8.1. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 12, Title 16, and Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code modifying the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Committee. Ordinance No. 18-25.
I am super excited to see the council and City move in the direction of this item. Long overdue. when I served on the Planni g Commission, the DRC was the biggest obstacle to any applicant coming through Orange. So much time wasted on staff reports and meetings arguing about paint pallets. I truly believe the DRC serves the old town preservation Association very well, but they do not need to be the voice for the rest of the city. No one group should have such control in a governance process. Thank you and look forward to seeing unanimous support.
I oppose this ordinance. It puts too much discretion with the office of the Community Development Director (CDD) who could be inappropriately influenced by city officials or developers. Orange benefits from well planned projects and additional review by experts who contribute critical thinking and a local understanding of neighborhood issues and/or challenges. I attended the DRC meetings that related to the Katella/Cambridge small lot housing project and observed them make recommendations that resulted in a better outcome for both the developer and the neighborhood.
FROM: Preserve Orange County
615 N. Bush Street, #145
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.preserveorangecounty.org
info@preserveoc.org
TO: Orange City Council
300 E Chapman Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
re: Agenda item # 8.1: Scope of Design Review Committee
To the City Council:
Preserve Orange County urges the City Council to strengthen protections for the city’s notable collection of historic structures from all chapters of Orange’s history.
As Orange County’s historic architectural advocacy organization, we are proud of the City of Orange’s stewardship of historic resources over the decades. Not only do Old Town Orange, the Eichler Tracts, and other districts educate the public, they also provide a strong economic base and protections for vibrant, stable neighborhoods.
The Design Review Committee must have necessary jurisdiction over determining which projects support these historic resources and the recognized benefits they bring to the city. To do so, the DRC’s oversight needs to be broad enough to assess not only individual buildings one at a time, but the broader context in which those projects sit.
For example, the overall consistency and appeal of Old Town Orange depends on the setting of its historic resources in a streetscape of many blocks of related structures. The DRC should have the ability to assess projects in their larger context, not on a piecemeal basis. This principle applies to the entire city and neighborhoods.
Ceding authority to determine the historic impact of certain individual projects to the Community Development Director would undermine the DRC’s ability to determine and maintain the quality and character of a neighborhood or district as a whole.
Preserve Orange County joins with the Old Towne Preservation Association and Orange Legacy Alliance to oppose any action that weakens such local protections for historic resources across the city.
I am registering a vote of CON. It's a better word for my views than oppose because I do not oppose a fair refreshment of DRC's duties. Reminding Council, I voted in 2013 to give staff the review authority over an administrative design review process (outside of historic areas) of most projects in Orange (probably 90%). This change meant the DRC did NOT review the recent aesthetic changes for the Trader Joe's expansion at the Orange Mall, the Del Taco on East Lincoln Ave (Vons), or the work underway at the old White Tortilla/Bagel Me on East Chapman. Any delays or an "unfriendly business tag-line" lies with staff and the applicant for these projects and likely others I haven't researched. I agree with skipping our oversight for new commercial and industrial sites (it does come with the long-term general fund hit) when our objective design standards are followed, and review of sign programs and signs outside of historic districts or potentially eligible properties.
I do oppose taking away review of specific plans and tract maps, and giving authority to staff requests to demolish anything outside our current demolition zoning code language. Whether its a non-contributor/ing or a potentially qualifying resource (the bar is very high) as stated in the CC/PC staff reports and draft ordinance. Why? Staff themselves have stated on the record several times recently they are not qualified to make such calls. They relied the DRC as that backstop. We are the experts. That fact also means use of a CEQA exemption for this action is inappropriate. Also, I am not willing to give up wise efforts to refine the Mills Act program part of the MOU agreement nor will I violate our public promise to deliver a city wide preservation ordinance in 2010. If we don't do it, it stays in the hands of the state. Talk about giving up local control. I hope it not too late to do this correctly, all parts of this in one action, to retain some level of goodwill.
While I can appreciate the City wanting to streamline the approval process for business projects, it seems shortsighted to eliminate the Design Review Committee from the process.
