Orange City Council
November 15, 2022

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Orange *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Orange Date: 1923
c. Address: 167 North Little Main City: Orange Zip: 92868 d. UTM: Zone 33; 78914 mE/ -117.86622 mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data:
*P3a. Description:
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2 - Single family property *P4. Resources Present: ☒Building ☐Structure ☐Object ☐Site ☐District ☐Element of District ☐Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:

Main Elevation, Looking
Northeast.

Real Estate Listing 2020.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age: ☒
Historic ☐Prehistoric ☐Both
1923
*P7. Owner and Address:

Michael and Jerrica Knight
167 North Little Main
Orange, CA 92868
*P8. Recorded by:

IS Architecture
5645 La Jolla Boulevard
La Jolla, California 92037
P9. Date Recorded:

May 2021
*P10. Survey Type:

Intensive/pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation: None.
*Attachments: ☐NONE ☐Location Map ☐Sketch Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☒Other (List): Supplemental Attachments P5a. Photo or Drawing
APN: 039-041-03
Legal Description: Lot 7, Tract 515, Mission Gardens, in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 18, page 19, of miscellaneous maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county.
167 North Little Main was built in 1923 in the Tudor Revival architectural style. Located in the Mission Gardens Subdivision of Orange, California, this 1,666 square foot, 1 ½ story, single-family house, faces west on a 6,050 square foot, rectangular lot. The lot is bound on the west by Little Main Street, and residential lots to the north, south, and east. Little Main Street runs north to south from West Chapman university, north until it intersects with North Main Street at the intersection of West Maple Avenue. (Continued Pg. 3) 676
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House *NRHP Status Code: 5S1

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: N/A
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present Use: Single Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival
*B6. Construction History:
*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes ☐Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: Unknown. b. Builder: Unknown.
*B10. Significance Theme: Community Development, Residential Architecture Area: City of Orange Period of Significance: 1923-1944 Property Type: HP2 - Single family property Applicable Criteria: A/1,C/3 B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

N/A
*B12. References: See endnotes and Attachment F.

B13. Remarks: None.
*B14. Evaluator: IS Architecture
*Date of Evaluation: May 2021
(This space reserved for official comments.)
The resource property was constructed in the “Old-English” style now known as Tudor Revival style between 1923- 1924 and was one of the first homes built in the Mission Gardens tract. No exact date was recorded or discovered though tax assessor records. Newspaper articles indicate that a fire damaged a portion of the interior in July of 1924.

This was repaired and did not damage the exterior of the home. (Continued Pg. 5) 167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange. (Continued Pg. 6) N
677
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

P3a. Description: Continued
North Little Main Street is a residential street, lined with mature trees and public sidewalks, along with dual sided street parking. The surrounding neighborhood has similarly scaled, single-family residences in a variety of styles.

The building construction is a standard wood frame on a concrete foundation, with stucco siding finish. 1 Overall, the
condition is very good. The house demonstrates many character defining features of the Tudor Revival style including two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross gable main roof, along with clipped gable ends. There are decorative trim elements, elaborate arched windows, and a prominent stucco chimney. 2 The front of the house faces west towards North Little Main, with a public sidewalk, curb, and gutter. From the public sidewalk, a gate provides egress onto the property. A Hollywood style concrete driveway leads to the south of the house. A wide front lawn consists of a mature orange tree and planting areas. A low stucco patio wall with two curved steps and a wooden rail detail surrounds the front patio. The front patio is accessed via a curved concrete step.
167 North Little Main is composed of numerous key Tudor Revival features: a steeply pitched side-gable main roof with clipped gable end, shingled roof, painted bargeboards, and fine-sand finish stucco. A detached garage with clipped gable roof is located to the southeast of the house accessed by the Hollywood-style driveway. The garage features a wood paneled sliding garage door on the west elevation. The north elevation features a door and doublehung window.

West (Main) Elevation
The western elevation of the dwelling faces Little Main Street with a cross-gabled roof. The front of the gable is clipped. The main entrance is accessed via the front patio surrounded by stucco walls. A curved concrete step leads to the concrete patio. The patio is set into the “L” of the dwelling’s cross-gabled structure. A stucco chimney is located near the intersection of the gables and is visible projecting from the roofline. The dwelling has a fine-sand stucco finish and projecting roofline. The elevation visually consists of three bays, the northern gable end, the central side gable, and the projecting south bay.

The northernmost bay is the focal point of the elevation with a prominent clipped gable roof, dormer vent, and tripartite, divided lite, arched wooden windows with putty glazing. The windows have painted trim. The main entrance is located on the south side of the front gable end. The front door consists of a solid wood door with speakeasy and art deco style metal hardware, a metal security door, and 5-light divided wooden sidelights. A metal light fixture is affixed to the west of the sidelights.

The southern bay projects about five feet from the main wall of the side gable. Two 6-lite, wooden, casement windows are located on the west end of the projection. A single six-lite, wooden, casement window is located on 1 Visual observation of 167 North Little Main Street by IS Architecture. 2 Although there is no half timbering on this Tudor-revival structure, that is true of 2/3 of all Tudor Revival architecture (McAlester p449)
678
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

either side of the projection (north, south). The windows have painted wooden trim.

North Elevation
The north elevation is the clipped gable end of the crossed gable roofline. It is composed of fine sand finish stucco.

The side of the projecting front gable has a 10 lite, wooden, casement window with protruding sill.

The elevation is dominated by four original, double-hung, six-over-one lite, wood windows. All the windows have wood sills, wood sashes and lugs, and exterior wooden stops.

East (Rear) Elevation
The rear elevation is visually dominated by the long side-gable elevation. The clipped gables on the north and south elevations are visible. A projecting wooden framed shed porch roof extends from the first level.

The second level of the elevation features two dormers. The southern dormer extends from the second level and features two wooden, six-lite, awning windows. The dormer has thin wood siding. The northern dormer was an addition. It protrudes further than the previous bay and features three, single lite, wooden windows. The dormer features a slight pitch, at less of an angle than the other dormer. A single-lite window is also located on the south elevation of the dormer.

The first level has mirrored bays. The south bay has a wooden 8-lite casement window with protruding sill. Centered in the bay is a wooden door with 8-lite inset and modern security hardware. A single concrete step and pad lead to the door. A square 9-lite casement window with protruding sill is located directly north of this. The second bay is a mirror of this, featuring the square 9-lite casement, then the door, and then the larger rectangular casement window.

South Elevation
The south elevation of the home is flanked by the concrete Hollywood style driveway. The south elevation is the clipped gable end of the primary cross gable of the home’s massing. The south elevation features a centered second story window opening which consists of two, wooden, double-hung, 6-over-1 windows with decorative lugs and sill.

An attic vent is located above these windows. Two larger vertical, louvered, vents are located to each side of the second story window between the first and second story levels.

The first level of the south elevation is split into three bays that are split by the central side entrance. The first bay, located to the west has a single 6-lite, wooden casement window with sill. This window is set into the slope of the gable. The second bay features a set of two, wooden, four-over-1, double hung windows with decorative lugs and sill.

A metal security light hangs centered over the central side door, which is a wooden door with louvered panel. The third bay features two sets of dual, wooden, 6-lite casement windows. The modern utility box and metal pipes are also located on this façade.
679
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Site Features:

Front Yard
The front of the property is partially obscured by a hedge wall and a mechanized, wood and iron, gate that provides egress to the driveway. A wide front yard spans the full length of the property. A mature orange tree is located to the north of the main focal windows.

Rear Yard
The dwelling transitions from interior to exterior space with an exterior concrete flooring. The rear garden features a large grass area.

Garage
A detached two garage sits on the southwest corner of the property. The structure features a clipped gable roof with asphalt shingles and stucco siding. The garage doors are sliding wood paneled doors. A security light is secured to the center of the west elevation of the garage. The north elevation of the garage features a wood door with painted trim, and a double-hung wooden window with decorative lugs and painted trim.

Interior Features
The home features a Batchelder Tile Company fireplace. The tile pattern uses a variety of muted colors with geometric patterns. An inset center panel features birds and a floral pattern. *B6. Construction History: Continued
The home features a clipped gable roofline and focal arched windows and has a front entry courtyard. An original detached garage is located on the property.

Undated Changes:

At some point during the home’s history, the front door was moved. Although this change occurred, the original front door can still be read as a historic opening through the use of a full-length window and side-lites.

A second story rear dormer addition was completed, most likely post 1970s. The addition is a partially projecting, partial width, second story addition on the rear. The siding and window types are differentiated from the rest of the historic fabric. The addition is not visible from any public right-of-way.

Other small changes include adding modern security screens to doors, and the addition of a second rear entrance door on the east elevation.
680
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

*B10. Significance: Continued

HISTORIC CONTEXT
The history and development of Orange is well‐documented and several good summaries of its history have been prepared and are readily available. The following narrative contains consolidated sections of a history authored by notable local/regional historian Phil Brigandi for the Orange Public Library (2011). To read it in its entirety and with accompanying photographs, visit http://www.cityoforange.org/938/Introduction.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ORANGE
The City of Orange was founded in 1871 on part of the old Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. For generations, the land had been a cattle ranch, owned by the Yorba and Peralta families. In 1868, the rancho was divided among the many heirs and claimants, and towns and farms began to appear.

Two Los Angeles attorneys, Alfred Chapman and Andrews Glassell, bought up thousands of acres in the area, and received additional land in return for legal services during the partition of the rancho. In 1870, Chapman had his lands subdivided and began construction of an irrigation ditch down from the Santa Ana River. In 1871, a townsite was laid out. Since it was going to be a farming community, the new town was named Richland. Chapman and Glassell were busy with their law practice, so Glassell’s brother, Captain William T. Glassell, was sent down to serve as tract agent.

He surveyed the townsite, supervised work on the irrigation ditch, planted crops, and advertised and sold land.

The original townsite was just eight city blocks, stretching from Almond to Maple avenues, between Grand and Lemon streets, with a public plaza in the center. Around the townsite were 10-acre farm lots. In 1872 a school district was formed. 1873 saw the first general store, the first church (now the First United Methodist Church of Orange), and a post office. The citrus industry was only in its infancy in those days, but the name fit well with Southern California’s image, and even then, there was already talk of creating a separate Orange County. At the time, the big crops in the area were grain and raisin grapes. The first orange grove here was planted around 1873, and the first local packing house opened in 1881.

The Southern Pacific built the first railroad through the area in 1877 but missed Orange by several miles. In 1887, the Santa Fe arrived, touching off a frantic real estate boom. Farmland was subdivided into residential lots, and several new towns were laid out around Orange. El Modena and Olive survived, but St. James and McPherson soon faded.

To beautify the town, a circular park was laid out in the center of the Plaza Square, and the women raised the money for an elegant fountain (now located outside the Orange Public Library & History Center).

In 1888, the City of Orange was incorporated, with a population of about 1,500. A year later, Orange County was formed out of the southern end of Los Angeles County. But by then, the real estate boom was winding down, and to make matters worse, a blight destroyed many of the local vineyards.

It was only then that oranges began to dominate the local economy. The railroads allowed fresh fruit to be shipped throughout the country. Local growers banded together to form cooperative packing houses, and the cooperatives formed the Southern California Fruit Exchange (now known as Sunkist Growers) to market their crop. By the 1920s, about a third of Orange’s labor force worked in the citrus industry, and there were a dozen packing houses in the area. 681
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

The Santiago Orange Growers Association was the largest Valencia packing house in the world then. Their old packing house was later taken over by Villa Park Orchards and operated until 2006 – the last citrus packing house to close in Orange County.

Downtown Orange still reflects the success of the citrus industry in the early 1900s. Many of the business blocks around the Plaza were built between 1905 and 1930. There are also more than 1,400 pre-1940 homes in Orange, representing a wealth of architectural styles from Victorian to Streamline Moderne. Much of old downtown Orange is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Depression of the 1930s, and the world war that followed, brought many challenges to Orange. The community struggled to take care of its own until Federal relief programs began. Government work programs such as the WPA also built several projects in town, including much of the original construction at the Orange City Park (now W.O. Hart Park). During World War II, hundreds of our young men and women served in the Armed Forces, while hundreds more worked in manufacturing plants, and purchased war bonds and saving stamps to support the war effort.

After the war, Southern California’s population began to surge. It took a few years for the growth to reach Orange.

The first large-scale subdivision (98 homes) was built in 1950. The first freeway (SR 55) came through town in 1962.

Between 1950 and 1970, Orange’s population jumped from 10,000 to 77,000.3 Residential Development
The development of Orange's early residential neighborhoods mirrored the growth of downtown in many ways. The earliest homes in Orange were built on the original eight-block townsite or were scattered across the outlying farm lots. It was not until the mid-1880s that the farm lots surrounding the townsite began to be subdivided for residential development. During the brief real estate "boom" of 1886-88, more than a dozen subdivisions were laid out downtown, but many of the lots were simply held for speculation, and when the boom died down, returned to agricultural use.

It was not until after 1900, when the citrus industry began to drive the local economy, that the downtown neighborhoods began to fill out. New tracts were subdivided, and old 1880s lots re-surveyed. Homes began appearing further and further from the Plaza, especially to the east, and to the south, where the new Nutwood Place tract near the Santiago Creek (1906) became a desirable place to live.

By the mid-1920s, almost all the land we now think of as Old Towne Orange had been subdivided, and residential neighborhoods were growing up more and more to the west, towards Main Street. Neighborhoods began to fill in, creating interesting assortment of styles on a single block. A two-story Victorian farmhouse on the corner might be surrounded by a mix of Bungalows and Mediterranean style homes, with a few Classical Revivals, or perhaps a Tudor style home tossed in here and there. As late as the 1970s, new homes were still being built on the few remaining vacant lots downtown.

Orange's historic residential districts reflect the economic life of the community. The area was very middle class, with individual ranchers working 10-20 acres, and local businessmen making up the backbone of the local economy. So 3 A Brief History of Orange, The Plaza City
682
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

instead of a few grand mansions, Orange has block after block of middle-class homes. More than 1,200 pre-1940 homes still survive in the downtown area.4
Residential Styles
In the days before tract homes, residential architecture in Orange and broader southern California showed great variety. Here are some broad categories; most had many variations and styles. Some homes combine elements from various styles, a reflection of the owner's tastes, or the builder's whims. Part of what gives these homes their charm is their individuality.

Settlement (Mostly Before 1910)
Simple in form and detail, these were some of the earliest homes in Orange. The smaller homes were often built with vertical board and batten walls. Sometimes there was a porch. Larger, two-story farmhouses might have a few Victorian details and clapboard siding. Most originally stood alone among orchards and fields.

Victorian (Popular, 1870-1900)
Known for their picturesque woodwork, steep roof lines, and ornate details, several Victorian styles were popular here including Eastlake, with its tall, vertical lines, and especially the Queen Anne, with its many decorative elements.

Victorians demonstrated the increasing prosperity of the community. Many were large, but the style could also be adapted to smaller cottages.

Classical Revival (Most Popular, 1900-1910)
With their flowing lines, and columns borrowed from ancient Greek architecture, these homes became popular with the start of the new century. Many in Orange can be found on corners, with their curved porches wrapping around two sides. But they were soon passed in popularity by the Bungalow.

Bungalow (Most Popular, 1910-1920)
The first true California style, Bungalows grew out of the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th Century. The emphasis was on natural materials, simple woodwork, and sometimes stone pillars or porches. Most featured horizontal lines, and porches across the front. Inside was more woodwork, with built-in cabinets and hutches. Most were smaller, middle class homes. Plans, and even pre-cut kits could be bought through mail order houses such as Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward.

Craftsman (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
This style shares many of the naturalistic qualities of the Bungalows, but were larger, usually two stories, with expansive eaves and other details. Sometimes shingles replaced clapboards. They also displayed more individuality; there were no kits for Craftsmen home.

Mediterranean (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
Another style first popularized in California, the various Mediterranean styles took their inspiration from the state's 4 https://cityoforange.org/943/Residential-Development
683
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Spanish and Mexican past. They could range from simple stucco homes accented with a little tile, to grand hillside mansions with glazed brickwork and arches. Some variations were briefly popular in the 1920s, include the flatroofed Pueblo style, and the Prairie style, with its horizontal eaves. The Mediterranean style survives today in a modern form in the stucco and tile of many tract homes.

Period Revivals (Most Popular in the 1920s)
Along with Mediterraneans, a variety of Old World and colonial styles were constructed after World War I. These included Colonial Revival, English Tudor, Cotswald Cottage, Dutch Revival, French Provincial, and whimsical storybook cottages.

Mission Gardens Subdivision
The Mission Gardens neighborhood, also called the H.M Gail Tract was created in 1923 according to Map No. 25955 filed at the County.

The H.M Gail Tract, otherwise known as Mission Gardens, is Tract No. 515. The owners of the subdivision included Harry M. Gail and Edith M.T Gail, W.E Jewell and his wife Myrtle, along with Walter Herrington and his wife Mary.

Although this part of Orange was annexed just prior to its development, it was still sort of “out on the fringes” and does not show up in early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. In the early years, that area was more closely related to the communities of Orana or West Orange than with the City of Orange proper. The subdividers speculated that the community of Orange would necessitate development westward to accommodate growth and subdivided the Mission Gardens tract.

The Mission Gardens subdivision tract, planned for newly annexed land was approved by Orange City Council in July of 1923. By September of 1923, the first lots for sale were announced. Some homes of “Spanish” and “Old-English” styles were to be built on some of the lots by the subdivider. In October of 1923, the tract map (seen above) was filed with the County of Orange. Assessment records for 1923 do not provide conclusive evidence as to whether the first house was constructed by the end of that year.

Reportedly, 167 North Little Main was the first house constructed within the tract. On January 16, 1924, M.E Jewell sold Lots 1-14 to Harry M. & Edith Gail. Gail, who was involved in the regional real estate industry, would go on to become the main promoter of lot sales. (Deeds 505/130). Marketing for the subdivision promoted “home site beautiful lots and attractive homes” (Orange Daily News, 1923). The tract offices were advertised was being “always open” with Ray Sherwood being the sales manager. By 1925 advertisements for the tract included “complete with lawn, shrubs, sprinkling system, and double garage”. “To those contemplating buying a New Home, it will pay to investigate the charming home just completed in this choice subdivision at the Western Gateway of Orange on Chapman avenue…An opportunity, don’t wait. Drive out and investigate immediately…Watch Orange Grow West”. (Orange Daily News, 1925).

Newspaper articles from 1923 reveal that the original subdivision owners fought to preserve the trees that lined the lots and streets. “’Woodman, spare that tree’ this plea, theoretically, was made before the city council late yesterday afternoon in the matter of laying sidewalks on ‘Little Main’ in the newly opened Mission Gardens tract, when Harry 684
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Gail, who with W.A Jewell, Los Angeles, is opening the subdivision, appeared before the city solons in an effort to save a row of beautiful walnut trees bordering the tract. A fight to win the artistic value of the trees for his tract was waged by the local subdivider who plans to utilize their overspreading grandeur to enhance the beauty of the homesites”- Orange Daily News. 1927 saw a newspaper article claiming that the Mission Gardens lots had “future profits assured in Orange’s new line of development”.

Correspondence with the Orange County Tax Assessor’s office revealed the following information about the lot on record with the County:

Lot History:
• 1924 Jan 16 -- Harry M. & Edith Gail sell Lot 7 to W.O. & Elsie M. Hart (Deeds 505/131) • 1924 Jul—A fire partially damages the interior of the home. • 1924 Dec -- Assessment records show that the house is already on the property. ($1750 improvement) (OCA 1924 12/211)
• 1925 -- W. O. Hart lives at this address (Then called 167 N. Main) • 1927 Dec 22 -- Hart sells to [Walter G. &] Clara M. Smith (OR 118/139) • 1928-1930 -- C. C. Bonebrake gives this as his address. • 1938 Apr 21 -- Smith sells to Elmer N. & Blenda J. Swift (OR 936/256) • 1939 Feb 24 -- Alice K. Whitsell files a notice (OR 983/195) • 1944 Mar 29 -- Elmer N. Swift sells his interest in the property to Blenda J. Swift (OR 1241/357) • 1945 Nov 29 -- Blenda J. (Swift) McNamara sells to Kirschner & Elsie De Loge (OR 1372/130) • 1946 Sept 3 -- De Loge sells to Carl E. & Lydia C. Schroeder (OR 1447/303) [Undoubtedly an investment property, as the Schroeders did not live there]
• 1953 Dec 15 -- Schroeder sells to Melvin & Georgia L. Manell (OR 2633/~275) • 1965 Apr 12 -- The Manells still own the property.
• 1977 May 9 -- Melvin Manell sells his interest in the lot to Georgia L. Manell (OR 12194/109) • 1981 Jan 1 -- Georgia Manell still seems to own the lot. • 1997 Feb 27 -- Judith Butler and possibly Sunny Woodard give this as their address. • 2014 Aug 14 -- Sold.
• 2018 Nov 16 -- Sold.

The Development of Orange
Where denoted, the following information was informed by the City of Orange Historic Context Statement compiled by Chattel Preservation Planning.

The City of Orange was centered around what is now called Old Towne Orange through the early 1920s.

Early Settlement (circa 1870 –1920)
When the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was subdivided in the late 1860s, a Los Angeles lawyer, Alfred B. Chapman, represented several parties in the partition suit. He took about four thousand acres as payment for his fees. From this acreage, farm lots, ranging in size from ten to forty acres, were first surveyed in the fall of 1870 and divided in 685
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

1871, under the supervision of lawyer William T. Glassell. Eight lots in the center of newly subdivided blocks of land were set aside for use as a public square, now known as Plaza Square, or simply “the Plaza.” This square was bounded by Walnut Street (now named Maple Avenue) to the north, Grape Street (now called Grand Street) to the east, Almond Street to the south, and Lemon Street to the west. The two main streets, which intersected at the public square, were named Chapman Avenue (running east-west) and Glassell Street (north-south).

Like most Southern California communities, Orange was strongly affected by the Great Boom of the 1880s, when new settlers flocked to the state. The cross-country expansion of the railroad system and its inexpensive fares made the balmy climate in southern California even more attractive and accessible to Americans nationwide. New settlers arrived in Orange via the Santa Fe Railroad (later called the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe), which entered the city about four blocks west of the Plaza (currently the site of Depot Park/Veterans Park) in August 1887. According to one source, ...touched off by the railroad rate war, the boom of the 80s was built largely on speculation. Landowners subdivided their ranches to sell individual lots, which were often bought by speculators. In and around Orange, dozens of new subdivisions and four new townsites were laid out in 1886-1887. Promotional literature was sent out across the country extolling the virtues of Orange and its environs. Orange did its best to appear attractive, progressive, and promising to prospective buyers.”2Transportation between neighboring communities was provided by two horse-drawn streetcar systems: the Orange, McPherson & Modena and the Santa Ana, Orange & Tustin lines.

Growing Up (1900-1920)
Orange's economy expanded rapidly in the early 20th Century, and downtown grew with it. Most of the landmark buildings around the Plaza were built during this period, and residential construction increased, spreading further and further out from the center of town. Instead of single store buildings, downtown businessmen and investors built "blocks" of connected storefronts, with the upper floors often reserved for apartments or meeting rooms.

Among the major buildings that survive from this era are the Edwards Block and Cuddeback Building (both 1905), the Ainsworth Block (1907), which incorporated the 1888 Armor Building, the Ehlen and Grote Block (1908), Campbell's Opera House (1912), the Smith and Grote Building (1914), and the Kogler-Franzen Block (1916).

As downtown Orange grew up, residents no longer needed to go to Santa Ana or Anaheim for major shopping.

Saturday nights, the streets around the Plaza would be crowded with people, doing their shopping for the week.

By the end of the First World War, most of the land around downtown Orange was subdivided for residential neighborhoods. After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south towards Santa Ana. A little business district developed at the corner. Since it was midway between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed "Orana."
Orange also began to develop an industrial strip along either side of the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Local packing houses had always been close to the railroad, but now they were joined by several manufacturing plants, most notably Anaconda Wire and Cable.

In the late 1920s Orange's first Planning Commission proposed that all of downtown should be done over in the thenpopular Mission Revival style. The buildings on the south side of the first block of East Chapman Avenue were 686
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

remodeled in that style in 1928, complete with red tile and stucco arches, but the coming of the Depression put an end to that project.

Residential development continued in the downtown area. New homes were built, filling in the vacant lots on many blocks, and the last few downtown subdivisions were laid out in the 1920s Tudor Revival Style Architecture for Residences
Tudor style architecture was a dominant style in many suburban neighborhoods during the early twentieth century. It was particularly popular during the 1920s and early 1930s, but fell out of fashion by the late 1930s. Early Tudor style houses from the late nineteenth century tended to be high styled and architect designed, but in the early twentieth century these high-style designs became more muted with steep gables and half-timbering. These early models tended to have walls clad in stucco, weatherboard orshingles rather than customary solid masonry. From the 1920s and 1930s, brick veneering techniques became widely used and allowed for even the most modest Tudor houses to mimic the masonry exteriors found on English prototypes.

