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.
I support responsible stewardship of Orange's historic character, particularly in Old Towne and our other designated districts. My concern is narrower: this ordinance, as drafted, applies the 45-year demolition screening trigger citywide to every property in Orange, not just those in Old Towne or an existing historic district. Any property owner anywhere in the city who applies for a demolition permit on a building 45 years or older is automatically referred for a Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by a qualified architectural historian, before that permit can even be deemed complete.
My first concern is cost. The ordinance does not specify who bears the cost of this assessment, what it typically costs, or how long it takes. For a small property owner or a developer trying to redevelop an aging retail or commercial site outside Old Towne, this is an open-ended, unbudgeted expense imposed before they know whether their project will even be affected. If the Commission then finds the property "potentially eligible," the property is added to the Inventory on the spot, and the applicant is now facing a Certificate of Demolition process that includes up to a 180-day waiting period, mandatory documentation, and a Commission-approved Replacement Plan. That is a significant amount of time and money riding on a single discretionary determination, with no cost estimate provided to the public or to property owners considering redevelopment.
My second concern is that this citywide reach works against the City's own economic development goals. Much of the commercial and residential building stock outside Old Towne that is best positioned for redevelopment and reinvestment — including corridors like Tustin Ave — is now 45 years old or older simply by the passage of time. Applying the same review trigger used to protect Old Towne's designated historic core to ordinary aging buildings citywide, regardless of whether they have any recognized historic or architectural significance, creates a disincentive to invest in exactly the areas where the City says it wants to see new development and reinvestment.
My third concern is the exemption in Section 17.17.121(D). That subsection allows the assessment requirement to be waived only if the area was covered by a City Council–adopted historic resource survey within the last five years, and the property in question wasn't flagged. As written, there is no commitment or funding mechanism in this ordinance to actually conduct these surveys outside Old Towne on a five-year cycle. Without that commitment, property owners outside Old Towne have no reliable path to the exemption, they're left exposed to the case-by-case assessment requirement indefinitely, while areas that do get surveyed gain certainty and lower cost. I'd ask the City to reconsider how broadly the 45-year trigger applies in the first place or extend it to 75 years.
I'd request that the Commission and Council consider narrowing the automatic 45-year screening requirement to properties within already-designated historic districts or on the Inventory/Register, rather than applying it citywide by default, and that any expansion of this requirement be paired with a clear, funded survey program and a published cost estimate for property owners. Thank you for your time.
My name is Christina. I am an Orange homeowner, a deeply invested stakeholder, and importantly, a parent raising my children in this beautiful community. I plead with you to reconsider the 2411 Glassell project proposed by Rexford.
My husband and I both work from home. Our livelihood depends on our ability to speak on the phone and give our absolute, undidived attention to the vulnerable, struggling clients we work with. I don't know about you, but for me, the noise level from the constant truck traffic will makes it impossible to concentrate. You are not just approving a building; you are actively disrupting our ability to earn a living and care for people who need us.
Beyond our walls, the damage spreads to our streets. Picture over 800 heavy, diesel trucks rolling up and down Glassell every single day to get to the 91. They will choke our neighborhood with deafening noise and toxic air pollution. Our children will breathe that in. On top of that, these massive trucks will literally tear our roads to pieces. So I have to ask you: who do you propose will pay for those catastrophic street repairs? Is it going to be the community members - the very families who are begging you to say no?
Please, protect our homes, our health, and our peace. Reject this project. Thank you
I support responsible stewardship of Orange's historic character, particularly in Old Towne and our other designated districts. My concern is narrower: this ordinance, as drafted, applies the 45-year demolition screening trigger citywide to every property in Orange, not just those in Old Towne or an existing historic district. Any property owner anywhere in the city who applies for a demolition permit on a building 45 years or older is automatically referred for a Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by a qualified architectural historian, before that permit can even be deemed complete.
My first concern is cost. The ordinance does not specify who bears the cost of this assessment, what it typically costs, or how long it takes. For a small property owner or a developer trying to redevelop an aging retail or commercial site outside Old Towne, this is an open-ended, unbudgeted expense imposed before they know whether their project will even be affected. If the Commission then finds the property "potentially eligible," the property is added to the Inventory on the spot, and the applicant is now facing a Certificate of Demolition process that includes up to a 180-day waiting period, mandatory documentation, and a Commission-approved Replacement Plan. That is a significant amount of time and money riding on a single discretionary determination, with no cost estimate provided to the public or to property owners considering redevelopment.
My second concern is that this citywide reach works against the City's own economic development goals. Much of the commercial and residential building stock outside Old Towne that is best positioned for redevelopment and reinvestment — including corridors like Tustin Ave — is now 45 years old or older simply by the passage of time. Applying the same review trigger used to protect Old Towne's designated historic core to ordinary aging buildings citywide, regardless of whether they have any recognized historic or architectural significance, creates a disincentive to invest in exactly the areas where the City says it wants to see new development and reinvestment.
My third concern is the exemption in Section 17.17.121(D). That subsection allows the assessment requirement to be waived only if the area was covered by a City Council–adopted historic resource survey within the last five years, and the property in question wasn't flagged. As written, there is no commitment or funding mechanism in this ordinance to actually conduct these surveys outside Old Towne on a five-year cycle. Without that commitment, property owners outside Old Towne have no reliable path to the exemption, they're left exposed to the case-by-case assessment requirement indefinitely, while areas that do get surveyed gain certainty and lower cost. I'd ask the City to reconsider how broadly the 45-year trigger applies in the first place or extend it to 75 years.
I'd request that the Commission and Council consider narrowing the automatic 45-year screening requirement to properties within already-designated historic districts or on the Inventory/Register, rather than applying it citywide by default, and that any expansion of this requirement be paired with a clear, funded survey program and a published cost estimate for property owners. Thank you for your time.
My name is Christina. I am an Orange homeowner, a deeply invested stakeholder, and importantly, a parent raising my children in this beautiful community. I plead with you to reconsider the 2411 Glassell project proposed by Rexford.
My husband and I both work from home. Our livelihood depends on our ability to speak on the phone and give our absolute, undidived attention to the vulnerable, struggling clients we work with. I don't know about you, but for me, the noise level from the constant truck traffic will makes it impossible to concentrate. You are not just approving a building; you are actively disrupting our ability to earn a living and care for people who need us.
Beyond our walls, the damage spreads to our streets. Picture over 800 heavy, diesel trucks rolling up and down Glassell every single day to get to the 91. They will choke our neighborhood with deafening noise and toxic air pollution. Our children will breathe that in. On top of that, these massive trucks will literally tear our roads to pieces. So I have to ask you: who do you propose will pay for those catastrophic street repairs? Is it going to be the community members - the very families who are begging you to say no?
Please, protect our homes, our health, and our peace. Reject this project. Thank you