT HOLIDAY SKATING AND IT'S REALLY FUN. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT UP WE HAVE DONNA GARCIA.

Dear Chair, Planning Commissioners, and staff, my name is Rachel Rolnicki. I'm a District 3 resident and homeowner in North Orange. I'm back again to share why me and my neighbors are strongly opposed to the 2411 Glassell Trucking Warehouse project and why it does not fit next to a single-family home neighborhood just a quarter mile from Fletcher Elementary School. This 300 square foot trucking warehouse is currently proposed to operate 36 trucking bays, which will be served by adding about 163 trucks per day to our roads. Orange roadways will incur the brunt of this increased transit. And this will result in increased diesel particulate pollution, which will be suffered by my family, my neighbors, as well as the Fletcher Elementary community. Additionally, the trucking warehouse has applied for special hours of operation. They have requested to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This site would produce noise at the loading docks, trucks coming and going, truck alarms, truck bay doors slamming open and shut at all hours of the day. ALL YEAR. THE CONTINUOUS NOISE FROM THESE OUTRAGEOUS BUSINESS HOURS WILL GREATLY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY. I KNOW THERE IS ALSO MUCH ATTENTION ON THE FINANCES OF THE CITY PRESENTLY. THE 2411 TRUCKING PROJECT WILL NOT GENERATE SALES TAX THAT WILL BENEFIT THE CITY IN ANY WAY. think this project may help the city's financial outlook would be very misguided. The site is owner occupied and no point of sale tax revenues would be generated toward Orange coming in or out of the trucking warehouse. Our neighborhood supports growth and development, but this project is not the right fit for this area of our city. The proximity to neighbors and sensitive sites is too great of a risk. For these reasons, I ask that you oppose the project when it comes before you. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Rachel. All right, our next speaker is Donna Garcia.

Good evening, and thank you for letting me speak tonight. My name is Donna Bella, and I'm 16 years old. Seven years ago, I came to Holiday just to try skating for fun. I never imagined that one visit would change my life. What started out as one session became lessons, competitions, and memories. I'll never forget the first medal I ever won, the feeling of working hard for something and finally believing in myself. That moment is why I'm here tonight. But I'm not just speaking for myself. I'm thinking about the kids who are here now and the ones who haven't found this place yet. Holiday gives young people a positive place to spend time, stay active, build confidence, and work towards their goals. Some of our coaches have given 15 or 20 years helping generations grow, not just as athletes, but as people. When people look at this place, Maybe they just see a building, but I see a place where dreams begin, where kids find belonging. I hope you'll consider what holiday means to so many families, our community, and future kids. Please let this place keep giving kids a place to dream. Thank you.

Thank you, Donna, for those comments. Our next speaker is Nicole Foreo. Foreo?

Hello, everyone. My name is Nicole Fiore. I am a four-time world champion roller skater, coach, and choreographer. I am also a realtor in Orange County. And while I have never had anyone request a home that backs up to a freeway, I have had them request a home that is 10 miles or less away from Holiday Skate Center. I have skated at Holiday Skate Center for my entire life. I'm 34 years old. And I come from a legacy of roller skaters, a family decades, decades of roller skaters. And we all learned how to skate or taught at Holiday Skate Center. It means a lot to a lot of people, myself included. You've heard a lot from the club and the club members. And while I teach a lot of the club members, I also teach a lot of regular everyday people in Orange. These are moms, working moms with families that want a fun place to spend time with their family and to exercise and ideally a safe place. So while we may not be able to keep our rink open, I also echo what Pam had said in kindly requesting a space. As you can see when you walk in here, it says no roller skating out front. That is a very common theme, especially in Orange County. It's really Holiday and Fountain Valley. I know you care a lot about legacy and about history. So I would really appreciate if you keep that in mind when you are thinking of rezoning or thinking of the businesses that do have homes in Orange. I really respect that. And I know that you've spent a lot of time and care in that. And we don't want to go elsewhere. We don't want to leave Orange. We love Orange. I love spending time in Orange. And all of us come from either Orange or different surrounding cities. And we all come here. And we have created a family here in Orange. So we don't want to go elsewhere. But unfortunately, we will go elsewhere if we don't have a home here. And that will not be good for any of us or for businesses in the area. So as someone who learned how to skate, in Orange and has thousands of people from around the world that I teach that actually want to come to Orange to skate, I kindly request that you consider all of these wonderful people that have taken time and really care deeply about our home. So thank you so much.

Thank you for those comments, Nicole. Our next speaker is Kevin Reyes.

Dear Planning Commission, Chair, Leslie, committee members, everyone watching, and anyone with an ear to hear. Although I wrote neutral on the card, I am here to provide my support for passing local ordinance to establish a heritage commission, an associated purview to replace the design review committee, and show support for planning commission resolution PC 1726. First, thank you guys for listening to your constituents. Your hard work and sleepless nights are seen. I am in agreement that a historical commission is needed. If this ordinance is passed, I propose two sites be surveyed for their historical contributor capacities, Earth House in Orange Circle and Holiday Skate Center. Earth House is America's first heirloom organic coffee house, and as I was walking by yesterday, I thought it had been replaced by a Chase, a bank, and my heart dropped. If the commission is created, I believe it deserves to be surveyed for its historical contribution capacity. This also goes for Holiday Skate Center. Under the new register, a quote unquote contributor means any building structure, sign, area, place, landscape, or national feature within a historical district that contributes to a district's historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Holiday Skate Center's sign, and by extension, Holiday itself, deserves to be preserved. Roller skating is back in the cultural zeitgeist, and the race to become the birthplace of Olympic roller skating is on. With the new wooden floor being open in Corona, and an already open floor in Fountain Valley, closing a historical contributor like Holiday would be giving away historical wealth for a paycheck, and programs like the Mills Act exist for this exact scenario, so that things like this don't happen. Through Earth House and Holiday, Orange can set a preservational precedence for years to come. And lastly, I am interested in contributing to the Heritage Commission as a purviewer. The only problem is that I don't live in Orange, but this only speaks to the power of God and how he's able to use places like Holiday to change the world. Even if I'm not included, I fully support the creation of the Heritage Commission and plea they preserve Holiday Skate Center and Earth House as historical contributors. Shout out to Councilwoman Ariana Barrios for helping us take a stand, the California State Parks Department, and the Mills Act program. And lastly, shout out to Jill Sargent, who kept fighting for the rink when no one else did. Thank you. I'm here to assist in any power I have. God bless you all.

Thank you, Kevin. Appreciate that. And our final speaker of public comments is Natalie Chen.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Natalie Chen. Last week, I shared about how Holiday Skate Center changed my life. Tonight, I want to focus on how much holiday means to the city. For 18 years, holiday has been my second home. It's given me confidence, purpose, and lifelong friendships, and ultimately gave me an opportunity to represent Team USA for several years. But this isn't just my story. Holiday has woven into this community. Schools and school districts use it for fundraisers. Families celebrate birthdays there. Kids learn how to skate there. Teens have a safe place to spend time. And people of all ages can walk through those doors simply to have fun and feel like they belong. Just in 60 days, more than 14,000 people signed a petition asking for holiday to be saved. These aren't just numbers. These are 14,000 individual people who took the time to put their name behind protecting this place. That kind of response shows how much holiday impact it reaches. I understand there has been general conversations about finding another place for this community, but another space someday is not the same as preserving what exists today. We cannot put these kids' childhood or skating careers on pause for years while replacement is figured out, and cannot simply relocate decades of friendship, mentorship, trust, and belonging. This is a problem that needs a solution now and not a Band-Aid to be fixed for later. So tonight, I'm asking you to recommend preserving the current rezoning and encourage the city to explore every possible option to predict holiday in the community it serves. Orange needs housing, but housing can be built elsewhere. A community like this, once lost, cannot be rebuilt. Thank you.

Thank you, Natalie, for those comments. And just a quick thank you to everybody who came and spoke tonight, especially our young people. I would encourage you to continue your civic engagement, and this is your city, so we're grateful to see so much passion about what happens here. Thank you. Okay, moving on to public hearings. 3.1, public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Orange Municipal Code to replace the content of Chapter 17.17 with new provisions addressing historic, and cultural resources and update chapter 17.08 to establish a new heritage commission and associated purview to replace the design review committee and finding of CEQA exemption. Do we have a staff report?

Yes, thank you chair. Good evening commissioners. I'm pleased to be here this evening to bring forward the draft historic preservation ordinance. And for your consideration in joining me is Debbie Howell-Ordilla of our consulting team at Chattel. 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. Additionally, in March of this year, the ordinance was introduced to the community through a joint study session with the Planning Commission and DRC and subsequent community workshop. A working draft of the ordinance went before the Design Review Committee for review and comment on August 5th and was also reviewed by representatives from OTPA and Orange Legacy Alliance. The draft ordinance in your packet reflects consideration of feedback from both the DRC and community groups. 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. The proposed ordinance replaces the existing content of chapter 17.17 in 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 archeological and tribal resources. It also provides procedural clarity to staff and the public about projects affecting those resources. The ordinance implements the cultural resources and historic preservation element of the general plan and satisfies mitigation and the general plan EIR addressing potential general plan impacts to historic and cultural resources. Also important is that the ordinance 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 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 design review committee, 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 and related criteria, building demolition, building relocation, buildings older than 45 years not located in a historic district, historic preservation incentives, economic hardship, identification, documentation, and management of archaeological and Native American resources, in application of adopted design standards and the state historic building code. There are a few topics I'd like to highlight. With respect to the transition of the design review committee to a heritage commission, the heritage commission is intended to serve a similar and expanded function to 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 to the city council for inclusion or removal of properties from the historic register and the designation and approval of historic districts and neighborhood character areas, and also Mills Act contract applications. The new Heritage Commission would also review matters pertaining to archeological and Native American resources. On the subject of 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 record as historic resources. It also includes properties located in the locally designated Orange-Eichler historic districts and surveyed properties outside of historic districts. This inventory is not technically a register and that there are no defined criteria or procedures for inclusion of a property. So 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, international 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 Orange Register will include all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register, as well as contributors to designated historic districts and individually designated properties. With respect to tiered project review, the proposed ordinance fine tunes the city's current approach to project review and codifies the opportunity for preliminary project review by staff. Major alterations as specified in the ordinance would be subject to commission review and minor alterations would be afforded one of two streamlined administrative review processes. The first being comparable to the present process for minor design review but with refined eligibility criteria including small additions. The new third tier of review eliminates the need for minor design review related to ordinary maintenance and repair activities that don't involve a change of design materials or exterior appearance. This review streamlines and simplifies property maintenance activities for property owners and eliminates the need for staff to perform an involved application review for straightforward activities like electrical panel, water heater, or air conditioner change outs. And then the last topic I'd like to highlight is that of neighborhood character areas. And here the ordinance establishes a process for establishing neighborhood character areas, implementing a concept first identified in the general plan. Neighborhood character area 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 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 of the associated natural or landscape features where design guidelines could ultimately be developed to ensure that future development preserves the character of the area that remains. So tonight staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on the ordinance along with the finding of CEQA exemption. And any feedback provided by the Planning Commission tonight will be considered as staff and our consultant work together to further refine the ordinance for council consideration. That concludes my presentation, and Debbie and I are available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Pahochek. It's nice to have you back here.