Batchelder Tile Company
Ernest Allan Batchelder was born in Francistown, New Hampshire in 1876. After the death of his mother in his childhood, he was sent to live with his uncle in the small industrial city of Nashua. His uncle was a carpenter and school him in the art of craftsmanship. When he reached college age, Ernest raised enough money to enter the Massachusetts Normal Art Institute in Boston where he studied to become a teacher of drawing and manual training in the public schools.

After graduation in 1899, Batchelder was employed in the Boston area and in 1901 was picked by Denman W. Ross, a professor of art at Harvard, to be an instructor in Ross’s Harvard Summer School of Design. Ross was an enormous influence on Batchelder’s intellectual development and seems to have stimulated his ambition, for that same year he moved to California, eventually settling in Pasadena where he got a job at the Throop Polytechnic Institute teaching design and manual training.

During his eight years at Throop, Batchelder established his reputation in the field of Arts and Crafts. Always ambitious, he looked to activities that would promote his interests outside the confines of Southern California.

Concerned that the Arts and Crafts movement in the southwestern United States was not going to be represented at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis in 1904 he organized an exhibit of the work of California and Native American craftsmen. He also broadened his knowledge of the work of British and European craftsman by going on two European tours. IN the summers he was a mainstay of the summer school of the Handicraft Guild in Minneapolis and at the same time began writing articles for Gustav Stickley’s The Craftsman and for other journals. This writing formed the background for two books, The Principles of Design (1908), and Design in Theory and Practice (1910), both of which were based on the “pure design” theory of Denman Ross. In 1909 he bought property on Pasadena’s Arroyo Seco and built a house and studio where he and a few students from Throop would found a school of handicrafts.
687
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

As early as 1910, the school became a shop to produce decorative tile. Precisely what made Batchelder turn from general manual training to a specialization in tiles is not known. His only avowed source of inspiration was Henry Mercer’s Moravian tile, although he never adopted Mercer’s high glazes or his sometimes-bizarre ornament.

Batchelder chose more subtle, controlled imagery.

Batchelder’s own decorative vocabulary often involved designs based on the illustrations in his two books- Viking ships, medieval castles, musicians, paired birds, and abstractions. The tiles were cast into key molds from which production molds were made. In the early years, the clay was hand-pressed into the molds and then air-dried. Some were bisque-fired then hand-colored and refired. Others were colored first and then fired. These were the trademark Batchelder tiles with the characteristic’s matte or engobe finish, the understanded look appropriate for Craftsman architecture.

After 1920 with the coming of the Spanish Revival and the change in taste, Batchelder’s color palette would pick up with the use of glazes and bright colors, largely due to the expertise of Ivan Branham, a graduate in ceramic engineering from the University of Illinois, whom he employed in 1922. Batchelder also liked Branham’s ventures in Spanish-Moresque designs and Mayan glyphs; he even added Art Deco tiles to Batchelder’s inventory.

There were other hands besides Branham’s in the design of the tiles- almost from the beginning. One of his early students, Anne Harnett, for example, was chiefly responsible for the wonderful panels of scenes from Holland that were once the pride of the Dutch Chocolate Shop (1914) on Sixth Street in downtown Los Angeles. Undoubtedly there were others.

In the early years of his tile making, Batchelder bought bags of already mixed clay. Later his chief source was in the Alberhill-Corona area of Southern California. In the twenties he bought raw materials from the Lincoln Clay Products Company in Placer County and a small amount from Santa Monica. Bentonite came from near Amboy in San Bernardino County. Probably the finest display of Batchelder’s tiles is in the lobby of the Fine Arts Building (1925) on Seventh Street in Downtown Los Angeles, but there are many competitors for this title. His largest commission was for the interior of the chapel at the College of St. Catherine’s (1923) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Indeed, Batchelder’s popularity extended far beyond Southern California. His fountains, fireplaces, bathrooms, swimming pools, and other installations can be found across the United States.

Batchelder never developed a strong talent for business. Presumably, that is why he took on Frederick L. Brown in 1912 and Lucian H. Wilson in 1920 as partners. Since Batchelder’s factory records have bever been found, we do not really know what their duties were, but they seem not to have had any part in the design process or in the actual production of the tiles.

After his business failed in 1932, Batchelder applied himself to many civic duties in Pasadena. In 1938, as the Depression was ebbing, Batchelder, under the influence of a former employee, William Manker, turned to the making of slip-cast ware. Although successful at this totally different ceramic enterprise, Batchelder’s greatest accomplishments were in tile making. He designed and produced vast amounts of tiles, employing at the height of 688
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

production, almost 175 workers. The tiles value lies in the fact that they brought beauty to so many American houses and institutions.

Significance Analysis: National/State Level
The City of Orange has criteria for evaluating historic districts, but not for evaluating individual resources, such as buildings. While there is potential for this resource to contribute to a Mission Gardens Historic District if the City deems that feasible in the future, this report focuses on the individual significance of the property. Therefore, no further consideration of the City’s criteria is provided in this report.

To establish the significance of the home, the National Register of Historic Places, and California Register of Historical Resources criteria can be applied.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess at least one of the following:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criteria

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

For the purposes of this report, the evaluation of significance under NRHP and CRHR are combined. This is denoted as A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4.

In summary, the resource property consists of a single parcel developed in 1923-1924 with a single-family residence in the Tudor-revival style. The property was one of, if not the first, property developed in the new Mission Gardens subdivision, which was a speculative development west of developed Orange at the time. The first owner of the resource property was William O. Hart, notable Orange citizen and newspaper magnet. Future owners C.C Bonebrake 689
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

and Elmer Swift were also noteworthy business owners in Orange.

Criterion A/1: Historic Contexts: Growth of Orange, Mission Gardens, Orange Business Development (William O. Hart, CC Bonebrake, Elmer Swift).

Under Criterion A/1, this building was constructed in the early part of the 20th century during the transition between “growing up” and “growing out”. After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south towards Santa Ana. This corner is where subdivision developers focused their Mission Gardens neighborhood at. Since this was midway between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed “Orana”. In the early part of the 20th century, the resource property and surrounding lands were mostly developed with groves. Aerial photography shows that the subdivision was developed on the edge of numerous acres of orange groves. Historic aerial photographs from 1946 show that there was a residence, an outbuilding, and groves in the project area and nearby properties were similarly developed (County of Orange var.). An aerial photograph from 1960 confirm the fast westward expansion of Orange, and also shows that considerable development had taken place on the surrounding properties.

As the first completed house in the Mission Gardens subdivision, this resource is indicative of a historically significant event in Orange, the westward expansion of the original business and residential district. As a residence constructed with a timely style and craftsmanship, draws a link between the early success of businesses in Orange, and the need for westward expansion and growth.

Further, this resource is tied to significant business owners within the City of Orange.

William O. Hart
Born in Iowa, William Ord Hart in 1885, Hart would become one of Orange’s most revered residents. The publisher of the Orange News and the postmaster of the town, Hart arrived in Orange from Berkeley in 1910 and would go on to marry Elsie M. Clough. They would have five children together, all of whom lived in the resource property. Hart purchased the home for 167 North Little Main from Harry Gail, one of the subdivision developers, who had been advertising his Mission Gardens development in Hart’s newspaper. The house was built in 1923 and the family moved in shortly thereafter.

Casey and Cecil Bonebrake
Casey (C.C) Bonebrake and his family moved into the resource property in 1929, but his connection with Little Main goes back to its origins. The city planner for both Santa Ana and Orange, Bonebrake’s signature can be found on the original tract drawings for Mission Gardens as the City Engineer. While CC was an important figure at City Hall, his wife Cecil, was the president of the Women’s Club and active in society events. They raised three children and would see their daughter Margaret get married at the resource property. The family rented the home at 167 North Little Main from Clara and Walter Smith, and a cancelled check found in the resource property attic, the rent was $35/month in 1930.
690
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Elmer Swift
The owner of Orange Pharmacy, Elmer Swift purchased 167 North Little Main in April 1938 with his wife Blenda. The family appears in the newspapers for minor injuries to their children during their residency.

Orange Pharmacy was originally located at 106 North Glassel Street (extant). 167 North Little Main Street is significant on the local level of significance for its association with the growth of Orange, and for its association with the development of Orange’s business affiliations.

Criterion B/2: Not significant. Although William O. Hart and C.C Bonebrake, along with Elmer Smith were all prominent Orange businessmen, their association falls under Criterion A.

Criterion C/3: Historic Contexts: Residential Development/Styles of Orange, Batchelder Tile Company 167 North Little Main is significant on the local level of significance for its unique and rare Tudor revival style and for its associated craftsmanship as seen through the use of Batchelder tiles.

The subject property at 167 North Little Main is a 1 ½ story single family home constructed in 1923 in the Tudor Revival style and features a front facing gable with wing, one of the subsections of Tudor Revival according to Virginia McAlester.5 The residence features steeply pitched cross-gable roofs; stucco over wood frame construction; a primary focal window; and a concrete foundation. The residence also features a stucco chimney with interior fireplace ornamentation.

The main façade prominently features a prominent front-facing clipped gable that is steeply pitched. The southern façade is dominated by a gable end, also steeply pitched and clipped. The entry porch features a solid wood door.

Fenestration of the primary façade consists primarily of arched, wooden frame and sash, divided light windows, along with casement windows. Modifications to the resource are minimal and consist of the replacement of a southern façade entry door, the alteration of location of the front door, and a small dormer addition on the rear façade. There was also the application of a top-coat of fine sand finish stucco across all surfaces in a historically appropriate finish.6 The Tudor Revival style of architecture rose to prominence in the early 20th century. It was a dominant style of domestic building for a wide range of American cities.7 Popular in Orange in the 1920s and 1930s, Tudor Revival architecture is loosely based on a variety of late Medieval English styles and influences, but unlike some English prototypes, Tudor Revival style houses exhibit steeply pitched gable roofs that dominate the facades. Other character defining features include the use of stucco as well as wood cladding and veneer, along with tall wood windows.

Decorative half-timbering is only present in about 1/3 of Tudor examples. 8 The style is defined by its decorative use
of multiple materials – including brick, stone, and/or stucco – as well as its use of casement windows, irregular massing, and the use of the Tudor arch.9 The style’s flexibility allows for great variation of expression and the 5 Virginia McAlester, 458
6 Verified through original stucco sample.
7 Mcalester, 454
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
691
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

individualization of each house’s plan and decor to the builder or owner.10 In its current appearance, 167 North Little Main features several character defining features that support the Tudor Revival style of architecture. These include two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross gable main roof, and the arched focal windows on the front facade. The clipped gable ends are also character defining, along with the arched front perimeter wall. The resource also retains its original wooden windows, including the arched windows that exists on the main façade. According to Virginia McAlester, American Tudor homes commonly use a combination of casement and double-hung windows, and typically had one or more groupings of these wooden or metal windows. Focal windows, such as what is seen on the main elevation of this residence, were a typical elaboration. All of these elements showcase that 167 North Little Main is an good, intact example of Tudor Revival style architecture remaining in the City of Orange.

Criterion D/4: The resource was constructed using common materials and methods for the time. No evidence was found that suggested the property may yield important information in prehistory or history. 167 North Little Main is not significant under Criterion D with the current research and knowledge.

Significance Statement: The house continues to convey the historic significance of custom ranch architecture by embodying the historic characteristics associated with the style, and for being associated with a Master Architect, Thomas Shepherd.

INTEGRITY EVALUATION
To be eligible for designation under any Significance Criteria, a resource must retain integrity. According to the National Park Service (NPS), the integrity of a resource is determined by “the ability of a resource to convey its significance.” In this case, the house is significant under Criteria A/1 and C/3 for its association with the westward expansion of Orange along with its business development, along with its rare Tudor Revival style, respectively. In the context of these areas of significance design, workmanship, and association should be considered closely.

What follows is an evaluation of integrity only; see the preceding section for an evaluation of significance and the following section for a final eligibility conclusion.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of location to convey its significance. 167 North Little Main was constructed in the Mission Gardens subdivision. The house has not been moved since its construction, retaining integrity of location.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. 167 North Little Main has been sited on the same parcel its original construction in 1923. Although the surrounding areas were originally orange groves, the single-family residence setting of the property has not changed. 10 Ibid. 466.
692
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

The house’s setting within the physical environment of Orange and the surrounding single-family residence neighborhood in the Mission Gardens subdivision remains intact. Some homes in the neighborhood have been constructed or remodeled since 1923, which does not adversely impact the setting. The surrounding areas have been developed since the construction of the home- which does degrade the integrity of the broader setting but not the immediate setting.

Design: Design is defined as the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

The house doesretain sufficient integrity of design to convey its significance. The Tudor Revival house retains integrity of design as it contains elements distinctive to the Tudor Revival style. Character defining features such as steeply pitched roofs with a dominating clipped front gable, multi-pane windows, stucco, and focal arched windows are present on this house. These character defining elements, coupled with the general form, plan and massing of the Tudor Revival style, display the integrity needed to support designation under Criterion C.

Having been modified very little since the time of construction, the residence expresses a high degree of design integrity and demonstrates eligibility for designation under Criterion C – Architecture for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, type and period. No large additions have been made to the original building and the only addition was an addition to an original dormer.

The changes that were made, such as the replacement of the front door, side door, and new rear door follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by being made in-kind and are reversible. These changes do not impact the integrity of design, as they do not impact the form, plan, space, structure, or Tudor Revival Style. The modifications, summarized in the construction history, follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The property is able to continue to convey the original design to those observing it, and remains eligible for designation under Criterion C.

Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a pattern or configuration or form a historic property.

The house doesretain sufficient integrity of materials to convey its significance. The vast majority of the fabric appears original throughout the house. The house retains all original wood windows, it retains it’s original front door, and original chimney. The alterations to materials that were made complement the original structure with in-kind or compatible materials. The wooden windows have been repaired and are in good condition. The skim coat of stucco was done in the historically accurate finish- also improving the integrity of materials. Overall, the structure demonstrates a level of integrity that strongly supports designation under Criterion C. 693
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Workmanship: Workmanship is defined as the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

The house doesretain sufficient integrity of workmanship to convey its significance. The high integrity of workmanship is demonstrated in the high standard of construction. Original construction designs, fabrication, and finishing details, such as the front elevation focal windows and clipped gable ends, support integrity of workmanship and designation under Criterion C.

Feeling: The property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of feeling to convey its significance. The property still reflects the customranch aesthetic design and the setting of the original design and location. Additionally, since few modifications have been made, the house retains and expresses integrity of feeling and supports designation under Criterion C.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of association to convey its significance. The property has not been significantly altered, retaining the original designed elements.

Eligibility Conclusion:
167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange. 694
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

REFERENCES11:

Ancestry.com. United States Federal Census, 1900-1940 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Accessed March 2021
Ancestry.com. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Accessed March 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Digitized Permit Records. Accessed March 2021.

County of Orange, Office of the Recorder, Plat Map Records.

GoogleMaps. Accessed March-July 2021.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Orange, CA. Sanborn.umi.com. Accessed April 2021. 11 For further references see Attachment F- Works Cited 695
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __21__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT A
Building Development Information
A.1 Historic Aerials
A.2 Site Plan with Building Footprint
696
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __22__ of _98____
A.1 – Historic Aerials (1946)
1946 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south. The image shows that Mission Gardens subdivision was still relatively “westward” expansion of Orange, surrounded by agriculture land. Courtesy of Historic Aerials. 697
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

A.1 – Historic Aerials (1963)
1963 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south and West Maple in the center. The rapid development of Main Street, leading to the renaming of Main Street to Little Main Street is shown. Courtesy of Historic Aerials. 698
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

A.2 – Site Plan with Building Footprint
699
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __25__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT B
Ownership and Occupant Information
B.1 Chain of Title
B.2 City Directory Listing of Occupants
B.3 Deed from Time of Construction
700
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.1 – Chain
of Title
701
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

702
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

703
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

704
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

705
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.2 – City Directory Listing of Occupants
Year Name(s)
1923-1928 William O. Hart, Elsie M. Hart
1929-1937 Casey Bonebrake, Cecil Bonebrake
1928-1944 Elmer N. Swift, Blenda J. Swift
706
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.3 – Deed From Time of Construction
707
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.3 – Hart Family Acquisition Deed
708
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __34__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT C
Maps
C.1 USGS Maps
1896
1932
1949
C.2 Subdivision Map (1,2)
709
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.1 – USGS Map (1896)
Courtesy of USGS.gov
710
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.1 – USGS Map (1932)
Courtesy of USGS.gov
711
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.2 – USGS Map (1949)
Courtesy of USGS.gov
712
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 1 of 2)
713
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 2 of 2)
714
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

ATTACHMENT D
Photographs
D.1 Current Photographs – West (Main) Elevation
D.2 Current Photographs – North Elevation
D.3 Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
D.4 Current Photographs – South Elevation
D.5 Current Photographs – Site Features
D.6 Current Photographs – Interior Features
715
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)
D.1-1. Main Elevation Context View Looking East, Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.1-2. Main Elevation, Front View looking Northeast. IS Architecture, 2021. 716
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)
D.1-3. Main Elevation, Focal Window. IS Architecture, 2021. 717
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)
D.1-4. Main Elevation, Front Door and Patio. Real Estate Listing, 2018.

D.1-5. Main Elevation, Front Façade, Patio, and Perimeter Wall. Real Estate Listing, 2018. 718
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)
D.1-6. Main Elevation, Front Door Detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 719
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)
D.2-5. Main Elevation, Central Windows Detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 720
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)
D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking West. IS Architecture, 2021 721
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)
D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking East. IS Architecture, 2021 722
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)
D.3.1. Rear Elevation, Looking West. Dormer addition visible. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3.2. Rear Elevation, Looking Southwest. Dormer addition and garage visible. 2018. 723
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)
D.3-3. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 724
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (North Elevation)
D.3-4. Rear Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3-5. Rear Elevation Original Dormer vs Addition. IS Architecture, 2021. 725
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)
D.3-6. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 726
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)
D.4-1. South Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-2. South Elevation Context. IS Architecture, 2021.
727
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)
D.4-3. South Elevation Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-4. South Elevation Second Level Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 728
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)
D.5.1. Looking southeast to garage. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-2. Garage side entry detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 729
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __55__ of _98____
D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)
D.5.3. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-4. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018. 730
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)
D.5-5. Secondary Wooden Driveway Gate. IS Architecture, 2021. 731
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)
D.6.1. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace. Real Estate Listing 2018. 732
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)
D.6.2. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace Detail. IS Architecture, 2021. 733
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __59__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT E
Supplemental Documentation
E.1 Criterion A Documentation
734
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.1 Criterion A Documentation
735
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.1 Criterion A Documentation
736
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.2 Criterion B Documentation
E 2-1. Photo of William Hart.
737
DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

ATTACHMENT F
Works Cited
American Institute of Architects. Historical Directory of American Architects Accessed December 2019.

Ancestry.com. United States Federal Census, 1900-1940 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Accessed March 2021.

Ancestry.com. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Accessed March 2021.

California Title Search Company. 167 North Little Main Chain of Title Report. April 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Survey of Orange [PDF on-line]. Accessed March 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Digitized Permit Records. Accessed March 2021.

County of Orange, Office of the Recorder, Plat Maps. Accessed April 2021.

GoogleMaps. Accessed March-July 2021.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Orange , CA. Sanborn.umi.com, Accessed March 2021.

Union Title Insurance and Trust Company, Catalog of Recorded Plats in Orange County. California. 738
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.31. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0588
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Monica Espinoza, Human Resources Director

1. SUBJECT
Approval of amendment to Orange Management Association (OMA) salary tables increasing the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer. Resolution No. 11425.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution No. 11425 amends Resolution No. 11272 to increase the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11425. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Resolution No. 11272 between the City of Orange and the Orange Management Association.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact as the funds have already been allocated for this range in FY23.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community.
b: Provide staffing and resources to deliver services that ensure public safety.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
e: Attract, retain and develop quality employees dedicated to public service.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2020, the City Council of the City of Orange adopted Resolution No. 11272 amending a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Orange Management Association (OMA). Resolution No. 11425 amends the salary tables to increase the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer.

The Senior Plan Check Engineer position is compensated at salary range 608. Upon further evaluation it has been determined that this position’s assigned duties and responsibilities are aligned with that of a Senior Civil Engineer, salary range 637. Therefore, staff is proposing a salary increase for the Senior Plan Check Engineer classification to be compensated at range 637 within the OMA MOU. This financial adjustment was approved during FY23 budget adoption and will align the compensation of the current classification with the previously approved budget.

7. ATTACHMENTS
City of Orange Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™739
Item #: 3.31. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0588
· Resolution No. 11425
City of Orange Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™740
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.31. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0588
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Monica Espinoza, Human Resources Director

1. SUBJECT
Approval of amendment to Orange Management Association (OMA) salary tables increasing the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer. Resolution No. 11425.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution No. 11425 amends Resolution No. 11272 to increase the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11425. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Resolution No. 11272 between the City of Orange and the Orange Management Association.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact as the funds have already been allocated for this range in FY23.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community.
b: Provide staffing and resources to deliver services that ensure public safety.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
e: Attract, retain and develop quality employees dedicated to public service.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2020, the City Council of the City of Orange adopted Resolution No. 11272 amending a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Orange Management Association (OMA). Resolution No. 11425 amends the salary tables to increase the salary for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer.

The Senior Plan Check Engineer position is compensated at salary range 608. Upon further evaluation it has been determined that this position’s assigned duties and responsibilities are aligned with that of a Senior Civil Engineer, salary range 637. Therefore, staff is proposing a salary increase for the Senior Plan Check Engineer classification to be compensated at range 637 within the OMA MOU. This financial adjustment was approved during FY23 budget adoption and will align the compensation of the current classification with the previously approved budget.

7. ATTACHMENTS
City of Orange Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™741
Item #: 3.31. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0588
· Resolution No. 11425
City of Orange Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™742
RESOLUTION NO. 11425

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 11272 BETWEEN THE

CITY OF ORANGE AND THE ORANGE

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City of Orange (“City”) and the Orange Management Association (“OMA”) has an existing labor contract (“Memorandum of Understanding” or “MOU”) in effect through December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, City staff is proposing a salary increase for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer based on an assessment of the duties and responsibilities of the position; and WHEREAS, the salary range for this classification must be authorized by the City Council and published by the City in order for the salary range to be considered pension-reportable, pursuant to CalPERS law; and
WHEREAS, the City and OMA have met and conferred in accordance with the requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that the attached OMA salary tables are amended, effective December 4, 2022, with the updated classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer incorporated by reference as Appendix A.

ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2022
Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
743
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
Attachment: Appendix A
744

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

ORANGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

MONTHLY SALARY RANGES
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 4, 2022

CLASSIFICATION TITLE RANGE STEP
A
STEP
B
STEP
C
STEP
D
STEP
E
STEP
F
Building Inspection Supervisor 584 6564 6899 7251 7621 8009 8418 Code Compliance Supervisor 584 6564 6899 7251 7621 8009 8418 Construction Inspection Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Development Project Manager 585 6597 6934 7287 7659 8050 8461 Digital Marketing Coordinator 559 5795 6090 6401 6727 7070 7431 Environmental Program Manager 637 8550 8988 9444 9926 10433 10965 Equipment Maintenance Supervisor 583 6531 6865 7215 7583 7970 8377 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Finance Coordinator 560 5824 6121 6433 6761 7106 7468
Finance Supervisor 580 6435 6763 7108 7470 7851 8252
Historic Preservation Planner 608 7399 7778 8172 8590 9028 9488 Information Technology Specialist 559 5795 6090 6401 6727 7070 7431 Information Technology Supervisor1 584 6564 6899 7251 7621 8009 8418 Landscape Coordinator 585 6597 6934 7287 7659 8050 8461 Legal Assistant 532 5065 5323 5595 5880 6180 6495
Library Manager I 588 6696 7039 7397 7774 8171 8588
Library Manager II 598 7039 7399 7775 8172 8589 9026
Library Tech & Support Services Mgr 598 7039 7399 7775 8172 8589 9026 Parks Maintenance Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Payroll Specialist 552 5596 5882 6181 6497 6828 7176
Permit Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969
Project Development Coordinator 585 6597 6934 7287 7659 8050 8461 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Real Property Agent 608 7399 7778 8172 8590 9028 9488
Recreation Services Supervisor 578 6371 6696 7037 7396 7773 8170 Senior Accountant 576 6308 6629 6968 7323 7696 8089
Senior Buyer 560 5824 6121 6433 6761 7106 7468
Senior Civil Engineer 637 8550 8988 9444 9926 10433 10965 Senior Contract Administrator 605 7289 7662 8051 8462 8894 9347 Senior Fire Inspection Specialist 594 6900 7253 7621 8010 8419 8848 Senior GIS Analyst 628 8175 8593 9029 9491 9975 10483
Senior Landscape Coordinator 605 7289 7662 8051 8462 8894 9347 Senior Legal Assistant 552 5596 5882 6181 6497 6828 7176 745

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)

ORANGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

MONTHLY SALARY RANGES

CLASSIFICATION TITLE RANGE STEP
A
STEP
B
STEP
C
STEP
D
STEP
E
STEP
F
Senior Plan Check Engineer2 637 8550 8988 9444 9926 10433 10965 Senior Planner 608 7399 7778 8172 8590 9028 9488
Senior Water Quality Inspector 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Traffic Operations Superintendent 593 6865 7217 7583 7971 8378 8804 Tree Services Coordinator 563 5911 6213 6530 6863 7213 7581 Water Maintenance Supervisor 573 6214 6530 6864 7214 7582 7969 Water Quality Inspector 553 5624 5911 6212 6529 6862 7212

1. Information Technology Supervisor added as part of FY23 budget.

2. Senior Plan Check Engineer salary range increased effective December 4, 2022 per Resolution No. 11425.
746

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)

ORANGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

MONTHLY SALARY RANGES
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023

3.0% Across the Board Salary Increase

CLASSIFICATION TITLE RANGE STEP
A
STEP
B
STEP
C
STEP
D
STEP
E
STEP
F
Building Inspection Supervisor 590 6764 7109 7470 7852 8253 8673 Code Compliance Supervisor 590 6764 7109 7470 7852 8253 8673 Construction Inspection Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Development Project Manager 591 6797 7145 7508 7891 8294 8717 Digital Marketing Coordinator 565 5971 6275 6596 6931 7285 7657 Environmental Program Manager 643 8810 9261 9731 10228 10750 11298 Equipment Maintenance Supervisor 589 6730 7074 7433 7813 8212 8630 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Finance Coordinator 566 6001 6307 6629 6966 7322 7695
Historic Preservation Planner 614 7624 8014 8421 8851 9302 9776 Information Technology Specialist 565 5971 6275 6596 6931 7285 7657 Information Technology Supervisor 590 6764 7109 7470 7852 8253 8673 Landscape Coordinator 591 6797 7145 7508 7891 8294 8717 Legal Assistant 538 5219 5485 5765 6059 6368 6692
Library Manager I 594 6900 7253 7621 8010 8419 8848
Library Manager II 604 7253 7624 8011 8420 8850 9300
Library Tech & Support Services Mgr 604 7253 7624 8011 8420 8850 9300 Parks Maintenance Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Payroll Specialist 558 5766 6060 6369 6694 7035 7394
Permit Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211
Project Development Coordinator 591 6797 7145 7508 7891 8294 8717 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Real Property Agent 614 7624 8014 8421 8851 9302 9776
Recreation Services Supervisor 584 6564 6899 7251 7621 8009 8418 Senior Accountant 582 6499 6831 7179 7545 7930 8335
Senior Buyer 566 6001 6307 6629 6966 7322 7695
Senior Civil Engineer 643 8810 9261 9731 10228 10750 11298 Senior Contract Administrator 611 7510 7895 8296 8719 9164 9631 Senior Fire Inspection Specialist 600 7110 7473 7853 8254 8675 9116 Senior GIS Analyst 634 8423 8854 9304 9779 10278 10802
747

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)

ORANGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

MONTHLY SALARY RANGES

CLASSIFICATION TITLE RANGE STEP
A
STEP
B
STEP
C
STEP
D
STEP
E
STEP
F
Senior Landscape Coordinator 611 7510 7895 8296 8719 9164 9631 Senior Legal Assistant 558 5766 6060 6369 6694 7035 7394 Senior Plan Check Engineer 643 8810 9261 9731 10228 10750 11298 Senior Planner 614 7624 8014 8421 8851 9302 9776
Senior Water Quality Inspector 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Traffic Operations Superintendent 599 7074 7436 7814 8213 8632 9071 Tree Services Coordinator 569 6091 6402 6728 7072 7432 7811 Water Maintenance Supervisor 579 6403 6729 7073 7433 7812 8211 Water Quality Inspector 559 5795 6090 6401 6727 7070 7431 748
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Monica Espinoza, Human Resources Director

1. SUBJECT
Classification, compensation, and terms of employment of Part-Time and Limited Duration employees for the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. Resolution Nos. 11423 and 11424.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution No. 11423 amends the compensation and terms of employment for the City’s Part-Time and Limited Duration employees for the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023.

Resolution No. 11424 amends the citywide salary schedule in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 11423. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange relating to the classification, compensation, and terms of employment for Part-time and Limited Duration employees of the City of Orange effective July 1, 2022 through and including December 31, 2023, and repealing Resolution No. 11359 and amendments thereto.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11424. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange rescinding Resolution No. 11411 and amending the citywide pay schedule in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total annual increase in General Fund costs for the proposed adjustments is $90,000.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community
a: Provide staffing and resources to deliver services that ensure public safety.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
e: Attract, retain, and develop quality employees dedicated to public service.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Employees covered by the City’s Part-time and Limited Duration Resolution are considered unrepresented and therefore do not bargain collectively for salary, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Effective January 1, 2023, a minimum wage increase will be triggered by the rate of inflation in the state of California, setting a new minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. Four of our part-time City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™749
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
state of California, setting a new minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. Four of our part-time classifications are currently paid less than the new minimum wage. Staff therefore recommends adjusting salary levels for those impacted positions with an effective date of December 4, 2022 to comply with the new State minimum wage. Staff is further recommending addressing the salary of other classifications to ensure pay rates are competitive in an effort to recruit and retain quality employees, and to address salary compaction between classifications within job families, as that will occur with the minimum wage increase.

The proposed increases will assist the City in its efforts to attract and recruit quality candidates, which remains tremendously difficult. This recruiting difficulty is in large part due to private employers offering increasingly competitive hourly wages that exceed the minimum wage amount for entry-level positions in a highly competitive general labor market. In addition to the proposed wage increases, staff further recommends the elimination of the obsolete Parks Maintenance Helper classification.

There are currently 120 part-time and limited duration employees on payroll who are covered by this Resolution. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of these employees serve in positions that are either limited duration, seasonal (summer only), or part-time with a work schedule of 19 hours per week or less. The following changes would be implemented if Council approves the attached Resolution.
· Wage Increases
a) Aquatics Series: Pool Manager (from $23.58 to $25.16), Assistant Pool Manager (from $21.34 to $22.77), Lifeguard/Swim Instructor (from $19.31 to $20.61), and Swimming Attendant (from $15.05 to $16.06).
b) Intern Series: Engineering and Management Intern (from $17.05 to $17.57). c) Parks and Recreation Series: Recreation Services Leader I (from $15.05 to $16.06), Recreation Services Leader II (from $16.63 to $17.75), Recreation Services Leader III (from $18.37 to $19.61), and Parks and Facilities Attendant (from $18.37 to $20.40). d) Police Cadet Series: Police Cadet I (from $17.05 to $17.57) and Police Cadet II (from $18.84 to $19.41).
e) Police Reserve Series: Police Reserve Officer III (from $15.05 to $15.51), Police Reserve Officer II (from $16.14 to $16.63), and Police Reserve Officer I (from $19.71 to $20.30).
f) Parking Control Officer I (from $18.10 to $18.66).
g) Police Academy Trainee (from $5,824/month to $6,245/month). h) School Crossing Guard Series: School Crossing Guard (from $17.05 to $17.57) and School Crossing Guard Supervisor (from $20.82 to $21.45). · Medical Insurance
Effective the first pay period in January 2023, increase the City’s contribution toward medical insurance benefits per employee by $25.00 per month for single coverage, $50.00 per month for 2- party coverage, and $75.00 per month for family coverage. · Jury Duty
Benefited employees shall have time off for a period not to exceed ten (10) calendar days for each City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™750
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
jury duty summons.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11423
· Resolution No. 11424
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™751
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Monica Espinoza, Human Resources Director

1. SUBJECT
Classification, compensation, and terms of employment of Part-Time and Limited Duration employees for the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. Resolution Nos. 11423 and 11424.

2. SUMMARY
Resolution No. 11423 amends the compensation and terms of employment for the City’s Part-Time and Limited Duration employees for the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023.

Resolution No. 11424 amends the citywide salary schedule in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 11423. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange relating to the classification, compensation, and terms of employment for Part-time and Limited Duration employees of the City of Orange effective July 1, 2022 through and including December 31, 2023, and repealing Resolution No. 11359 and amendments thereto.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11424. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange rescinding Resolution No. 11411 and amending the citywide pay schedule in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total annual increase in General Fund costs for the proposed adjustments is $90,000.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community
a: Provide staffing and resources to deliver services that ensure public safety.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
e: Attract, retain, and develop quality employees dedicated to public service.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Employees covered by the City’s Part-time and Limited Duration Resolution are considered unrepresented and therefore do not bargain collectively for salary, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Effective January 1, 2023, a minimum wage increase will be triggered by the rate of inflation in the state of California, setting a new minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. Four of our part-time City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™752
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
state of California, setting a new minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. Four of our part-time classifications are currently paid less than the new minimum wage. Staff therefore recommends adjusting salary levels for those impacted positions with an effective date of December 4, 2022 to comply with the new State minimum wage. Staff is further recommending addressing the salary of other classifications to ensure pay rates are competitive in an effort to recruit and retain quality employees, and to address salary compaction between classifications within job families, as that will occur with the minimum wage increase.

The proposed increases will assist the City in its efforts to attract and recruit quality candidates, which remains tremendously difficult. This recruiting difficulty is in large part due to private employers offering increasingly competitive hourly wages that exceed the minimum wage amount for entry-level positions in a highly competitive general labor market. In addition to the proposed wage increases, staff further recommends the elimination of the obsolete Parks Maintenance Helper classification.

There are currently 120 part-time and limited duration employees on payroll who are covered by this Resolution. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of these employees serve in positions that are either limited duration, seasonal (summer only), or part-time with a work schedule of 19 hours per week or less. The following changes would be implemented if Council approves the attached Resolution.
· Wage Increases
a) Aquatics Series: Pool Manager (from $23.58 to $25.16), Assistant Pool Manager (from $21.34 to $22.77), Lifeguard/Swim Instructor (from $19.31 to $20.61), and Swimming Attendant (from $15.05 to $16.06).
b) Intern Series: Engineering and Management Intern (from $17.05 to $17.57). c) Parks and Recreation Series: Recreation Services Leader I (from $15.05 to $16.06), Recreation Services Leader II (from $16.63 to $17.75), Recreation Services Leader III (from $18.37 to $19.61), and Parks and Facilities Attendant (from $18.37 to $20.40). d) Police Cadet Series: Police Cadet I (from $17.05 to $17.57) and Police Cadet II (from $18.84 to $19.41).
e) Police Reserve Series: Police Reserve Officer III (from $15.05 to $15.51), Police Reserve Officer II (from $16.14 to $16.63), and Police Reserve Officer I (from $19.71 to $20.30).
f) Parking Control Officer I (from $18.10 to $18.66).
g) Police Academy Trainee (from $5,824/month to $6,245/month). h) School Crossing Guard Series: School Crossing Guard (from $17.05 to $17.57) and School Crossing Guard Supervisor (from $20.82 to $21.45). · Medical Insurance
Effective the first pay period in January 2023, increase the City’s contribution toward medical insurance benefits per employee by $25.00 per month for single coverage, $50.00 per month for 2- party coverage, and $75.00 per month for family coverage. · Jury Duty
Benefited employees shall have time off for a period not to exceed ten (10) calendar days for each City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™753
Item #: 3.32. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0595
jury duty summons.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11423
· Resolution No. 11424
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™754
RESOLUTION NO. 11423

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE RELATING TO THE

CLASSIFICATION, COMPENSATION, AND

TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME

AND LIMITED DURATION EMPLOYEES OF
THE CITY OF ORANGE EFFECTIVE JULY 1,
2022 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER
31, 2023 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO.
11359 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orange wishes to set forth the wages, hours and conditions of employment effective July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023 for the employees described herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has consulted with the Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Manager and Human Resources Director concerning the proposed employment terms contained herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange hereby adopts the wages, hours and conditions of employment for the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023 for Part-Time and Limited Duration Employees contained in Appendix A, as fully set forth herein.

ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2022
Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
755

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
756
Exhibit A

PART-TIME AND LIMITED DURATION

EMPLOYEE RESOLUTION
JULY 1, 2022 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023
757

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Section Title Page No.
1 Basic Compensation Plan And Definitions 1
2 Salary And Wage Schedules 2
3 Beginning Rates 2
4 Service 2
5 Performance Evaluations 2
6 Advancement Within Salary Ranges 2
7 Reduction In Salary Steps 3
8 Probation 3
9 Promotion 3
10 Demotion 3
11 Reassignment Of Compensation Ranges 4
12 Working Out Of Class 4
13 Overtime/Compensatory Time 5
14 Call Back Compensation 5
15 Holidays 6
16 Vacation 7
17 Eligibility For Fringe Benefits 8
18 Leaves Of Absence 8
758
19 Life Insurance 12
20 Long-Term Disability Insurance 12
21 Health Benefits 12
22 Retirement 13
23 Direct Deposit 14
24 Grievance Procedure 14
25 Travel Expense Allowance 15
26 Effective Dates 15
Appendix A Salary Ranges 16
759
1 SECTION 1. BASIC COMPENSATION PLAN AND DEFINITIONS. A basic compensation plan is established for Part-Time and Limited Duration Employees of the City of Orange who are now employed or will in the future be employed in any of the classifications of employment listed in this Resolution and its Appendix. Nothing contained herein shall guarantee to any employee a specified number of hours per day or days per week or weeks per month or months per year of work.

A. Whenever the term “part-time” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include an employee regularly scheduled to work less than the full-time equivalent of forty (40) hours in a week or less than 2,080 hours in a fiscal year.

B. Whenever the term “seasonal” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include an employee who is appointed to a temporary position which may offer recurring periodic employment, such as every summer, but that does not exceed 1,000 hours in a fiscal year.

C. Whenever the term “temporary” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include an employee who is appointed to a position for a limited duration not to exceed 1,000 hours in a fiscal year.

D. Whenever the term “probationary employee” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to be an employee regularly scheduled to work at least twenty (20) hours per week, but less than forty (40) hours per week on a year-round basis initially appointed or promoted to a classification serving a probationary period during which time the employee shall have an opportunity to demonstrate suitability for the job.

E. Whenever the term “regular employee” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to be an employee regularly scheduled to work at least twenty (20) hours per week, but less than forty (40) hours per week on a year-round basis who has successfully completed a probationary period.

F. Whenever the term “at-will” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include all parttime employees scheduled to work nineteen (19) hours or less per week, probationary employees, and all seasonal employees. The City reserves the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, for at-will employees.

G. When the term “benefited” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include only the part-time employees regularly scheduled to work an average of twenty (20) hours per week, but less than forty (40) per work week on a year-round basis. Benefited employees shall be entitled to receive the fringe benefits acknowledged in this Resolution.

H. When the term “non-benefited” is used in this Resolution, it shall be understood to include the part-time, seasonal and/or temporary employees working less than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year.

Non-Benefited employees shall not be entitled to receive any fringe benefits provided for in this Resolution or in any resolution of the City, unless otherwise provided by Federal and/or State law.

I. As an exception to the statements and definitions used in this Section and this Resolution, Police Academy Trainee and Ambulance Operator are deemed limited duration, full-time classifications eligible for the fringe benefits provided by this Resolution for benefited employees. Full-time Ambulance Operators shall be subject to an employment agreement. 760
2 SECTION 2. SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULES. Salaries effective December 4, 2022 for employees covered by this Resolution are listed in Appendix A.

SECTION 3. BEGINNING RATES. A new employee of the City shall be paid the rate shown in Step A in the range assigned to the classification for which the employee has been hired, except that on request of the Department Head under whom the employee will serve, and with the authorization of the Human Resources Director, such employee may be placed at any step depending the employee’s qualifications.

SECTION 4. SERVICE. The word “service” as used in this Resolution shall be defined to mean continuous, service in an employee’s present classification, service in a higher classification, or service in a classification allocated to the same salary range and having generally similar duties and requirements.

A lapse of service by any employee for a period of time longer than thirty (30) calendar days by reason of resignation or discharge shall serve to eliminate the accumulated length of service time of such employee for the purpose of this Resolution. An employee re-entering the service of the City shall be considered as a new employee, except that the employee may be re-employed within one (1) year and placed in the same salary step in the appropriate compensation range as the employee was at the time of the termination of employment. For seasonal employees, service shall be consecutive seasonal employment with the City.

SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. The City shall maintain an employee performance rating system designed to give a fair evaluation of the quantity and quality of work performed by an employee.

A. Performance evaluation reports shall be prepared and recorded in the employee’s personnel file for all probationary part-time, regular part-time, and seasonal employees as follows:
1) For probationary part-time employees, at or near the completion of 1,040 hours and upon the completion of the probationary period at 2,080 hours. 2) For regular part-time employees, at or near the completion of every 2,080 hours after the successful completion of the probationary period.
3) For seasonal employees, at the end of the season and upon the completion of 2,080 hours. 4) For Ambulance Operators, at or near completion of 26 pay periods.

B. Prior to the performance evaluation report becoming part of the employee’s personnel file, the supervisor and the employee must review the evaluation.

C. When a performance evaluation is recorded in the employee’s personnel file a copy of the evaluation shall be given to the employee.

SECTION 6. ADVANCEMENT WITHIN SALARY RANGES. The following regulations shall govern salary advancements within ranges for employees in Appendix A:

A. Merit Advancement. An employee shall be considered for advancement through the salary range based on continuous, meritorious, and efficient service, continued improvement by the employee in the effective performance of the duties of the position, and the completion of 2,080 hours of service in the classification. Exception: 26 pay periods for Ambulance Operator classification. A 761
3 merit increase shall become effective on the first (1st) day of the next pay period following the completion of the length of service required for such advancement, and shall require the following:
1) The Department Head in the department which the employee is employed shall file with the Human Resources Director a Personnel Action Form and a completed Performance Evaluation Form recommending the granting or denial of the merit increase and supporting such recommendation with specific reasons therefore. If denied by the Human Resources Director, the reason(s) for denial will be provided to the Department Head.

B. Special Merit Advancement. When an employee demonstrates exceptional ability and proficiency in the performance of duties, the Department Head may recommend to the Human Resources Director that said employee be advanced to a higher pay step without regard to the minimum length of service provisions contained in this Resolution. The Human Resources Director may, on the basis of a Department Head's recommendation, approve and effect such an advancement.

C. Length of Service Required When Advancement is Denied. When an employee is not approved for advancement to the next higher salary step, the employee may be reconsidered for such advancement at any subsequent time. This reconsideration shall follow the same steps and shall be subject to the same action as provided in Subsection 6A.

SECTION 7. REDUCTION IN SALARY STEPS. Any employee who is paid on a salary step higher than Step A may be reduced by one (1) or more steps upon the recommendation of the Department Head with the approval of the Human Resources Director. Procedure for such reduction shall follow the same procedure as outlined for merit advancement in Section 6, and such employee may be considered for readvancement under the same provisions as contained in Section 6.

SECTION 8. PROBATION. An employee scheduled in the duly adopted budget to work at least twenty (20) hours per week on a year-round basis initially appointed or promoted to a classification shall serve a probationary period during which time the employee shall have an opportunity to demonstrate suitability for the job. Employees regularly scheduled twenty (20) hours or more per week shall serve a probationary period of twenty-six (26) consecutive pay periods. Under certain conditions, with approval of the Human Resources Director, the Department Head may extend the probationary period. The employee shall attain regular status in the classification upon successful completion of the probationary period.

Employees serving an initial probationary period are not eligible to compete for a closed/promotional recruitment process.

SECTION 9. PROMOTION. When an employee is promoted to a position in a higher classification, the employee may be assigned to the step in the new salary range which provides for at least a five percent (5%) increase. With the approval of the Department Head and Human Resources Director, the employee may be placed in the step in the new salary range as will grant the employee an increase of at least one (1), but not more than three (3) salary steps, at the discretion of the Department Head and the Human Resources Director.

SECTION 10. DEMOTION. When an employee is demoted to a position in a lower classification, the salary rate shall be fixed in the appropriate salary range for the lower classification in accordance with the following provisions:
762
4 A. The salary rate shall be reduced by at least one (1) step; and B. The new salary rate must be within the salary range for the classification to which demoted.

SECTION 11. REASSIGNMENT OF COMPENSATION RANGES. Any employee who is employed in a classification which is allocated to a different pay range shall retain the same salary step in the new range as previously held in the prior range, and shall retain credit for length of service acquired in the previously held step toward advancement to the next higher step in the new salary range; provided, however:

A. That if such retention shall result in the advancement of more than one (1) step, the Human Resources Director may, at the time of reassignment, place the employee in a step which will result in an increase of only one (1) step.

B. That if the reassignment is to a lower compensation range, the B or C Step of which shall be lower than the existing rate of pay at the time of reassignment, the employee shall continue to be paid at the existing rate of pay until such time as the new classification shall be reassigned to a compensation schedule which will allow for further salary advancement, or until such time as the employee is promoted to a position assigned to a higher compensation range.

C. That if the reassignment is to a lower compensation range, the B or C Step of which is higher than the existing rate of pay of the employee, the employee shall be placed on that step of the lower compensation range which is equivalent to the employee's existing rate of pay. If there is no equivalent rate of pay, the employee shall be placed on the next highest step. The employee shall retain credit for length of service previously acquired in such step toward advancement to the next higher step.

SECTION 12. WORKING OUT OF CLASS. The City may work employees out of classification for up to fourteen (14) consecutive working days without additional compensation. An employee shall receive acting time pay at A Step of the higher class, or five percent (5%) above the employee's regular salary, whichever is greater, for work performed in the higher classification on the 15th consecutive day out of class, and for each consecutive day thereafter an employee works out of class. The Department Head or a duly authorized designee shall assign the employee to work out of classification but shall notify the Human Resources Director prior to the assignment.

During the fourteen (14) consecutive working day eligibility period before an employee is entitled to receive acting time pay, absence for compensatory time and/or vacation shall break consecutiveness and cause the fourteen (14) consecutive working day eligibility period to start over. Absences for regularly scheduled holidays, regular days off, jury duty, and/or verifiable sick leave shall not constitute a break in consecutiveness or acting pay eligibility.

A. Temporary Upgrade Pay. When an employee is working out of classification due to an incumbent’s approved leave of absence, said employee shall receive Temporary Upgrade Pay.

Temporary Upgrade Pay, as defined by California Code of Regulations 571(a)(3), is “compensation to employees who are required by their employer or governing board or body to work in an upgraded position/classification of limited duration.” The above form of compensation shall be reported to CalPERS as special compensation and therefore compensation earnable. However, Temporary Upgrade Pay will not be reported to 763
5 CalPERS as pensionable compensation for “New Members” hired on or after January 1, 2013, as defined by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).

B. Out-of-Class Appointment. Out-of-class appointments shall only be made for positions vacated due to voluntary resignation, promotion, demotion or termination. Government Code Section 20480 of the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) defines an “out-of-class appointment” to mean an appointment to an upgraded position or higher classification by an employer or governing board or body in a vacant position for a limited duration. For purposes of this Section, a “vacant position” refers to a position that is vacant during recruitment for a permanent appointment. A vacant position does not refer to a position that is temporarily available due to another employee's leave of absence.

SECTION 13. OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME.

A. COMPENSATORY TIME. A benefited employee covered by this Resolution shall be entitled to compensatory time for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours within the employee's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) work period. Compensatory time shall be accumulated at the rate of one-quarter (¼) hour of compensatory time for each one-quarter (¼) hour of overtime worked.

B. PREMIUM (TIME AND ONE-HALF) OVERTIME. Only time actually worked (i.e., not holiday, vacation, sick leave, or compensatory time) over forty (40) hours in an FLSA work period shall be paid at the premium rate (time and one-half) either in the form of pay or compensatory time. FLSA exempt seasonal employees are not entitled to receive premium overtime compensation.

C. COMPENSATORY TIME ACCUMULATION. Compensatory time shall be accumulated to the nearest one-quarter (¼) hour increment. Where a benefited employee works less than one-quarter (¼) hour per day of overtime, the employee shall not receive compensatory time, and such time shall not count toward the computation of overtime.

D. ELIGIBILITY. In order to be entitled to compensatory time, such compensatory time must be authorized by the Department Head or a duly authorized designee.

E. MAXIMUM COMPENSATORY TIME ACCRUAL. A benefited employee shall not be entitled to accumulate compensatory time in excess of eighty (80) hours during any calendar year. Any accumulated compensatory time accrued in excess of eighty (80) hours per calendar year shall be automatically paid on the first (1st) pay period of the new calendar year.

