Eliminating DRC review from new development in the City is a false savings of time and money and does not address the goal of streamlining the approval process:
The DRC is only responsible for a small portion the entitlement process and has no involvement until staff reviews are completed. The vast majority of delays are beyond the purview and control of the DRC. Incomplete submittals, inaccurate plans, missing details, design inconsistencies, site constraints, fire and police requirements, legal challenges, lack of financing, change of business plans, shift in market conditions, zoning anomalies, easement challenges, neighborhood pushback, and City staff shortages all cause delays; none are within the purview or control of the DRC.
The DRC brings value to the City in all zones, not just the historic districts:
The DRC provides a vital service to the community when large commercial, multifamily, or institutional development projects butt up against residential neighborhoods. Inevitably there are issues with bulk and mass; lack of privacy; deficiencies of screening, trees, and landscaping; and insensitivity to the residential neighbors. The DRC balances the constraints of the site and its use with the requirements of the City and the impacts on the residents.
The DRC has substantially improved many important developments by finding ways to reduce looming bulk and mass, correct windows that invade neighboring privacy, and ensure shade and screening for the community with adequate trees and sustainable landscaping.
By resolving design issues before recommending approval the DRC is streamlining the process for the Planning Commission and City Council.
However, taking this review away from the independent DRC and giving it to the Community Development Director (newly merged with the Division of Economic Development) adds pressure to prioritize “business friendly” decisions over consideration for quality design and compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
Removing non-contributing historic structures from DRC review makes the historic districts even more susceptible to losses and demolitions:
All of the Eichler tracts and Old Towne are experiencing loss of historic fabric that goes unchecked. Windows and doors are being replaced with plastic and imitation materials, historic garages and sheds are being lost. The districts are experiencing a death by 1000 cuts.
Non-contributing structures should be more strictly reviewed, not less. Most have had inappropriate alterations, however all are part of the historic district (which is the largest historic resource). Many could be restored to qualify as Contributing structures. Instead they are vulnerable to even more inappropriate alterations and even demolition.
Please consider the benefits to the City from the unbiased, independent work of the DRC.
Developers and businesses hire their own teams of professionals to promote their projects. These designers work for their clients, not the city. The community, the residents, the citizens of Orange depend on the DRC.
- Anne McDermott
The DRC was instrumental in giving the Orange Senior Housing Committee valuable information about their project on Katella and California streets. The female architect recommended more fencing for privacy for the neighbors, and the landscape architect explained why the trees they picked for the project would not survive in that location. The entire committee wanted to improve the project more, and add another exit onto Katella Avenue. Limiting the DRC's scope would hurt the common sense approach to all construction projects in Orange.
This Agenda Item is based on misinformation and inaccurate evaluation by the City's financial report presented by Grant Thornton Advisors, LLC. The Design Review Committee is not the responsible party for delays in approving new businesses within the City of Orange. City staff in the Planning and Community Development offices are responsible for delays in plan reviews and approvals. Also, new business applicants have failed to produce adequate documentation which would allow for approval. Focus on the real problem and stop blaming the DRC.
Staying on track with our adopted Vision and Public Participation on this matter fails for all parts of the city yet again!
Here’s what key excerpts from Orange’s adopted plan and committed Vision for Orange’s future states about processing this matter.
Vision Statement: The City will continue efforts to protect and enhance the historic core. This same type of care and attention will be applied throughout the rest of the City.
Public Participation: The City recognizes that the single most important component of any future planning effort is public participation. The following goal and policies emphasize the need for continued public involvement in all parts of the planning process.
GOAL 8.0: Encourage active involvement of residents, businesses, and agencies in the planning and decision-making process.
Policy 8.1: Continue to provide opportunities for public education and involvement in land use planning decisions through public hearings, community meetings, study sessions, electronic media, and any other appropriate and available means.
Policy 8.3: Foster meaningful involvement and interaction among diverse groups within the City regarding land use planning efforts and decision making.
