Public Comments — Orange City Council, February 14, 2023

February 14, 2023
City Council Meeting
Written Public Comments
General Public
Comment
Jennifer Connally
From: Jeremy Livermore S.E. P.E.

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:36 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Non-agenda Item
Attachments: Markups on Municipal Code Section 8.26.pdf Noise Pollution from blowers has become a big issue for cities across the country. In our state, there are over 30 cities with full or partial bans on blowers. In our city, we have a partial ban, but it is ineffective and useless. Orange residents know this and this is why almost 600 signatures have been provided on a petition to have a permanent ban on blowers.

While I also want a permanent ban, I believe an effective partial ban would be more palatable for stake holders at this time.

I want to share 1st the problems with our city's current partial ban and then I will give easy solutions to those problems.

PROBLEMS
The goal of the city's municipal code limit on noise pollution from blowers, is a quieter neighborhood. Code Section 8.26 sets a max decibel limit of 70decibels on each leaf blower when measured from 50ft away. But, with the way that code section is currently written, this goal of a quieter neighborhood can't be achieved, in practice and in theory. This is true for 3 reasons:

1. In practice, in order to enforce this law, the city code enforcement officer would need to perform some very difficult decibel measuring from 50ft away. Because the landscaper is constantly moving around a front yard, the city official would have to walk around in the street exactly 50ft away from the landscaper, keeping in step with the landscaper's movements. This is rather difficult and awkward to do, especially on a busy street with lots of cars that can hit a city official. For backyards, such measuring would be impossible as the house would block the sound to the city official in the front of the house.

2. In practice, from the landscaper's perspective, its not enforceable. If a code enforcement officer shows up, they keep the machine at the low throttle quieter setting. Once he leaves, they rev up engine to highest level. As long as the officer doesn't show up, the landscaper produces noise at the highest level.

3. Due to these 2 difficulties, the city's code enforcement department just doesn't try to enforce this law.

In my own situation, with over 21 months of me communicating with the code enforcement team about it, only once did an officer come to the neighborhood and measured with a decibel meter. Their excuses for not measuring regularly are:

1. We don't have enough staff to prioritize this,

2. We don't work Saturday and every other Friday so we cant be there when those landscapers come,

3. The previous code enforcement manager retired 4 years ago and we haven't found a replacement (until August of last year),

4. The new code enforcement manager's current excuse is that we just bought a new decibel meter but we need to be trained on how to use it and we don't know when that training will occur.

5. So, with these excuses, its clear, that enforcement is difficult and because it is, the city lost its will to do so.
1 4. In theory, the municipal code limit of 70dBa @ 50ft is still an extremely loud threshold for anyone from O to 50ft of the blower. Its actually 3x louder when one is 5ft from the blower (say on the other side of a fence). This is well documented and I can provide a research paper on that was done for Washington DC's city council by a mulit-national engineering firm's acoustical engineer; Some manufacturer websites state the decibel level at 5ft away. So, in and of itself, the threshold is so high that it can't really achieve the goal of a noticeably quieter neighborhood for those who are on their own property and the blower is on the adjacent property. This is extremely frustrating for anyone that is elderly, someone dealing with health ailments, daycare staff and baby's, other care-takers such as myself who need to be outside in front yards and backyards attempting to have the quiet enjoyment of life and property (CA state law prohibits infringement upon quiet enjoyment). For bystanders > 50ft away up to 400ft away, the sound is still very audible and super annoying like an pulsing buzzing alarm clock that wont turn off.

Again, the goal of achieving a quieter neighborhood with this law is not realistic the way the law is written. It sets the city up for failure and lawsuits.

SOLUTION
For now, I want to quickly share the easy solution to all this. The solution is 2 fold.

1. The first part of the solution is to, change the law. We just need to make a few impactful changes to the municipal code section 8.26. Here they are:

1. Lower the threshold to 65dBa. This will help get to a quieter neighborhood because 65 dba is 25% reduction from 70dba (as sound is measured on a logarithmic scale).

1. Other cities that don't have outright bans have 65dBa as the limit (e.g., city of Naples, FL).

2. Remove the measuring of decibels from the enforcement method and replace it with the checking of the actual blower machine's rating to ensure it is < 65dBa.

1. This is easy to do. Most blowers have a sticker with this info on the machine. Other blowers have model #'s stated on the machine that can point the officer to the decibel rating. This will allow the officer to easily cite the landscaper for operating the unit with that rating. Because this method is easy, the code enforcement department can actually have success on ensuring excessively noisy blowers are not used.

Also, it eliminates the escape route of the landscaper by taking away his ability to avoid citation when he keeps it at low throttle until the officer leaves or eliminates his ability to go full throttle while in a backyard.
73 -Category I
ION.CONTROL OCT 2018
O CORP.

2. If the sticker with the rating is not on the machine, the City Code Enforcement Officer can verify the rating by looking up the model # online with his smartphone to check the specifications. Alternatively, the city code enforcement officer can have a table of model numbers and the associated rating that he/she brings to the site location. If the blower does not have a model number on it or some other means of verifying the noise level rating from its manufacturer, it is prohibited from use. 2 3. Rephrase the wording so that citations will be given to both landscaper and homeowner after 1 warning. By engaging the homeowner, where the violations are committed, the city gets an ally. The homeowner will act as an enforcer of their crew and save the city from having to have as many code enforcement officers on duty.