Nice to be here.

Okay, any questions for staff from commissioners? I do, Mr. Chair, but would prefer to hear from the public first on the item. Okay, very good. Then we will open up the public hearing at this point for any public comments. Do we have any public comments? Okay. Is that Diana Zednik? Okay, very good. Thank you.

for the time they spent working with OTPA and OLA on this ordinance and listening to our comments and concerns. I also think it's important to remember that the adoption of historic preservation ordinance was identified as a mitigation measure in the city's 2010 general plan. So while it's been a very long time coming, we're so pleased to be able to see the finish line. I would like to highlight just a few issues tonight, even though we've discussed these with staff, and they are, number one, a property cannot simply be designated a historic landmark without the property owner's consent. It's important for everyone to understand because I think there was some confusion with somebody at DRC commenting. Two, although we've discussed this previously with staff, OTPA continues to have concerns about what we see as a significant shift in decision-making authority to the Community Development Director. This represents a change from the way Historic Preservation Review currently operates, and we believe that there are areas where decisions involving our historic resources should remain with the Commission in a public and transparent process rather than being made administratively. Three, we're also concerned about the proposal for maintaining a seven-member commission rather than five. Staff has explained its reasoning to us twice, and we appreciate that. But we still respectfully disagree. Finding five qualified people willing to serve can already be challenging. Finding seven people with the appropriate experience and knowledge of historic preservation is even more difficult. Orange successfully operated with five members for many years, and we believe five can continue to work effectively. Four, we question specifically identifying a real estate professional for membership on a historic preservation commission. And we have already been discussing that with staff, and they've explained that. But we still want to point out, why single out that profession? Why not a historian, preservation professional, or someone in our community with demonstrated knowledge and experience in historic preservation? I've met with one realtor, and exactly one realtor, with extensive knowledge and experience in historic preservation. There may be others, but simply being a realtor does not provide that expertise, in our opinion. And finally, the Heritage Commission will be responsible for protecting our historic resources. We believe its composition and authority should reflect that responsibility and believe this ordinance will define that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Diana, for those comments. Seeing as there's no other public comments, we will close public hearing at this time and now open up questions to the staff from commissioners. Mr. Vasquez, did you want to ask a question? I do, but I'll defer to anybody else who wants to go first. Commissioner Benson, did you have a?

I do have some questions. And one of them was prompted by what our last speaker just said. She advised that staff had explained a few times about a seven-member commission versus a five. I don't know that we've had that explanation. So I'm curious if we can hear what that is.

Thank you for the question. Currently, all of the city decision-making bodies are seven-member. rather than be presumptive and assume the council would want to change to five, we have held with the seven. And certainly, the commission's right to recommend something different than what's being proposed. And we'll defer to both the commission and the council on the number of members.

Do you want me to keep going? The other thing that I noticed was just a number of areas that I thought were potentially problematically vague in this draft. Let me locate one here if I can. And this is just an example. On page 21, it talks about the procedures for enforcement. And it says, the director or a designee of the director shall attempt to personally contact the owner or individual with legal possession. Doesn't say how many times. I'm assuming it means once. Is that what it means? And I just think that any time there's a very vague provision, it can be problematic should the owner fail to undertake necessary repairs within the allotted period. What is the allotted period and where do we find that information is another area that I thought was potentially vague. Page 11, review inventory periodically and update as needed. What does that mean? So I'm just curious if there is a specific reason for the vagueness or if it's just maybe me being overly concerned about that.

to put my microphone on. Thank you for the question.

Sorry, I can't really see you.

So it is true that in the code, we do actually want to leave discretion for staff to take care of exceptions that happen. So for example, saying periodically update the survey, we have to avoid creating an unfunded mandate in the code. So we are, in this ordinance, we're setting the north arrow toward implementing the general plan, which holds for identifying and protecting historic properties, but we're not this isn't the moment to come up with all of the administrative procedures, right? That's a different step.

So that will happen is what you're saying. So that will happen is what you're saying. This will become a little bit more concise, potentially. I just, I know that there was conversation about the director. And obviously, in all of our jobs, we get busy. And if there isn't a specification as to how often things should be reviewed, is that just going to get lost? That's my concern.

Yeah. Having worked in historic preservation and environmental compliance for 20 years and specialize in this agency side as well, I know that preservation is a process. Developing a program is a process. It takes time. And I think that it would be overly restrictive if you were to take the step of over determining when certain things will happen because you have a staff that's already so busy. But what you do want to do is, again, establish a framework for policy that is based on best practice that's going to be looking toward best practice, right? When we figure out, well, when can we update the survey? How can we fund that? Maybe we would potentially explore becoming a certified local government under the Office of Historic Preservation, so then we'd qualify for funding to do such a thing. So I think that And best practice for surveys says, it's best to update your survey every five years because things come of age. I think there's one city I've worked with in California in all of these years that was able to do that for a period of time and they no longer can afford it. And so again, we're trying then to set up in addition to, in terms of survey, again, pointing the north arrow toward what it would look like to have a best practice-based program, but then also providing for other triggers and mechanisms that can identify those important historic properties so they're not lost. And so we're not only relying on a survey to flag things that do qualify for the landmark designation.

Okay.

I hope that helps.

Yeah, it does. I think the one area that I would be more concerned about specificity is with compliance. So if, you know, if a landowner knows that within 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, whatever it is, they aren't complying, these things can happen. Just so that there's no question about, hey, I didn't know. I didn't know I only had this amount of time. So, okay. That's it for me.

All right. Lucas, we'll just move down the line here. Commissioner McCormick.

Thank you. question or maybe further explanation and basically evolving from the speaker on this issue, the one speaker on this issue, regarding the general plan. And can you explain to me a little bit further to expand and maybe touch on what our speaker said in terms of what is required by the general plan of 10, 15 years ago that this preservation ordinance puts us in compliance with?

Yes. So the general plan, there are a few different components of the general plan that pertain to this ordinance. There's the cultural resources and historic preservation element that's actually one of the chapters of the general plan that provides goals and policies that incorporate a lot of this content. And then from there, there's an implementation plan that identifies specific action items. Some of these activities are among the implementation actions of the general plan. And then there's the general plan environmental impact report that considers potential impacts of general plan build out on the variety of environmental topics, one of them being cultural resources. And so, In this particular instance, there is specific mitigation related to providing a pathway for neighborhood character areas for providing for creation of a historic register. There are probably, eight or nine mitigation measures specific to cultural resources and development of policy and action plans off of that policy. It's available on the city website. I'll make a plug for that too. I hope that answers your question. It's a little involved, but there are particular measures. It is great to be at a milestone where we are implementing some of these general plan directives from so many years ago.

I have another question. The issue of, and I'd like both of you to join in or whoever wants to on this one. The idea of being eligible for historic district or for historical listing as opposed to being listed as opposed to or in concert with being contributing and how that affects, I think part of my question evolves from to kind of touch on what is always a third rail a lot of times is property rights. And so what I wanted to do was see how important being eligible is and then being part of an overall district and then being, my understanding is that you cannot get on that list unless the owner agrees to be listed. So if you could explain that a little bit more.

Thank you for the question. It actually dovetails very well with your first question, which was about the mitigation measure for the EIR. That, of course, came out of this California Environmental Quality Act study of the general plan. CEQA's definition of a historical resource is anything that's eligible or designated at the federal, state, or local level, right? And so one of the goals that we had for this ordinance was building a stronger nexus with CEQA. So there's a kind of a streamlining and a consistency to the way that the city is approaching historical resource issues. So you asked about, so what does it mean as we set up an inventory and a register starting there, kind of think of it as the first pass through is the inventory, right? It's the first look at the city. Let's take the criteria, take qualified professionals who go out and this is the basis for your inventory now. Let's find those places and spaces that appear to qualify as historical resources, which could be an individual landmark or it could be a historic district, a collection, cohesive collection of properties, right? When we have an inventory as a city, what we're doing is proactively kind of building a record for ourselves to understand what are our historical resources. It helps us with preservation planning. There is a layer of project review that's recommended in the ordinance. And then moving forward with having that CEQA process already fast-tracked. Because we've already identified what are our historical resources. Now the register, of course, is a property now at a deeper level. So we've got the inventory at the kind of a reconnaissance level. level now the register is going to rely on an intensive level evaluation and preparation of a designation application right so this is somebody who says i want the plaque i want you know to go forward with and be a recognized landmark or historic district i want official designation so that's a different it's a different type of recognition and it's a different level of um kind of burden of proof. But when you take a step back to the CEQA question, all of those properties are historical resources. And of course, as you know, under CEQA, cities' obligations in California are to study and disclose the potential significant adverse impacts of projects. And so that's where we're a step ahead when we're proactively saying, hey, we took a look And here's what we think we've got in terms of historical resources. I hope that helps answer. You asked about contributors as well. So a historic district, again, is a cohesive collection of not only properties, but also planning features, ancillary structures, landscaping, and other things. The historic district itself, that collection, is the entity that's the historical resource, but it depends upon the integrity of all the contributors in it. And so if we whittle away at the integrity of the district overall, we can lose the integrity of the district. Yes, every contributor within a historic district is a historical property, a historical resource under CEQA, and then non-contributors are those that might be altered and do not qualify as historical resources.

Well, thank you. That answers the question. I have something else that kind of builds upon that in terms of giving the burden of proof to be listed is really a step in terms of getting burden of proof. The owners want to be on that or their kind of agreeance or consent to be on this list. Is that correct? Or do they get on listed and on the list without their consent?