F. USE OF COMPENSATORY TIME.
1) Payment of Compensatory Time. Compensatory time shall be paid at the regular rate of pay or equal time off, when authorized by the Department Head or a duly authorized designee.
2) Payment Upon Termination. Employees shall be entitled to receive payment for all accumulated compensatory time upon their termination or upon promotion into another bargaining unit.

SECTION 14. CALL BACK COMPENSATION. If benefited employees are required to report back to work after completing a normal work shift and have left the City premises and/or work location, they 764
6 shall be compensated in cash or as compensatory time off at the straight time rate for the actual hours of work with a minimum of two (2) hours call back compensation, regardless of whether the employee works less than two (2) hours. This provision shall be applicable to employees although the employee’s regular work week is not completed, but shall not apply to employees who are continuing on duty.

SECTION 15. HOLIDAYS. Benefited employees covered by this Resolution shall receive paid holidays, based upon proration of their employment status if less that a full-time employee. 1) January 1st (New Year’s Day)
2) Third Monday in February (Presidents’ Day)
3) Last Monday in May (Memorial Day)
4) July 4th (Independence Day)
5) First Monday in September (Labor Day)
6) November 11th (Veterans’ Day)
7) Fourth Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Day)
8) Fourth Friday in November (Day after Thanksgiving)
9) One-half day (4.5 hours) before Christmas if December 24th falls on a Monday through Thursday (Christmas Eve)
10) December 25th (Christmas Day)
A. HOLIDAYS ON CERTAIN DAYS OF THE WEEK. In the event any of the above holidays, except one-half (½) day before Christmas, fall on a Sunday, the following day will be taken in lieu of the actual date on which the holiday falls. When any of the above holidays fall on a Saturday, except one-half (½) day before Christmas, the preceding day will be taken in lieu of the actual date on which the holiday falls. When any of the above holidays fall on an employee’s regularly scheduled day off, except one-half (½) day before Christmas, forty (40) hour benefited employees will be credited with nine (9) hours of holiday compensatory time. Benefited employees will receive holiday pay for the holidays in this Section based upon the employee’s full-time equivalency from the current Personnel Action Form. Accumulated holiday compensatory time must be used by the employee by June 30th of the same fiscal year in which it was accumulated or be forfeited. In addition, employees shall be entitled to receive payment for all accumulated holiday compensatory time upon their termination or upon promotion into another bargaining unit.

B. ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE HOLIDAY PAY. In order to be eligible to receive holiday pay, a benefited employee must have worked, or be deemed to have worked because of an approved absence (e.g., sick leave, vacation, or compensatory time), the benefited employee's regularly scheduled day before and regularly scheduled day after the holiday. Probationary benefited employees are provided with and are eligible to use floating holiday hours, according to the guidelines established in this Section, and/or with approval of the Human Resources Director.

C. HOLIDAY DURING VACATION. Should any of the holidays listed above fall during an employee's vacation period, or while an employee is on an excused absence with pay, the employee shall receive holiday pay and no charge shall be made against the employee's accumulated vacation.

D. FLOATING HOLIDAY. Notwithstanding the above, floating holiday hours shall be taken at the convenience of the City with approval of the Department Head or a duly authorized designee. For purposes of this benefit, employees will have credited nine (9) hours of floating holiday as of January 1st. Benefited employees will receive floating holiday hours in this Section based upon 765
7 the employee’s full-time equivalency from the current Personnel Action Form. This floating holiday shall be taken as time off from work no later than December 31st of the same year. The floating holiday is not accumulative and shall be forfeited should it not be taken during the year it was earned. Benefitted employees under this Section who are promoted to another bargaining unit or who terminate their employment with the City prior to using the floating holiday shall receive cash reimbursement for said holiday.

E. COMPENSATION FOR HOURS WORKED ON OBSERVED CITY HOLIDAYS. All benefited employees required to work on a holiday listed above, with the approval of their supervisor, shall receive holiday pay plus straight time pay for hours worked on the holiday, or time off equal to the number of hours the employee actually worked on the holiday. Benefited employees who work in excess of their regular number of scheduled hours on a holiday listed above, shall receive double time pay for all such hours actually worked. Employees shall receive no other compensation whatsoever for working on a holiday.

SECTION 16. VACATION.

A. VACATION ACCRUAL. Benefited employees who have one (1) year's continuous service, shall receive the following vacation hours per year, based upon proration of their employment status if less than a full-time employee.

Years of Service Vacation Hours Per Year
1 thru 4 80
5 thru 10 120
11 128
12 136
13 144
14 152
15 thru 24 160
25 or more 200
B. VACATION USAGE AND ACCUMULATION. Vacation shall be taken at the convenience of the City with the approval of the Department Head or a duly authorized designee. Where possible, such vacation should be taken annually and not accumulated from year to year. Vacation hours not in excess of the equivalent number of hours earned in the immediately preceding twenty-four (24) month period may be accumulated with the permission of the Department Head and the Human Resources Director. Employees shall not accumulate vacation in excess of the equivalent number of hours earned in the immediately preceding twenty-four (24) month period. All vacation hours in excess of the equivalent number of hours earned in the immediately preceding twentyfour (24) month period not taken by the employee shall be forfeited. Probationary benefited employees accrue vacation, but may not use vacation until successful completion of an initial probation period, except in the event of a City Hall holiday closure, with approval of the Human Resources Director.

C. VACATION CONVERSION. An employee may convert up to fifty percent (50%) of their current annual vacation accrual into pay in lieu of time off with pay. An employee requesting such a conversion must meet the eligibility requirements as set forth in Subsection 16B and may so convert once during each fiscal year.
766
8 A benefited employee may convert up to fifty percent (50%) of current annual vacation accrual into cash in lieu of time off with pay. A benefited employee requesting such a conversion must meet the eligibility requirements as set forth in this Section, and may so convert twice in a fiscal year, however the total amount converted per fiscal year shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the employee’s annual accrual. Employees serving their initial probationary period shall not be eligible for vacation conversion.

D. VACATION PAY-OUT UPON TERMINATION. Eligible employees who terminate their employment with the City shall be paid for all accrued vacation, if any, and the prorated portion of their final accrual. Prorated vacation shall be on the basis of one-twelfth (1/12) of the employee's annual vacation pay for each full month of service.

SECTION 17. ELIGIBILITY FOR FRINGE BENEFITS.

A. ENTITLEMENT TO FRINGE BENEFITS UPON PRORATION OF HOURS. Benefited employees shall receive fringe benefits based upon the employee’s full-time equivalency from the current Personnel Action Form. This formula of proration shall apply to holiday pay, vacation, sick leave, medical insurance contribution, disability insurance contribution, jury duty and retirement contribution.

B. NON-BENEFITED EMPLOYEES. Non-benefited employees shall not be entitled to receive any fringe benefits provided for in this Resolution or in any resolution of the City, unless otherwise provided by Federal and/or State law.

SECTION 18. LEAVES OF ABSENCE.

A. LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY. For all regular employees as described herein, the following Leave Without Pay procedure shall apply:
1) After all available leave benefits, including vacation, compensatory time, sick leave, and other leave benefits have been completely used, a regular employee, not under suspension, may make written application to the Department Head for leave without pay. No such leave will be considered absent a written application from the employee requesting leave.
2) If the Department Head and the Human Resources Director agree that such leave is merited and in the interest of the City, leave may be granted for a period not to exceed six (6) months following the date of expiration of all other allowable leave benefits. 3) No employment or fringe benefits such as sick leave, vacation, health insurance, retirement, or any other benefits shall accrue to any employee on leave of absence without pay except as denoted under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Section below. During such leave in excess of five (5) working days, no seniority shall be accumulated.
4) Subject to and consistent with the conditions of the group health, life or disability plan, coverage may be continued during a leave, provided direct payment of the total premium by the employee is made through and as prescribed by the Payroll Division of the City. 767
9 The City will pay up to six (6) months of the Flexible Benefit Plan contribution for employees who are on long term disability leave.
5) At the end of such leave, if the employee desires additional leave, written application must be made through the Department Head to the Human Resources Director at least ten (10) days before the end of the six (6) month period, stating the reasons why the additional leave is required and why it would be in the best interests of the City to grant such leave of absence. If such additional leave is merited and would still preserve the best interests of the City, the Human Resources Director may approve such extension of the leave of absence for a period up to but not to exceed an additional six (6) months. 6) If the employee does not return to work prior to or at the end of such leave of absence or extension of leave of absence, the City shall consider that the employee has terminated employment with the City.
7) An employee on leave must give the City at least seven (7) days' written notice of intent to return to work prior to returning to work.
8) Any employee who engages in outside employment during said leave of absence without prior notification and approval of the Human Resources Director and Department Head may be subject to termination.
9) Any employee who falsifies the reason for the request for said leave of absence may be terminated for falsifying a request for leave of absence or extension thereof. 10) Such leave shall be granted on the same basis for pregnancy, childbirth, and other medically related conditions, except that such an employee shall retain his seniority rights.
11) Forms setting forth the benefits available and other pertinent information shall be maintained for distribution in the Human Resources Department.

B. JURY DUTY AND WITNESS SERVICE FOR THE CITY.
1) Jury Duty. When required to serve on a jury, benefited employees shall have time off for a period not to exceed ten (10) calendar days for each jury duty summons which an employee responds to per calendar year. Employees shall receive their regular pay for period of actual service required on the jury, provided all jury fees paid to the individual employee are turned over to the City, with the exception of automobile expenses allowed.
2) If an employee is required to call in for jury service and the court does not need the employee’s service, the employee is expected to report to work. Once an employee has completed jury service, the Certificate of Jury Service must be provided to the immediate supervisor to qualify for jury duty compensation. 3) Witness Service for the City. If an employee is called as a witness, on behalf of the City, the employee shall receive normal pay for time spent by the employee serving as a witness for the City. Employees shall be required to pay any witness fees that accrue 768
10 to the employee for witness service to the City as a condition of receiving normal pay while serving as a witness for the City.

C. MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE. If a benefited employee is deployed or required to attend military training, the employee shall be entitled to military leave of absence under the provisions of State law found in applicable sections of the California Military and Veterans’ Code.

Employees must provide a copy of their military orders to the Human Resources Department to qualify for military leave of absence. Any exceptions to this provision shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, with final approval of the Human Resources Director.

D. SICK LEAVE. Sick leave with pay shall be allowed, credited, and accumulated in accordance with the following:
1) For employees working a regular forty (40) hour week, eight (8) hours of sick leave will accrue for each month of continuous service. Sick leave for benefited part-time employees will be prorated under this Section based upon the employee’s full-time equivalency from the current Personnel Action Form. Probationary employees may use accrued sick leave during their probation period.
2) All non-benefited employees shall receive sick leave as required by State law. 3) Sick leave will be charged at the rate of one-quarter (¼) hour for each one-quarter (¼) hour an employee is absent.
4) Any employee eligible for sick leave with pay may use such leave for the following reasons:
i. Medical and dental office appointments during work hours when authorized by the Department Head or a duly authorized designee; and/or ii. Personal illness or physical incapacity resulting from causes beyond the employee's control, including pregnancy, childbirth and other medically related conditions.
iii. For an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, for the purposes described in Labor Code sections 230(c) and 230.1(a).
iv. Family Leave. In accordance with the California Family Leave Act, all benefited employees may use up to one-half (½) of their annual sick leave accrual, per calendar year, for family leave purposes.
5) Sick Leave Application. Sick leave may be applied only to absence caused by illness or injury of an employee and may not extend to absence caused by illness or injury of a member of the employee’s family except as provided in Subsection 18C(6) below. 6) Sick Leave Charged. In any instance involving use of a fraction of a day's sick leave, the minimum charged to the employee’s sick leave account shall be one-quarter (¼) hour, while additional actual absence of over one-quarter (¼) hour shall be charged to 769
11 the nearest one-half (½) hour. Sick leave shall only be used for the purposes stated, and the Department Head shall be responsible for control of employee abuse of sick leave.

Employees may, upon prior notice, be required to furnish a certificate issued by a licensed physician or nurse or other satisfactory written evidence of any subsequent illness.
7) Maximum Accumulation of Sick Leave. Employees shall be allowed to accumulate sick leave to a maximum of 960 hours. Sick leave hours in excess of such maximum shall be forfeited.
8) Retirement from City Service and Entering the Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Upon retiring from City service and entering the Public Employees’ Retirement System as a Retired Annuitant, an employee shall receive no pay for the first sixty (60) days of accrued sick leave (0 to 480 hours), but shall receive twenty-five percent (25%) pay for the first thirty (30) days of accrued sick leave after the first sixty (60) days of accrued sick leave (481 to 720 hours), and fifty percent (50%) of all accrued sick leave thereafter (721 hours to 960 hours).
9) Death of an Employee. Upon the death of an employee while employed by the City, 100% of all accrued sick leave benefits shall be paid to the beneficiary of the deceased employee. Payment will be made when proper authorization for payment is received from the estate of the decedent employee.

E. FAMILY LEAVE. In accordance with the California Family Sick Leave and Paid Sick Leave Acts, employees are allowed up to one-half (½) of their annual accrual of sick leave per calendar year for family related illness or injury, which shall be charged against the employee’s accumulated sick leave. Family as used in this Subsection is limited to any relation by blood, marriage, or adoption who is a member of the employee’s household (living at the same address); and any parent, substitute parent, parent-in-law, spouse, registered domestic partner, child, brother, sister, grandchild or grandparent of the employee, regardless of place of residence. Benefited parttime employees are allowed to use up to one-half (½) of their annual accrual of sick leave F. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE. Benefited employees shall be entitled to take up to three (3) days of paid bereavement leave per incident on the following terms and conditions:
1) Bereavement leave may only be used upon the death, or critical illness where death appears to be imminent, in the employee's immediate family. "Immediate family" as used in this Subsection, shall be limited to any relation by blood, marriage or adoption, who is a member of the employee's household (living at the same address) and any parent, legal guardian, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, spouse, child, brother, sister, or registered domestic partner of the employee regardless of residence.
2) Days of absence due to bereavement leave shall not exceed three (3) working days per incident and shall not be deducted from the employee's accumulated sick leave. An employee on bereavement leave shall inform his immediate supervisor of the fact and the reasons therefore as soon as possible. Failure to inform his immediate supervisor, within a reasonable period of time, may be cause for denial of bereavement leave with pay for the period of absence.
770
12 G. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. Employees who incur a work-related injury or illness will be eligible to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits according to the State of California’s Division of Workers’ Compensation laws and regulations.
1) Temporary Disability. An employee shall be granted Temporary Disability in accordance with the current State Workers’ Compensation laws and regulations. 2) Should it be determined by the treating physician, or the employee’s doctor, or an agreed doctor by both parties, or an Administrative Law Judge through the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that an employee's illness or injury did not arise in the course of the employee's employment with the City and/or that the employee is not temporarily incapacitated, then the employee's accrued, or if insufficient, future sick leave, shall be charged to reimburse the City for any payments made to the employee. 3) If eligible, a benefited employee receiving Temporary Disability benefits will continue to receive the City’s contribution to the employee’s medical, dental, vision and other applicable insurances. All authorized deductions will continue as though the employee is on regular work status. If the employee has exhausted Temporary Disability benefits, the employee shall be responsible for paying the full premium for the employee’s medical, dental, vision, and other applicable insurances. 4) Before a work-related injury, an employee may elect to pre-designate a qualified medical provider if done in accordance with Workers’ Compensation laws and regulations.

SECTION 19. LIFE INSURANCE. The City shall contribute the full premium towards a $40,000.00 life insurance policy for each benefited employee.

SECTION 20. LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE. The City shall contribute the full premium toward a long-term disability plan covering eligible benefited employees that pays sixty percent (60%) of salary after a sixty (60) day elimination period, up to a maximum benefit of $3,000.00 per month.

SECTION 21. HEALTH BENEFITS. The City contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to make available those health insurance benefits provided under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA).

A. FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN. The City shall provide a Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan for active full-time and part-time benefited employees and pay the following monthly amounts to provide funds for optional health plans, dental plans, vision plans, health care reimbursement, dependent care, or cash as established by the Internal Revenue Service. The following amounts include the minimum amount required under PEMHCA, which is $151.00 per month. This contribution shall be adjusted annually each January 1st to the amount set by the CalPERS Board of Administration.

Effective Date Single 2-Party Family
January 1, 2022 $935.00 $1,385.00 $1,685.00
January 1, 2023 $960.00 $1,435.00 $1,760.00
771
13 B. Any costs in excess of the amounts designated in Subsection 21A necessary to maintain benefits under any benefit plans selected by the employee shall be borne by the employee.

C. An employee cannot be enrolled in the CalPERS Health Benefits Plan if a spouse is enrolled in the same agency or enrolled in an agency with CalPERS Health, unless the employee (or the spouse) is enrolled without being covered as a family member.

D. An employee may choose to not be enrolled in a CalPERS Health Benefits Plan. If an employee chooses not to be enrolled, the employee must provide proof of group medical insurance coverage (e.g., coverage under a spouse’s employer’s plan) that is complaint with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as determined by the Human Resources Director. Based on determination that group medical insurance coverage is in full force and effect, employees hired prior to January 1, 2020 shall receive $785.00 per month toward the Flexible Benefits Plan. Employees hired after January 1, 2020 who elect to waive the City’s medical insurance shall receive $400.00 per month.

E. In the event the benefited employee loses eligibility (with documentation) the employee may enroll in the CalPERS Health Benefits Plan pursuant to their rules and regulations. Failure to do so within sixty (60) days, shall result in the City seeking reimbursement of said contributions.

F. RETIRED ANNUITANT CONTRIBUTION. The City shall contribute toward the payment of the premiums under the CalPERS Health Benefits Plan to each eligible retired annuitant of CalPERS to the extent required by law, a contribution of $151.00 per month. This contribution shall be adjusted annually each January 1st to the amount set by the CalPERS Board of Administration.

G. The City Manager, or a duly authorized designee, reserves the right to adjust the flexible benefits plan contributions for employees covered by the Resolution at any time during the life of this Resolution to reflect insurance contributions provided to employees in the Orange Municipal Employees’ Association (OMEA) unit.

SECTION 22. RETIREMENT.

A. NON-BENEFITED EMPLOYEES. All non-benefited employees not covered under the CalPERS shall participate in a defined contribution retirement plan in lieu of Social Security contributions.

The City shall contribute three and three-fourths percent (3.75%) of the employee’s eligible earnings toward the retirement plan. Employees shall contribute three and three-fourths percent (3.75%) of their eligible earnings toward the retirement plan.

B. NEW MEMBERS. Miscellaneous employees who are New Members of CalPERS as defined by California Government Code Section 7522.04(f) are subject to the 2% @ age 62 retirement formula as set forth in California Government Code Section 7522.20. The New Members are subject to the three (3) year final compensation measurement period as set forth in California Government Code Section 7522.32. These New Members shall contribute half of normal cost of retirement as determined by CalPERS from their pensionable compensation, on a pre-tax basis, as set forth in California Government Code Section 7522.30. In all other respects, New Members shall be subject to the terms and requirements of PEPRA.

C. CLASSIC MEMBERS. Miscellaneous employees who are not defined as New Members as outlined in Section B above are defined as Classic Members of CalPERS and are subject to the 772
14 2.7% @ age 55 retirement formula set forth on Section 21362.2 of the California Government Code. These Classic Members are subject to the one year final compensation measurement period set forth in California Government Code Section 20042. These Classic Members shall contribute eight percent (8%) of their compensation earnable, on a pre-tax basis.

D. 1959 CALPERS SURVIVOR BENEFIT. The City provides the 1959 CalPERS Survivor Benefit at the Fourth Level Option (California Government Code Section 21574) for all covered employees. Employees shall pay their $2.00 monthly contribution through payroll deduction. The City shall pay the employer portion subject to the following limit: in the event the employer portion exceeds $6.00 monthly, employees shall pay any portion of the employer portion that exceeds $6.00 monthly.

SECTION 23. DIRECT DEPOSIT. City employees are required to participate in the City’s direct paycheck deposit program.

SECTION 24. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.

A. DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCE. A grievance shall be defined as a timely complaint by an employee or group of employees concerning the interpretation or application of specific provisions of this Resolution of the Rules and Regulations governing personnel practices or working conditions of the City. Grievances shall not include disciplinary actions taken against “At-Will” employees.

B. BUSINESS DAYS. Business days means those days in which the City’s administrative offices are open.

C. TIME LIMITS FOR FILING WRITTEN FORMAL GRIEVANCES. The time limits for filing written formal grievances shall be strictly construed, but may be extended by mutual agreement evidenced, in writing, and signed by a duly authorized designee of the City and the grieving party.

Failure of the grieving party to comply with any of the time limits set forth hereunder shall constitute waiver and bar further processing of the grievance. Failure of the City to comply with the time limits set forth in this Section shall automatically move the grievance to the next level in the Grievance Procedure.

D. INFORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS. An employee must first attempt to resolve a grievance on an informal basis by discussion with an immediate supervisor without undue delay. Every effort shall be made to find an acceptable solution to the grievance by these informal means at the most immediate level of supervision. At no time may the informal process go beyond the division head concerned. In order that this informal procedure may be responsive, all parties involved shall expedite this process. In no case may more than ten (10) business days elapse from the date of the alleged incident giving rise to the grievance, or when the grievant knew or should have reasonably become aware of the facts giving rise to the grievance and the filing of a written formal grievance with the Human Resources Director of the City, with a copy to the Department Head in which the employee works. Should the grievant fail to file a written grievance within ten (10) business days from the date of the incident giving rise to the grievance, or when grievant knew or should have reasonably become aware of the facts giving rise to the grievance, the grievance shall be barred and waived.
773
15 E. FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT HEAD. If the grievance is not resolved through the informal process, and the written grievance is filed within the time limits set forth above, the grievant shall discuss the grievance with the Human Resources Director and the Department Head within ten (10) business days. The Human Resources Director and the Department Head shall render a decision and comments, in writing, regarding the merits of the grievance and return them to the grievant within five (5) business days after receiving the grievance.

F. FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS, CITY MANAGER. If the grievance is not resolved in Subsection E above, or if no answer has been received from the Human Resources Director and Department Head within fifteen (15) business days from the presentation of the written grievance to the Human Resources Director and Department Head, the written grievance shall be presented to the City Manager, or a duly authorized designee, within ten (10) business days, for determination. Failure of the grievant to take this action will constitute a waiver and bar to the grievance, and the grievance will be considered settled on the basis of the last Management grievance response. The City Manager, or a duly authorized designee, shall render a final decision on the merits of the grievance and comments, in writing, and return them to the grievant within ten (10) business days after receiving the grievance. After this procedure is exhausted, the grievant and the City shall have rights and remedies to pursue said grievance under the law. The City shall instruct its supervisors on the proper use and implementation of this grievance procedure and every reasonable effort shall be made by the employee and the supervisor to resolve the grievance at the informal step.

SECTION 25. TRAVEL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE. The City has established a Travel and Business Expense Reimbursement policy (Administrative Policy Number 4.13) to reimburse City employees when conducting City business, attending business or professional conferences, training seminars, or other travel on authorized City business.

Any employee who is required to travel in the performance of their duties or to attend an authorized meeting or conference or otherwise incurs expenses relating to the conduct of City business shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred for transportation, meals, lodging, and incidentals as outlined in the Finance Policy referenced above.

SECTION 26. EFFECTIVE DATES. This Resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023 unless otherwise amended.

REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
774
16 APPENDIX A

PART-TIME AND LIMITED DURATION

SALARY RANGES
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 5, 2021

CLASSIFICATION TITLE SALARY

TYPE RANGE STEP A STEP B STEP C
Ambulance Operator* Monthly 412 2783 2926 3075
Assistant Pool Manager Hourly 469 21.34 22.43 N/A
Assistant Recreation Services Coordinator Hourly 509 26.05 27.38 28.78 Engineering Intern Hourly 424 17.05 17.92 18.83
Lifeguard/Swim Instructor Hourly 449 19.31 20.30 N/A
Management Intern Hourly 424 17.05 17.92 18.83
Parking Control Officer I Hourly 436 18.10 19.03 19.99
Parks and Facilities Attendant Hourly 439 18.37 19.31 20.30 Parks Maintenance Helper Hourly 399 15.05 15.82 16.63
Police Academy Trainee Monthly 560 5824 N/A N/A
Police Cadet I Hourly 424 17.05 17.92 18.83
Police Cadet II Hourly 444 18.84 19.80 20.81
Police Reserve Officer I Hourly 453 19.71 20.71 21.76
Police Reserve Officer II Hourly 413 16.14 16.97 17.83
Police Reserve Officer III Hourly 399 15.05 15.82 16.63 Pool Manager Hourly 489 23.58 24.78 26.05
Recreation Services Activity Specialist Hourly 489 23.58 24.78 26.05 Recreation Services Leader I Hourly 399 15.05 15.82 N/A Recreation Services Leader II Hourly 419 16.63 17.48 N/A Recreation Services Leader III Hourly 439 18.37 19.31 20.30 School Crossing Guard Hourly 424 17.05 17.92 18.83
School Crossing Guard Supervisor Hourly 464 20.82 21.88 22.99 Swimming Attendant Hourly 399 15.05 15.82 N/A
*Note: Classification of Ambulance Operator was established effective July 1, 2022 pursuant to City Council 2022/23 budget adoption and Resolution No. 11401. 775
17 APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)

PART-TIME AND LIMITED DURATION

SALARY RANGES
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 4, 2022

CLASSIFICATION TITLE SALARY

TYPE RANGE STEP A STEP B STEP C
Ambulance Operator Monthly 412 2783 2926 3075
Assistant Pool Manager Hourly 482 22.77 23.93 25.15
Assistant Recreation Services Coordinator Hourly 509 26.05 27.38 28.78 Engineering Intern Hourly 430 17.57 18.47 19.40
Lifeguard/Swim Instructor Hourly 462 20.61 21.66 22.76
Management Intern Hourly 430 17.57 18.47 19.40
Parking Control Officer I Hourly 442 18.65 19.60 20.61
Parks and Facilities Attendant Hourly 460 20.40 21.45 22.54 Police Academy Trainee Monthly 574 6245 N/A N/A
Police Cadet I Hourly 430 17.57 18.47 19.40
Police Cadet II Hourly 450 19.41 20.40 21.44
Police Reserve Officer I Hourly 459 20.30 21.34 22.43
Police Reserve Officer II Hourly 419 16.63 17.48 18.37
Police Reserve Officer III Hourly 405 15.51 16.30 17.13 Pool Manager Hourly 502 25.16 26.45 27.79
Recreation Services Activity Specialist Hourly 489 23.58 24.78 26.05 Recreation Services Leader I Hourly 412 16.06 16.88 17.74 Recreation Services Leader II Hourly 432 17.74 18.65 19.60 Recreation Services Leader III Hourly 452 19.61 20.61 21.66 School Crossing Guard Hourly 430 17.57 18.47 19.40
School Crossing Guard Supervisor Hourly 470 21.45 22.54 23.69 Swimming Attendant Hourly 412 16.06 16.88 17.74
*Note: Classification of Parks Maintenance Helper is eliminated pursuant to Resolution No. 11423. 776
RESOLUTION NO. 11424

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ORANGE RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 11411 AND AMENDING THE CITYWIDE PAY

SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5
WHEREAS, the City of Orange (“City”) contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to provide retirement benefits for its employees; and WHEREAS, per California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 (“Regulation 570.5”), the amount of “compensation earnable” pursuant to the Government Code is limited to the payrate listed on a pay schedule that meets certain requirements; and WHEREAS, the attached Citywide Pay Schedule meets the following requirements of Regulation 570.5: (1) is duly approved and adopted by the employer’s governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meeting laws; (2) identifies the position title of every employee; (3) shows the pay rate for each position; (4) indicates the time base for each pay rate; (5) is posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible for public review during normal business hours or posted on the employer’s internet website; (6) indicates an effective date and date of any revisions; (7) is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for a period not less than five years; and (8) does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11423 relating to the classification, compensation, and terms of employment of Part-Time and Limited Duration Employees, effective December 4, 2022. These salary adjustments have been incorporated into the attached Salary Schedule dated December 4, 2022 (Attachment A); and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11425, which amended Resolution No. 11272 between the City of Orange and the Orange Management Association to increase the salary range for the classification of Senior Plan Check Engineer with an effective date of December 4, 2022. This salary adjustment has been incorporated into the attached Salary Schedule dated December 4, 2022 (Attachment A); and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020, the City Council approved Memoranda of Understanding with the City’s four miscellaneous groups with a scheduled across-the-board salary increases effective of January 1, 2023. These salary adjustments have been incorporated into the attached Salary Schedule dated January 1, 2023 (Attachment B).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that Resolution No. 11411 is hereby rescinded and the attached revised Citywide Pay Schedules are approved and incorporated.
777
2 ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2022
Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
Attachments:

Attachment A - Citywide Pay Schedule – December 4, 2022 Attachment B - Citywide Pay Schedule – January 1, 2023
778
1 Attachment A
779
2 780
3 781
4 782
5 783
6 Attachment B
784
7 785
8 786
9 787
10 788
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.33. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0632
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Will Kolbow, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director

1. SUBJECT
Adoption of Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022, Measure M2 Expenditure Report. Resolution No. 11420.

2. SUMMARY
OCTA requires forms for tracking M2 expenditures and net revenues that all public agencies must use in order to be in compliance with the Renewed Measure M Eligibility Guidelines.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11420. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange concerning the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Measure M2 Expenditure Report for the City of Orange.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting Resolution No. 11420 will allow the City to receive Measure M2 funding for transportation projects.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 2: Be a fiscally healthy community
b: Analyze future fiscal needs and potential revenue opportunities. c. Provide appropriate reserves.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the City received $3,657,266 in M2 Fairshare funding and $387,753 in other M2 funding, which includes funding for Water Quality and Senior Mobility. The City is required to complete the attached M2 Expenditure Report and submit to the Orange County Transportation Authority for compliance tracking and reporting on an annual basis.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11420
· City of Orange M2 Expenditure Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 City of Orange Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™789
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 3.33. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0632
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Will Kolbow, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director

1. SUBJECT
Adoption of Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022, Measure M2 Expenditure Report. Resolution No. 11420.

2. SUMMARY
OCTA requires forms for tracking M2 expenditures and net revenues that all public agencies must use in order to be in compliance with the Renewed Measure M Eligibility Guidelines.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11420. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange concerning the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Measure M2 Expenditure Report for the City of Orange.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting Resolution No. 11420 will allow the City to receive Measure M2 funding for transportation projects.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 2: Be a fiscally healthy community
b: Analyze future fiscal needs and potential revenue opportunities. c. Provide appropriate reserves.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the City received $3,657,266 in M2 Fairshare funding and $387,753 in other M2 funding, which includes funding for Water Quality and Senior Mobility. The City is required to complete the attached M2 Expenditure Report and submit to the Orange County Transportation Authority for compliance tracking and reporting on an annual basis.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11420
· City of Orange M2 Expenditure Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 City of Orange Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™790
RESOLUTION NO. 11420

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE CONCERNING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 MEASURE M2

EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR THE CITY OF
ORANGE
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to meet eligibility requirements and submit eligibility verification packages to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in order to remain eligible to receive M2 funds; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to adopt an annual M2 Expenditure Report as part of one of the eligibility requirements; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to account for Net Revenues, developer/traffic impact fees, and funds expended by local jurisdiction in the M2 Expenditure Report that satisfy the Maintenance of Effort requirements; and
WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report shall include all Net Revenue fund balances, interest earned, and expenditures identified by type and program or project; and WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report must be adopted and submitted to the OCTA each year within six months of the end of the local jurisdiction’s fiscal year to be eligible to receive Net Revenues as part of M2.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange does hereby inform OCTA that:
a) The M2 Expenditure Report is in conformance with the template provided in the Measure M2 Eligibility Guidelines and accounts for Net Revenues including interest earned, expenditures during the fiscal year, and balances at the end of fiscal year. b) The M2 Expenditure Report is hereby adopted by the City of Orange. c) The City of Orange Finance Director is hereby authorized to sign and submit the M2 Expenditure Report to OCTA for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.

ADOPTED this day of , 2022
Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
791
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

CITY OF ORANGE )
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
792
City/County of
M2 Expenditure Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Beginning and Ending Balances
Schedule 1
Line
No. Amount Interest
A-M Freeway Projects 1 $ - $ -
O Regional Capacity Program (RCP) 2 $ (233,386.23) $ -
P Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) 3 $ - $ - Q Local Fair Share 4 $ 2,989,202.23 $ 348,886
R High Frequency Metrolink Service 5 $ - $ -
S Transit Extensions to Metrolink 6 $ - $ -
T
Convert Metrolink Station(s) to Regional Gateways that
connect Orange County with High-Speed Rail Systems 7 $ - $ - U
Senior Mobility Program or Senior Non-Emergency
Medical Program 8 $ 277,422.34 $ -
V Community Based Transit/Circulators 9 $ - $ -
W Safe Transit Stops 10 $ - $ -
X Environmental Cleanup Program (Water Quality) 11 $ 288,740.00 $ - Other* 12 $ 125,552.77 $ -
13 $ 3,447,531.11 $ 348,886
Monies Made Available During Fiscal Year 14 $ 4,045,019.26 $ 1,529 15 $ 7,492,550.37 $ 350,415
Expenditures During Fiscal Year 16 $ 3,054,201.16 $ 1,529 A-M Freeway Projects 17 $ - $ -
O Regional Capacity Program (RCP) 18 $ (300,398.37) $ - P Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) 19 $ - $ - Q Local Fair Share 20 $ 3,940,985.70 $ 348,886
R High Frequency Metrolink Service 21 $ - $ -
S Transit Extensions to Metrolink 22 $ - $ -
T
Convert Metrolink Station(s) to Regional Gateways that
connect Orange County with High-Speed Rail Systems 23 $ - $ - U
Senior Mobility Program or Senior Non-Emergency
Medical Program 24 $ 374,013.81 $ -
V Community Based Transit/Circulators 25 $ - $ -
W Safe Transit Stops 26 $ - $ -
X Environmental Cleanup Program (Water Quality) 27 $ 288,740.00 $ - Other* 28 $ 135,008.07 $ -
* Project 14040 Main/Chapman to Orangewood Traffic Improvement Balances at End of Fiscal Year
Balances at Beginning of Fiscal Year
Balances at Beginning of Fiscal Year
Description
Total Monies Available (Sum Lines 13 & 14)
793
City/County of M2 Expenditure Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Sources and Uses
Schedule 2
Line
No. Amount Interest
A-M Freeway Projects 1 $ - $ -
O Regional Capacity Program (RCP) 2 $ - $ -
P Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) 3 $ - $ - Q Local Fair Share 4 $ 3,657,266 $ -
R High Frequency Metrolink Service 5 $ - $ -
S Transit Extensions to Metrolink 6 $ - $ -
T
Convert Metrolink Station(s) to Regional Gateways that connect Orange County with High-Speed Rail Systems 7 $ - $ -
U Senior Mobility Program or Senior Non-Emergency Medical Program 8 $ 168,896 $ 1,529 V Community Based Transit/Circulators 9 $ - $ -
W Safe Transit Stops 10 $ - $ -
X Environmental Cleanup Program (Water Quality) 11 $ 206,857 $ - Other* 12 $ 12,000 $ -
13 $ 4,045,019 $ 1,529
A-M Freeway Projects 14 $ - $ -
O Regional Capacity Program (RCP) 15 $ 67,012 $ -
P Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) 16 $ - $ - Q Local Fair Share 17 $ 2,705,483 $ -
R High Frequency Metrolink Service 18 $ - $ -
S Transit Extensions to Metrolink 19 $ - $ -
T
Convert Metrolink Station(s) to Regional Gateways that connect Orange County with High-Speed Rail Systems 20 $ - $ -
U Senior Mobility Program or Senior Non-Emergency Medical Program 21 $ 72,305 $ 1,529 V Community Based Transit/Circulators 22 $ - $ -
W Safe Transit Stops 23 $ - $ -
X Environmental Cleanup Program (Water Quality) 24 $ 206,857 $ - Other* 25 $ 2,545 $ -
26 $ 3,054,201 $ 1,529
27 $ 990,818 $ -
* Project 14040 Main/Chapman to Orangewood Traffic Improvement TOTAL BALANCE (Subtract line 26 from 13)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Sum lines 14 to 25)
Description
Revenues:

TOTAL REVENUES (Sum lines 1 to 12)
Expenditures:
794
City/County of
M2 Expenditure Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Streets and Roads Detailed Use of Funds
Schedule 3
Line
No. MOE
Developer /
Impact Fees+ O
O
Interest P
P
Interest Q
Q
Interest X
X
Interest
Other
M22
Other
M2
Interest
Other* TOTAL
1 $ 745,447 $ - $ 11,714 $ - $ - $ - $ 402,340 $ - $ 16,457 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,175,958 New Street Construction 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Street Reconstruction 3 $ 321,259 $ - $ 55,299 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,225 $ - $ 190,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,567,183 Signals, Safety Devices, & Street Lights 4 $ 745,517 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 139,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 885,244 Pedestrian Ways & Bikepaths 5 $ 47,119 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 47,119 Storm Drains 6 $ 23,560 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 23,560 Storm Damage 7 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8 $ 1,137,455 $ - $ 55,299 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,139,952 $ - $ 190,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,523,105 Right of Way Acquisition 9 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 1,137,455 $ - $ 55,299 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,139,952 $ - $ 190,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,523,105 Patching 11 $ 565,794 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 565,794 Overlay & Sealing 12 $ 31,694 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,694 Street Lights & Traffic Signals 13 $ 1,559,685 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,559,685 Storm Damage 14 $ 31,694 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,694 Other Street Purpose Maintenance 15 $ 63,387 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 63,387 16 $ 2,252,253 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,252,253 17 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 163,191 $ - $ - $ - $ 72,305 $ 1,529 $ 2,545 $ 239,569 18 $ 4,135,156 $ - $ 67,012 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,705,483 $ - $ 206,857 $ - $ 72,305 $ 1,529 $ 2,545 $ 7,190,886 19 1
Includes direct charges for staff time Legend
2 Other M2 includes A-M, R,S,T,U,V, and W Project
+ Transportation related only A-M
* Project 14040 Main/Chapman to Orangewood Traffic Improvement O O project O (M2 CTFP) - pending OCTA's payments for project 13228, 30025 & 20383 (revenue to record in FY23 M2 report while expenditure is recorded in FY22 M2 report) P Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Finance Director Confirmation
Any California State Constitution Article XIX streets and road eligible expenditure may be “counted” in local jurisdictions’ calculation of MOE if the activity is supported (funded) by a local jurisdictions’ discretionary funds (e.g. general fund). The California State Controller also provides useful information on Article XIX and the Streets and Highways Code eligible expenditures in its “Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties”. I have reviewed and am aware of these guidelines and their applicability in calculating and reporting on Maintenance of Effort expenditures.

Finance Director initial: _______________
Description
Transit Extensions to Metrolink
Safe Transit Stops
High Frequency Metrolink Service
Environmental Cleanup Program (Water Quality)
Senior Mobility Program or Senior Non-Emergency Medical Program Community Based Transit/Circulators
Convert Metrolink Station(s) to Regional Gateways that connect Orange County with High-Speed Rail Systems
Freeway Projects
Regional Capacity Program (RCP)
Local Fair Share
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) Other
Total Maintenance1
GRAND TOTALS (Sum Lines 1, 10, 16, 17)
Type of Expenditure
Indirect and/or Overhead
Construction & Right-of-Way
Total Construction1
Total Construction & Right-of-Way
Maintenance
795
City of Orange
M2 Expenditure Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Local Fair Share Project List
Schedule 4

PROJECT NAME AMOUNT EXPENDED
00000 - Contractual Services (Part of Maintenance) $ 394,370.03 13115 - Reg Salaries - Misc-Pvmnt Mgt $ 29,270.66
13120 - Pavement Management Program $ 1,835,930.35
16302 - Minor Traffic Control Devices - Various $ 80,576.22 16304 - Biennial Traffic Signal Coordination $ 15,019.08 16469 - Traffic Signal Equip Painting $ 38,881.73
20326 - Chapman Feldner Lft Turn Mod $ 78,539.30
20327 - Chapman & Flower Left Turn Signal Mod $ 83,052.45 20432 - Project Mgt - Traffic $ 16,897.25
30030 - Chapman/James Left turn signal $ 2,000.00
30081 - Glassell Collins Left Turn $ 64,805.02
30150 - Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) $ 3,249.52
30162 - Citywide Bus Stop Enhancements $ 33,949.17
30167 - Katella Ave Street Rehabilitation $ 8,206.25
30168 - Walnut Ave Infrastructure Improvement $ 20,735.68 $ 2,705,482.71
796
City/County of
M2 Expenditure Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Signature Page
Will Kolbow 10/18/2022
_______________________________________________
Date
________________________________________________
13 An Actual General Fund Revenue excerpt from a jurisdiction's Annual Comprehensive Finance Report (ACFR) must be provided as backup documentation.

I hereby certify that:
☐ All the information attached herein and included in schedules 1 through 4 is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge;
☐ The interest earned on Net Revenues allocated pursuant to the Ordinance shall be expended only for those purposes for which the Net Revenues were allocated;
☐ The City/County of ______ORANGE_______ is aware of the State Controller’s “Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties”, which is a guide for determining MOE Expenditures for M2 Eligibility purposes;
☐ The City/County’s Expenditure Report is in compliance with direction provided in the State Controller’s “Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties;” and ☐ The City/County of ______ORANGE_______has expended in this fiscal year an amount of local discretionary funds for streets and roads purposes at least equal to one of the maintenance of effort requirements below10:

Director of Finance (Print Name)
Signature
A) The City/County met the existing FY 2021-22 MOE benchmark dollar amount.

B) The City/County met a proportional MOE benchmark amount of FY 2020-21 General Funds Revenues that is at least equal to the percent listed in column C of Exhibit 2 in the M2 Eligibility Guidelines.13 797
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leslie Hardy, Community Services Director

1. SUBJECT
Grijalva Park Skatepark Project Update.

2. SUMMARY
At the September 2022 City Council Meeting, staff presented an update on the Grijalva Park Masterplan, which included current status updates from the various community groups. Council requested staff to return with more information regarding the steps that would be required to move the skatepark project of the Masterplan forward, including environmental review, conceptual design, and potential funding sources.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide direction to staff on the skatepark project at Grijalva Park.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community a: Renovate, maintain, develop, and/or expand public use places and spaces.

Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community b: Deliver high quality and safe recreational, social, environmental, educational and cultural services.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Background
The City owns 42 acres of land known as Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek. The land is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Prospect Street and Spring Street with the Santiago Creek forming the western edge of the property. The first 15 acres were developed into a park with lighted soccer fields in 2002. A conceptual Master Plan was finalized in 2005 for the western 27 acres, commonly referred to as the “Grijalva Park Extension” (Attachment 1).

At the September 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented an update on the Grijalva Park Masterplan, which included a review of the 2019 updated Master Plan (Attachment 2) and the presentation of another potential version of the Master Plan (2022 version) which removed the aquatic center, relocated the library/senior center south of the Sports Center, and moved the skatepark (11,500 square feet) where the aquatic center had been previously located, outside of the landfill footprint (Attachment 3). Each of the active community groups provided an update regarding City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™798
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
landfill footprint (Attachment 3). Each of the active community groups provided an update regarding the current status of their corresponding project and fund-raising efforts. As such, the skate park representative, Contenders Board Shop (Contenders) shared since becoming involved in 2019, they have raised approximately $28,000 towards the skate park project primarily through setting aside $5 from every shoe sale, online and in store.

Considering the design and construction of the skatepark would take place on a similar footprint as planned for in the 2005 Master Plan, and the overall cost for the skatepark project is less than the cost of the other facilities, Council requested that staff return with more information regarding the steps that would be required if the direction was to move forward with the skatepark portion of the Masterplan, with the intent to receive an update regarding the entirety of the Grijalva Park Masterplan at a later date.

Environmental Impact Review and Conceptual Design
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1753-05 of the Grijalva Park Extension Masterplan was approved in 2005 and included a 10,000 square foot skatepark built over the existing landfill. Staff reviewed the 2005 MND for the Grijalva Park Masterplan with the City Attorney’s office. Considering the slight change in skatepark location and size, the City Attorney’s Office found the differences in lighting, noise, traffic, parking, and operations minimal and insignificant and, therefore, do not merit any additional formal environmental analysis or technical memo.

In addition, Contenders has shared a potential conceptual design of a 10,000 square foot skate park (Attachment 4).

Costs and Funding
In 2022, MIG Landscape Architects (MIG) provided an updated Opinion of Probable Costs for the entire Grijalva Park Master Plan Update. The total cost for an 11,500 square foot skate park at $80/sf and a 4-stall prefabricated restroom is estimated to be $1,389,960. It is estimated that design services could cost between $100,000-$140,000.

Staff have researched several state and federal grant funding opportunities. It was determined that the skatepark project was ineligible for these grants for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, inadequate population limits, this type of project does not align with grant requirements, and/or it does not meet income levels. Now that the City has an approved agreement with Townsend Public Affairs, staff will engage them to continue to identify and pursue other potential grant funding opportunities.

Considerations
Development of the skatepark and its adjacent amenities from the original masterplan, including a prefabricated restroom and seating, should consider the possibility that additional environmental review could be required depending on funding sources (such as a National Environmental Protection Act review required when federal funding is involved). In addition, planning for the site should consider existing programing at the site, which currently includes field and facility rentals, open gym, special events, and general park use.

Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the skatepark project.

With Council’s approval, the skatepark project could move forward as shown on the 2019 or 2022 City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™799
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
With Council’s approval, the skatepark project could move forward as shown on the 2019 or 2022 Alternative Grijalva Park Masterplan. Proceeding with building a skatepark consistent with the 2019 Masterplan would locate the amenity on top of the landfill. Building at this location could require additional design and/or geotechnical investigation to conduct soil testing. Conversely, proceeding with building the skatepark as shown in the 2022 Masterplan, outside of the perimeter of the landfill, would acknowledge that the area over the landfill could then only be used for limited surface amenities, such as parking.

The Council approved the Department’s FY23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which includes $100,000 allocated for the Grijalva Park Masterplan funded out of Park Acquisition (Infill), which could be used towards design services and/or any geotechnical investigation needed. Funding for construction will also need to be identified. Future fiscal impacts for amenities such as utilities, parking, hardscape, landscape, as well as operations and maintenance, will be determined based on City Council input and direction.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 - 2005 Grijalva Park Masterplan
· Attachment 2 - 2019 Updated Grijalva Park Masterplan
· Attachment 3 - 2022 Alternative Grijalva Park Masterplan · Attachment 4 - Skatepark Potential Conceptual Design
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™800
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leslie Hardy, Community Services Director

1. SUBJECT
Grijalva Park Skatepark Project Update.

2. SUMMARY
At the September 2022 City Council Meeting, staff presented an update on the Grijalva Park Masterplan, which included current status updates from the various community groups. Council requested staff to return with more information regarding the steps that would be required to move the skatepark project of the Masterplan forward, including environmental review, conceptual design, and potential funding sources.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide direction to staff on the skatepark project at Grijalva Park.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community a: Renovate, maintain, develop, and/or expand public use places and spaces.

Goal 3: Enhance and promote quality of life in the community b: Deliver high quality and safe recreational, social, environmental, educational and cultural services.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Background
The City owns 42 acres of land known as Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek. The land is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Prospect Street and Spring Street with the Santiago Creek forming the western edge of the property. The first 15 acres were developed into a park with lighted soccer fields in 2002. A conceptual Master Plan was finalized in 2005 for the western 27 acres, commonly referred to as the “Grijalva Park Extension” (Attachment 1).

At the September 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented an update on the Grijalva Park Masterplan, which included a review of the 2019 updated Master Plan (Attachment 2) and the presentation of another potential version of the Master Plan (2022 version) which removed the aquatic center, relocated the library/senior center south of the Sports Center, and moved the skatepark (11,500 square feet) where the aquatic center had been previously located, outside of the landfill footprint (Attachment 3). Each of the active community groups provided an update regarding City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™801
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
landfill footprint (Attachment 3). Each of the active community groups provided an update regarding the current status of their corresponding project and fund-raising efforts. As such, the skate park representative, Contenders Board Shop (Contenders) shared since becoming involved in 2019, they have raised approximately $28,000 towards the skate park project primarily through setting aside $5 from every shoe sale, online and in store.

Considering the design and construction of the skatepark would take place on a similar footprint as planned for in the 2005 Master Plan, and the overall cost for the skatepark project is less than the cost of the other facilities, Council requested that staff return with more information regarding the steps that would be required if the direction was to move forward with the skatepark portion of the Masterplan, with the intent to receive an update regarding the entirety of the Grijalva Park Masterplan at a later date.

Environmental Impact Review and Conceptual Design
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1753-05 of the Grijalva Park Extension Masterplan was approved in 2005 and included a 10,000 square foot skatepark built over the existing landfill. Staff reviewed the 2005 MND for the Grijalva Park Masterplan with the City Attorney’s office. Considering the slight change in skatepark location and size, the City Attorney’s Office found the differences in lighting, noise, traffic, parking, and operations minimal and insignificant and, therefore, do not merit any additional formal environmental analysis or technical memo.

In addition, Contenders has shared a potential conceptual design of a 10,000 square foot skate park (Attachment 4).