1. During the warning conversation, the code Enforcement officer can bring a flyer showing the other equipment for sale (some gas and some electric) with <= 65dBa ratings. These units cost around $500.

There are some discounts available online from government agencies.

These 3 changes to the code section would effectively get the homeowner's involved and get landscapers to use new quieter blowers to actually reduce noise pollution and make our neighborhoods quieter.

The attachment to this email shows the markups that need to be adopted.

2. The second part of the solution is to have the city by upper management team regularly oversee the success of the code enforcement department when it comes to this issue.

1. Upper management's oversight is necessary to ensure the enforcement department must do their job and enforce the city's law.

2. Working Friday's and Saturday's is still needed.

I urge the City Council and Mayor to ensure a healthy and proper budget is established as soon as possible to hire more code enforcement staff and pay them to work each Friday and Saturday or stagger staff hours accordingly. At the latest, have it funded by the next fiscal year starting in June/July.

Insist that the City Manager prioritize the hiring of these positions and to have the hiring be done in an expeditious manner.

RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL COUNTERPOINTS TO SOLUTION

1. Some might raise the concern that buying a new quieter blower would place an undue burden on the landscaper and/or homeowner.

1. Response: The cost for the new quieter blower range from $400 to $600 dollars. This cost can easily be shared by the homeowner and landscaper. Also, new equipment is considered a tax deduction and there would be a discount on their small business tax with the purchase. available from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. They can be reached at 909-396-2000 and South Coast AQMD (@SouthCoastAQMD) / Twitter

3. Response: The private nuisance that the excessively loud blowers create has put an undue burden of stress on neighbors that need and deserve peace and quiet. People have a right to "comfortable enjoyment of life and property" per California Civil Code Section 3479. Landscaping crews cannot be negligent in their industrializing of our neighborhoods and use an excuse that a small business expense would not be possible. Every small business has expenses they must pay for.

2. Some might raise the concern that the quieter blower is not powerful enough to perform properly.

1. Response: while there is on average a 1/3 reduction in total air flow, the benefits of a much quieter blower far outweigh the extra few minutes at a property to ensure the work is completed.

3. Some might raise the concern that the quieter blower is not readily available.

1. Response: Both gas and electric are readily available. If they are not found in a nearby store, the store can request it from the distributer or manufacturer.

4. Some might raise the concern that they landscapers will not know which models to purchase.

1. Response: The decibel specifications on all blowers are listed in the standard specifications list for all blowers. Here is a list that can be placed on the City of Orange's Code Enforcement department flyer that they hand out when given the first warning.

1.Stihl, Inc.:

1. Model# BR 500 - 65 dB's, backpack gas commercial quality

2. Model# BGA 85 - 64 dB's, lithium-ion battery, rechargeable, commercial quality

3. Model# BG 66 L - 65 dB, handheld gas

4. Model# BGE 61 -64 dB, corded electric

5. Model# BGE 71 - 64 dB, electric

2. Husqvarna

1. Model# 356BT - 64 dB, low-noise technology backpack blower

2. Model# 356BF - 64 dB, low-noise backpack blower for large properties

3. Black & Decker / Dewalt

1. Model# BV 2500 - 65 dB, 12 amp electric blower

4. Echo

1. Model# PB265 L - 65 dB, backpack blower

2. Model# PB460 LN - 65 dB, backpack blower

3. Model# PB 255 - 64 dB, handheld

5. Toro
¿ Model# 51585 power sweep -63 diB, 2 speed electric Model# 51599 Toro Ultra Blower Vac - 67 dB's, electric handheld, Reports tested it at 65 dB's.

3. Model# 51592 Toro Super Blower Vac - 67 dB's, electric handheld, Reports tested it at 65 dB's.

4. Model# 51574 Toro Rake and Vac - 66 dB's, electric handheld, but Consumer Reports tested it at 65 dB's.

Jeremy Livermore
Orange, California Municipal Code
Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 8.26 LEAF BLOWERS

8.26.030 Use Limitations.

The following operations are prohibited in all residential areas of the City:

A. Leaf blower use in any residential area except between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Sundays and Federal Holidays.

B. Operation of more than one leaf blower at a time on any parcel of less than one half acre in area.

C. Leaf blower operation exceeding 15 minutes per hour on parcels one half acre or less in area, or 30 minutes per hour on parcels greater than one half acre in area.

D. Operating a leaf blower within 10 feet of any window, door, or mechanical air intake opening or duct on neighboring properties.

E. Operating a blower in such a manner as to blow dirt, dust, debris, leaves, grass clippings, tree and shrub trimmings or trash onto any adjacent property, including without limitations, and public property, street or sidewalk. Any leaf blower debris deposits shall be collected and disposed of in a sanitary manner on the same day it was deposited.

F. Operation of a leaf blower which produces more than 70 decibels dB(a) measured at a horizental distance of 50 feet. Remove / Replace with: "with a manufacturer rating greater than 65 decibels dB(a)."
Add: "G. Operation of a leaf blower not
displaying the manufacturer's sticker with the
noise level rating and/or not displaying a
manufacturer's model number."