Having attended many DRC meetings over the past 25 years, it’s clear that in many cases, applicants submit incomplete plans, plans with errors (or both), or plans that are not consistent with the City’s own Historic Preservation Design Standards. So a delay in the process is frequently not due to DRC’s involvement, but rather with the sub-standard information being brought forward by applicants to the DRC.
My other issue is putting too much discretion into the office of the Community Development Director (CDD), regardless of its occupant. While an extreme example, one only has to look at the recent demolition of the historic East Wing of the White House to observe the implications of allowing a single point of decision-making on an issue that impacts literally generations of residents. It opens up the possibility that developers will put pressure on the Community Development Director’s office to make a determination that a project is best suited to circumvent the Design Review process -- so projects may make it through the system more quickly, but not necessarily as better projects.
I oppose this ordinance and support OTPA / OLA’s position on this ordinance.
As I recall, in the late 90's, those who opposed preservation of our oldest homes and commercial structures argued that it would reduce property values. I wish I could say 'I rest my case', but it seems this case must continually be made. Can we please look beyond the needs of the moment and think what would contribute more to the future of Orange? Surely it should be the expert's approach to our architecture and our history, rather than reducing oversight from our qualified DRC. We have artfully constructed buildings that have securely sheltered generations of families. And they are not just within the boundaries of the current historic district. There are hundreds of homes beyond it that have outlived four, five, six generations so far, and will outlive us. From what I have seen, the DRC is well able to weigh preservation concerns with adoption of modern convenience.
My argument (as always) is to consider the long term versus the short, as those city representatives and residents did who came before us. We may be short-staffed at the moment, but I truly don't believe that will be a permanent situation. When I moved here in 1994 Orange County was bankrupt, but that didn't last.
We've been given something irreplaceable to safeguard. It's my position that we should pay that gift forward and I oppose this measure, and hope to support instead the continuation of good stewardship that has given Orange its unique position in Southern California.
Respectfully, Andrea McCullough
I am very much opposed to this Ordinance as it gives too much authority to the Community Development Director and staff, who lack adequate experience or qualifications for such review and approvals of building projects. The current DRC members are much more highly qualified for such reviews. The DRC has made numerous projects better than originally proposed. This Ordinance threatens the existence & recognition of historic properties throughout the entire City of Orange & weakens preservation protections. The complaint of DRC causing delays in land use plans is unfounded. Throughout the years, the majority of any delays in DRC approval were caused by incomplete/unacceptable plan applications and also delays in City staff reviews. Sections in this proposed Ordinance are non-compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Ordinance is totally unnecessary and at the very least, it needs appropriate revisions to meet the function of ensuring land use proposals in all areas of the City are adequately reviewed. Why is this city trying to strip away historic & other land use protections? Are you pandering to developers?? OTPA noted this proposed Ordinance would conflict with the City's General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures that were adopted to ensure historic protections, preservation & reduce adverse impacts throughout our City.
I thought the City was above all of that now.
You should, however, approve the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed in Section 5.3.
I am very much opposed to this Ordinance as it gives too much authority to the Community Development Director and staff, who lack adequate experience or qualifications for such review and approvals of building projects. The current DRC members are much more highly qualified for such reviews. The DRC has made numerous projects better than originally proposed. This Ordinance threatens the existence & recognition of historic properties throughout the entire City of Orange & weakens preservation protections. The complaint of DRC causing delays in land use plans is unfounded. Throughout the years, the majority of any delays in DRC approval were caused by incomplete/unacceptable plan applications and also delays in City staff reviews. Sections in this proposed Ordinance are non-compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Ordinance is totally unnecessary and at the very least, it needs appropriate revisions to meet the function of ensuring land use proposals in all areas of the City are adequately reviewed. Why is this city trying to strip away historic & other land use protections? Are you pandering to developers?? OTPA noted this proposed Ordinance would conflict with the City's General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures that were adopted to ensure historic protections, preservation & reduce adverse impacts throughout our City.
I thought the City was above all of that now.
You should, however, approve the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed in Section 5.3.