Our existing, diverse neighborhoods and businesses get dealt the dismissive short stick yet again. Only four days to fully understand and evaluate the impacts (directly and indirectly) of this ordinance really tells us local control or serving all the people isn’t the end goal.
Continuing the same old “Orange Way” of doing business is what some in leadership want to keep. Radical economic change? I don’t have faith it will happen. Shifting to a correct course in the open way of doing business. Nope.
Why is this proposed ordinance throwing away months of collaborative work toward a robust ordinance created alongside informed preservationists and engaged citizens?? How should a lone Community Development Director have the knowledge and authority to make the decisions laid out in this ordinance, as proposed?? The City of Orange was the first community in Orange County to recognize the value of its historic resources and worked diligently in the 1980s to create a relevant knowledge base. This perceptive action paved the way for other jurisdictions to do the same in OC. Orange has the largest contiguous National Register Historic District in the State of California, and given the wealth of historic resources in our state, that's really saying something! Why would the City turn its back on this precious asset, which has demonstrable economic, social, cultural, and environmental value?? This proposed ordinance is nonsensical in light of the previous work on drafting an ordinance that actually protects irreplaceable historic resources. Please do not approve this, and ask for a completed draft of a workable, reasonable ordinance that will benefit Orange residents now as well as in the future. Susanna Branch
I have lived in OTO my entire life minus 3.5 years I was back and forth between Palm Desert and my home for work. My parents bought our home in Sept 1969. Please protect Old Town Orange. When so many cities were demolishing older home in the 1980s we were preserving ours. This is such a quaint, small area and it positively needs to be preserved to the fullest. I’m soon 55 and looking forward to retiring and putting more enhancements and improvements in our home. Matthew Thomas
Reject this proposal. Protect our historic resources. My dad was born in Orange in 1917 and lived in the old town district, though not designated at the time. He lived in our house his whole life, until he succumbed to the after effects of polio. I am 75 years old and have lived in old town my entire life. I realize how valuable these historic areas are. Protect them.
Marsha Stanley
Eliminating DRC review from new development in the City is a false savings of time and money and does not address the goal of streamlining the approval process:
The DRC is only responsible for a small portion the entitlement process and has no involvement until staff reviews are completed. The vast majority of delays are beyond the purview and control of the DRC. Incomplete submittals, inaccurate plans, missing details, design inconsistencies, site constraints, fire and police requirements, legal challenges, lack of financing, change of business plans, shift in market conditions, zoning anomalies, easement challenges, neighborhood pushback, and City staff shortages all cause delays; none are within the purview or control of the DRC.
The DRC brings value to the City in all zones, not just the historic districts:
The DRC provides a vital service to the community when large commercial, multifamily, or institutional development projects butt up against residential neighborhoods. Inevitably there are issues with bulk and mass; lack of privacy; deficiencies of screening, trees, and landscaping; and insensitivity to the residential neighbors. The DRC balances the constraints of the site and its use with the requirements of the City and the impacts on the residents.
The DRC has substantially improved many important developments by finding ways to reduce looming bulk and mass, correct windows that invade neighboring privacy, and ensure shade and screening for the community with adequate trees and sustainable landscaping.
By resolving design issues before recommending approval the DRC is streamlining the process for the Planning Commission and City Council.
However, taking this review away from the independent DRC and giving it to the Community Development Director (newly merged with the Division of Economic Development) adds pressure to prioritize “business friendly” decisions over consideration for quality design and compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
Removing non-contributing historic structures from DRC review makes the historic districts even more susceptible to losses and demolitions:
All of the Eichler tracts and Old Towne are experiencing loss of historic fabric that goes unchecked. Windows and doors are being replaced with plastic and imitation materials, historic garages and sheds are being lost. The districts are experiencing a death by 1000 cuts.
Non-contributing structures should be more strictly reviewed, not less. Most have had inappropriate alterations, however all are part of the historic district (which is the largest historic resource). Many could be restored to qualify as Contributing structures. Instead they are vulnerable to even more inappropriate alterations and even demolition.