8.26.040 Violation.

Any violation of this chapter is considered an infraction punishable as prescribed by Section

1.08.010 of this Code. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such.

Add: "Both homeowner and
(Ord. 2-93) landscaper/gardener are
considered to be in violation after
the first notice/warning is given by
the city code enforcement officer."
Jennifer Connally
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Pamela Coleman; Jennifer Connally
Subject: New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular
Session
Jake Comer submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session
Item: 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
eComment: Another essential element of preserving and protecting our environment is water conservation. Public agencies such as the City are encouraged by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County "to be leaders in water conservation and sustainability by creating projects that demonstrate efficient water use in their communities." The non- essential grass around City buildings and property managed by the City should be replaced with climate- appropriate landscape. Metropolitan is offering rebates of $3.00 per square foot to public agencies and residents, $2.00 per square foot to businesses, and free project assistance to replace turf with drought-tolerant plants. Conserving water saves View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments: Leaf Blower Ban
February 14, 2023
Dear Mayor and City Council,
It is recommended that leaf blowers be banned in the City of Orange because of their significant negative impacts to humans and wildlife, including noise pollution, air pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and decreased survival rate of trees and other types of vegetation. According to the general plan, "The City will work to improve the quality of life for all residents by providing residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that exist in harmony with the surrounding urban and natural environments." Therefore, it is imperative that the city take the necessary steps to address leaf blower issues, mitigate the current negative impacts, investigate the alternatives and develop a plan for implementation of solutions based on the comments I have outlined below.

1. Noise pollution
a. Chronic exposure to leaf blower noise pollution causes stress, anxiety, loss or distortion of hearing, irritability, frustration, anger, loss of sleep, mental illness, PTSD, mood swings, high blood pressure, disorientation, learning disabilities and disruption of cognitive performance. b. The municipal code as it pertains to leaf blowers is not being enforced c. The current decibel level threshold of leaf blowers is not measurable, so the municipal code must be changed so the threshold is lower, the decibel rating of the device is checked and citations are given to the landscape contractor (equipment operator) and the property owner after 1 warning.

2. Air pollution
a. Chronic exposure to airborne particulates, dust, spores and exhaust emissions increases the risk and exacerbates the symptoms of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, allergies, Covid-19, bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema and cancer.
b. Exhaust emissions of gas-powered leaf blowers negatively impact the climate

3. Wildlife habitat destruction
a. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus prevents beneficial pollinators, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals from obtaining food, nesting material, shelter or reproductive opportunities.

4. Decreased survival rate for trees and other types of vegetation a. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus decreases valuable soil nutrients, water retention; beneficial fungi and other microscopic soil organisms
b. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus increases erosion and desertification

5. The Orange County Grand Jury Report on leaf blowers declared that leaf blower operations • represent health hazards to the citizens of Orange County.

6. State law mandates that the sale of gas-powered landscape equipment is to be phased out by 2024.

7. Cities that have already banned leaf blowers include Belvedere, Berkley, Beverly Hills, Carmel, Claremont, Del Mar, Hermosa Beach, Indian Wells, Lawndale, Laguna Beach, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Newport Beach, Ojai, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Solano Beach, Tiburon, and West Hollywood.

If an outright ban is not immediately possible, a series of measures must be taken to mitigate the negative impacts of leaf blowers, including:

1. Education program for residents and landscape contractors about the negative impacts of leaf blowers and other noisy, polluting landscape equipment and the cost-effective and environmentally friendly landscape management alternatives that are currently available, including:
a. leaving the leaves
b. using brooms, rakes, push lawn sweepers
c. installing drought-tolerant native plants to support beneficial pollinators, birds and other local wildlife
d. installing rock gardens
e. stopping mowing
f. grazing with livestock

2. Modification and enforcement of the municipal code to better regulate leaf blower operations

3. Modification of the management of city landscapes, so they do not require the operation of leaf blowers

4. Financial incentives for residents and landscape contractors to discontinue the use of leaf blowers and incorporate cost-effective and environmentally friendly landscape management alternatives

5. Obligation of equipment operators to stop the operation of noisy, polluting landscape equipment, when nearby citizens are negatively impacted
Thank you for considering the health and well being of humans and wildlife in the City of Orange.

Sincerely,
Joel Robinson
Orange, CA 92869
Jennifer Connally
From: Edward Stanila
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:28 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: • Leaf blower ban
I've lived the OC and LA area for over 38 years and seen many places on this planet and never have seen something worst for the environment than the gas leaf blower in fact all leaf blowers create hazardous conditions for humans and animals and we shouldn't have to worry about if there's pollutants in the atmosphere every time we step outside. Please don't let this be our future any longer than it has already been.

Thank you for your time and listening to our concerns may the Lord continue to bless us all. be Best regards,
Edward Stanila
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Connally
From: Karen Carlsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:34 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: public comments: leaf blower ban
February 14, 2023
Dear Mayor and City Council,
It is recommended that leaf blowers be banned in the City of Orange because of their significant negative impacts to humans and wildlife, including noise pollution, air pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and decreased survival rate of trees and other types of vegetation. According to the general plan, "The City will work to improve the quality of life for all residents by providing residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that exist in harmony with the surrounding urban and natural environments." Therefore, it is imperative that the city take the necessary steps to address leaf blower issues, mitigate the current negative impacts, investigate the alternatives and develop a plan for implementation of solutions based on the comments I have outlined below.