So the inventory is set up to, no one needs to consent. It's just, again, the city surveying and coming up with a list. The register, nothing will be designated without the input of the owner. Now, I want to clarify that, though. The ordinance sets up a due diligence process for allowing the owner to come forward with an objection, to come to the commission, to come to city council and say, I don't support this, I don't want this. It's up to the decision makers to make the call as to whether or not that historic property should be designated. So absolutely, it's... that's kind of the one of the most important things of building a defensible ordinance is making sure it's balanced right and making sure that you are providing many opportunities for the public to to come forward and speak up nothing would be designated without you know the there's an opportunity for input but ultimately that consent is not required okay so that consent

That consent to be there does not need to be given to be part of a historical neighborhood, correct?

No. No, it does not. Yeah, and then again, we're kind of moving back from that toward bringing the ordinance into step with what the requirements are under state law. by proactively identifying and recognizing things that are historical resources. So that's very helpful in that way as well.

So I just want to reiterate what you had said, that being a local certified government kind of gives us that overall inventory to have us be in the position we want to be in.

It could, I mean, I think the CLG requirements are, there are a number of different requirements. This ordinance would hit the main requirements that are out there. One of them is in addition to the local zoning kind of project reviews and allowing for designations, the item about following CEQA and environmental review law is also part of that CLG requirement. So they like to see that there's an active program, right, for looking out for those things.

Okay. I have one more question, but I'll wait until I'll go last on that last question. Commissioner Tucker.

All right, I have a couple of questions, and thank you, Commissioner Benson, because I was going to ask the same thing about what our speaker asked about. That was great. Thank you. On 17.7120, as a condition of approval, it states that for a demolition, sorry, for conditions of approval of a demolition, it says that all permits must be granted and in place for the replacement structure. But in reality, sometimes the applicant wouldn't know what, excuse me, what is required or what kind of permits, the city may not even know what is required until they actually do the demolition. With regards to infrastructure, you know, foundation, there might be some issues that come up. So is that hard and fast or is that like, that's workable with the community development director?

See, for the certificate of demolition, the key idea there is that it's, the ordinance is set up to discourage people from demolishing historical resources in step with the general plan, right? So the idea is, would we want, as a city, do we want to see people demolishing a historical resource With nothing. And with nothing, with no plan. So in fact, that's usually a body like this would be looking for almost those overriding considerations that will talk to me about what you want to do there. And so if we're looking at losing a historical resource, we want to put the bar very high. We want to make it complicated, to be honest, but relying upon substantial evidence. But that's the reason for that.

So the replacement structure, having permitting for that, that's part of the... supplying evidence for the reason for demolishing too. Even if it might have to be adjusted after the fact because just not that I want any of that to happen but also the 180 day period is that a discretionary or mandatory because I saw a little bit I think I saw May the word May one time or two times. I can't recall exactly where. Right. 180-day waiting period?

At this point in time, it does say may delay demolition for a period of up to but not exceeding 180 days. Okay.

Okay, that's discretionary then. And I also, in reading and rereading the tiered project review, is the staff planning on creating a matrix or a chart, or I'm sorry, a... What do I have written down here? To create a matrix or table similar to what we see right now in our zoning code so that it's understandable for an applicant to see what tier and what qualifies them for each tier.

Yes, that's something after presuming this ordinance gets adopted. There'll be some cleanup items that come forward pertaining to the historic preservation design standards that has a matrix. And there have been some modifications in table 17-08-020, the reviewing body's modifications that address the changes related to the process.

Thank you. And I was a little confused on the designation of historic district petition 17.17.110. The petition, I think it's for an actual new district that you can get 51% of signatures from property owners. to apply as one of the criteria. But then they can also come up and do a 51% objection at the same time. It seems kind of... Interesting that you would go all that effort to get signatures, but is that the common practice at the state and national level for districts? In the past, when we did the original district here in Old Town, there wasn't a petition required to get it reviewed. It was just a petition. There was the opportunity for objection.

By 51% so is that just you know, they're commonly cities Do you require that buy-in first and you can imagine why right? Yeah, it's much better to bring the the positive aspects of designation to the property owners who would be affected before That's going to build support rather than reaction. So I think that this is it builds a more collaborative process Thank you

I think that's all I've got now.

Okay, moving down the line, Commissioner Vasquez.

We're moving down the line. Ms. Pahosha, great to see you, and thank you for the report. My questions are primarily surrounding the changes to the Orange Municipal Code, looking at the red line version. So right now, the way this is established for the Heritage Commission, it says, It's established to provide guidance on historical resource management and goes on to define other things. And I'm wondering, staff your thoughts on if that's true in the sense of providing guidance, because I think there are certainly, there's certainly weight to that, but as I read through it, you know, there are certain, so for example, right now, the design review commission or committee reviews and makes recommendations to the planning commission for certain land use as it relates to historic districts. But what this proposes to do is that this new commission can approve or deny in whole or part applications for infill of new construction within historic districts. They make recommendations directly to the city council. So I guess a two-pronged question, number one, is that accurate language that's established to quote provide guidance? Because it seems like it's a decision-making body. I think that's the intent. And then I just, the second part of that question is just how do we see that sort of working with the planning commission? Because I view this as sort of like now they have particular land use authority.

Well, with respect to the term guidance, I can see your point, and perhaps we need to use more specific pointed language about the authority of the commission. So I will take that into consideration as we revise the materials that are moving forward. In terms of the relationship between the Heritage Commission and the Planning Commission, there would be a much more direct relationship between the Heritage Commission and the City Council than with the Planning Commission. So I think in the case, there would be a development project that involved a historic resource that would come before the Planning Commission. That's something actually we should take a look at in the language now that you asked this question. There would be a step recommendation from the Heritage, there should be a step recommendation from the Planning Commission, I mean from the Heritage Commission to the Planning Commission.

Okay, so you think that there should be a step not making direct recommendations then to City Council? I guess I'm a little, I remain confused. It wouldn't be the first time.

Chair Leslie, while they commiserate briefly, I just want for the housekeeping, we're here at about the hour mark for tonight's meeting, and I just want to remind folks that came to comment on the holiday skate site that there has not been an agenda item for that on tonight. So just so that you're aware, we're drilling down into some detail here, so I just wanted everybody to be aware of that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beckman. Appreciate that.

Commissioners, I'd like to make a correction to my statement. So actually, the commission would be the final decision-making body for development applications. I'm still tapping into my trained brain on the DRC role. But yeah, so the Heritage Commission would be making a decision about projects involving historic property. So even if it were something that would have normally gone to the Planning Commission, it would stop at the Heritage Commission.

Okay. And just from staff's perspective or from the consultant, is that sort of a regular process that we see in municipalities to sort of, I'm going to say it this way, bypass the Planning Commission and sort of act as it's kind of a zoning and land use authority within historic districts?

I wouldn't say that it's bypassing, right? I mean, I think if you especially look toward the purpose and the intent of this code, it's to identify, document, and manage change to historic properties. And we're creating a commission that's specialized in historic architecture, architectural history, anthropology, and these other disciplines. So we're looking to create a body that will have this kind of a very specialized technical expertise to weigh in on projects that might affect historic property. So that's the appropriate kind of role for that commission. And it is more typical for, especially in best practice, especially if it's a CLG, if there's the wish to become a CLG, having a standalone historic preservation commission that advises council is most common.

Can I ask a question that dovetails on that?

Okay, yes, go ahead.

So, and maybe I'm not finding it. Does that mean that the Heritage Commission has final say on all types of projects that are outlined here? Even these projects that have a neighborhood character or Anything in a historic district, I understand, any historic property, but would it also apply to any neighborhood character area as this is now defining? I know we don't have any yet, but would that be the case and the planning commission be bypassed for that?

In the case of, we don't have any particular framework yet for the neighborhood character area implementation. Presumably, the neighborhood character area guidelines would specify the review process. I think in some instances, projects, there would probably be a similar layered tiered review of different magnitude of projects. So some projects perhaps could be reviewed at the staff level, and some would rise to the level of the Heritage Commission, I would anticipate.

And then one more question. Any property in these districts, historical neighborhood character, what have you, just individual properties identified, if they were asking to be rezoned, even if they were going to keep the same facade and look, would that then stay with the Heritage Commission? Or if they were requesting to be rezoned, would that go to Planning Commission?

I don't see changes to the Planning Commission in relation to zoning on this.

No, I mean, if you look at a bigger picture, the commission will be managing project reviews, right? So they're going to be issuing a certificate of appropriateness.

When we say commission, can you please, which commission?

The Heritage Commission, yeah. Would be issuing a certificate of appropriateness, kind of the core of their responsibilities, would be having that preservation expertise, right, to apply to, the design standards that apply and the Secretary of Interior standards to ensure to look to read architectural drawings, to work with applicants, to work with architects and designers as well to make sure that the projects are complying with the applicable standards and therefore we would not be compromising the historic integrity of the property and that that property would continue to be eligible for the status that it has. So that's kind of the core of what they would be doing.

So to the Commissioner's question.

I think that answered my question. If they're being rezoned, do they still come to Planning Commission?

Right. I think that we had answered no. No. Yeah, that's not a...

So if the property is being rezoned, it does not come to Planning Commission. The Heritage Commission approves rezoning?

No, other way around. The Heritage Commission would not be looking at rezoning. That's why I mentioned that the primary responsibility would be these project reviews.

I can take it. Given the legislative nature of that type of request, that would still come to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. But I do think all of these questions that you're asking are great questions. And as we go through the ordinance one more time, we'll make sure that we've got clarity on those procedural steps.

Commissioner Vincent, do you have a question about that?

Yeah, and I don't, I apologize if this is outside of the scope of what we're talking about tonight, but just based on what you were saying about the Heritage Review Commission, are the current members of the Design Review Commission going to need to be re-evaluated because you need these specific types of a real estate agent, for example, as the prior speaker was saying, or is the commission going to stay as is?

My assumption, I think it's all at the council's discretion, but many of the members currently meet the requirements that we would be moving forward in this ordinance. And then as membership changes on the Heritage Commission, the new criteria would be used to select the new members. Commissioner Vasquez.

Yeah, I just got a name. I appreciate it, Ms. Pahoschek. I feel like some of the flow chart kind of where and whom with authority lied remains murky, but I understand you're saying that staff will continue to look into that. There's a, again, this is on the red line version. I think it's section D, number 2H. It says, the new commission will support and recommend efforts to protect, enhance, appreciate, and utilize properties of cultural, historical, architectural, community, or aesthetic importance that, though not designated as historical resources, are worthy of recognition. I don't like it. I think it's like very broad authority. I'm not even, like, for example, the Planning Commission doesn't have broad authority in that way to provide, recommend efforts to, I mean, it's pretty expansive. It doesn't seem like it's, or the words I wrote down earlier, seems proactive and sort of advocacy-oriented. And I just, is that, I'm trying to understand, that just seems like, hey, you could, you could, It's a pretty blanket authority.