Please stop proposed changes to the existing municipal code and return to the partnership outlined in the city's MOU with OTPA and OLA. To proceed with proposed changes diminishes the community, the history and does not comply with State Law. Preserve the historic and cultural resources of our city.
Please stop proposed changes to the existing municipal code and return to the partnership outlined in the city's MOU with OTPA and OLA. To proceed with proposed changes diminishes the community, the history and does not comply with State Law. Preserve the historic and cultural resources of our city.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of Orange as well as a past OTPA board member who has interacted with the DRC for many years I have only praise for the accomplishments of DRC since its inception. Limiting the DRC’s purview and scope is a huge mistake and a gift to contractors and developers who want zero oversight on their projects.
It is a massive disservice to the community to limit the DRC’s review of projects citywide. The DRC consists of design professionals that have the knowledge and expertise to consistently ensure proposed projects are well designed and fit in well in their settings. Leaving the decisions to staff, planners, or Planning Commission will not guarantee quality, aesthetically compatible projects. City Council owes it to this community to make sure projects are compatible and meet the standards the community deserves. Without DRC’s oversight and guidance, developers and contractors will not receive their guidance, which should be a requirement for proposed projects throughout the City of Orange. Please do not limit this important reviewing body's scope.
Thank you,
Jeff Frankel
384 S. Orange St.
The DRC has been bad for the City of Orange's economic health, its residents, and the business community. Preservationists have little to no consideration of the long-term financial consequences we are now seeing. Bankruptcy is around the corner; it's time for the City of Orange to prioritize economic development and stop letting the preservation groups intimidate and browbeat them to get what they want.
"History is great as long as it does not hold you back from the future."
The Council is free to change to duties of the DRC but not at the expense of our Historic Buildings in Orange. I am completely opposed to this and hope The Council will adopt the historic preservation instead.
I am super excited to see the council and City move in the direction of this item. Long overdue. when I served on the Planni g Commission, the DRC was the biggest obstacle to any applicant coming through Orange. So much time wasted on staff reports and meetings arguing about paint pallets. I truly believe the DRC serves the old town preservation Association very well, but they do not need to be the voice for the rest of the city. No one group should have such control in a governance process. Thank you and look forward to seeing unanimous support.
I oppose this ordinance. It puts too much discretion with the office of the Community Development Director (CDD) who could be inappropriately influenced by city officials or developers. Orange benefits from well planned projects and additional review by experts who contribute critical thinking and a local understanding of neighborhood issues and/or challenges. I attended the DRC meetings that related to the Katella/Cambridge small lot housing project and observed them make recommendations that resulted in a better outcome for both the developer and the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Doug Hamilton
Orange Resident 39 years
October 28, 2025
FROM: Preserve Orange County
615 N. Bush Street, #145
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.preserveorangecounty.org
info@preserveoc.org
TO: Orange City Council
300 E Chapman Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
re: Agenda item # 8.1: Scope of Design Review Committee
To the City Council:
Preserve Orange County urges the City Council to strengthen protections for the city’s notable collection of historic structures from all chapters of Orange’s history.
As Orange County’s historic architectural advocacy organization, we are proud of the City of Orange’s stewardship of historic resources over the decades. Not only do Old Town Orange, the Eichler Tracts, and other districts educate the public, they also provide a strong economic base and protections for vibrant, stable neighborhoods.
The Design Review Committee must have necessary jurisdiction over determining which projects support these historic resources and the recognized benefits they bring to the city. To do so, the DRC’s oversight needs to be broad enough to assess not only individual buildings one at a time, but the broader context in which those projects sit.
For example, the overall consistency and appeal of Old Town Orange depends on the setting of its historic resources in a streetscape of many blocks of related structures. The DRC should have the ability to assess projects in their larger context, not on a piecemeal basis. This principle applies to the entire city and neighborhoods.
Ceding authority to determine the historic impact of certain individual projects to the Community Development Director would undermine the DRC’s ability to determine and maintain the quality and character of a neighborhood or district as a whole.