1. Noise pollution
Chronic exposure to leaf blower noise pollution causes stress, anxiety, loss or distortion of hearing, irritability, frustration, anger, loss of sleep, mental illness, PTSD, mood swings, high blood pressure, disorientation, learning disabilities and disruption of cognitive performance.
2 The municipal code as it pertains to leaf blowers is not being enforced

3. The current decibel level threshold of leaf blowers is not measurable, so the municipal code must be changed so the threshold is lower, the decibel rating of the device is checked and citations are given to the landscape contractor (equipment operator) and the property owner after 1 warning.

2. Air pollution
1: Chronic exposure to airborne particulates, dust, spores and exhaust emissions increases the risk and exacerbates the symptoms of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, allergies, Covid-19, bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema and cancer.

2. Exhaust emissions of gas-powered leaf blowers negatively impact the climate

3. Wildlife habitat destruction

1. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus prevents beneficial pollinators, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals from obtaining food, nesting material, shelter or reproductive opportunities:

4. Decreased survival rate for trees and other types of vegetation

1. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus decreases valuable soil nutrients, water retention, beneficial fungi and other microscopic soil organisms
Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus increases erosion and desertification

5. The Orange County Grand Jury Report on leaf blowersdeclared that leaf blower operations represent health hazards to the citizens of Orange County.

6. State law mandates that the sale of gas-powered landscape equipment is to be phased out by 2024.

Cities that have already banned leaf blowers include Belvedere, Berkley, Beverly Hills, Carmel, Claremont, Del Mar, Hermosa Beach, Indian Wells, Lawndale, Laguna Beach, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Newport Beach, Ojai, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Solano Beach, Tiburon, and West Hollywood.

If an outright ban is not immediately possible, a series of measures must be taken to mitigate the negative impacts of leaf blowers, including:

1. leaving the leaves

2. using brooms, rakes, push lawn sweepers

3. installing drought-tolerant native plants to support beneficial pollinators, birds and other local wildlife

4. installing rock gardens

5. stopping mowing

6. grazing with livestock
1 2. Modification and enforcement of the municipal code to better regulate leaf blower operations

3. Modification of the management of city landscapes, so they do not require the operation of leaf blowers

4. Financial incentives for residents and landscape contractors to discontinue the use of leaf blowers and incorporate cost- effective and environmentally friendiy landscape management alternatives

Thank you
Karen Carlsen
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Connally
From: Lupe Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:16 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Non-agenda Item
We would like to submit for consideration additional and expanded scheduling of code enforcement officers because somewhere along the way it seems we have abandoned enforcement of our local codes and ordinances.

In the 37 years my husband Gary and I have lived here we have never seen our neighborhood deteriorate so quickly. The past 5 years has turned what used to be a family oriented neighborhood into nothing more than boarding houses with the ever transient student population. The high occupancy rate of residential dwellings has created additional burdens in our neighborhood.
• Trash bins that are overflowing and left out for many days after designated trash days • Overwhelming number of cars as a result of the high occupancy of the dwelling • Cars blocking sidewalks and parking in front of fire hydrants • Un-mowed lawns and weeds in front and rear yards
• Loud parties with 50 plus in attendance in the middle of the day We don't have to look far as our home is between two of these houses. The latest one that sold has from 7-10 adults living there at one time. Anyone driving between the 500 to 700 block of North Cambridge can see for themselves the most recent addition of what sorely appears to be nothing more than a money grab on the backs of those of us who have worked so hard to preserve our pride of ownership.

Most recently we have also noticed the increase in flower/food vendors who are conducting business in our neighborhood.

While housing issues and street vendors have been forced upon us by the legislature there must be something the city can do to enforce our current codes or come up with new ones to address these issues.

We don't just want to make this about Chapman University as we recognize they have made many improvements in our community and are trying to accommodate their student population but it continues to fall on our local neighborhoods to provide the housing. We've met with Chapman representatives and they've advised that it falls upon the city to enforce ordinances and codes.

Code enforcement as well as the police department are necessary to maintain the quality of life that we have come to expect in the city. Could we explore the possibility of creating a team that would combine the police department with code enforcement? This worked back in the 90's.

Rules and regulations need to be enforced to secure a better future for those of us who do not want to give into the investors that have taken over our neighborhoods.

Respectfully submitted,
Gary and Lupe Nelson
Orange
Jennifer Connally
From: Scott Sink
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:15 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: noise pollution/ air pollution/ leaf blowers
Attachments: 20220808_114002.jpg; 20220808_114015.jpg
Dear City Council,
I work Monday through Friday. I leave early in the morning and get home late in the afternoon. I like to spend some time in the garden after a rough day at work. It is good to be out in the fresh air, be physically active, and work with beautiful plants. I take pride in my garden and do everything by hand.