What page? Because there's a couple D2Hs.

Sorry. So unfortunately, the redlined version is not numbered, but it's PDF page six.

Thank you.

It's right in the middle H. So does staff intend for that to be you know, advocacy, you know, kind of in nature, proactive in nature, what's the intent of that authority? You see it?

I can offer a few words on the intent of that. And it also goes back to your question regarding guidance, right? The idea of the commission providing guidance. It is true that a cultural heritage commission becomes a partner in preservation with the city, right? They become ambassadors for the program in a way. They might attend or plan workshops or brown bags to educate the members of the public in preservation. They might, you know, plan home tours that do help to raise awareness about sites that are significant to the community. So I think there, I wouldn't say advocacy per se, but it is a a great benefit to the city and it helps raise awareness about what the ordinance provisions are when you have a commission that isn't just issuing C of A's, but they are engaged in the community, right? I think that it's actually something, it's not a question of authority, rather it's a question of engagement.

So that, just my own personal reflection makes me a little bit more nervous. Is this commission subject to the Brown Act?

Oh, of course. Yeah.

Yeah. And, If they're hosting, let's say, together a cultural or house party or something like that, how does that play in with the Brown Act?

I mean, they could not host a house party. They couldn't help put together with staff a community workshop or something like that or direct staff to host a brown bag lunch and engage with community.

So it would be staff, it sounds different than what we, so it would be staff, like city staff who would be hosting it, not the Heritage Commission?

I'm not sure exactly what planning staff is envisioning for those kind of events, but I would have to step in. The Heritage Commission is a Brown Act body, and they couldn't have a meeting with all of them where that wasn't officially agendized or things like that. And if there was more than three of them, then that would be the case. Okay.

Was the goal for this to be the first read? Is the hope that the Planning Commission approves something tonight?

It has been brought to you for a recommendation, but certainly if you feel that your preference is to have it returned, that's certainly your discretion. Yeah.

I think ideally with the timeline that we're on to bring this back to council, ideally we'd be looking for your recommendation with any comments for us to incorporate on our way to city council, rather than bringing it back to Planning Commission another time.

Okay. Thank you, because I feel like what I'm hearing tonight is not unanimity amongst planning consultant, legal, that to me as a commissioner who has to make a decision still feels some of these aspects feel a little unclear to me. I'll say that, but I do have a few more questions. So we heard this as well. The staff report mentions additional expanding the scope of backgrounds to include anthropology, history. I don't see that in the OMC red line changes. Is that supposed to be there? I think, you know, where's the composition section? I'm trying to find it. Yeah, the membership, you know, defines architects, urban planners, engineers, licensed general contractors, but doesn't have that expansive scope that we've heard and is in the staff report, realtors, anthropologists, historian.

The feedback provided during the DRC meeting and from the community groups, we actually removed that. We did not include that in the deadline.

Okay, got it. So it's in the staff report, but the proposed language to us, it does not include that. Excellent. And then it says that the Heritage Commission recommends eligible historical resources for designation and approval of neighborhood character areas. I know the answer is to City Council, but I'm asking staff if it should say that explicitly.

That can certainly be added.

Okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, Chair and staff. Thank you, Commissioner Vasquez. All right, Commissioner Maldonado.

Thank you. I have questions about how properties are already listed and state and national registers are treated. For example, in 1717.106D, the title there is automatic nomination. The discussion

Oh, there it is, your mic's now.

Oh, I'm sorry. Apologize. That the information there talks about the state and national resources that are already registered would just automatically be in the historical thing. So I was just thinking, is nomination the right thing? Because they don't have to go through anything else, although in another section, it does say they have to, and I have a question on that.

So your question is about the state automatic nomination, it's rather automatic designation. Yeah. Sounds like it. You are correct. That is the idea, the intention of that section. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. And again, about properties that are already, have gone through the state or national program, there is 106F about existing Mills Act properties. that it says they would have to meet the additional requirements that are listed here in the ordinance. And I'm wondering if they're already listed in the state and national register, why would we ask them to submit more things to the city?

Would you kindly, which section were you referring to, sorry? Let's see.

F. Existing Mills Act properties.

Under Orange Register of Historic Areas.

106F.

Right, you're wondering why we would have the additional recommendation that we might want additional evidence from Mills Act property owners?

Yes.

Right, well, if it happens that we're grandfathering in a Mills Act contract prior to having local landmark criteria, It might be that the city wants additional information about the resource, about the reasons for significance, about character-defining features to help in the management of that Mills Act contract. But we did leave that open to the discretion of the director to determine whether or not on a case-by-case basis that would be necessary. So it's not required, but it's an open door just in case that's needed. Okay.

Well, it doesn't seem open door to me. It says provided that adequate documentation is submitted.

Right, and that's the language that's intended to trigger that review, right, to take a look at it and make sure that there's enough information. That can certainly be refined as needed, but that's the intent behind it, is to capture those, the cases where it might be that there's an older Mills Act contract that came in with minimal documentation to establish the significance and character defining features of the resource.

So would staff go through it first and determine that it doesn't have everything that our requirements are?

Yeah, that's a great question. I think again, getting back to something that we talked about a while ago, this is setting the policy and the details of how the staff will administer that will be worked out as we, through chapter implementation.

That's not how I have always considered zoning code, that the zoning code is very specific. It tells, it can name the permit you have to go through and if there's a different section of the zoning code that tells you how to process that permit and who's responsible for that permit. That's in the zoning code. And I have another question about permits. It says in here that individuals can nominate and then if the commission nominates or staff nominates, then that gets fast-tracked through. Are individuals going to have to apply for a permit and pay for staff time to review their nominations?

I'm not, so there's no permit required for nominating a property to the register, and there isn't certainly an intention to prioritize landmark designations that are started, initiated by the commissioner of the city, they're all created equal. In fact, the opening sentence of that, that provision was purposefully open to make sure everyone knew. This is anyone can nominate a property to the register.

Again, there's no additional information. You have to submit a permit with a fee. Staff has 90 days to get back to you on your original, or gets it to the system. There's not a lot of information here about what happens with that application or nomination that an individual, I don't know what I would do. I know what has to be in an application, But I wouldn't know if I had to pay for that permit and staff time when the commission could nominate something and they're not paying for the staff time. That's their staff.

And the ordinance does specify that the landmark designation will be filled out on an application to be created by the director. So that, again, is something that will be created on the administrative side.

Right. Are they gonna have to pay for a permit? That's my question. If I walk in, not on the commission, and I'm just a homeowner, and I say I wanna nominate a house on my block, or a park, something, am I gonna have to pay staff time to review that project and see if there's enough information to meet all the requirements? It's not clear to me, and maybe I'm not reading the right section.

There would ultimately be an application process. There would be procedures laid out similar to any of our other types of applications in our office and a fee associated with the application. So that's coming? That would be a follow-up from this, yes.

I can add to that. We take in all of our applications through an online portal with a series of questions and submittal requirements. We also have an adopted fee for the Mills Act program. There's an application fee. There's an inspection annual report fee. There's zoning clearance. There's a variety of fees that have already been adopted for council for the Mills Act program.

Right, but it's not a Mills Act. It's not my property. I'm dominating something else.

You would still have to submit an application fee for us to process that.

With a fee. Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Maldonado, are you? Oh, 1717115A2. You're missing the word at. Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Vahar.

First I wanna say I'm so excited to see this ordinance. I know it's been a long time coming and a lot of people have had a lot of input in this. And so it's really nice to see it in front of the commission. But I do have some questions, but now I gotta find them again. Okay, so I had a similar question on the 51% property owner petition threshold. Where did we get 51% as the petition? Because the way I'm reading it, that only 51% of property owners in a region have to even like the idea of being a historic district. And 51% is not an overwhelming majority of people that are opting into this. Becoming an historic district is wonderful, but it's also not easy on every property owner. It can be expensive to maintain these things, so why 51% as the petition threshold? I understand it for the protest threshold, and I'm not trying to lower that.

The 51% is simply a simple majority. used a similar approach when we designated the Eichler tracks as districts or when that process was initiated. But certainly, if the commission would like to provide other direction, it can take that into consideration.

I know not all Eichler owners are thrilled at being designated historic district, although I'm someone who would love to live in an Eichler, but that's different. But I was wondering, I did a little bit of research. I know that the city of Saratoga, California has a higher threshold of 60% for owner petitions. So that's something that I, looked at and I don't know, it's something that the commission can, I guess, discuss and take up, but I have a couple more questions for staff. On the Mills Act, there are guidelines that require biannual inspections for all properties on the Mills Act. And I know we have, I mean, at least over 200 Mills Act properties already, right? Are those already being inspected biannually?

No, and actually, thank you also in advance for your comment on this. That is actually an error. The properties are on a five-year inspection cycle, and so... you're taking note of that two-year review for property inspections, it actually should be five years.

Okay, so your intent was that for it to be, so properties are inspected every five years. So that's still... That seems a lot more manageable. I was trying to understand how, over the course of two years, there were going to be at least 100. I'm sure there's more than 200 properties, probably like 400.

Over 400. So at least 200 properties a year sounded like a lot. And then the change for the biannual is the submittal of the work plan reports. Currently, it's an annual change. we're suggesting it go through that every two years.

So what's the exact changes that staff's recommending then?

The property inspections would remain at five years with the item you pointed out. And then the annual reports, currently we require an annual report for work plan activity. And we are suggesting that that change to biannual. Given the nature of the work on houses, sometimes it's cyclical. You may have a big expense one year and not be prepared immediately to do something the next year. So every other year is a more practical approach to the reporting.

Thank you for that. And I have a question on the demolition screening. What, why did we pick 45 years? Is that your best practice?

That was one of my questions. Thank you.

That's a great question, and it is a common question. As you might be aware, 50 years is the threshold that's used for the National Register, unless something has exceptional significance. The California Register does not have an age cutoff, so best practice is to use 45 years. One of the reasons for that is that permitting projects move through the pipeline rather slowly, so by the time a project is entitled and built, five years might have passed. So that's why we use 45 years.