Costs and Funding
In 2022, MIG Landscape Architects (MIG) provided an updated Opinion of Probable Costs for the entire Grijalva Park Master Plan Update. The total cost for an 11,500 square foot skate park at $80/sf and a 4-stall prefabricated restroom is estimated to be $1,389,960. It is estimated that design services could cost between $100,000-$140,000.

Staff have researched several state and federal grant funding opportunities. It was determined that the skatepark project was ineligible for these grants for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, inadequate population limits, this type of project does not align with grant requirements, and/or it does not meet income levels. Now that the City has an approved agreement with Townsend Public Affairs, staff will engage them to continue to identify and pursue other potential grant funding opportunities.

Considerations
Development of the skatepark and its adjacent amenities from the original masterplan, including a prefabricated restroom and seating, should consider the possibility that additional environmental review could be required depending on funding sources (such as a National Environmental Protection Act review required when federal funding is involved). In addition, planning for the site should consider existing programing at the site, which currently includes field and facility rentals, open gym, special events, and general park use.

Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the skatepark project.

With Council’s approval, the skatepark project could move forward as shown on the 2019 or 2022 City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™802
Item #: 6.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0572
With Council’s approval, the skatepark project could move forward as shown on the 2019 or 2022 Alternative Grijalva Park Masterplan. Proceeding with building a skatepark consistent with the 2019 Masterplan would locate the amenity on top of the landfill. Building at this location could require additional design and/or geotechnical investigation to conduct soil testing. Conversely, proceeding with building the skatepark as shown in the 2022 Masterplan, outside of the perimeter of the landfill, would acknowledge that the area over the landfill could then only be used for limited surface amenities, such as parking.

The Council approved the Department’s FY23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which includes $100,000 allocated for the Grijalva Park Masterplan funded out of Park Acquisition (Infill), which could be used towards design services and/or any geotechnical investigation needed. Funding for construction will also need to be identified. Future fiscal impacts for amenities such as utilities, parking, hardscape, landscape, as well as operations and maintenance, will be determined based on City Council input and direction.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 - 2005 Grijalva Park Masterplan
· Attachment 2 - 2019 Updated Grijalva Park Masterplan
· Attachment 3 - 2022 Alternative Grijalva Park Masterplan · Attachment 4 - Skatepark Potential Conceptual Design
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™803

LANDFILL SKATEPARK
Attachment 1 - 2005 Grijalva Park Masterplan
804
Attachment 2 - 2019 Grijalva Park Masterplan

LANDFILL SKATEPARK
805
Attachment 3 - 2022 Alternative Grijalva Park Masterplan

LANDFILL SKATEPARK
806
Attachment 4 – Conceptual Design
807
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Historic Property Preservation Agreements (Mills Act Contracts) for three qualified historic properties.

2. SUMMARY
Mills Act Contracts for three properties in the Old Towne Historic District. These contracts were removed for discussion at the October 11, 2022, City Council meeting, with Council requesting additional property and Mills Act Program information.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council determination regarding the three Mills Act Contracts between the City of Orange and the identified property owners for the preservation and rehabilitation of qualified historic properties and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contracts on behalf of the City.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The purpose of the Mills Act Program is to leverage property tax savings to support private investment in the preservation of historic properties.

If the three Mills Act applications presented to Council in November 2022 are approved, the City may incur a total reduction of property tax of approximately $2,279 per year. The actual amount of the property tax reduction under the Mills Act Contract will be determined by the Orange County Office of the Assessor, using a predetermined income-based approach to assessment, considering area rental rates and maintenance costs.

The Mills Act Program requires reinvestment of this property tax reduction in preservation of the historic property through the Rehabilitation Plan (Exhibit D) attached to each contract. The Rehabilitation Plan will generate additional revenues from building permit fees, and the local economy will benefit from specialized work in historic preservation by local building contractors and material suppliers. The investment by property owners in these 3 historic properties totals $276,800 over ten years.

The $1,000 application fee for each contract offsets the cost of staff review, property inspection, and this public meeting. The $35 annual fee offsets ongoing costs of administration of the contracts.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 5: Recognize, promote and preserve Orange’s rich heritage b. Expand and strengthen processes and practices related to the protection of cultural resources.

City of Orange Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™808
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The three Mills Act applications were previously presented to City Council on October 11, 2022 as a part of a group of six contracts presented to the Council. These properties include:
· 515 S. Grand Street
· 529 S. Grand Street
· 154 N. Shaffer Street
The Grand Street properties are the subject of development applications for the construction of large duplex units, while the Shaffer Street property generated a question about a potential un-permitted accessory dwelling unit (ADU). City Council continued the subject contracts requesting more information about the Mills Act Program, and the ownership status and type of living units associated with each of the three properties. Specifically, the Council was interested in how the construction of additional units on a historic property might affect Mills Act eligibility and how many of the City’s Mills Act Contracts involve investment properties.

Staff has determined that the accessory structure at 154 N. Shaffer Street is not being used as an ADU. It appears that the accessory structure is primarily being used as storage. In addition, the proposed project for a unit in the rear of 515 S. Grand Street was denied by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 19, 2022. The project at 529 S. Grand Street was approved by the DRC on October 5, 2022. All three properties meet the City of Orange’s eligibility criteria for a Mills Act.

Mills Act Criteria:

The Mills Act allows for an owner of a qualified historical property to enter into a 10-year preservation contract with the local government. Per Government Code 50280.1, a “qualified historical property” is defined as “privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation, and which meets either of the following:
· Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. · Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.”
In the City of Orange, properties eligible for a Mills Act include:
· Contributors to the Old Towne Orange National Register Historic District · Contributors to the Old Towne Orange Local Historic District · Properties separately listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources
· Both owner-occupied and income-producing properties are eligible for a contract.

Properties ineligible for a Mills Act include:
· Properties with outstanding code violations are not eligible to apply until the code violation is corrected.
· Properties with delinquent property taxes
· Properties in redevelopment project areas are prohibited, except by special City Council City of Orange Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™809
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
resolution in cases where it is the only option or financial incentive to avoid demolition of the structure.

Mills Act Property Statistics:

As of November 2022, there are 385 Mills Act Contracts recorded and three pending contracts which were approved on October 11, 2022. The tables below provide statistical information about the property and occupancy type of the Mills Act Contracts in the City of Orange. “Absentee owners” for the purposes of this report is defined as contracts where the property address and the mailing address are not the same. “Absentee owners” is also inclusive of commercial properties and P.O. boxes listed as mailing addresses.

Property Type
Residential 369
Commercial 16
Occupancy
Owner-occupied 270
Absentee owners 115
In addition, staff conducted permit research dating back to 1998, when the Mills Act program was established in the City in an effort to determine the number of Mills Act Properties with permitted ADUs.

The table below provides statistics on Mills Act properties and ADUs in the Old Towne Historic District and historic properties outside the boundary of the Historic District.

ADU/Non-Historic Dwelling Unit Analysis
Properties with a Mills Act Contract and an
ADU
21 Mills Act eligible properties with an ADU 123
A more in-depth description of the tax valuation of historic properties with new construction is detailed later in this report.

Property Tax Assessment of a Historic Property under the Mills Act:

Three property values are determined under the Mills Act:
· Base Year Value, or the purchase price under Proposition 13 with an annual 2% rate of increase.
· Fair Market Value, or the potential sale value of the property at the time of the assessment. · Historical Property Value
Per state law, the reassessment of the historic property under a Mills Act Contract is based on the income-producing potential. For owner-occupied property, income is based on potential rental value.

For commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties, income is based on actual rent rolls. The property’s income less expenses is then divided by a capitalization rate to establish the Historical City of Orange Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™810
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
property’s income less expenses is then divided by a capitalization rate to establish the Historical Property Value. The Assessor will base property taxes on the lowest of these three values. This generally results in a significant property tax reduction unless the property already benefits from low property taxes under Proposition 13. However, there is no guarantee that the Mills Act Contract will reduce the property taxes owed.

It is possible that only a portion of a property may be subject to the Mills Act. Historical properties may contain portions that are both restricted and unrestricted. In such instances, a separate factored base year value should be maintained for the restricted and unrestricted portions.

This would be the case for the eligibility of 529 S. Grand Street, should it receive a Mills Act Contract. 529 S. Grand Street is eligible for a Mills Act as it is a contributor in Old Towne Orange. However, the new construction which was approved by the Design Review Committee on October 5, 2022, would not be benefit from the lower tax valuation, as it will not be included in either the Contract’s rehabilitation plan as it is a new building, and not the historic structure. It will have a separate factored base year value for the historical and non-historical parts of the property. An illustrative graphic that identifies the Mills Act eligible and ineligible structures per the approved project plans at 529 S. Grand Street is attached to this report.

Also, the Mills Act Contract’s maintenance/rehabilitation plan specifies the scope of work to be performed. Unless specifically excluded by the contract, improvements existing as of the date of the contract are subject to the lower property tax value. If the improvements are made after the contract issuance date, they are not subject to the lower property tax value, unless specifically included in the contract or with an amendment.

Newly constructed buildings, including accessory structures, accessory dwelling units, and more, are not a historic resource, and therefore are not qualified historical properties per the Government Code section 50280.1 for the Mills Act. According to the National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the only newly constructed type of property that is eligible for inclusion under the Mills Act is a reconstructed historic building if the reconstruction is “accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived. All three of these requirements must be met." New construction will typically not be a basis for denial.

The new construction at 529 S. Grand Street that was recently approved at DRC will not benefit from the lower tax valuation. 154 N. Shaffer Street and 515 S. Grand Street do not have new construction that would benefit from the Mills Act Contract. In the future, should the property owner decide to apply for an ADU or any new construction, the new construction will not be included in the Mills Act scope of work or the Historic Property Value.

A summary of each application is provided in Attachment 1 to the Staff Report.

7. ATTACHMENTS

1. Table Summary of 3 Mills Act Applications

2. Mills Act Contract MAC-413.0-22 with photograph
City of Orange Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™811
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640

3. Mills Act Contract MAC-414.0-22 with photograph

4. Mills Act Contract MAC-418.0-22 with photograph

5. 529 S Grand Street Illustrative Graphic
City of Orange Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™812
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Historic Property Preservation Agreements (Mills Act Contracts) for three qualified historic properties.

2. SUMMARY
Mills Act Contracts for three properties in the Old Towne Historic District. These contracts were removed for discussion at the October 11, 2022, City Council meeting, with Council requesting additional property and Mills Act Program information.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council determination regarding the three Mills Act Contracts between the City of Orange and the identified property owners for the preservation and rehabilitation of qualified historic properties and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contracts on behalf of the City.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The purpose of the Mills Act Program is to leverage property tax savings to support private investment in the preservation of historic properties.

If the three Mills Act applications presented to Council in November 2022 are approved, the City may incur a total reduction of property tax of approximately $2,279 per year. The actual amount of the property tax reduction under the Mills Act Contract will be determined by the Orange County Office of the Assessor, using a predetermined income-based approach to assessment, considering area rental rates and maintenance costs.

The Mills Act Program requires reinvestment of this property tax reduction in preservation of the historic property through the Rehabilitation Plan (Exhibit D) attached to each contract. The Rehabilitation Plan will generate additional revenues from building permit fees, and the local economy will benefit from specialized work in historic preservation by local building contractors and material suppliers. The investment by property owners in these 3 historic properties totals $276,800 over ten years.

The $1,000 application fee for each contract offsets the cost of staff review, property inspection, and this public meeting. The $35 annual fee offsets ongoing costs of administration of the contracts.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 5: Recognize, promote and preserve Orange’s rich heritage b. Expand and strengthen processes and practices related to the protection of cultural resources.

City of Orange Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™813
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The three Mills Act applications were previously presented to City Council on October 11, 2022 as a part of a group of six contracts presented to the Council. These properties include:
· 515 S. Grand Street
· 529 S. Grand Street
· 154 N. Shaffer Street
The Grand Street properties are the subject of development applications for the construction of large duplex units, while the Shaffer Street property generated a question about a potential un-permitted accessory dwelling unit (ADU). City Council continued the subject contracts requesting more information about the Mills Act Program, and the ownership status and type of living units associated with each of the three properties. Specifically, the Council was interested in how the construction of additional units on a historic property might affect Mills Act eligibility and how many of the City’s Mills Act Contracts involve investment properties.

Staff has determined that the accessory structure at 154 N. Shaffer Street is not being used as an ADU. It appears that the accessory structure is primarily being used as storage. In addition, the proposed project for a unit in the rear of 515 S. Grand Street was denied by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 19, 2022. The project at 529 S. Grand Street was approved by the DRC on October 5, 2022. All three properties meet the City of Orange’s eligibility criteria for a Mills Act.

Mills Act Criteria:

The Mills Act allows for an owner of a qualified historical property to enter into a 10-year preservation contract with the local government. Per Government Code 50280.1, a “qualified historical property” is defined as “privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation, and which meets either of the following:
· Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. · Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.”
In the City of Orange, properties eligible for a Mills Act include:
· Contributors to the Old Towne Orange National Register Historic District · Contributors to the Old Towne Orange Local Historic District · Properties separately listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources
· Both owner-occupied and income-producing properties are eligible for a contract.

Properties ineligible for a Mills Act include:
· Properties with outstanding code violations are not eligible to apply until the code violation is corrected.
· Properties with delinquent property taxes
· Properties in redevelopment project areas are prohibited, except by special City Council City of Orange Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™814
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
resolution in cases where it is the only option or financial incentive to avoid demolition of the structure.

Mills Act Property Statistics:

As of November 2022, there are 385 Mills Act Contracts recorded and three pending contracts which were approved on October 11, 2022. The tables below provide statistical information about the property and occupancy type of the Mills Act Contracts in the City of Orange. “Absentee owners” for the purposes of this report is defined as contracts where the property address and the mailing address are not the same. “Absentee owners” is also inclusive of commercial properties and P.O. boxes listed as mailing addresses.

Property Type
Residential 369
Commercial 16
Occupancy
Owner-occupied 270
Absentee owners 115
In addition, staff conducted permit research dating back to 1998, when the Mills Act program was established in the City in an effort to determine the number of Mills Act Properties with permitted ADUs.

The table below provides statistics on Mills Act properties and ADUs in the Old Towne Historic District and historic properties outside the boundary of the Historic District.

ADU/Non-Historic Dwelling Unit Analysis
Properties with a Mills Act Contract and an
ADU
21 Mills Act eligible properties with an ADU 123
A more in-depth description of the tax valuation of historic properties with new construction is detailed later in this report.

Property Tax Assessment of a Historic Property under the Mills Act:

Three property values are determined under the Mills Act:
· Base Year Value, or the purchase price under Proposition 13 with an annual 2% rate of increase.
· Fair Market Value, or the potential sale value of the property at the time of the assessment. · Historical Property Value
Per state law, the reassessment of the historic property under a Mills Act Contract is based on the income-producing potential. For owner-occupied property, income is based on potential rental value.

For commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties, income is based on actual rent rolls. The property’s income less expenses is then divided by a capitalization rate to establish the Historical City of Orange Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™815
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640
property’s income less expenses is then divided by a capitalization rate to establish the Historical Property Value. The Assessor will base property taxes on the lowest of these three values. This generally results in a significant property tax reduction unless the property already benefits from low property taxes under Proposition 13. However, there is no guarantee that the Mills Act Contract will reduce the property taxes owed.

It is possible that only a portion of a property may be subject to the Mills Act. Historical properties may contain portions that are both restricted and unrestricted. In such instances, a separate factored base year value should be maintained for the restricted and unrestricted portions.

This would be the case for the eligibility of 529 S. Grand Street, should it receive a Mills Act Contract. 529 S. Grand Street is eligible for a Mills Act as it is a contributor in Old Towne Orange. However, the new construction which was approved by the Design Review Committee on October 5, 2022, would not be benefit from the lower tax valuation, as it will not be included in either the Contract’s rehabilitation plan as it is a new building, and not the historic structure. It will have a separate factored base year value for the historical and non-historical parts of the property. An illustrative graphic that identifies the Mills Act eligible and ineligible structures per the approved project plans at 529 S. Grand Street is attached to this report.

Also, the Mills Act Contract’s maintenance/rehabilitation plan specifies the scope of work to be performed. Unless specifically excluded by the contract, improvements existing as of the date of the contract are subject to the lower property tax value. If the improvements are made after the contract issuance date, they are not subject to the lower property tax value, unless specifically included in the contract or with an amendment.

Newly constructed buildings, including accessory structures, accessory dwelling units, and more, are not a historic resource, and therefore are not qualified historical properties per the Government Code section 50280.1 for the Mills Act. According to the National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the only newly constructed type of property that is eligible for inclusion under the Mills Act is a reconstructed historic building if the reconstruction is “accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived. All three of these requirements must be met." New construction will typically not be a basis for denial.

The new construction at 529 S. Grand Street that was recently approved at DRC will not benefit from the lower tax valuation. 154 N. Shaffer Street and 515 S. Grand Street do not have new construction that would benefit from the Mills Act Contract. In the future, should the property owner decide to apply for an ADU or any new construction, the new construction will not be included in the Mills Act scope of work or the Historic Property Value.

A summary of each application is provided in Attachment 1 to the Staff Report.

7. ATTACHMENTS

1. Table Summary of 3 Mills Act Applications

2. Mills Act Contract MAC-413.0-22 with photograph
City of Orange Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™816
Item #: 6.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0640

3. Mills Act Contract MAC-414.0-22 with photograph

4. Mills Act Contract MAC-418.0-22 with photograph

5. 529 S Grand Street Illustrative Graphic
City of Orange Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™817
1 Summary of Mills Act Applications
November 2022
Contract No. Property Address Historic
District Property Owners
Estimate for
Rehabilitation
Plan
Property Tax
Savings over
10 Years
Annual Property
Tax Reduction
to City
MAC-413.0-22 154 N. Shaffer Street Old Towne Robert and Susan Midstokke $56,300 $43,819 $595
MAC-414.0-22 515 S. Grand Street Old Towne JKS Company I, LLC $100,500 $74,728 $1,015 MAC-418.0-22 529 S. Grand Street Old Towne JKS Company II, LLC $120,000 $49,274 $669
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
Historic Property Qualified for Mills Act
Non-Historic Construction not included in the Mills
Act Contract
Historic Accessory
Structure Qualified for
Mills Act
879
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

1. SUBJECT
Request to implement permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street. Resolution No. 11422.

2. SUMMARY
A request for permit parking on the subject streets was made by an eligible resident. The request meets the City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program implementation criteria. The permit parking area has been approved by the City Traffic Commission and is being forwarded to the City Council for approval.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Approve permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue.

2. Approve permit parking on both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue.

3. Approve permit parking on both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 11422. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange rescinding Resolution No. 11385 and adopting a revised master resolution of permit parking areas within the City of Orange.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total expenditure for the project is $1,000 and will be funded in Minor Traffic Control Devices (16302) through Traffic Improvement Measure M2 (263).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community
b: Provide and maintain infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of the public.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
a: Obtain, implement, and evaluate public input into our services and programs.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program (NPPP) provides a mechanism for protecting residential streets from commercial, industrial, and other non-residential parking overflow.

Established in 1987, the program has been updated several times since its inception to align with the City’s evolving goals. Most recently, the City Council approved updates to the NPPP in August 2022 City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™880
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
City’s evolving goals. Most recently, the City Council approved updates to the NPPP in August 2022 to establish city-defined permit parking zones (Opportunity Areas) in residential neighborhoods with a high potential for parking intrusion.

Among these newly defined areas is Permit Parking Opportunity Area 1, which is generally bounded by Sycamore Avenue to the north, Main Street to the east, the 22 Freeway to the south, and the 57 Freeway to the west. It is comprised of a very diverse land use mix, including high and medium density multi-family housing and commercial retail along Chapman Avenue and Main Street. It is also adjacent to El Camino Park.

Staff received a request from a resident within Permit Parking Opportunity Area 1 for the street segments outlined below. This request is the first Permit Parking request to be processed utilizing the new criteria for Permit Parking Opportunity Areas as outlined in the August 2022 revisions to the NPPP.

1. Lilac Lane, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue

2. Plum Lane, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue

3. Orchard Avenue, from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street

4. Flower Street, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue
Staff mapped and counted the number of legal parking spaces for each of the four streets in the study area. Because the demand for on-street parking was highest in the evenings, staff conducted the parking observations during those hours.

Parking Occupancy
For parking permits to be considered, at least 75% of the available on-street parking in the study area must be occupied during the perceived problem times. The result of the parking observation study indicated that approximately 83.3% of the available on-street parking was being used on a recurring basis. Thus, the occupancy requirement was satisfied.

Residential Support
Permit parking requests made within Opportunity Areas require at least 55% of the affected residents to be in support of the proposal. Staff made two attempts to notify the property owners of the active permit parking petition process and encouraged the return of a completed petition to the City. Petition forms returned to the City indicate that 80% of the affected property owners support permit parking on Lilac Lane, Plum Lane, and Orchard Avenue. While the parking occupancy for Flower Street also exceeded the minimum 75% threshold, it only received 40% of the property owners in favor and therefore was excluded from the recommendation.

Summary
Based on the information above, staff recommends approving permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

Residents within potential impact areas were notified of this item on the City Council Agenda.

If approved for implementation, the Orange Police Department will issue the permits for eligible households. While participation in the permit program is voluntary, any vehicle parked on the street City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™881
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
households. While participation in the permit program is voluntary, any vehicle parked on the street without a permit would be subject to citation.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11422
· Area Map
· October 12, 2022 City Traffic Commission Staff Report · October 12, 2022 City Traffic Commission Draft Minutes · Notification Letters
· City of Orange NPPP Policy
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™882
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher Cash, Public Works Director

1. SUBJECT
Request to implement permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street. Resolution No. 11422.

2. SUMMARY
A request for permit parking on the subject streets was made by an eligible resident. The request meets the City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program implementation criteria. The permit parking area has been approved by the City Traffic Commission and is being forwarded to the City Council for approval.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Approve permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue.

2. Approve permit parking on both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue.

3. Approve permit parking on both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 11422. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange rescinding Resolution No. 11385 and adopting a revised master resolution of permit parking areas within the City of Orange.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total expenditure for the project is $1,000 and will be funded in Minor Traffic Control Devices (16302) through Traffic Improvement Measure M2 (263).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community
b: Provide and maintain infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of the public.

Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service
a: Obtain, implement, and evaluate public input into our services and programs.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program (NPPP) provides a mechanism for protecting residential streets from commercial, industrial, and other non-residential parking overflow.

Established in 1987, the program has been updated several times since its inception to align with the City’s evolving goals. Most recently, the City Council approved updates to the NPPP in August 2022 City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™883
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
City’s evolving goals. Most recently, the City Council approved updates to the NPPP in August 2022 to establish city-defined permit parking zones (Opportunity Areas) in residential neighborhoods with a high potential for parking intrusion.

Among these newly defined areas is Permit Parking Opportunity Area 1, which is generally bounded by Sycamore Avenue to the north, Main Street to the east, the 22 Freeway to the south, and the 57 Freeway to the west. It is comprised of a very diverse land use mix, including high and medium density multi-family housing and commercial retail along Chapman Avenue and Main Street. It is also adjacent to El Camino Park.

Staff received a request from a resident within Permit Parking Opportunity Area 1 for the street segments outlined below. This request is the first Permit Parking request to be processed utilizing the new criteria for Permit Parking Opportunity Areas as outlined in the August 2022 revisions to the NPPP.

1. Lilac Lane, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue

2. Plum Lane, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue

3. Orchard Avenue, from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street

4. Flower Street, from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue
Staff mapped and counted the number of legal parking spaces for each of the four streets in the study area. Because the demand for on-street parking was highest in the evenings, staff conducted the parking observations during those hours.

Parking Occupancy
For parking permits to be considered, at least 75% of the available on-street parking in the study area must be occupied during the perceived problem times. The result of the parking observation study indicated that approximately 83.3% of the available on-street parking was being used on a recurring basis. Thus, the occupancy requirement was satisfied.

Residential Support
Permit parking requests made within Opportunity Areas require at least 55% of the affected residents to be in support of the proposal. Staff made two attempts to notify the property owners of the active permit parking petition process and encouraged the return of a completed petition to the City. Petition forms returned to the City indicate that 80% of the affected property owners support permit parking on Lilac Lane, Plum Lane, and Orchard Avenue. While the parking occupancy for Flower Street also exceeded the minimum 75% threshold, it only received 40% of the property owners in favor and therefore was excluded from the recommendation.

Summary
Based on the information above, staff recommends approving permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue, and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

Residents within potential impact areas were notified of this item on the City Council Agenda.

If approved for implementation, the Orange Police Department will issue the permits for eligible households. While participation in the permit program is voluntary, any vehicle parked on the street City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™884
Item #: 6.3. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0643
households. While participation in the permit program is voluntary, any vehicle parked on the street without a permit would be subject to citation.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution No. 11422
· Area Map
· October 12, 2022 City Traffic Commission Staff Report · October 12, 2022 City Traffic Commission Draft Minutes · Notification Letters
· City of Orange NPPP Policy
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™885
RESOLUTION NO. 11422

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF ORANGE RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 11385 AND ADOPTING A

REVISED MASTER RESOLUTION OF PERMIT

PARKING AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF
ORANGE.