Unfortunately, the hour or two I have before it gets dark outside is often dominated by very loud and obnoxious leaf blowers. The gas-powered leaf blowers are so loud that even when 1 go inside and close all my doors and windows, I still hear the loud noise. I have tried using foam earplugs, but I usually still hear the loud buzzing and roaring. I have tried using noise-cancelling headphones, but I still hear the leaf blowers. I have tried using noise-cancelling headphones over foam earplugs, but I usually still hear the leaf blower noise if I'm outside.

The way these machines are usually employed is excessive. There is usually a block of about 40 to 60 minutes of continuous leaf blower noise per each residence where they are used. Most homes employ landscapers once a week.

The result is an almost constant roar of noise pollution every day.

In many cultures, they have a Sabbath or they use Sunday as a day of rest. It seems like the leaf blower use might be even higher on weekends. How am I ever supposed to rest and recuperate? This technology represents a persistent degradation of the quality of life here in Orange. Please consider banning or at least limiting this nuisance.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Scott Sink
19102 E. Smiley Dr.

Orange, CA 92869
P.S. I was blessed to be able to travel to the UK last Summer. I didn't hear a single leaf blower for the entire trip! People are only allowed to use leaf blowers twice a year there, and only after certain plants have gone to seed and certain birds' and insects' eggs have hatched. Additionally, this horrible product never really caught on there. I was so impressed that I took a picture of a man doing landscaping without making any noise! And that's the norm over there. (Please see attached P.P.S. As I am writing this, I am literally being pestered through the walls of my house with super annoying leaf blower noise coming from my neighbor's house.

Photos on file in City
Clerk's Office
Jennifer Connally
From: Leslie Robinson •
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:10 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Leaf blower ban
Dear Mayor and City Council,
It is recommended that leaf blowers be banned in the City of Orange because of their significant negative impacts to humans and wildlife, including noise pollution, air pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and decreased survival rate of trees and other types of vegetation. According to the general plan, "The City will work to improve the quality of life for all residents by providing residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that exist in harmony with the surrounding urban and natural environments." Chronic exposure to leaf blower noise pollution causes stress, anxiety, loss or distortion of hearing, irritability, frustration, anger, loss of sleep, mental illness, PTSD, mood swings, high blood pressure, disorientation, learning disabilities and disruption of cognitive performance.

Thank you for considering the health and well being of humans and wildlife in the City of Orange.

Leslie Robinson
Jennifer Connally
From: Phoebe C.

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:49 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Leaf Blower Ban
Dear Mayor and City Council,
PLEASE BAN LEAF BLOWERS IN THE CITY OF ORANGE given their detrimental impact on humans and wildlife; they are responsible for noise pollution, air pollution, wildlife habitat destruction. and decreased survival rate of trees and other types of vegetation. It is absolutely crucial that the city take the necessary steps to address leaf blower issues, mitigate the current negative impact, investigate alternatives, and develop an appropriate plan.

Below are facts and points that can be drawn upon:

1. Noise pollution

1. Chronic exposure to leaf blower noise pollution causes stress, anxiety, loss or distortion of hearing, irritability, frustration, anger, loss of sleep, mental illness, PTSD, mood swings, high blood pressure, disorientation, learning disabilities and disruption of cognitive performance.

2. The municipal code as it pertains to leaf blowers is not being enforced

2. Air pollution

1. Chronic exposure to airborne particulates, dust, spores and exhaust emissions increases the risk and exacerbates the symptoms of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, allergies, Covid-19, bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema and cancer.

2. Exhaust emissions of gas-powered leaf blowers negatively impact the climate

3. Wildlife habitat destruction

1. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus prevents beneficial pollinators, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals from obtaining food, nesting material, shelter or reproductive opportunities.

4. Decreased survival rate for trees and other types of vegetation

1. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus decreases valuable soil nutrients, water retention, beneficial fungi and other microscopic soil organisms

2. Removal of leaf litter, cuttings and detritus increases erosion and desertification

5. The Orange County Grand Jury Report on leaf blowers declared that leaf blower operations represent health hazards to the citizens of Orange County.

6. State law mandates that the sale of gas-powered landscape equipment is to be phased out by 2024

If an outright ban is not immediately possible, a series of measures must be taken to mitigate the negative impacts of leaf blowers, including:

1. leaving the leaves

2. using brooms, rakes, push lawn sweepers

3. installing drought-tolerant native plants to support beneficial pollinators, birds and other local wildlife

4. installing rock gardens

5. stopping mowing

6. grazing with livestock

2. Modification and enforcement of the municipal code to better regulate leaf blower operations

3. Modification of the management of city landscapes, so they do not require the operation of leaf blowers

4. Financial incentives for residents and landscape contractors to discontinue the use of leaf blowers and incorporate cost- effective and environmentally friendly landscape management alternatives

5. Obligation of equipment operators to stop the operation of noisy, polluting landscape equipment, when nearby citizens are negatively impacted
1 Thank you for considering the health and well-being of humans and wildlife in the City of Orange.