I completely understand that. My next question, though, is it said that I believe it said that every property over 45 years needs to undergo an intensive historic resource assessment. Maybe I read it wrong. Is it every property over 45 years that wants to be demolished needs to do that intensive historic resource assessment?

Yes, and the reason for this is kind of getting back to what we were talking about, building a nexus with CEQA. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, as you know, as a city, we have to make a determination of the historical resource status. Demolition, again, is recognized. in the Public Resources Code and CEQA as a project type that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. So we know we have an impact if we have a historical resource. That's why we focus that provision on the project, not on the property. So the trigger is demolition comes forward We wanna know, is the property on the inventory? Is it on the register? Or has it been subject to an intensive level evaluation in the past five years? In which case, we're good, we'll go with that. If not, we do want to have substantial evidence in the record to protect us. to make a determination, is this a historical resource? Yes or no. We would need to do that in any case, right? If CEQA applies, if it's a discretionary project and it doesn't qualify for one of the exemptions, then that would happen anyway. But it allows the city to get in front of that.

So my question is, is that truly required for everything over 45 years old? Because something built in 1981 is considered to be 45 years old, and maybe we have a strip mall. that was built in 1981. And it's really not contributing to the city. Is there, can we add something, a vehicle that gives the community development director an opportunity to say whether or not the property needs that historic resource assessment? Something, what kind of, what I was thinking is like a 15 day administrative triage or desk review. that would kind of help staff look at that. And if they can obviously identify that it's not contributing, that I think would be helpful so that someone doesn't have to spend, I think I saw like, these can be $8,000 or more. But obviously, I would hope that we would want to have a lot of properties that are being demolished have this intensive historic resource assessment, but I just was kind of curious if that's possible.

Yeah, that's a great question. And I do think we're in conversation about how we can build more nuance into that provision to look at things like an eligibility screening, that's a lighter level that still would be prepared by someone meeting the professional qualification standards that are in the ordinance for preparing a historic assessment. But I think there are different options that could kind of apply a common sense exemption Or it might be that a property has many alterations and could not qualify. However, I think it's always helpful to think about what the new criteria for local landmark listing are. They aren't just about architectural style, right? They're about cultural or social significance as well. It might be an association with a significant individual. And so it's hard, well, if not impossible, for us to really answer that question about eligibility under those criteria. without some level of substantial evidence. So that's kind of the, we would look at that as the goal for an assessment, but then look for some nuance to streamline that process.

Sorry. I saw Russell nodding his head a lot. Can you explain what your thoughts were on this?

Sure. Just to piggyback on Debbie, what the comments was, it's 45 years and then we would develop some type of criteria. So it would be 45 years plus involved with a particular date in history of something happened at this site. 45 years plus a particular individual, there was something, a particular person of some stature either locally or nationally happened there. 45 years plus it's a particular style of architecture of a particular period. It's not just that it's 45 days. And so that additional criteria, I think we could build into this section of the ordinance.

I would just like to second that concern. I think definitionally it seems in section B of 1717121 that There's a lot of vagueness about that. And I think if the goal and the spirit of this ordinance was to truly apply to those historical buildings, this one little bit here seems like it could apply to the whole city again. And so therefore we're kind of defeating the point of what this is all about in the first place. So I definitely think it needs to be tuned up a little bit and some better definitions and like whatever the carve out might be in a short, very short period, because otherwise 180 day window for someone who wants to demo their house when they're not expecting that, I think it can create a lot of problems for people. So, anyway. That's a good comment. Yeah, thank you.

Can I add a little bit of somewhat nuance or perception on what was just said? I think, and I didn't hear the words I was looking for or I wanted to hear in terms of responding to the questions, and I think the 45 years or anything, I think, Russell, you said something about somebody of historic significance, I guess should there be some sort of thought on what is contributing as opposed to non-contributing and what those definitions are. I think it's very clear a strip mall at first glance would be absolutely, unless it was done by an architect of significant stature, or became a cultural resource because of it, a regular strip mall, and we've all seen it, you know, we would all consider that, at first blush, a non-contributor. But the fact that the nuances of a report or an evaluation would reveal some things you never knew about that project, that I think it's important to have that determination to really know it's non-contributing, or know it's absolutely contributing. And I think that needs to kind of run through this whole thing, because once it's gone, it's gone. I mean, so I think this is very important to understand that nuance. Thank you. Commissioner Behar.

I think I have one more, maybe two more. So section 1717123 talks about economic hardship and there's a process. And it seems very appropriate for major commercial developments. But the process seems kind of cost-prohibitive for maybe an everyday homeowner who's living in their home. Is there an option to draft some sort of language that would simplify the administrative hardship pathway for homeowners living in their single-family residence? it seemed like a really commercial style financial auditing burden.

Yeah, thank you for the question. The intent of the certificate of economic hardship is that this should be arduous and that success is not guaranteed because of all of the foundation of the ordinance. It's you know, implementing the general plan to protect, to safeguard historic property. So, in fact, we do want to make sure that that's tough. We also want to make sure we're looking out for the potential, you know, of abuse of that provision by way of saying, when we talk about a reasonable rate of return, we're not talking about the highest and best profit. We're not talking about, well, shoot, it's more expensive to use the Secretary of the Interior standards, so we'd rather not. We're looking... The language is you would have to be able to prove, and this is in step with best practice, that if you were to implement this ordinance requirements, you would be deprived of a reasonable rate of return on your property. So it's a very high bar, and it has to be based on substantial evidence.

How does a homeowner have a reasonable rate of return on their property because they live there?

Right, it's extremely rare. I've been doing policy and this type of work in California for 20 years, and this is extremely rare for this provision to be used because It's just, it doesn't happen. However, we need to make sure that we're providing that off-ramp to avoid a problem of a taking, right? So it's bringing constitutional balance and defensibility to the ordinance. So we need that to be there, but we are, the purpose is to protect and safeguard historic resources.

I guess my question was an answer, though. Can we add an adjustment or proposed adjustment just that applies to single family residences, homeowners living in their home? Or did I miss it?

Yeah, I think there's a section in here that specifically says for non-income producing properties, It's in the middle of paragraph B. I might just be skipping to it, but that jumped out at me when I was reading through this.

The language references number six, section six, income-producing properties. but we can take a look at what we can do in the way of that language.

Okay, we're almost done, I think. I have my own, just one or two questions real quick. Most of them have been asked and answered already, but mine relates to, back to this 17-121, the proposed demo of properties 45 years or older. So the 45-year question was answered, but Again, I have a question about properties. There's an exception under point D here for properties that were recently surveyed. And I recognize earlier in this under the orange inventory of historical resources, 1717, 105, That inventory shall include properties listed in the city's 2010 historic resources inventory, as well as those identified in any subsequent survey updates. Have there been any subsequent survey updates to the 2010? And if not, then that means every property currently would then be up for that review that's going to be demoed, correct?

There have not been any survey updates since the 2010 survey.

And so then my next follow-up relates to something Commissioner Benson had asked to our consultant here about tightening up definitions. And I think your response, if I understand it correctly, is some of these things are worded vaguely because there may not be a funding mechanism to do them more often. And I'm wondering if that would be applicable to this five-year survey. If the entire city gets surveyed when this thing passes, then every homeowner has this five, you know, their property's been looked at, and so they're probably good to go for five years. But if there's not funding for this, or citywide to do this, and this is only happening in certain areas, then again, my concern is about the homeowners who are going to have to have an automatic review of their property.

Right, and this is actually intended to capture the things that might have just been subject to an intensive level evaluation because we don't want that property owner to have to pay for that twice. If it's already happened, if it was due diligence, if it was completed with concurrence from the Heritage Commission, then there's no reason why we would need to evaluate it a second time. But it is true that the intention was to have a more limited scope.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Chair, I have two more questions. Okay. My questions are more just, again, kind of get, I want to make sure I understand kind of where the authority lies. So if it's an infill project within a historic district and there's a variance from setback rules, this is hypothetical, who's the decision-making body? Between the Planning Commission and the Heritage Commission. Okay.

And if it's not very clear currently in the ordinance, we could certainly take the recommendation or the hint to update it. But ideally, the tracking for development projects in the historic district would be reviewed by the Heritage Commission, including what would be the encroachment into a particular setback.

Would you say the same for a zone change, density bonus approval, conditional use permit? I would separate some of those. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around.

Yeah, I don't think it's one answer. So with the zone change, I think as we mentioned earlier, we would want the Planning Commission to still be the body that makes land use decisions or land use recommendations to the City Council. So... there is a particular chance that if there is a development project in a historic district that includes the request for a zone change, that that project might need to be reviewed by both the Heritage Commission and the Planning Commission. The Heritage Commission for the project portion of it and the Planning Commission as the land use recommendation to the City Council.

Okay. And then my next question, I don't see it addressed, is I want to understand who's the appellate body. So for the Heritage Commission, they make a decision, and to whom does an applicant or the public appeal?

The application would be appealable to the City Council.

Okay. So right now, the zoning code, which is in front of us as part of the track changes, though this is not recommended as a change, has the authority for the Planning Commission, it says, authority to act upon an appeal of any order, requirement, permit, decision, or determination made by an administrator or appointed official or body, such as a community development director, zoning administrator, or design review board. in the administration or enforcement of this chapter. So does that need to be amended?

That section would need to be amended, potentially, because we no longer have, or if this passed, would no longer have a design review board. So as the current ordinance that's in effect sits, the the design review board is only limited in scope to historic preservation. We are effectively taking that board or committee that really has mostly recommendation authority and making them a commission hearing body. And as mentioned earlier, it gives us and puts us in a position that if we later want to become a CLG, we then would have that qualification.

Right. I would just maybe recommend that applicable section in code related to the planning commission's appellate authority probably needs a really good look then. Not just removing design review board, but I read that as a, yeah, I read that as a, yeah, it literally says such as, and then references some of those things, so.

Excuse me yeah right so yeah I agree I think at the time that that section was written the planning commission held a higher seat on the so-called totem pole yeah decision making and as we establish a new ordinance for review of historic properties we are. giving authority more so to this new Heritage Commission. That would be at a similar level except for the land use decisions to the Heritage Commission that would give them the authority to actually approve projects without them having to come to Planning Commission.

Certainly, so another I guess hypothetical, but it's practical and possible. Does the Heritage Commission have or need appellate authority? So community development director makes a decision. Zoning administrator. Yeah, if it's a historic property and we do an administrative design review and it's appealed, that would go to the Heritage Commission. Even though code does not, at least what's in front of us does not stipulate that. That would need to be an update that we would need to adjust. Right, that's what I'm trying to get at. Yes, thank you very much. We would need to define that authority as such here. Thank you.