Preserve Orange County joins with the Old Towne Preservation Association and Orange Legacy Alliance to oppose any action that weakens such local protections for historic resources across the city.
Sincerely,
Alan Hess
Board Chair
Preserve Orange County
I am registering a vote of CON. It's a better word for my views than oppose because I do not oppose a fair refreshment of DRC's duties. Reminding Council, I voted in 2013 to give staff the review authority over an administrative design review process (outside of historic areas) of most projects in Orange (probably 90%). This change meant the DRC did NOT review the recent aesthetic changes for the Trader Joe's expansion at the Orange Mall, the Del Taco on East Lincoln Ave (Vons), or the work underway at the old White Tortilla/Bagel Me on East Chapman. Any delays or an "unfriendly business tag-line" lies with staff and the applicant for these projects and likely others I haven't researched. I agree with skipping our oversight for new commercial and industrial sites (it does come with the long-term general fund hit) when our objective design standards are followed, and review of sign programs and signs outside of historic districts or potentially eligible properties.
I do oppose taking away review of specific plans and tract maps, and giving authority to staff requests to demolish anything outside our current demolition zoning code language. Whether its a non-contributor/ing or a potentially qualifying resource (the bar is very high) as stated in the CC/PC staff reports and draft ordinance. Why? Staff themselves have stated on the record several times recently they are not qualified to make such calls. They relied the DRC as that backstop. We are the experts. That fact also means use of a CEQA exemption for this action is inappropriate. Also, I am not willing to give up wise efforts to refine the Mills Act program part of the MOU agreement nor will I violate our public promise to deliver a city wide preservation ordinance in 2010. If we don't do it, it stays in the hands of the state. Talk about giving up local control. I hope it not too late to do this correctly, all parts of this in one action, to retain some level of goodwill.
Adrienne Gladson AICP
Witness - 43 years
While I can appreciate the City wanting to streamline the approval process for business projects, it seems shortsighted to eliminate the Design Review Committee from the process.
Having attended many DRC meetings over the past 25 years, it’s clear that in many cases, applicants submit incomplete plans, plans with errors (or both), or plans that are not consistent with the City’s own Historic Preservation Design Standards. So a delay in the process is frequently not due to DRC’s involvement, but rather with the sub-standard information being brought forward by applicants to the DRC.
My other issue is putting too much discretion into the office of the Community Development Director (CDD), regardless of its occupant. While an extreme example, one only has to look at the recent demolition of the historic East Wing of the White House to observe the implications of allowing a single point of decision-making on an issue that impacts literally generations of residents. It opens up the possibility that developers will put pressure on the Community Development Director’s office to make a determination that a project is best suited to circumvent the Design Review process -- so projects may make it through the system more quickly, but not necessarily as better projects.
I oppose this ordinance and support OTPA / OLA’s position on this ordinance.
Tony Trabucco
Old Towne Orange Resident
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA’s stance on this.
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA’s stance on this.
As I recall, in the late 90's, those who opposed preservation of our oldest homes and commercial structures argued that it would reduce property values. I wish I could say 'I rest my case', but it seems this case must continually be made. Can we please look beyond the needs of the moment and think what would contribute more to the future of Orange? Surely it should be the expert's approach to our architecture and our history, rather than reducing oversight from our qualified DRC. We have artfully constructed buildings that have securely sheltered generations of families. And they are not just within the boundaries of the current historic district. There are hundreds of homes beyond it that have outlived four, five, six generations so far, and will outlive us. From what I have seen, the DRC is well able to weigh preservation concerns with adoption of modern convenience.
My argument (as always) is to consider the long term versus the short, as those city representatives and residents did who came before us. We may be short-staffed at the moment, but I truly don't believe that will be a permanent situation. When I moved here in 1994 Orange County was bankrupt, but that didn't last.
We've been given something irreplaceable to safeguard. It's my position that we should pay that gift forward and I oppose this measure, and hope to support instead the continuation of good stewardship that has given Orange its unique position in Southern California.