WHEREAS, Chapter 10.30 of the Orange Municipal Code authorizes the City Council of the City of Orange to add or remove designated areas to the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the rescission of Resolution No. 11385 is necessary to add Parking Permit Opportunity Area “1” to the Master Resolution of Permit Parking Areas within the City of Orange; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a master resolution which contains all the permit parking areas will compile all areas into a single document and eliminate the need to revise the Orange Municipal Code every time an area is added or deleted from the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange as follows:

SECTION I:

That Resolution No. 11385, adopted June 14, 2022, is hereby rescinded effective immediately.

SECTION II:

That the following streets be included to new permit parking program Opportunity Area “1”:

Both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue Both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue Both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street SECTION III:

That the Master Resolution of Permit Parking Areas for the Neighborhood Permit Parking program attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is hereby adopted. 886
2 ADOPTED this day of , 2022.

Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the ___ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
887

EXHIBIT A
The following areas are all areas that have been approved by the City Council for inclusion in the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program and are subject to Chapter 10.30 of the Orange Municipal Code. Any additions or deletions to the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program shall be made by amending this Master Resolution.

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING AREA “A”

1. West side of Cambridge St. from Chapman Ave. to Lomita Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

2. Both sides of Center St. from Chapman Ave. to Palm Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

3. East side of Center St. from Palm Ave. to Walnut Ave.

4. Both sides of Cleveland St. from Chapman Ave. to Sycamore Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

5. East side of Cypress St. from Palm Ave. to 637 feet north of Walnut Ave.

6. Both sides of Cypress St. from Walnut Ave. to Sycamore Ave.

7. Both sides of Everett Pl. from Shaffer St. to Glassell St.

8. Both sides of Glassell St. from Walnut Ave. to Rose Ave.

9. Both sides of Glassell St. from Lomita Ave. to Walnut Ave.

10. East side of Grand St. from Chapman Ave. to Maple Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

11. Both sides of Grand St. from Maple Ave. to Palm Ave.

12. Both sides of Grand St. from Everett Pl. to Walnut Ave.

13. Both sides of Grand St. from Everett Pl. to Lomita Ave.

14. Both sides of Harwood St. from 146 feet north of Chapman Ave. to the northern terminus of Harwood St.

15. Both sides of Jefferson Ave. from Harwood St. to Shaffer St.

16. East side of Lemon St. from Chapman Ave. to Palm Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

17. Both sides of Lemon St. from Palm Ave. to Walnut Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

18. West side of Lemon St. from Walnut Ave. to 644 feet north of Walnut Ave.

19. Both sides of Lomita Ave. from Cambridge St. to Lemon St. adjacent to residential land uses.

20. Both sides of Maple Ave. from Cambridge to Cypress St. adjacent to residential land uses.

21. Both sides of Mayfair Ave. from Shaffer St. to Lemon St.

22. Both sides of Olive St. from Chapman Ave. to the northern terminus of Olive St. adjacent to residential land uses.

23. Both sides of Olive St. from Sycamore Ave. to Rose Ave.

24. Both sides of Orange St. from Maple Ave. and Palm Ave.

25. Both sides of Orange St. from Walnut Ave. to the northern terminus of Orange St.

26. Both sides of Orange St. from Lomita Ave. to the southern terminus of Orange St.

27. Both sides of Palm Ave. from Cambridge St. to Lemon St. adjacent to residential land uses.

28. Both sides of Rose Ave. from Glassell St. to Orange St.

29. Both sides of Shaffer St. from Chapman Ave. to Lomita Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

30. Both sides of Sycamore Ave. from Cambridge St. to Center St. adjacent to residential land uses.

31. North side of Sycamore Ave. at 145 W. Sycamore Ave. adjacent to residential land uses.

32. Both sides of Walnut Ave. from Cambridge St. to Cypress St. adjacent to residential land uses. 888

33. Both sides of N. Shaffer St. between Chapman Ave. and Walnut Ave.

34. Both sides of E. Maple Ave. between Shaffer St. and Cleveland Ave.

35. Both sides of E. Mayfair Ave. between Shaffer St. and Grand St.

AREA “B”

1. Both sides of Adams Ave. from Glassell St. to Grand St.

2. Both sides of Hoover Ave. from Glassell St. to Grand St.

3. Both sides of Quincy Ave. from Glassell St. to Grand St.

4. Both sides of Wilson Ave. from Glassell St. to Grand St.

AREA “C”

1. Both sides of Compton Ave. from Manchester Ave. to Lewis St.

2. East side of Lewis St. from the northerly property line at 4035 Compton Ave. to the southern property line of 119 N. Lewis St.

3. West side of Manchester Ave. from Sheringham Ave. to Compton Ave.

4. North side of Sheringham Ave. from Manchester Ave. to Windgap Dr.

5. South sides of Sheringham Ave. from Woodridge Cr. to Windgap Dr.

6. Both sides of Sunningdale Cr. from Compton Ave. south to include the cul-de-sac.

7. Both sides of Windgap Dr. from Compton Ave. south to include the cul-de-sac.

8. West side of Woodridge Cr. from Sheringham Ave. south to include the cul-de-sac.

9. East side of Woodridge Cr. from the northerly property line of 119 N. Woodridge Cr. south to include the cul-de-sac.

AREA “D”

1. Both sides of Dunas St. from Maple Ave. north to include the cul-de-sac.

2. Both sides of Maple Ave. from Prospect St. to Olympia Way.

3. Both sides of Olympia Way from Maple Ave. to Spring St.

4. Both sides of Shasta St. from Maple Ave. north to include the cul-de-sac.

5. Both sides of Vine Ave. from Olympia Way to its western terminus.

6. Both sides of First St. from Chapman Ave. north to include the cul-de-sac.

7. Both sides of Pearl Ave. from First St. to McPherson Rd.

8. East side of McPherson Rd. from 131 to 133 N. McPherson Rd.

AREA “E”

1. West side of Elm St. south of Sycamore Ave. to include the cul-de-sac.

AREA “F”
Permit Parking between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

1. Both sides of Almond Ave. from Prospect St. to Violet Ln.

2. Both sides of Kathleen St. from Chapman Ave. to Palmyra Ave.

3. Both sides of Palmyra Ave. from Craig Dr. to Prospect St.

4. East side of Prospect St. from Almond Ave. to Palmyra Ave.

5. Both sides of Violet Ln. from Almond Ave. to Palmyra Ave. 889
AREA “G”
Permit Parking between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

1. Both sides of Euclid Ave. from James St. to Seranado St.

2. Both sides of James St. from Sycamore Ave. to Euclid Ave.

3. Both sides of Palm Ave. from Swidler St. to Seranado St.

4. Both sides of Sycamore Ave. from Swidler St. to Seranado St.

5. Both sides of Seranado St. from Spring St. to Walnut Ave.

6. Both sides of Silverleaf Ave. from Thomas St. to Seranado St.

7. Both sides of Spring St. from Swidler St. to Seranado St.

8. Both sides of Swidler St. from Spring St. to Walnut Ave.

9. Both sides of Thomas St. from Sycamore Ave. to Silverleaf Ave.

10. Both sides of Walnut Ave. from Swidler St. to Seranado St.

AREA “H”

1. Both sides of Shaffer St. beginning 390 feet north of Katella Ave. and ending at Trenton Ave. (R-1 zoned single-family residences only.)
AREA “I”

1. Both sides of Almond Ave. from Prospect St. to Dunas St.

2. Both sides of Century Ave. from James St. to Thomas St.

3. Both sides of Craig Dr. 100 feet south of Roberta Dr. to Prospect St.

4. Both sides of Dunas St. from Palmyra Ave. to Almond Ave.

5. Both sides of James St. from Century Dr. to LaVeta Ave.

6. North side of LaVeta Ave. from Prospect St. to Dunas St.

7. Both sides of Merelet Ln. from Craig Dr. to include the cul-de-sac.

8. Both sides of Olympia Way from Palmyra Ave. to Almond Ave.

9. North side of Palmyra Ave. from Prospect St. to Thomas St.

10. Both sides of Ruth Pl. easterly of James St.

11. Both sides of Ruth Pl. from Prospect St. to Olympia Way.

12. Both sides of Shasta St. from Palmyra Ave. to Almond Ave.

13. Both sides of Thomas St. from Century Dr. to Palmyra Ave.

AREA “J”

1. Both sides of Binnacle Ave. from Jetty Dr. to its easterly terminus.

2. North side of Chapman Ave. from Jetty Dr. to 4537 W. Chapman Ave.

3. North side of Chapman Ave. frontage road from Jetty Dr. to cul-de-sac.

4. Both sides of Grant Pl. from Chapman Ave. northerly to include the cul-de-sac.

5. Both sides of Jetty Dr. from Chapman Ave. to Sirius Ave.

6. West side of Lewis St. from Sirius Ave. to Simmons Ave.

7. South side of Simmons Ave. from Lewis St. to Spinnaker St.

8. Both sides of Sirius Ave. from Lewis St. to Jetty Dr.

9. Both sides of Spinnaker St. from Binnacle Ave. to Simmons Ave.

10. Both sides of Stay Court easterly of Jetty Dr.

11. Both sides of Tiller Ave. from Lewis St. to Spinnaker St. 890
AREA “K”

1. Both sides of the 2700 block of E. Bennett Ave.

2. Both sides of the 2700 block of E. Killingsworth Ave.

3. Both sides of the 100-200 blocks of N. Malena Dr.

4. Both sides of the 2700 block of E. Sherman Ave.

5. Both sides of the 100-200 blocks of N. Wheeler St.

AREA “L”

1. Both sides of Jacaranda Ave. from Morgan St. to Mallard St.

2. Both sides of Juniper Ave. from Morgan St. to Mallard St.

3. Both sides of Mallard St. from Collins Ave. northerly to 985 N. Mallard St.

4. Both sides of Morgan St. from Collins Ave. northerly to 986 N. Morgan St.

AREA “M”

1. Both sides of Citrus St. from Almond Ave. to the southerly commercial property lines south of Chapman Ave.

AREA “N”

1. West side of Bedford Rd. from LaVeta Ave. to Bronson Ave.

AREA “O”

1. North side of Spring St. from Hewes St. to Earlham St.

AREA “P”

1. Both sides of the 1000 block of Gardner Dr.

2. Both sides of the 1000 block of Greengrove St.

3. Both sides of Monroe Ave. from California St. to Lincoln St.

4. Both sides of Quincy Ave. from California St. to Lincoln St.

5. Both sides of Lincoln St. between Adams Ave. and Wilson Ave. including the cul-de-sac.

6. West side of Lincoln St. from 990 N. Lincoln St. to Adams Ave.

7. East side of Lincoln St. from 1073 N. Lincoln St. to Adams Ave.

8. Both sides of Adams Ave. between Lincoln St. and California St.

AREA “Q”

1. Both sides of the 8500 block of Biscayne Way.

2. Both sides of the 8500 block of Deershire Ct.

3. Both sides of the 200 block of Fairfield Ln.

4. Both sides of the 200 block of Firenza Way.

5. Both sides of the 8500 block of Heatherview Ln.

AREA “R”

1. Both sides of San Luis Dr. from 7821 (north side) to Santa Cruz Ave., and from 7816 (south side) to the beginning of 8132.
891

2. 8102 and 8110 Santa Cruz Ave. (south side).

3. Both sides of Santa Maria St. between San Luis Dr. and Santa Cruz Ave.

AREA “S”

1. Both sides of Poplar St. between Maple Ave. and the cul-de-sac.

2. North side of Maple Ave. between Stevens St. and 1949 W. Maple Ave.

3. South side of Maple Ave. from Stevens St. to 2010 W. Maple Ave.

4. Both sides of Eckhoff St. between 130-283 N. Eckhoff St.

AREA “T”

1. Both sides of Cully Dr. from the westerly property lines of 861 and 864 W. Cully Dr. to the cul-de-sac.

2. Four spaces on the east side of Eckhoff St. from the southerly limit to W. Arbor Way (approximately 110 feet).

3. Five spaces on the east side of Eckhoff St. from 45 feet north of W. Arbor Way end of curb return to Maple Ave. (approximately 140 feet. It allows one parking space to remain in the permit parking program just north of the driveway at 2037 W. Arbor Way for visibility).

4. Three spaces on the east side of Eckhoff St. north of Willow Ave. to the northerly limit (approximately 70 feet).

5. Two spaces on the east side of Eckhoff St. from the existing red curb north of Maple Ave. to the driveway south of 206 N. Eckhoff St.

AREA “U”

1. Both sides of Waverly St. from the northerly property lines of 133 and 138 S. Waverly St. to Almond Ave.

AREA “V”

1. The south side of E. Rose Ave. from 1932/1934 to N. Highland St.

2. Both sides of N. Highland St. from E. Rose Ave. to E. Barkley Ave.

3. Both sides of E. Mayfair Ave. from 1740 E. Mayfair Ave. to N. Highland St.

4. The south side of E. Lomita Ave. from 1734/1736 to N. Highland St.

5. The north side of E. Lomita Ave. from 1901 to N. Highland St.

6. Both sides of E. Barkley Ave. from the cul-de-sac to N. Highland St.

7. Both sides of the cul-de-sacs of N. Victoria Dr., N. Russell Dr., and N. Shirley Dr., north of E.

Mayfair Ave.

AREA “W”

1. Both sides of Madison Ave. from Wayfield St. to the cul-de-sac.

2. Both sides of Orange Grove Ave. from Wayfield St. to the westerly property lines of 1743/1744 E. Orange Grove Ave.

3. East side Wayfield St. between Orange Grove Ave. and the southerly property lines of 550/555 Wayfield St.

4. West side of Wayfield St. between Orange Grove Ave. and Madison Ave. 892
AREA “X”

1. South side of Collins Ave. from Hart St. to 2842 E. Collins Ave.

AREA “Y”

1. Both sides N. Citrus St. from Walnut Ave. to W. Sycamore Ave.

OPPORTUNITY AREA “1”

1. Both sides of Lilac Ln. from Culver Ave. to Orchard Ave.

2. Both sides of Plum Ln. from Culver Ave. to Orchard Ave.

3. Both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower St. to the easterly terminus of the street. 893

CULVER AVE
FLO
W
E
R
S
T
PLU
M LN

FLOWER ST
FLO
W
E
R
CIR

ORCHARD AVE
LILA
C LN

FLOWER ST

PALMYRA AVE

LA VETA AVE
2 4
5 1
4 9
7 5
2 4
8 6
6 9
2005
9 6
5 46
9 7
5 3
1 1910
8 4
2 6 5
5 3
1 9
33 31
36 38
40 26
24 27
30 21
27 25
24 32
34 35
83 12
81 79
74 76
72 70
65 47
49 18
35 37
38 40
34 3
32 7
51 63
61 59
57 56
54 66
77 69
40 1214
30 17
24 22
1 2
1 5
27 17 11
19 16
151329
31 13
84 82
81 79
77 75
73 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
20 18
16 1412
12 445
435
415
405
445
435
425
415
405
434
414
424
444
404
425
445
435
415
405
434
414
424
444
404
400
10 14
12 41
43 29
15 13
12 64
61 55
57 128
130
132
134 141
139
137
135
126
124
18 4
6 1-8
18 4
4 1-6
157
159
161
156
154
152
177
179
181
176
173
38 37
46 84
48 50
52 54
70 72
74 33
31 19
41 20
43 15
22 20
60 69
65 67
82 79
80 77
75 93
45 23
21 19
18 16
28 26
24 23
21 528
532
524
522
520
538
536
534
295
425
18 4
7 533
1915
2100
2000
19 4
4 2
0 0
5 2
015
2 0
2 7
2 0
2 5
19 21 1-3
6 2
0 0
3 19
3 4
18 4
8 1910
1916
19 2
8 19
3 2
18 4
6 19
0 8
1914
19 2
6 220
1-
0 33
2101
2 0
41 2111
2131
2141
2121
2151
18 4
5 2
0 31
19 3
5 19
2 0
3 01-3
2 9
2 0
0 4
2 014
2 0
2 4
2 0
3 4
2 0
4 4
2114
210
4 212
4 213
4 214
4 323
333
1 3
2 3
8 6
1 3
7 8
7 8
7 8
6 4
2 3
1 7
9 4
2 32
30 37
39 34 35
25 23
10 29
28 22
26 23
33 36
11 80
78 73
75 71
64 48
17 36
39 33
36 35
31 34
50 52 62
60 55
53 82
68 67
39 58
47 49
51 53
71 73
42 32 21
44 16
21 19
68 66
83 81
78 76
94 22
20 17
27 25
24 22
13 15
29 10
18 16
23 26
28 18 10
20 28
14 30
45 14
8 80 3
78 76
74 71
69 67
65 63
61 19
17 15
13 11 10
11 13
42 44
14 11
10 6
6 2
3 56
58 59
129
131
133 140
138
136
127
125
123
158
160
162
155
153
178
180
147
175
526
530
19 3
8 1907
19 41 2
01-2
4 2
19 01 101-14
2 A B C D
E
A B C
D E
F
18 4
4 AREA MAP
STUDY
AREA
894
Agenda Item
City Traffic Commission
Item #: 4.2. 10/12/2022 File #: 22-0556
TO: Chair and Members of the City Traffic Commission
THRU: Larry Tay, City Traffic Engineer
FROM: Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst

1. SUBJECT
Request to implement permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

2. SUMMARY
A request for permit parking on the subject streets was made by an eligible resident. The request meets the city’s long-standing Neighborhood Permit Parking Program (NPPP) implementation criteria. However, while this request was being processed, the City Council approved changes to the NPPP that could potentially affect how permit parking, if approved, would be implemented in this neighborhood.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Approve permit parking both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; Both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

2. Forward to the City Council for final approval.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total expenditure for the project is $1,000 and will be funded in Minor Traffic Control Devices (16302) through Traffic Improvement Measure M2 (263).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a safe community
b. Provide and maintain infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of the public.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Background
A resident of Lilac Lane submitted a request to initiate the process for neighborhood permit parking on the above noted streets on November 8, 2021. (Note: Flower Street between Orchard and Culver avenues was included in said request but not a part of the recommendation for reasons described in this report.) Upon receipt of the application fee, Traffic Division staff initiated the parking occupancy study to determine which streets would be eligible under the City’s Neighborhood Permit City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 10/7/2022
powered by Legistar™895
Item #: 4.2. 10/12/2022 File #: 22-0556
occupancy study to determine which streets would be eligible under the City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program (NPPP) guidelines.

Existing Conditions
Staff mapped and counted the number of legal parking spaces for each of the four streets in the study area. Because the demand for on-street parking was highest in the evenings, staff conducted the parking observations during those hours. Beginning at 5:30 P.M., and progressively later each night, staff made seven observations in the subject neighborhood. Per the City’s adopted NPPP, a street parking occupancy rate of 75% in required to qualify for permit parking. The level of parking occupancy observed by staff for all the streets in the study area is 83.3%.

Because parking occupancy exceeded the minimum 75% threshold, a petition was circulated to determine the level of neighborhood support. A petition letter and a list of permit parking advantages and disadvantages were provided by the Traffic Division to each of the resident property owners and absentee property owners in the study area. Traffic Division staff mailed petition letters to the unsigned property owners on two separate occasions to give everyone the opportunity vote in favor or opposed to parking permits. The table below shows the street-by-street results of the neighborhood polling as of August 18, 2022.

Affected Streets Households In Favor Households OpposedUnreturned Lilac Lane 8 80% 1 10% 1 20%
Plum Lane 8 80% 1 10% 1 20%
Orchard Ave. 8 80% 1 10% 1 20%
East side Flower St. 2 40% 0 0% 3 60%
For non-returned petitions, Traffic Division staff made two attempts to notify the property owners of the active permit parking petition process and encourage the return of a completed petition to the City, which did yield additional participation. The final results of the petition indicate that each of Lilac Lane, Plum Lane, and Orchard Avenue have 80% of property owners in favor of the permit parking program, which exceeds the minimum 75% required under the program implementation policy. The east side of Flower Street had only 40% in favor and, therefore, is excluded from the recommendation.

Analysis
Staff has documented a consistently high demand for on-street parking in the subject area that becomes progressively greater through the evening hours. The level of parking demand exceeds the minimum requirements under the long-standing policies of the NPPP. And, with the exception of Flower Street, the neighborhood satisfies the minimum support necessary to implement permit parking.

NPPP Changes Potentially Affecting This Request
Unrelated to this request and in August 2022, the City Council updated the NPPP to include streamlined permit parking options in designated areas (permit parking opportunity areas) with a high potential for parking intrusion. Subsequent to this report’s publication, but prior to the October 12 CTC meeting, the City Council may consider including the subject streets into one of several permit parking opportunity areas being proposed. Should that occur, staff’s recommendation to support City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 10/7/2022
powered by Legistar™896
Item #: 4.2. 10/12/2022 File #: 22-0556
parking opportunity areas being proposed. Should that occur, staff’s recommendation to support permit parking would remain unchanged. However, when presented to the City Council for final approval, the three subject streets would be considered a part of the designated permit parking opportunity area, rather than a stand-alone area.

Recommendation
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Traffic Commission approve the implementation of a Neighborhood Parking Permit Program for the following street segments, and forward to the City Council for final approval:
· Both sides of Lilac Lane Avenue from Culver to Orchard avenues. · Both sides of Plum Lane from Culver to Orchard avenues. · Both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus.

The proponent and all residents and businesses within potential impact areas of this neighborhood were notified of this item on Traffic Commission Meeting agenda.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Letter of Request
· Area Map
· Parking Occupancy Study
· Notification Letter
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 10/7/2022
powered by Legistar™897
City of Orange
City Traffic Commission
October 12, 2022

MINUTES - DRAFT
The Traffic Commission of the City of Orange, California convened on October 12, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.

1. OPENING/CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Feliz called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ricci led the flag salute.

1.2 ROLL CALL

Present: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci

Absent: None

1.3 RECOGNITION OF FORMER CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION CHAIRMAN

JIM BEIL

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Speakers
Bob Birschbach raised concerns about speeding on Sycamore Street and parking enforcement.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1. Approval of meeting minutes of the Traffic Commission of the City of Orange for the May 11, 2022, Special Meeting.

ACTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Feliz, seconded by Commissioner Ricci, to approve Consent Calendar as presented. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci
Noes: None

Absent: None

4. CONSIDERATION ITEMS

4.1. Request for one-way-stop control at the intersection of Widdows Way and Palmdale Avenue.

Public Speakers
Alana Snavely raised concerns about traffic jams and safety issues on Widdows Way and Palmdale Avenue.

898
City Traffic Commission Minutes - Draft October 12, 2022 A motion was made by Commissioner Dick, seconded by Commissioner Vaughan, to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci
Noes: None

Absent: None

4.2. City Council approved updates to City’s Neighborhood Permit Parking Program A motion was made by Commissioner Ricci, seconded by Commissioner Vaughan, to approve the request, to receive and file. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci
Noes: None

Absent: None

4.3. Request to implement permit parking on both sides of Lilac Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; both sides of Plum Lane from Culver Avenue to Orchard Avenue; and both sides of Orchard Avenue from Flower Street to the easterly terminus of the street.

Public Speakers
The following spoke in support:

Diane Vallejo
Carol Moss Holmes
Jerry Oviedo
Rose Anne Paton
The following raised concerns about parking on Flower Street:

Kameron Krause
Ken Krause
A motion was made by Commissioner Vaughan, seconded by Commissioner Ricci, to approve the request, and forward to City Council for final approval. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci
Noes: None

Absent: None

5. COMMISSION BUSINESS

5.1. Selection of Traffic Commission Officers.

A motion was made by Commissioner Ricci, seconded by Commissioner Vaughan to select Adam Feliz as Chairman and AJ Ricci as Vice Chairman effective October 13, 2022, for two-year term. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Feliz, Vaughan, Dick, and Ricci
Noes: None

Absent: None

6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

The next Regular City Traffic Commission Meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.