Okay, any more? Commissioner McCormick.

Well, I'm assuming that since we had public comment, this is our questions and comments? Correct. I guess my last, well, should be my last question and comment, it relates to D, which is explaining design review committee, now Heritage Commission. and it basically says it's looking at the established to provide guidance on historical resource management, historical preservation matters of the city, including identification, documentation, management, preservation, and registration of historical resources, and then that's it. But then, that being said, going to Section 4 that follows in that, Membership. It says, shall consist of seven members of the public. Commission members shall be persons who, as a result of their training, knowledge, and experience, are qualified to analyze and interpret architectural and site planning information, including but not limited to licensed landscape architects, and architects, urban planners, engineers, and licensed general contractors. Next sentence, at least three of the members shall have professional experience in urban planning, architectural history, or historic preservation and shall have general knowledge of the architectural styles prevalent in the historic districts. I have some comments that were concerns over the fact that this says to have three that are having knowledge, typically being registered and licensed to practice their craft and experience, that there's only three on a seven-member board. which means there's four people who may not fall into that specific aggregation of people or licenses and able to practice any of these crafts in terms of what's listed here. So that means to me that there's four who potentially don't have to apply to that statement. So my concern is I would think we would want this historical commission, heritage commission, to have maybe a majority of licensed professionals who are looking at the project rather than the opposite. Because I think it's almost like me, it's like if you have a predominance of experience doing one thing, you become qualified to make comments as opposed to if you don't. So I would like to see if we could really look at that because I think it should be the opposite, that there should be more of qualified people on there based upon this membership and the fact that it's appointed rather than elected.

We would love to have more people that meet the minimum qualifications on all of our boards and commissions, but as it stands, it continues to be a challenge for us to find so many people that meet the qualifications and want to participate on our boards and commissions.

Russell, I have to say from experience, and I was 16 years on the Design Review Committee, and the board and I'm a licensed landscape architect. So it was hard to find more who wanted to do that and sit in front of this community and do all the research and reviewing plans. That's a tough job to do for an architect or any, licensed professional who works full time. So, yeah, it is, I acknowledge the fact that it is hard to find people like that.

And as it sits today, our design review board has two vacant seats. We only have five members as it stands currently serving. We would love to have two more serve that meet the qualifications. And even as appointed, we're just not getting the abled bodies. So as currently recommended in the red line, we went from two and we're up to three. But it makes it extremely difficult to fill those positions if we have to have those minimum standards. But point well taken. And if that's the Commission's recommendation, we'll certainly note it for the City Council review.

And I won't take the comment that you want more trained and licensed professionals on commissions personally about the Planning Commission.

I think we're just looking for people that are interested in the field and qualified. I just. Yeah.

If I could piggyback on Commissioner McCormick's comment. I would rather see three professionals on a five-member commission than three professionals on a seven-member commission. I think the majority should be people with backgrounds, whether licensed or not, but with significant backgrounds in what they're going to be doing, because especially since they're being handed more responsibility than even in the past, which was already an arduous job for the DRC. So I just would feel more comfortable recommending it to be a five-person commission with three experts.

Yeah, and that could certainly make more sense if we're having a challenge of finding that many qualified people that would just reduce the number of commissioners. But that would be a council decision to see if that would be the one board or commission in the city that they would want to reduce from seven to five, because I think they all do enjoy appointing somebody.

Russell, can I just add some nuance to that and respond to what you just said? The fact that the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee went from five to seven was because of the districts being seven districts. I totally understand NS being an appointed position, totally understand why you can have seven individuals from the seven districts that may be skilled in what their district is about. and not necessarily be a licensed professional. I think the Heritage Commission is being nuanced down to just historical review, whereas the Planning Commission looks at land use, which is the whole city. It's too bad that the Design Room doesn't get to look at the whole city because we'd like a totally quality-oriented city, but that's not an argument I'm going to start now. But The fact of going to five kind of bodes back to your question of finding people who can do that as opposed to having seven, which I don't think it relates to the district. A lot of the districts don't have or potentially will not have, by the nomination of 45 years, a historical resource in that area. So that's the reality of the situation.

Point very well taken, and I think we can include it in our notes from the Commission to City Council. Staff was just simply changing design review board to design review committee to Heritage Commission and not making any major changes that would impact Council's policy decisions. We would take direction from them, but if it's the recommendation from Planning Commission, we could certainly forward those comments. Thank you.

Commissioner Vasquez, did you have any follow-up on that one? Not on that one, but I have another related question. I guess it's confusing to me, do they have authority to approve, because I'm making sure I'm reading this right, with the historic, what is this thing called? Heritage. Heritage. Heritage Commission. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There you go. Heritage Commission, do they have authority to review CEQA-related mitigation? No.

If applicable to that development project, yes. Okay. And specifically, I think we would want them to because we wouldn't want to approve a project. I would think so.

I just would note that the language in the OMC proposed red line says that they review and provide advisory comments on decisions and documents related to CEQA.

We'll need to update that because... Because we're saying they're decision-making. Yeah, when they're making a, I think, correct me if I'm wrong. Am I wrong?

Russell, are you asking me to contradict you on Mike? No, I think there's a lot of flexibility, really. It's common, typical for cities to allow a cultural heritage commission or a heritage commission to comment on CEQA documents and advise the city. Ultimately, the city's the lead agency, so that remains, that's the intention behind that.

Currently, as it stands, environmental impact reports go to City Council.

And that's not... Go to the Planning Commission.

Yeah. So if there's a recommendation from Planning Commission on how you'd like to see that, we would accept that recommendation as well.

Okay. I would just note, too, again, I know I spoke to this a little bit earlier, but it does seem like we need to have a closer look at the authority of the Planning Commission. That's here, let me pull up the applicable. Because living in this new reality here, the OMC currently says that the Planning Commission has authority to hear and decide applications for design review for those projects requiring planning commission approval of a land use permit or environmental documentation, including development projects within the Old Town Historic District and replacement structures in conjunction with the demolition permits within the Old Town Historic District. So in the red line version that's not there, or sorry, that remains there, and if I'm understanding what we want to accomplish, that should be removed. Yes or no?

That is true. That would need to be updated to reflect the new authority of the Heritage Commission. Okay.

So that is, what is that? 17.172A5. Okay. Thank you, staff.

If I may also, I see another reference, there's multiple references to Planning Commission and the OMC, so I think that is this common that we would approve this larger document and then the staff would go back and find the inconsistencies and try to correct those inconsistencies? Is that what's gonna happen going forward?

The goal is to correct it as it goes forward. And I'm realizing there are references to design review board versus committee, and so the search and replace was not designed correctly. But these are all good comments.

OK, any other?

I do. This kind of came up in all of our talking, and I kind of was looking at it. As far as authority is concerned, so as I'm understanding it, the Heritage Commission, the HC, has the ability to provide a certificate of appropriateness. Anything outside of the certificate of appropriateness, so zoning, CUPs, major site plan approval, density bonuses, all goes to Planning Commission, regardless of where it is in the city. So then my question is, if it goes to both entities and they're giving the certificate of appropriateness, but when the applicant comes to Planning Commission, and we're not really an appellate body, of the HC and we're not really in like a, there's no totem pole where the planning commission is above the HC. So if something comes to both commissions, who has like the right to supersede the other, make changes if the heritage commission said one thing and then when the applicant comes here, they're asking for something else because they're coming for now their zone change or their density bonus or their CUP because they want to serve alcohol. So who has authority to do that? Or does now the planning commission only have authority over that CUP? However, usually the site plans and things like that are all part of it. So how does that work?

That's a great question. I think it's helpful to think about what the finding of a certificate of appropriateness issued by the Heritage Commission addresses, specifically addresses the physical changes to the historic resource and whether or not they comply with the Secretary of Interior standards and the applicable design standards such that we're avoiding an impact to the historical resource and that project qualifies for a class 31 categorical exemption under CEQA. So to answer your question, it's a limited scope. That's the focus. So, I mean, I would defer to Russell, but it wouldn't be that a project element then would come to Planning Commission. Your purview wouldn't be applying the Secretary of the Interior Standards, right? That question will have already been addressed under the Certificate of Appropriateness. So I would expect it would be a different question that you're answering and providing guidance on.

Well, sometimes they're making requests because of safety or something different than what, you know, currently it's something different than what the design review committee had approved for them when they went to DRC. And so when it comes to planning commission, sometimes we make changes that aren't in line 100% with what DRC recommended to the planning commission. So in that case, like, How does that work? Now Planning Commission doesn't get to make any changes regardless. So that site plan is set no matter what when it comes to Planning Commission. And maybe we have a question about access, and we think they need a gate somewhere for pedestrian or vehicle safety. But that wasn't part of the historic HC approval, but review. And now, but it's, you know, it's important because the fire department has alerted us to this, but it's not, no longer in their certificate of appropriateness.

Sure. Good question. So first, I really hope we don't hear from the fire department right before coming to plan a commission and that staff review committee addresses all of those safety concerns prior to coming here. But I think you raise an interesting point question as to the order of how things would be reviewed, which stop would go first and who would have one level of authority over a particular project. I think ideally we wouldn't want to have projects have multiple stops. going to Heritage Commission and to Planning Commission as the city's intentions for being open for business and trying to remove the multiple stops of design review or heritage review and then Planning Commission, which was the initial intent of not requiring projects outside of the historic district to go to design review or heritage. Ideally, we'd like to try to minimize the number of projects that would have to go before Heritage Commission and Planning Commission, so we're gonna have to look at that when we draft our standards so that a project wouldn't be stuck in that catch of, well, we gotta go to Heritage Commission for this, and then we gotta go to Planning Commission for that, and if one commission likes this and the other commission likes that, what do we do? I think when we look at our flow chart of the development review process and the level of authority for each commission. We really need to look at how we could potentially minimize the number of projects that would have to go before each body. We certainly wouldn't want to invite a developer or new business into the community and tell them, well you gotta go to this commission for this and then you gotta go to this commission for that. We really wanna be able to streamline it to the best we can with having the city council be the official determination if appealed.

I guess I have concerns with sending something to a heritage commission for a conditional use permit, right? Or for a density bonus or a zoning variance or something of that nature. I understand, I totally get the wanting to send things to less approving bodies. I think that makes perfect sense and it makes things more streamlined for applicants. but I just have some concerns about that.