Respectfully, Andrea McCullough
I am very much opposed to this Ordinance as it gives too much authority to the Community Development Director and staff, who lack adequate experience or qualifications for such review and approvals of building projects. The current DRC members are much more highly qualified for such reviews. The DRC has made numerous projects better than originally proposed. This Ordinance threatens the existence & recognition of historic properties throughout the entire City of Orange & weakens preservation protections. The complaint of DRC causing delays in land use plans is unfounded. Throughout the years, the majority of any delays in DRC approval were caused by incomplete/unacceptable plan applications and also delays in City staff reviews. Sections in this proposed Ordinance are non-compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Ordinance is totally unnecessary and at the very least, it needs appropriate revisions to meet the function of ensuring land use proposals in all areas of the City are adequately reviewed. Why is this city trying to strip away historic & other land use protections? Are you pandering to developers?? OTPA noted this proposed Ordinance would conflict with the City's General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures that were adopted to ensure historic protections, preservation & reduce adverse impacts throughout our City.
I thought the City was above all of that now.
You should, however, approve the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed in Section 5.3.
I am very much opposed to this Ordinance as it gives too much authority to the Community Development Director and staff, who lack adequate experience or qualifications for such review and approvals of building projects. The current DRC members are much more highly qualified for such reviews. The DRC has made numerous projects better than originally proposed. This Ordinance threatens the existence & recognition of historic properties throughout the entire City of Orange & weakens preservation protections. The complaint of DRC causing delays in land use plans is unfounded. Throughout the years, the majority of any delays in DRC approval were caused by incomplete/unacceptable plan applications and also delays in City staff reviews. Sections in this proposed Ordinance are non-compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Ordinance is totally unnecessary and at the very least, it needs appropriate revisions to meet the function of ensuring land use proposals in all areas of the City are adequately reviewed. Why is this city trying to strip away historic & other land use protections? Are you pandering to developers?? OTPA noted this proposed Ordinance would conflict with the City's General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures that were adopted to ensure historic protections, preservation & reduce adverse impacts throughout our City.
I thought the City was above all of that now.
You should, however, approve the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed in Section 5.3.
Please stop proposed changes to the existing municipal code and return to the partnership outlined in the city's MOU with OTPA and OLA. To proceed with proposed changes diminishes the community, the history and does not comply with State Law. Preserve the historic and cultural resources of our city.
Please stop proposed changes to the existing municipal code and return to the partnership outlined in the city's MOU with OTPA and OLA. To proceed with proposed changes diminishes the community, the history and does not comply with State Law. Preserve the historic and cultural resources of our city.
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA's stance on this.
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA's position.
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA’s stance on this.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of Orange as well as a past OTPA board member who has interacted with the DRC for many years I have only praise for the accomplishments of DRC since its inception. Limiting the DRC’s purview and scope is a huge mistake and a gift to contractors and developers who want zero oversight on their projects.
It is a massive disservice to the community to limit the DRC’s review of projects citywide. The DRC consists of design professionals that have the knowledge and expertise to consistently ensure proposed projects are well designed and fit in well in their settings. Leaving the decisions to staff, planners, or Planning Commission will not guarantee quality, aesthetically compatible projects. City Council owes it to this community to make sure projects are compatible and meet the standards the community deserves. Without DRC’s oversight and guidance, developers and contractors will not receive their guidance, which should be a requirement for proposed projects throughout the City of Orange. Please do not limit this important reviewing body's scope.
Thank you,
Jeff Frankel
384 S. Orange St.
I oppose this item and support OTPA/OLA’s stance on this. - Resident of S. Grand Street. Thank you!
The DRC has been bad for the City of Orange's economic health, its residents, and the business community. Preservationists have little to no consideration of the long-term financial consequences we are now seeing. Bankruptcy is around the corner; it's time for the City of Orange to prioritize economic development and stop letting the preservation groups intimidate and browbeat them to get what they want.
"History is great as long as it does not hold you back from the future."
The Council is free to change to duties of the DRC but not at the expense of our Historic Buildings in Orange. I am completely opposed to this and hope The Council will adopt the historic preservation instead.
I oppose this!