Phoebe Camilletti
Item 3.22
Authorize Purchase
of Two Vehicles
Jennifer Connally
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Pamela Coleman; Jennifer Connally
Subject: New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular
Session
Jake Comer submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session
Item: 3.22. Authorize the purchase of two vehicles for various departments using a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement.
eComment: Thank you also to Councilmember Bilodeau for highlighting, at the January 10th meeting, an important component of a cleaner environment. The funds the City receives as its portion from the State's Motor Vehicle Registration Fees surcharge is intended, pursuant to AB 2766, to develop clean transportation programs and reduce vehicle emissions. Instead, one year City staff chose to spend at least part of the $100,000 from the State on a barbecue for City. employees. Councilmember Bilodeau, a licensed civil and traffic engineer who has served on transportation agencies, noted that such use of public funds "bordered on illegality" and the city council should direct how to spend those funds. Legal expenditures could include the purchase or lease of electric vehicles, e-bikes for police officers and community service personnel, carpool vouchers, and traffic management projects, all of which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I'm also not sure why the City Manager would need a $50k Ford Explorer, and not a much cheaper Electric Vehicle. Also something to note is the multitude of reliable Electric Trucks now available.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Items 4.2 and 4.3
Creation of Santiago
Creek and Clean
Orange
Subcommittees
Jennifer Connally
From: Regina Mundekis
Sent:

To:

Subject: Public Comment # 4.2 and 4.3
Dear Mayor and City Council,
1 am in support of items 4.2 Creation of a Santiago Creek Grand Central Park Preservation and Protection City Council Subcommittee and 4.3 Creation of a Clean Orange Council Subcommittee.

Thank you for your interest in this matter,
Reggie Mundekis
Jennifer Connally
From: Janice Brownfield
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:00 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item #s 4.2 and 4.3
Thank you to Mayor Slater for recommending the creation of two subcommittees of the Orange City Council that can help provide a healthier and sustainable environment for us and future generations. The Clean subcommittee and the Santiago Creek Grand Central Park Preservation and Protection subcommittee have the potential of developing plans, such as switching from fossil fuels to clean energy and planting more trees, to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are many qualified individuals for those subcommittees, including volunteers with the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance who have been working to preserve and protect the creek for more than 30 years, since 1990. There are also professors and students from Chapman University and UC Irvine who are willing to prepare a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for the City of Orange.

Thank you also to Councilmember Bilodeau for highlighting, at the January 10th meeting, an important component of a cleaner environment. The funds the City receives as its portion from the State's Motor Vehicle Registration Fees surcharge is intended, pursuant to AB 2766, to develop clean transportation programs and reduce vehicle emissions. Instead, one year City staff chose to spend at least part of the $100,000 from the State on a barbecue for City employees. Councilmember Bilodeau, a licensed civil and traffic engineer who has served on transportation agencies, noted that such use of public funds "bordered on illegality" and the city council should direct how to spend those funds. Legal expenditures could include the purchase or lease of electric vehicles, e-bikes for police officers and community service personnel, carpool vouchers, and traffic management projects, all of which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another essential element of preserving and protecting our environment is water conservation. Public agencies such as the City are encouraged by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County "to be leaders in water conservation and sustainability by creating projects that demonstrate efficient water use in their communities." The non-essential grass around City buildings and property managed by the City should be replaced with climate- appropriate landscape. Metropolitan is offering rebates of $3.00 per square foot to public agencies and residents, $2.00 per square foot to businesses, and free project assistance to replace turf with drought-tolerant plants. Conserving water saves energy and is a necessity if we are to continue to have enough clean drinking water. 1 Jennifer Connally
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Pamela Coleman; Jennifer Connally
Subject: New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular
Session
Jake Comer submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session
Item: 4.3. Creation of a Clean Orange City Council Subcommittee. eComment: Thank you to Mayor Slater for recommending the creation of two subcommittees of the Orange City Council that can help provide a healthier and sustainable environment for us and future generations. The Clean subcommittee and the Santiago Creek Grand Central Park Preservation and Protection subcommittee have the potential of developing plans, such as switching from fossil fuels to clean energy and planting more trees, to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are many qualified individuals for those subcommittees, including volunteers with the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance who have been working to preserve and protect the creek for more than 30 years, since 1990. There are also professors and students from Chapman University and UC Irvine who are willing to prepare a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for the City of Orange. However, before these people will commit their time and energy to joining either Commission, we'll need the Council to verify the intended purpose of each and that the City Council will actually listen to them and their recommended actions. Hopefully the Clean subcommittee will focus on Climate Action and Environmental Stewardship. If these Commissions were created simply to appease Orange Citizens, and subcommittee recommendations are ignored than it would just be a waste of their time.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
Item 5.2
Potential Expansion
of Olive Park
Jennifer Connally
From: Regina Mundekis
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:50 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment #5.2
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am in support of item 5.2 Potential Expansion of Olive Park by Property Acquisition. The City should move forward with determining an acquisition price and sources) of funds to expand Olive Park.