Can you share those concerns with us?

I guess it's sometimes because the Planning Commission is tasked with kind of upholding the general plan for the entire city, looking at the entire city as a whole, not just individual properties one by one. Yes, we do look at properties one at a time, but we're tasked with taking care of an entire city and making sure land use around the entire city appropriate and the Heritage Commission is tasked with protecting historical resources not necessarily how the land is used and so that's kind of where my concern lays in the Planning Commission being about land use and the Heritage Commission being about protecting historical resources not necessarily about land use.

We just know that I, too, share the same concerns, and I think that's probably evident through the questions I've asked throughout the evening.

Okay. I appreciate the distinction between the concerns. Thank you.

And so because of that, I previously was loving the NCAAs, the neighborhood character areas, but now I kind of, have some questions about that because the historical commission gets to approve obviously recommendations to city council as to what are historical or the neighborhood character areas. And now kind of based on your discussion, now those neighborhood character areas are also just solely under the purview of the historical commission, no longer under the purview of the planning commission. Again, that's, that's where my concern with the, the land use kind of comes from. I understand from a design use, there absolutely makes sense to either. I'm sure most of those are going to be at the staff level, but they're, they can at any moment decide we want to create more historic or neighborhood character areas because that's an easier process. We aren't required to get the property owners to be interested in being a part of a neighborhood character area. It only is a survey done by staff and then a vote of the historical commission. So they can create as many neighborhood character areas as they want and now have purview over as many character areas as they want. Now, I don't imagine the commission's going to do that. Again, that's why I get concerned about the land use versus the historical preservation.

Noted. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. Got everybody's questions asked and answered. All right. At this time, then, we should entertain whether we're going to make a motion to approve or we want any other comments or ideas about what we should do at this point.

Has anyone been taking notes of all of the changes and concerns? Oh, perfect. Would you be able to kind of read back to the commission, just like super brief summary? OF ALL OF THOSE?

SURE, NO PRESSURE.

WELL, YOU HAVE A VIDEO THAT YOU CAN USE A BIT LATER.

NO, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE VIDEO, BUT IF WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT, I KIND OF WANT TO GO BACK AND REVIEW. THERE'S A LOT SAID BY A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF WONDERFUL POINTS MADE UP HERE.

There was a lot of discussion about appropriate terminology requirements by the general plan Multiple commissioners noted some ambiguity in the language and and so a lot of I think the things that staff has taken as Notes moving forward will be to clean up the direction of the language Also, just a side note is that we will be developing future administrative regulations that I think will fill some of those gaps and A little bit more in kind of the middle portion of the discussions is what was the goal for the PC approval tonight? That was more directional. Requirements listed in the ordinance for Mills Act properties. Wanted some additional clarification there. Let's see. Payment of fees for permits was addressed. I'm sorry, Commissioner Veyhar, were you hoping to frame some No, I'm a motion or just kind of summarize.

I just kind of wanted like what were Yeah, what were people's? Changes that they kind of wanted to see so that way We could kind of get our hands on it or I mean we could all go down and say kind of the things We're thinking if that's if that's easier or better I could add to Mr. Beckman's list Providing a

clarified process for the properties 45 years and older, if there's a preliminary screening mechanism to simplify the process for those types of properties to move through development review. clearly the authority for overview of different types of projects, the economic hardship threshold for individual residential property owners, the proportion of support within areas that could be future historic districts. Let's see. A more fine-tuned language regarding the purpose of the Heritage Commission.

And also clarity of the appellate procedure. And there was also a couple comments on the number of members of the committee itself. Sorry, the commission.

I know that some of my, I didn't hear some of my recommendations. One, and the commission might need to discuss this, is increasing the petition threshold for a historic district to be 60% instead of 51% to show a clear majority is in favor of doing that, but not changing the protest threshold, not increasing that. And then maybe.

Mr. Chair, can I ask a kind of commission direction question? Yes. And maybe staff can provide their input too. Is the hope to give a actual like edit changes to the proposed documents or to simply provide direction

Then staff would make changes that this planning commission would not see that would go to the City Council It would be the latter provide direction and then the document would be revised for the City Council Yeah, I have a concern about that and I'd hate to have the staff come back and present it again to us but I just feel like there's a lot and it might be worth going through the video after this and reviewing everything that was mentioned and just to make sure all those questions were covered. That's what I'm leaning towards personally. Any other commissioners have any thoughts about that?

I just think to me it comes down to how serious do we take our role in providing a recommendation to the City Council on changes to the Orange Municipal Code related to this section. And That is not a question about trust or mistrust of staff. I think there's immense trust at the highest level, the trust for our consultant. I just think that it's, we won't review. I mean, we're toggling, I'm toggling trying to understand some of these changes and I don't have the clarity by which I would want us to make a decision. And that's not to say that these are, this is in whole, I think, a really great need for the city and a really good thing So I think that's where I struggle of, you know, if it's just allowing staff, I mean, we wouldn't be able to review after that. So I don't want to make more of our role than is needed, frankly. But, I mean, this is a substantive change to the Orange Municipal Code that we would be recommending to city council.

I think the biggest concern is the concerns that have been raised about just the role. of the two bodies and how that's shared, and that seems significant and important, and clearly needing feedback. So that's, I think that's the main concern.

Commissioner McWarrick? I think, and I like that comment, I think the fact that what's, What is blooming from this discussion is the fact that there is a focus, there is a want rather than a need, or there is probably a want and a need for streamlining this thing. And I do understand that. I would understand that from my point of view as well as being empathetic with an applicant point of view. I totally get it. That being said, I think we said a lot of things tonight. I think that, I mean, I'm a proponent of always reviewing the video. It's like reliving the whole thing again. I know that this body does not like to continue things. I get that as well. I'm a proponent of getting things right. So that's where I stand on this. I'd be willing to approve this, knowing the staff and our consultant having an incredible resume of dealing with this, with the use of our comments and the follow-up with our notes. And the... the beautiful part about the video and the ability to stop it and get it right. So I don't, the continuance obviously has something to do with the schedule. So we all understand that as well. Is there a way to circumvent, to have all the commissioners see that their thoughts are achieved or addressed?

I think they might need some direction on some of their thoughts.

Yeah, I think my sense is that it wouldn't be to individualize our comments. We would have to direct staff as a commission as to what we would want them to come back to us with versus watch the video and reflect every commissioner's.

Yeah, because some of our thoughts might be in conflict with each other, right? Like maybe you don't agree with my increasing the threshold to 60%, right? That's quite possible. So staff would need to know what... what we're recommending to them, what changes to make.

Probably should hear from staff, Mr. Chair, though, on what seems like an emerging kind of commission direction. Agreed.

I think if there were some big ticket items that, if it was the 60%, we would entertain a straw vote to see what the Planning Commission's sense was of that, and we could certainly incorporate any of the major issues or items that you've identified as concerns, or things that you would like to see adjusted in the ordinance, and that would be great direction.

Mr. Bunham, to clarify, are you saying for for you to come back to Planning Commission or to take that to City Council? That would be to take that to City Council.

So if we got a straw vote on the 60%, we could certainly note that and that could be incorporated into Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council.

So it's Planning Staff's position, it seems like clear, I just wanted to ask that you need to take this to City Council.

Preferably sooner than later in the year.

Can I ask a quick question? Let's assume we took a straw vote on that issue and clarified that issue. Would council be advised of our concerns with respect to a really clear clarification of roles and responsibilities so that they understood when they look at it to use their own brains to have the same concerns that we had.

They would. Yes. In short answer, it's yes. Okay. The longer answer is staff also needs that and we need to do a better job of putting that in the code so that when an applicant does apply, it's crystal clear what their process is and staff also needs to understand it so when people ask, we know the process. So it's been made very clear tonight that our code has not been updated in all the sections needed in order to adopt this ordinance. And so we very much appreciate the Planning Commission's input that things were not clear because we will make them crystal clear before they go to City Council.

So this is conversation number one that flushed out a lot of things that on first, not first read, but probably 900th read, you know, you didn't really see, which happens all the time. And then that conversation is going to happen again with staff before it even goes to council and then with council. I have the same concern that I always like to see that the things we were concerned about is then fixed before we pass on. But maybe with that understanding, is there any, does that make it any more comforting, I guess?

Sorry for me personally I was operating off of that understanding that we may be clear direction for staff to make the particular changes that Planning Commission would want to make that would be the you know pass with these changes my sense and understanding would be that what they provide in City Council would be a further redline version that would incorporate Planning Commission's direction I'm naming that my concern that we're sort of we're not reviewing that. And that may be okay, but I struggle with that personally.

As do I. The timeline, Russell, is that if we were to, let's say there was a motion made to take it back and then for us to review it again, what would that look like and then how would that impact the council? Or would that be an impossible, an impossibility in your mind's eye?

This application is not a development application that is going to expire or needs to comply with a permit streamlining act. I think what we have is a very invested community and an MOU that we had approved by this city council and I believe the city council would like the opportunity to review it. Understood.

Well, I guess, again, sorry, I know we're dragging this out, but I'm just not sure or clear that staff has the understanding of all of our particular questions of concern.

Yeah, I think, oh, sorry, Mr.

Chair, I say we just be really clear with staff on what our direction is so that council can review changes to the OMC. I mean, I don't, That's not my initial take, but I understand that I would just want us to be super clear on where it is. I will note that I want to say sensitively my concern that we did not review, I think, changes that were ready for our review. So I do want to note that.

I agree with that. And so as far as then like making a recommendation to staff, do we have to do a straw vote on every single potential recommendation we want to make or someone gets to make a motion?

It would be the same way, sorry, Mr. Chair, it would be the same way we do like conditions of approval, you know, just where if somebody makes a motion, this is what I want to add in. Would the maker of the motion be willing to add this? Maker of the motion says yes or no. And then the council... That's my understanding, I don't know if staff has a clear way.

And then we could just, in general, say incorporating comments and concerns that were expressed tonight in the notes, the staff notes, or how, do we need one that's more specific? We'd have to be specific.

We'd have to name them. Every comment. I don't think we have to necessarily, we would not have to name, sorry, Mr. Chair, if it's okay. That's okay. We would not need to name the specific code section, but we'd have to name the particular topic that we're directing staff to address.

Well, I say we endeavor to use that mechanism at this time as quickly as possible for the sake of everyone here. So, Commissioner Behar, would you like to start with your 60%? Sure.