899
City Traffic Commission Minutes - Draft October 12, 2022 _____

LARRY TAY

CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER

900
901
902

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION POLICY

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2022
1 Note: The Neighborhood Parking Permit Policy below does not apply to area “A” or other citydefined permit parking areas.  The program to mitigate the intrusion of college-oriented, commercial, institutional, multifamily residential (more than two units) or other long-term vehicular parking on streets in residential areas to assure that local residents and their guests have convenient parking on streets in proximity to their homes shall be referred to as the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program.
 Permit Parking shall only be permitted in single-family residential areas, where the problem is ongoing, and it is determined that the permit parking is the only solution. Only singlefamily residences and duplexes (two units on one lot) are qualified for this program.  The Traffic Engineering Division shall determine the boundaries of the permit area for each request.
 Since Permit Parking Areas benefit certain residents, and not the general public, a “Permit Parking Program Application Fee” $1,000 shall be paid by the proponent(s) of each new or additional permit area, for consideration of the implementation of permit parking. (This could also be implemented with a $500 deposit and an additional $500 when the petition is issued.) (Exception: If within one year of implementing a new permit parking area there is spillover onto adjacent streets(s), a property owner of the affected street(s) may request expansion of that permit parking area. This request shall be exempt from the application fee but would need to meet the need and parking study and petition requirements.)  The neighborhood parking permit areas that are adjacent to a K-12 school shall not be enforced during the school A.M. drop-off (from 7:30 am to 8:30 am) and P.M. pick-up time (from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm) on days school is in session.  Implement restricted hours for permit parking enforcement on an as-needed basis to address Recreational Intrusions and Business Intrusions. The intent of this policy change is to maximize the benefits of permit parking to the applicant neighborhood while minimizing impacts to adjacent property use to balance parking need with quality of lifestyle. o Institutional Intrusions (Universities, hospitals) shall remain 24/7/365. o Recreational Intrusions (Parks, Schools and Sports Complexes) shall be enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. or as otherwise approved.
o Business Intrusions (Commercial Businesses) shall be enforced Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or as otherwise approved.
903

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION POLICY

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2022
2  Implementation of Permit Parking Program areas will only be considered when the following are satisfied:

1. The area must abut an institutional, residential apartment, commercial or industrial use which is generating the parking intrusion.

2. A minimum of 75% of the area residents must sign the petition in favor.

3. Any identified problem must be on-going, not occasional or temporary.

4. To demonstrate a need, 75% of the available on-street space in a proposed permit area must be occupied during the perceived problem times. Staff, through consultation with the applicant, shall determine appropriate dates and times for conducting the parking occupancy study. Up to three observations may be performed, at the discretion of the Traffic Engineering Division

5. Staff must see evidence that required off street parking is being utilized.  Program shall not be approved to attempt to solve social problems that should be addressed through other means, such as Police or Code Enforcement.  Program shall not be approved if the identified parking problems can be mitigated by less restrictive parking control measures. Council directs staff to identify the least restrictive permit hours to achieve the desired results.
 If recommended for approval by the City Traffic Commission, the Commission will direct the Traffic Engineering Division to prepare a resolution for adoption by the City Council.  Number of permits per household (single family residence) shall be limited to 5 permits including guest permits. The total number of permits shall not exceed 5 per household. (Updated 6/12/18 per City Council)
 Number of permits for each unit of a duplex shall be limited to 2 permits (for registered vehicles only), plus 2 guest permits. The total of permits shall not exceed 4 permits per unit.  Permits cost $30 per household and are valid for 3 years. Permits are non-transferable and are invalid if the registered permittee moves from the household. (Updated 6/12/18 per City Council)
 Single day event guest permit (up to maximum of 20) are available 4 times per year at no cost to a resident.
904

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION POLICY

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
August 9, 2022
3  To minimize sign pollution, permit parking area shall be identified by area posting wherever possible.
 The City Council may, at its discretion, create city-defined permit parking areas in locations with high parking demand potential that residents can opt into on a block-by-block basis, similar to Area “A”. Requests in these areas shall be processed in a streamlined manner similar to Area “A” requests, with no application fee, no parking study, and minimum 55% support of the affected residents.

The City Manager/or his designee shall have the authority to suspend enforcement of neighborhood parking permit enforcement on a case-by-case basis for special requests. 905
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0670
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 3154-21, Design Review No. 5060-21, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 1074, and Zone Change No. 1305-21 for a new express car wash facility and associated vacuum canopies located at 1325 West Katella Avenue, and finding that the Zone Change was already considered in the scope of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR, and the project is exempt from CEQA.

Note: Applicant has requested to continue this item to a date uncertain.

City of Orange Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™906
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.1. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0670
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 3154-21, Design Review No. 5060-21, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 1074, and Zone Change No. 1305-21 for a new express car wash facility and associated vacuum canopies located at 1325 West Katella Avenue, and finding that the Zone Change was already considered in the scope of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR, and the project is exempt from CEQA.

Note: Applicant has requested to continue this item to a date uncertain.

City of Orange Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™907
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0647
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider Appeal No. 0558-22, District Lounge, 223 W. Chapman Avenue.

2. SUMMARY
An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22, which approved a request for the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an existing outdoor patio area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a Safe Community.
d: Assure the development of the City occurs in a fashion that maximizes public safety.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2022, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22 for the modification of an existing ABC license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an existing outdoor patio area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

Planning Commission Hearing:

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the request on September 19, 2022. The following spoke on behalf of the project: Mike Ayaz, Attorney; Mario Marovic, Applicant. The following spoke in opposition of the project: Richard (speaker requested to refrain from giving his surname).

The Planning Commission voted (3-2) to approve the request and directed staff to return with the appropriate resolution of approval.

At their October 17, 2022, meeting the Planning Commission voted (3-0) to approve Resolution No.

PC 26-22 with modifications to three of the conditions of approval.

Appeal:

On October 24, 2022, the Planning Division received an appeal application from Council member City of Orange Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™908
Item #: 8.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0647
Arianna Barrios (Attachment 1). The following reasons were given for the appeal:

1. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings required by the OMC cannot be met because:
a. The CUP is not based on sound principles of land use and does not respond to services required by the community.
b. The CUP would cause deterioration of bordering land uses and create special problems for the neighborhood.
c. The conditions of approval do not preserve the general welfare of the neighborhood.

2. The Public Convenience or Necessity findings required by the ABC cannot be met.

Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.050.F, the City Council has the authority to consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed. The Council may also make or substitute additional decisions or determinations as it finds warranted under the provisions of the OMC.

Public Notification:

On November 4, 2022, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 93 property owners/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically requesting notice.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 Appeal Application Dated October 20, 2022 · Attachment 2 Orange Police Department Memorandum dated July 28, 2022 · Attachment 3 Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 19, 2022, and October 17, 2022
· Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 19, 2022, and October 17, 2022
· Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22 City of Orange Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™909
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0647
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Adams, Interim Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing to consider Appeal No. 0558-22, District Lounge, 223 W. Chapman Avenue.

2. SUMMARY
An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22, which approved a request for the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an existing outdoor patio area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 1: Provide for a Safe Community.
d: Assure the development of the City occurs in a fashion that maximizes public safety.

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2022, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22 for the modification of an existing ABC license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an existing outdoor patio area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

Planning Commission Hearing:

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the request on September 19, 2022. The following spoke on behalf of the project: Mike Ayaz, Attorney; Mario Marovic, Applicant. The following spoke in opposition of the project: Richard (speaker requested to refrain from giving his surname).

The Planning Commission voted (3-2) to approve the request and directed staff to return with the appropriate resolution of approval.

At their October 17, 2022, meeting the Planning Commission voted (3-0) to approve Resolution No.

PC 26-22 with modifications to three of the conditions of approval.

Appeal:

On October 24, 2022, the Planning Division received an appeal application from Council member City of Orange Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™910
Item #: 8.2. 11/15/2022 File #: 22-0647
Arianna Barrios (Attachment 1). The following reasons were given for the appeal:

1. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings required by the OMC cannot be met because:
a. The CUP is not based on sound principles of land use and does not respond to services required by the community.
b. The CUP would cause deterioration of bordering land uses and create special problems for the neighborhood.
c. The conditions of approval do not preserve the general welfare of the neighborhood.

2. The Public Convenience or Necessity findings required by the ABC cannot be met.

Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.050.F, the City Council has the authority to consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and may affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed. The Council may also make or substitute additional decisions or determinations as it finds warranted under the provisions of the OMC.

Public Notification:

On November 4, 2022, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 93 property owners/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically requesting notice.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 Appeal Application Dated October 20, 2022 · Attachment 2 Orange Police Department Memorandum dated July 28, 2022 · Attachment 3 Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 19, 2022, and October 17, 2022
· Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 19, 2022, and October 17, 2022
· Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22 City of Orange Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/10/2022
powered by Legistar™911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
Agenda Item
Planning Commission
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner

1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22 - The District Lounge located at 223 W.

Chapman Avenue

2. SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the proposal and take the appropriate action with one of the following:

Direct staff to return with a resolution to approve the request with required conditional use permit findings and public convenience or necessity finding.

Or
Direct staff to return with a resolution to deny the request with required conditional use permit findings.

4. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020 and Sections 17.10.030.C and 17.30.030 authorize the Planning Commission to review and take action on establishments with the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant: Orange Circle Lounge, Inc.; Mario Marovic
Property Owner Wallflower OC LLC; Sharon Galvan
Property Location 223 W. Chapman Avenue (APN: 039-173-11) Existing General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
Old Towne Mixed Use 15 (OTMIX-15)
Existing Zoning Classification Old Towne Mixed Use 15 (OTMU-15) (Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan) Old Towne Yes
Specific Plan/PC Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan
Site Size 4,752 sq. ft.

Circulation The City’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways classifies West Chapman City of Orange Page 1 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1048
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519
Property Owner Wallflower OC LLC; Sharon Galvan
Property Location 223 W. Chapman Avenue (APN: 039-173-11) Existing General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
Old Towne Mixed Use 15 (OTMIX-15)
Existing Zoning Classification Old Towne Mixed Use 15 (OTMU-15) (Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan) Old Towne Yes
Specific Plan/PC Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan
Site Size 4,752 sq. ft.

Circulation The City’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways classifies West Chapman Avenue as Primary Arterial with a 100-foot right of way.

Existing Conditions Existing bar consisting of 3,340 sq. ft. and a 493 sq. ft. outdoor area.

Surrounding Land Uses and
Zoning
North is zoned OTMU-15 and OTMU-24; south is zoned OTMU-24; east and west are zoned OTMU-15. Uses consist of retail, automotive, personal service, bars and commercial.

Previous
Applications/Entitlements
Conditional Use Permit No. 2760-09 approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2010, for a change in the Alcoholic Beverage Control License from a Type 47 (On-Sale General Restaurant) to a Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises).

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, the District Lounge, is requesting the modification of an existing State of California Department of ABC license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

On October 4, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a request by the business owner for a change in the ABC license from a Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) to a Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) via Resolution No. PC 30-10 (Attachment No. 2). The approval allowed for the Type 48 on-sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the 3,340 sq. ft. establishment.

The establishment has a 493 sq. ft. outdoor area, which was not included in the original approval of the Type 48 license. The applicant’s request would allow the existing license to include this outdoor area in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The request is only for the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the outdoor and not for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor area.

As a result of the global pandemic, the applicant took advantage of the State’s temporary relaxed rules related to alcohol consumption and allowed alcohol consumption in outdoor areas. Moving forward, in order to remain compliant with the City of Orange and State ABC control standards, the applicant is requesting permanent approval from the City and the state for the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor area.

7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Existing Licenses within 600 feet of the Site
For information purposes, staff identified the following facilities selling alcoholic beverages that are located within a 600-foot proximity to the bar’s entrance (See Attachment No.4, Planning Commission Evaluation Map). The facilities within 600 feet of the premises consists of 24 establishments with ABC licenses, of these three are Type 48 (On-Sale General Public Premises), fifteen are Type 41 (On -sale Beer & Wine license), and three are Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place).

Existing Licenses
Establishment Name License Type Address
The District Lounge Type 48 (On-Sale General Public
Premises)
223 W. Chapman Avenue
Paul’s Cocktails Type 48 (On-Sale General Public
Premises)
207 W. Chapman Avenue
City of Orange Page 2 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1049
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519
Establishment Name License Type Address
The District Lounge Type 48 (On-Sale General Public
Premises)
223 W. Chapman Avenue
Paul’s Cocktails Type 48 (On-Sale General Public
Premises)
207 W. Chapman Avenue
Taco Adobe Type 40 (On-sale Beer license) 121 N. Lemon Street Chapman Crafted Beer Co. Type 23 (Small Beer Manufacturer), 77 (Event Permit), and 84 (Certified
Farmers’ Market Beer Sales Permit)
123 N. Cypress Street
Byblos Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 129 W. Chapman Avenue Pandor Bakery & Bistro Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 106 N. Glassell Street 1886 Brewery Type 75 (Brewpub Restaurant) 114 N. Glassell Street Citrus City Grille Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
license)
122 N. Glassell Street
Smoqued BBQ Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 128 N. Glassell Street O’Hara’s Pub Type 48 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
Public Premises)
150 N. Glassell Street
Jalapenos Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
license)
152 N. Glassell Street
Thai Towne Eatery Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
license)
152 N. Glassell Street, Suite B
Zito’s Pizza Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
license)
156 N. Glassell Street
Felix’s Continental Cafe Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 36 Plaza Square Urth Café Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
license)
100 W. Chapman Avenue
BossCat Kitchen Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place)118 W. Chapman Avenue Finney’s Crafthouse Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place)204 W. Chapman Avenue Wahoo’s Fish Tacos Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 234 W. Chapman Avenue Ojai Burger (Pending ABC) Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 238 W. Chapman Avenue The Taco Stand Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 240 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 100
Snooze Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 240 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 101
American Legion Type 52 & 58 (Caterer’s Permit) 143 S. Lemon Street Francoli Italian Restaurant Type 21 (Off-Sale General), 47 (OnSale General Eating Place), and 58 (Caterer’s Permit)
100 S. Glassell Street
Café Zocalo Type 41 (On-sale Beer & Wine license) 136 S. Glassell Street Issue 2: Sensitive Receptors
The OMC requires a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages to ensure there will be no adverse impact on surrounding land uses or no availability of alcoholic beverages to minors.

City of Orange Page 3 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1050
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519
be no adverse impact on surrounding land uses or no availability of alcoholic beverages to minors.

When reviewing alcohol permits, the Zoning Ordinance details specific land uses that are sensitive to alcohol activities but does not establish any specific distances for these uses. The State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board investigation requires applicants to identify the sensitive land uses within 600 feet of the site. Residential and church uses exist, which are sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the subject property. Due to the proximity of the sensitive receptors, the area has been subject to citizen complaints, the most recent ongoing complaint is from 2021 related to noise complaints.

Sensitive Receptors
Establishment Name Address Distance to Project Site
Residential Units 145-193 odd side N. Lemon Street Approx. 200-500 ft. from site Residential Units 138-152 even side N. Olive Street Approx. 80-260 ft. from site Residential Units 210-224 even side W. Maple Avenue Approx. 300-500 ft. from site Son Light Christian Center 172 N. Glassell Street Approx. 585 ft. from site Church of the Living God 305 W. Almond Avenue Approx. 590 ft. from site Residential Units 146-186 even side S. Lemon Street Approx. 350-580 ft. from site Residential Units 173 S. Lemon Street Approx. 480 ft. from site Residential Units 125-173 odd side S. Cypress Street Approx. 350-600 ft. from site Issue 3: Census Tract Alcohol and Crime Statistics Information The Orange Police Department’s (OPD) Vice Unit reviewed the proposal and finds that the census tract is over concentrated in on-sale and off-sale licenses (Attachment No. 5).

Alcohol Licenses
Existing Allowed
On-Sale Licenses 29 5
Off-Sale Licenses 4 2
The census tract has 33 existing on-sale and off-sale licenses, the total allowed on-sale and off-sale licenses permitted is seven licenses.
2021 Crime Statistics
Census Tract Crimes Citywide Average
Crimes
Percent Difference
252 71 255%
The 2021 crime statistics reveal that the census tract is in Reporting District (RD) 32E which show 252 crimes (Attachment No. 5). Based on the 2021 crime statistics, the average number of reported crimes per district is 71. This RD is 255% above the average reported crimes per district and is therefore considered a high crime area. RD 32E ranks 5th highest out of 91 RDs in the City of Orange.

In the 2021 reporting period, there were approximately 187 arrests in RD 32E. Of those arrests 62 City of Orange Page 4 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1051
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519
In the 2021 reporting period, there were approximately 187 arrests in RD 32E. Of those arrests 62 were related to alcohol use. Further, in 2021 there were approximately 45 calls for service to the District Lounge. These incidents included combative/disruptive subjects, assault and batteries, noise complaints, citizen assists, and intoxicated subjects.

The OPD has also provided statistics for the current year (January 2022 through June 8, 2022).

There have been 37 responses to the District Lounge generated either by calls for service or officer initiated activity. These incidents included combative/disruptive subjects, assault and battery, noise complaints, citizen assists, drunk in public and alarm responses.

The area has experienced similar activity in the past few years as a result of the pandemic, prompting OPD to conduct surveillance in the area to identify public nuisance crimes. The details of the surveillance are included in Attachment No. 5.

The OPD in their memorandum (Attachment No. 5) have provided similar statistics for the establishment in question for 2020, and 2019. OPD has also provided the statistics for O’Hara’s Pub and Paul’s Cocktails for comparison purposes.

The OPD is opposed to the applicant’s request to modify the existing Type 48 (On-Sale GeneralPublic Premises) license to include alcohol consumption in the outdoor area of the premises. This is based on the review of the listed data from 2019-2022 indicating increased noise, calls for service, crime, and responses from OPD personnel to the location. OPD believes that granting this request to modify the existing license creates an undue burden on public safety resources and have an adverse impact on the surrounding community.

Issue 4: Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the request, in addition to making the finds for the Conditional Use Permit, the Commission will also need to make a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity.

Issue 5: Direction to Staff
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction to staff related to the applicant’s request based on the information provided and testimony given at the hearing. The Commission during it’s deliberations will need to make the findings that either support or not support the request, and direct staff to return with the appropriate resolution with the necessary findings (Attachment No. 6).

8. PUBLIC NOTICE
On September 8, 2022, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 93 property owners/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site has been posted in two locations with the notification on that same date.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) because the request consists of the modification of an existing license for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the establishment and results in no physical expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. No public review is required for a categorical exemption.

City of Orange Page 5 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1052
Item #: 5.2. 9/19/2022 File #: 22-0519

10. ADVISORY BOARD ACTION
None required

11. ATTACHMENTS · Attachment No. 1 Vicinity Map
· Attachment No. 2 Resolution No. PC 30-10
· Attachment No. 3 Applicant’s Letter of Explanation
· Attachment No. 4 Planning Commission Evaluation Map
· Attachment No. 5 Orange Police Department Memorandum
· Attachment No. 6 Conditional Use Permit Findings
· Attachment No. 7 Plans
City of Orange Page 6 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2022
powered by Legistar™1053
Agenda Item
Planning Commission
Item #: 3.3. 10/17/2022 File #: 22-0561
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner

1. SUBJECT
Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22, District Lounge, 223 W. Chapman Avenue

2. SUMMARY
Adoption of a resolution approving the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22 entitled:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22 for the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the District Lounge located at 223 W.

Chapman Avenue.

4. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020 and Sections 17.10.030.C and 17.30.030 authorize the Planning Commission to review and take action on establishments with the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, the District Lounge, is requesting the modification of an existing State of California Department of ABC license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the existing establishment.

At the September 19, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the request by a vote of 3-2 and directed staff to return with a resolution of approval with the appropriate findings and conditions of approval.

The resolution of approval contains conditions of approval requested by the Orange Police Department, procedural conditions, and additional conditions of approval imposed by the Commission. The applicant has requested modification to the conditions of approval presented and City of Orange Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/13/2022
powered by Legistar™1054
Item #: 3.3. 10/17/2022 File #: 22-0561
Commission. The applicant has requested modification to the conditions of approval presented and added at the September 19, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. The request is provided in Attachment No. 5 to this staff report for Commission consideration.

Staff has also included the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity that is required to be made by the approving body.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) because the request consists of the modification of an existing license for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the establishment and results in no physical expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. No public review is required for a categorical exemption.

7. ATTACHMENTS · Attachment No. 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22 · Attachment No. 2 Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity · Attachment No. 3 Orange Police Department Potential Conditions of Approval · Attachment No. 4 Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 30-10 · Attachment No. 5 District Lounge Request for Revisions to Outdoor Conditions City of Orange Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/13/2022
powered by Legistar™1055
1056
1057
1058
Approved by Planning Commission 11-07-2022

MINUTES
City of Orange
Planning Commission
October 17 , 2022
The Planning Commission of the City of Orange, California convened on Monday, October 17, 2022, al 7:00 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
,1. OPENING/CALL TO ORDER
Chat Yazquez called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Trapesonian led the flag salute.

1.2 ROLL CALL

Present: Glasoow, Trapesonian, and Vazquez

Absent: Simpson, and Martinez
2, PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following spoke in opposition to the Kornerstone-palmyra Cemetery:

Bernie Galasso, Alan Kinkaid, and Caren Wolf.

Adrienne Gladson announced the OC policy program,
chapter of the American Planning Association.
offered by the Orange County
Tony Trabucco discussed the
written public comments.

City's practice regarding the submittal and distribution of 3 CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the planning commission, staff or the public request specific items removed from the consent calendar for separate action.

Approval of minutes of the city of orange planning commission Regular Meetings held on September 19 and Oclober 3,2022.

ACTION: Approved minutes as presented.

Major site Plan Review No. 1072-21, and Design Review No. 5059-21 , lndustrial Warehouse Buildings, 2390 N. American Way.

A speaker card was submitted for ltem 3.2; therefore, the item was removed from the

3.1. 3.2.

1059
Plailning Commission Oclobet 17,2022

3.3. Consent Calendar for separate consideration
Public Soeakers
Bernie Galasso spoke about the need to monitor the street traffic on American Way.

Steven Masura spoke on behalf of the project.

The Commission discussed concerns regarding truck traffic and Fletcher Elementary School.

ACTION: A motion was made by Chair Vasquez, seconded by Vice Chair Glasgow, to:

Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-23-22 entitled: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Major Site Plan Review No. 1072-21 and Design Review No. 5059-21 to demolish all existing on-site development in order to construct two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 101,170 square feet and related site improvements, located at 2390 N. American Way.

Ayes: Glasqow, Trapesonian, and Vazquez
Noes: None

Absent: Simpson, and Martinez
Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22, District Lounge, 223 W. Chapman Avenue
Item 3.3 was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration by Commissioner Glasgow.

Applicant Mario Marovic spoke on behalf of the project.

Sergeant Chris Moten, Orange Police Department, spoke about the concerns of lack in staffing during business hours.

Commissioners discussed approval conditions 29, 30 and 31 and issues related to . Staff monitoring of patio
. lntended use of patio gate leading to parking lot
. Amplified speakers and televisions on patio
ACTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Glasgow, second by Commtssioner Trapesonian to :

Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-22 entitled:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3186-22 for the modification of an existing State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license Type 48 (On-Sale General - Public Premises) to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area located at the rear of the District Lounge located al 223W. Chapman Avenue with modifications to conditions of approval 29, 30 and 31 as follows:

Condition 29. The patio shall be enclosed during business hours and used as an emergency exit only, signs should be posted at all gates indicating emergency exits only with the exception of ADA use in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Condition 30. Use of amplified systems, outdoor surround sound systems, paging systems, or any such device is prohibited on the licensed patio with the exception of

Minutes
1060
Plahning Commission Oclober '17, 2022
televisions at a reasonable decibel level until '10:00 pm. every night.

Condition 31. An employee shall be stationed on the patio Thursday-Saturday 8:00 pm through closure of the patio whenever alcohol is present and at any times or special events.

Aves: Glasgow, Trapesonian, and Vazquez
Noes: None

Absent: Simpson, and Martinez
from
peak
Map No.
0008-22,
Approval of the Consent Calendar
Items 3.2 and 3.3 were removed from the Consent Calendar and heard separately. All other items were approved as recommended.

A motion was made by Commissioner Trapesonian, seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended. The
following vote:

Aves: Glasgow, Trapesonian, and Vazquez
Noes: None

Absent: Simpson, and Martinez
4, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS
None.

5. NEW HEARINGS
Item 5.2 was reordered to be heard before ltem 5.1.

5.2. Public Hearing: Major Site Plan Review No. 1013-20, Tentative Parcel 0017 -20, Design Review No. 5011-20, and Development Agreement No Old Towne Gateway - 401 W. Ghapman Avenue and 135 N. Atchison Street Chair Vazquez opened the public hearing.
by Vice Chair Glasgow,
motion carried by the
Public Speakers
Leason Pomeroy, Architect, spoke on behalf of the project:

Tony Trabucco discussed historical integrity being preserved.

Liz Clapp spoke in support of the project, but had concerns with residential parking.

Chair Vazquez closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Chair Vazquez, seconded by Commissioner Trapesonian, to:

Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-22 entitled:

A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending City Council approval of Major Site Plan Review No. 1013-20, Tentative Parcel Map No. 0017 -20, Design Review No. 5011-20and Development Agreement No. 0008-22 to rehabilitate two historic buildings and remove non -historic sheds to construct two new commercial buildings and create a pedestrian paseo at 401 W. Chapman Avenue and 135 N. Atchison Street.