Thank you for your interest in this matter,
Reggie Mundekis
1 Jennifer Connally
From: [email protected]
Sent: Samela leman, enter onaly
To:

Subject: New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session New eComment for City Council - 6:00 PM Regular
Session
Jordan Prell submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council - 6:00 PM Regular Session
Item: 5.2. Discussion of potential expansion of Olive Park by acquisition of the following property (Bilodeau):
eComment: Please greatly consider this as an option! The parking is horrendous at Olive Park for baseball days. I requested the previous mayor and council look into this option but was told it was not financially viable. The address in question is an abandoned day care and is a blight on the community. There is a lot of potential space here to expand the park parking and also to help divert away visitors from filling up all the parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. Please consider!! Thank you.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
1 Item 9.1
Appeal of PC
Approval of Project at
529 S Grand Street
Jennifer Connally
From: ashley brodkin
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 2:44 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item #9.1
Hello,
We would like to follow up on our previous comment on Design Review No. 5077-22 which proposes to construct a new second unit at 529 S. Grand Street. We live around the corner on E. Toluca Avenue.

During both the public hearings for both the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for this project, the second unit was treated as an alternative to an ADU. It was not made clear that an ADU would still be reviewed for compliance with the Design Standards. Also, even though the owner of the property said in both meetings that they are not planning on building an ADU at this time (despite including one in the original plans), should this project be approved, in accordance with State law, the owner would be able to convert the garage or build a separate ADU on the property, regardless of whether this project is approved or not. The assumption of approving this project should be that there will potentially end up being 3-4 units on the site, with the approved duplex and 1-2 ADUS.

The primary concerns we have with the project are:
• Whether the project meets a CEQA Class 3 Exemptions
• Impacts to the contributing historic property, and impacts to the Nutwood Tract's historic development patterns
With the revisions to the plans, there are still several concerns about the potential impacts of the project on the neighborhood, contributing property, and the district as a whole. More information is needed to support the CEQA determination of a Class 3 exemption. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, "all exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant," and "a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource."
There are two similar projects being proposed (515 and 529 S Grand Street) by the same applicant at the same time. While the two sites are two different properties, they were brought forth at the same time by the same applicant, so potential impacts to the contributing properties, the Nutwood Tract, and the National Register Historic District) should be reviewed, as well as the significant change the average FAR of the properties of the block. Per the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the following relevant projects may involve substantial adverse changes to historical resources and are not exempt from CEQA review:
• Infill development within the boundaries of a local historic district, as designated in OMC Chapter 17.17, including the construction of new residential or non-residential structures that do not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the applicable design standards.
• Alteration to property of a historical resource including exterior alterations, additions, new buildings, hardscape, or landscape which does not clearly comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the applicable design standards. • Alterations or additions to a structure that is a historical resource involving a variation in the height or width that results in an incompatible change in the resource's relationship to the predominant streetscape and building pattern on the block on which it is located. In addition to height and width, factors that shall be considered when determining incompatibility include bulk and mass, architectural articulation, and the placement and orientation of additions on the site.

Nutwood Tract is one of Orange's first subdivisions, and the scale of the two projects would change the character of the block, particularly since the east side of the block where the projects are located are all contributing properties. Looking at potential cumulative impacts of the projects, there have been numerous projects over the last two years in the historic district that have intensified development, particularly projects marketed for student housing. There should be a study whether the intensified development has had a significant cumulative impact on the district as a whole before more "successive projects of the same type in the same place" are considered exempt under CEQA.

The proposed location of the second unit is not consistent with surrounding properties. While there are duplexes along both Grand and Toluca, they are either not visible from the street, or located in place of the detached garage (such as 552 S Grand St.). This second unit due to placement and size, would be visible from S. Grand Street.

The owner also has shown not to be an attentive landlord, as can be seen by the trash can that has sat outside on the property for months now, as well as sprinklers that have been going off during the middle of the day, in conflict with Orange's water saving requirements.

We hope that the City Council approves the appeal and requires a more comprehensive environmental analysis to ensure that the Project complies with CEQA, and sets a precedent for more thoughtful and appropriate development in Old Towne Orange.

Thank you,
Ashley and Jonathan Toomey
2 Jennifer Connally
From: Klasna, Tara C.

Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 6:16 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item #9.1
To: City Council Leaders
RE: 2/14 City Council Meeting - Appeal # 0561-22
I am writing to address the project proposal at 529 South Grand street and voice my opposition. I live at ; directly next door to this project; as a result, I would be significantly impacted by the size and scale of the additional rental units which includes the project at 519 South Grand Street.

The significance of these projects can be summarized by two words: Cumulative Impact. The most obvious evidence of this cumulative impact is based on two main points:
#1 - The same real estate developers have purchased two properties - side by side, and hired the same architects to build backyard rental units, turning these historic homes into duplex properties. Obviously, the two projects cannot be considered in isolation; the cumulative effect to the neighborhood is literally doubled.

The impact is also compounded by the fact that there are only four houses on this side of the block, with limited parking available on only one side of the street. CEQA guidelines identify these potential violations in Section 15300.2: "Successive projects of the same type in the same place is significant". #2 - Most importantly, the cumulative impact extends beyond the small Nutwood neighborhood which, by the way, holds a uniquely significant historic value in Old Town as it is the oldest housing track in the city of Orange. CEQA guidelines highlight the enduring value of preserving historic districts by identifying potential violations based on "substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." For these reasons, along with all the other points that neighbors have raised over the past several months, I oppose the project proposal at 529 South Grand Street. I believe this decision is precedent-setting and threatens the entire historic district.