I will try to make a motion. We'll see how this works. So... I move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number PC17-26, recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 17 in the Orange Municipal Code to replace Chapter 17.17, Historic Districts, in its entirety with a new Chapter 17.17 entitled Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources, and associated definitions, provisions, and procedures to comprehensively address historical, cultural, and tribal resources in amending Section 17.08 to replace the Design Review Committee with a Heritage Commission and established associated purview. FIND THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378. WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED CHANGES. ADDING LANGUAGE FOR ECONOMIC HARDSHIP FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS. increasing the threshold for creating a historic district for the petition to be 60%, incorporating the Mills Act inspection edits that Ms. Pohoshek outlined, and make it explicitly clear that the Heritage Commission oversees historic Preservation as far as historic preservation is concerned and the Planning Commission retains all Purview for land use whether zoning density bonuses CUPS Everything else that is incorporated in land use and not just maintaining of historic districts. The streamline of the 45, the demolition screening, adding administrative triage that allows staff to decide what projects need the intensive historic resource assessment. fine-tune language on purpose, clarity on the appellate procedure for historical commission, especially clarity on procedure for projects that went to both planning commission and historical commission, heritage commission, sorry. Gonna have a hard time with that. And reducing the number of commission members to five, and updating other terminology as necessary, like adding the word at, that Commissioner Maldonado recommended. Did I miss anything?

To the maker of the motion, before there's a second, if it's okay, would you be willing to define the appellate authority, I think I heard you say this, but not just for the Heritage Commission, but also for the Planning Commission? because that code needs to change as well.

Yes, absolutely.

And then to clarify, when you say kind of all authority land use planning commission, does that for you include things like infill development that is being recommended?

Yes, so infill development, that's like recommending a zone change, for example, going from commercial to residential?

Yes.

Absolutely.

But if it's not recommending, if a zone change is not needed for infill development?

Well, the way I'm seeing it, if it's infill development, it would need to, unless it's retaining the existing structure, a heritage commission wouldn't be looking at it if it's not looking at whatever is the existing historical resource or district or thing to do with it. So I think it would still go to Planning Commission.

Okay. Because the way it's written now is that they would approve or deny in whole or part applications for infill or new construction within historic districts.

Oh, I think that should still go to Planning Commission.

Okay, so you do mean that in the broadest sense?

Yes.

And are you completely committed to the threshold being 60%?

I'm open.

Okay. I like 51. It's been used before. It's fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it. But if you feel strongly, I could support it.

The only reason I feel strongly is because I know that when the Eichlers became a district, there's quite a few people in the district that aren't necessarily thrilled that they became a historic district. And I know that puts an extra expense on people. If you already are living at a property and you had... an expectation of reasonable expenses for how you maintained the exterior appearance of your home. And now you have additional reviews and things on top of it, additional rules. I like the idea of people living in that district or owning properties in that district being.

I'm about to second your motion. I'm fine with you to keep it at 60%. Would you be open to section D2H, which is a very broad authority? Of which packet? Sorry, this is the change to OMC, the red line version.

Which Orange Municipal Code?

17 point, it's where the rules are defined here. No, like the 17.08?

17.08 red line or the whole historic preservation ordinance?

Let me define, let me say the actual language. Right now it says, this is what's being proposed to us, that this new commission would support and recommend efforts to protect, enhance, appreciate, and utilize properties of cultural, historical, architectural, community, or aesthetic importance that, though not designated historical resources, are worthy of recognition. I just feel like that's such broad authority. So to either strike that or to make it more defined.

I think we should make it more, I agree with making it more defined to just the historic districts, historic properties, as well as the neighborhood character areas. So it's just those three things that they have in the ordinance.

Okay. And I don't, Mr. Chair, I don't know if you want to ask if anyone else wants to add to the motion. I would like to. Does anyone have anything to add to that?

Yeah, I wanted to maybe get some clarification on it. The infill, I was somewhat confused on the explanation of that. Is what you're saying is the authority on an infill project would be only for the Heritage Commission, but you want it to be both?

Yes, so a great example of this would be culinary dropout, where that property is. That's a property in a historic district, but it was infill because the property was deemed under economic hardship to not be viable to be redone as it was. So I think a property of that nature should come before the planning commission to hear out the residents. It's not just about protecting the historical nature of the property. It's about hearing the residents who are living across the street and what their concerns are about noise, about the land use, not necessarily the architectural features or the historic features of the property.

Yes, that happened. It came to both. So that would continue to do that sort of thing. I agree with that. The other one was... I mean, not that I don't agree or disagree about the 51% to 60%. To me, the 60% just sounds arbitrary. Why not 58? Why not 62? I mean, it's like the reason we're being given that it is 51 as opposed to 50 was that it's truly how you voted in grammar school. Who have got the most votes won. And I think... That's a defendable position. Actually, that would be 50% plus one. 50% plus one. 50% plus one.

I picked the 60% because the city of Saratoga does that.

Well, there's a lot of things that are done by other cities that we don't do.

Absolutely.

So although I don't disagree with the 60, I think the 60 just is kind of a 60. I mean, it's just like, why not say 75? That feels like too much. I'm thinking that this body, it seems somewhat arbitrary that we chose that, as opposed to not taking the recommendation of our consultant and our staff to vote like we were in junior high and high grammar school.

i don't know i like i said i could go with 60 yeah but i the perception of it being arbitrary just seems to me it's slightly arbitrary i agree um i picked it because it exists there's precedent somewhere else for it my concern was 51 percent just wasn't enough of a community to be in favor of something so that's that's why i i'm very familiar with like how protesting works, and a lot of people don't come out to sign those protest paperworks. So I wanted to see that 60% was a clear majority, not just a simple majority, but a definite majority. And I picked 60 just because I could defend it by another city having it.

Yeah, I think that 51% is not necessarily just opposed as opposed to you know, agree. So it's, it seems to be 51 makes it 50 to 51 makes it, you know, pose disagree. So I think it just makes it easy. You know, maybe I'm stepping on the city attorney's toes, but legally it seems more defensible from now. I'm not, you know, so anyways, the other one was you had said that to change the makeup of this from a seven to a five, but you didn't say anything about, leaving the three members shall have professional experience. Is that what you still intend?

Absolutely. I think we have to have that for the certified local government.

Yeah. Okay. That, I guess, the only sticking part to me is that I agree with two of the three I asked about. I would like to hear more thoughts about the 60-20. I hate to say I'm on the fence because I agree with the fact of that, but it just, to me, seems arbitrary, which is not what this COMMISSION DOES.

SO, YEAH, I WANT TO GET THE ANSWER ON THE 60, AND THEN IF ANYBODY ELSE HAD ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE MOTION, WE CAN DO THAT, TACKLE THAT NEXT. SO, ANY COMMENTS ON THE 60, COMMISSIONER TUCKER OR BENSON?

I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION.

NO DISCUSSION?

YOU DISCUSS AFTER YOU MAKE THE, SORRY. OKAY. YOU'RE SECONDING THE MOTION FOR HER ORIGINAL WITH THE 60%. OKAY, GOT IT. There's a second. Now is discussion about that.

I don't know if everybody agrees with that. It's very clear what I think, although I'm an offense. So if we were voting on this, we would make this project even longer.

Yeah, we are.

We are, but it's only tonight. But I think that, yeah, it'd be interesting to hear what everybody else thinks about that, you know,

It doesn't totally offend me that it would be 51% if you win, you win. And if people are invested against something, I think they tend to be louder. So, If that is what the consultant is telling us has been the trend, has been what other cities do, I don't know that it makes sense to, I understand completely the rationale, but I don't know that it makes sense to have us just kind of arbitrarily, as you admit, make it harder here. So not flagrantly opposed, but I don't know that I think it's necessary as opposed to everything else that we've talked about.

I think it's like a sporting event. You go to extra innings and the whole thing is you win, you win or you win or you lose. So it seems arbitrary. It's, oh, you have... Yeah, you have 60%. Your effort was 60% bigger than mine. You win. I mean, you can put the analogy to that kind of thing, and I just think it seems arbitrary.

All right. Well, with that, let's go ahead and take a vote, see if the motion passes as currently seconded. My screen stuck. I did a no-no. I touched on the document and now it froze.

And the motion as we currently have it seconded includes 60%.

60%, correct.

Okay.

You can always make an amendment to a motion on the floor. Sorry, are we voting now, not discussing?

Yeah, I would like to propose an amendment to leave everything else as it was stated, but to leave 51%. I'll second that.

Okay, so we have to take a vote on the amendment before the motion. I forget how the, okay. So let's go ahead and take a vote on the amendment, which would reduce it, the threshold down to 51%. All right, let's take a vote now. I'm still frozen, sorry. So this is to approve the amendment. I think we're going to take a voice vote. Yeah, we have to do a voice vote because my screen is stuck. And this is for the making amendment to make that a 51%. Motion to approve as amended.

Where do we start? Here? Me?

I'll go ahead and we'll just list it. So this is a voice vote. Commissioner Vasquez. I go first. No. Okay. Commissioner Benson.

Aye. Aye.

Commissioner Maldonado.

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Veyhar.

No.

Commissioner McCormick. Aye. Vice Chair Tucker.

Aye.

And Chair Leslie.

No.

Okay, that vote is four ayes, three noes.

Okay, so the amendment passes. And is that it, or do you need to vote on the original motion now, or is that, that approves it? We're done?

You don't vote on the original because you voted on the amendments, now you're voting.

And I will vote on the original motion with the change to 51% for the vote threshold for Hist Park, or Heritage and Park. All right, thank you, Chair.

Before we go, I'm confused now. We're voting again?

On the whole thing, as amended.

Correct, on the whole thing as amended.

I thought that's what we just voted for.

I think we voted on the amendment.

I think they were voting to see if they wanted to amend it, and now they're going to vote on whether they want to pass the entire thing.

As amended. As amended.

All right, so we'll vote now on the motion. As amended. As amended.

As amended.

And I got to do a voice vote again, sorry. Oh, really? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Aye.

Thank you. That was Commissioner Vasquez? 51. 51. Oh. Commissioner Benson?

Aye.

Commissioner Maldonado?

Aye.

Commissioner Vejar?

Aye.

Okay, Commissioner McCormick? Aye. Vice Chair Tucker?

Aye.

And Chair Leslie? Aye. Okay, the motion passes. Thank you everyone for your patience tonight. This meeting is now adjourned and the next regular meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10th, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Still confused.

You're serving dinner, right? Yeah.