Please consider the benefits to the City from the unbiased, independent work of the DRC.
Developers and businesses hire their own teams of professionals to promote their projects. These designers work for their clients, not the city. The community, the residents, the citizens of Orange depend on the DRC.
- Anne McDermott
The DRC was instrumental in giving the Orange Senior Housing Committee valuable information about their project on Katella and California streets. The female architect recommended more fencing for privacy for the neighbors, and the landscape architect explained why the trees they picked for the project would not survive in that location. The entire committee wanted to improve the project more, and add another exit onto Katella Avenue. Limiting the DRC's scope would hurt the common sense approach to all construction projects in Orange.
This Agenda Item is based on misinformation and inaccurate evaluation by the City's financial report presented by Grant Thornton Advisors, LLC. The Design Review Committee is not the responsible party for delays in approving new businesses within the City of Orange. City staff in the Planning and Community Development offices are responsible for delays in plan reviews and approvals. Also, new business applicants have failed to produce adequate documentation which would allow for approval. Focus on the real problem and stop blaming the DRC.
Staying on track with our adopted Vision and Public Participation on this matter fails for all parts of the city yet again!
Here’s what key excerpts from Orange’s adopted plan and committed Vision for Orange’s future states about processing this matter.
Vision Statement: The City will continue efforts to protect and enhance the historic core. This same type of care and attention will be applied throughout the rest of the City.
Public Participation: The City recognizes that the single most important component of any future planning effort is public participation. The following goal and policies emphasize the need for continued public involvement in all parts of the planning process.
GOAL 8.0: Encourage active involvement of residents, businesses, and agencies in the planning and decision-making process.
Policy 8.1: Continue to provide opportunities for public education and involvement in land use planning decisions through public hearings, community meetings, study sessions, electronic media, and any other appropriate and available means.
Policy 8.3: Foster meaningful involvement and interaction among diverse groups within the City regarding land use planning efforts and decision making.
Our existing, diverse neighborhoods and businesses get dealt the dismissive short stick yet again. Only four days to fully understand and evaluate the impacts (directly and indirectly) of this ordinance really tells us local control or serving all the people isn’t the end goal.
Continuing the same old “Orange Way” of doing business is what some in leadership want to keep. Radical economic change? I don’t have faith it will happen. Shifting to a correct course in the open way of doing business. Nope.
Why is this proposed ordinance throwing away months of collaborative work toward a robust ordinance created alongside informed preservationists and engaged citizens?? How should a lone Community Development Director have the knowledge and authority to make the decisions laid out in this ordinance, as proposed?? The City of Orange was the first community in Orange County to recognize the value of its historic resources and worked diligently in the 1980s to create a relevant knowledge base. This perceptive action paved the way for other jurisdictions to do the same in OC. Orange has the largest contiguous National Register Historic District in the State of California, and given the wealth of historic resources in our state, that's really saying something! Why would the City turn its back on this precious asset, which has demonstrable economic, social, cultural, and environmental value?? This proposed ordinance is nonsensical in light of the previous work on drafting an ordinance that actually protects irreplaceable historic resources. Please do not approve this, and ask for a completed draft of a workable, reasonable ordinance that will benefit Orange residents now as well as in the future. Susanna Branch
Please protect our Historic City or Orange
I have lived in OTO my entire life minus 3.5 years I was back and forth between Palm Desert and my home for work. My parents bought our home in Sept 1969. Please protect Old Town Orange. When so many cities were demolishing older home in the 1980s we were preserving ours. This is such a quaint, small area and it positively needs to be preserved to the fullest. I’m soon 55 and looking forward to retiring and putting more enhancements and improvements in our home. Matthew Thomas
Reject this proposal. Protect our historic resources. My dad was born in Orange in 1917 and lived in the old town district, though not designated at the time. He lived in our house his whole life, until he succumbed to the after effects of polio. I am 75 years old and have lived in old town my entire life. I realize how valuable these historic areas are. Protect them.
Marsha Stanley