Sincerely,
Tara Klasna
Old Town Resident since 1990
Jennifer Connally
From: Linda Maxwell-Jordan
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:56 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item # 9.1
I would like to comment on Appeal No. 0561-22; an appeal of Planning Commission decision upholding Design Review Committee approval of Design Review No. 5077-22; a proposal to construct a new 1,102 square foot duplex unit with an attached 227 square foot garage at the rear of an existing single-family dwelling on a property zoned Duplex Residential at 529 S. Grand Street.

This is not a homeowner building a back house to boost a fixed income. This (as well as the property next door, owned by the same LLC) is a commercial venture intended to house university students. It should not be exempt from CEQA. It will be an adverse change to the Nutwood Place neighborhood with cumulative impact.

The Design Standards for Old Town refer to the "setbacks of historic buildings" and "the spatial relationships that characterize the property." This project simply fills the space with rooms to rent. The point of the design standards is to "guide the design of new construction so that it relates respectfully to historic buildings." This project does not relate respectfully to the existing historic home or to the historic Nutwood Place neighborhood.

A major concern is the increase in cars and traffic. Grand Street is a narrow street with parking on only one side. Grand Street is the only ingress and egress for some of the people who live in the Nutwood Place neighborhood. The Design Review Committee felt that this concern was not under their purview. One of the Planning Commission members said this item is an issue of land-use. The increase in cars and traffic will negatively impact this historic area. What city entity is going to take responsibility to mitigate the traffic problems that will occur with this project? Is someone going to have to be killed at that intersection before it is taken seriously? The Nutwood Place neighborhood is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the Old Town Historic District. It is a unique and special area in which to live. Please help to maintain its integrity by following CEQA and historic standards guidelines.

Linda Maxwell-Jordan
Jennifer Connally
From: Mary Matuzak
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 1:29 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subiect: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #9.1
Dear City Council Members,
As long time residents of South Grand Street, we stand in opposition to the proposed project at 529 S. Grand Street.

We have attended several and spoken at several meetings on this project. THis project is oversized and inappropriate for the neighborhood, It is surely in violation of CEQA.

We request that the council does not make a decision to move the project forward but instead takes a step back and reviews CEQA and historic standard guidelines. Old Towne Orange is a jewel worth preserving, and we are hopeful that under new city leadership, we can finally protect and preserve what is left of our history.

Sincerely,
Tom and Mary Matuzak
1 Jennifer Connally
From: Regina Mundekis
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:49 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment #9.1
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I support OTPA's action in item 9.1 Appeal No. 0-561-22. This project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Cumulative impacts of successive projects must be considered prior to granting of a permit for this project.

This project must go through CEQA analysis because of the impacts, including cumulative impacts, on the integrity of both this historical resource and the entirety of the historic district.

Thank you for your interest in this matter,
Reggie Mundekis
Jennifer Connally
Tony Trabucco
Orange Boardinghouses.xlsx - Google Sheets.pdt
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Regarding the Proposed 529 S Grand St Project:

Executive Summary:
- CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) should be invoked as the project is not unilaterally exempt from CEQA per the Staff report.
- While CEQA exemptions exist, there are exceptions to those exemptions when historic resources are involved (see reference material at the end of these comments).
- The City's process declaring that projects are exempt from CEQA is not transparent (what process is involved in making these determinations? Is it a written process that can be easily examined by the public?).
- In Orange's multiple Historic Districts, exceptions to CEQA exemptions should always be considered; Exceptions to CEQA should be the default position to protect Orange's historic resources and not a secondary conclusion.
- Aside from litigation, or threat of litigation, there isn't a process to challenge assertions that projects are categorically exempt from 1 CEQA; DRC is not allowed to consider CEQA, and Planning Commission and Council rarely question Staff's recommendations regarding CEQA.
- Developments of the proposed type are fundamentally changing the character of both historic and non-historic neighborhoods; refer to the attached list of approximately 30 boardinghouse-type developments with the majority owned by out-of-area developers (similar to the proposed 529 S Grand St project - while public info, the tax-billing addresses have been masked for privacy). - Before this, or any proposed projects within the historic districts are considered or approved, they should be subject to the test to determine if they are exceptions to any proposed CEQA
exemptions.

Detailed Comments:

I'm a local Old Towne resident of many years, and I'm opposed to the 529 S Grand St project on the grounds that CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) should be invoked as the project is not unilaterally exempt from CEQA, per the Staff report (see reference info at the end of this note).

Exceptions to the exemption for historic resources have not been considered (nor even mentioned). These exceptions are in place to protect our historic resources and are routinely discounted by Staff.

Ironically, as a City, for proposed projects we spend countless hours debating colors, textures, materials, scale/mass, zoning compliance, and adherence to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, but completely turn a blind eye to the potential long- term impacts on our historic resources -- impacts that will likely exist for many, many years. Oddly, all of the above items (scale, mass, zoning, etc.) are also considered by Staff, prior to a project coming before the other decision-making bodies -- but CEQA is the one sacred cow that can't be publicly challenged. And this isn't intended to demean the dedicated Staff's overall great work; They are likely understaffed for a City of Orange's size, and this may just be the path of least resistance.

And therein lies the concern -- there isn't any mechanism within the City to evaluate or question Staff's determination that a project is exempt from CEQA (which more often than not is the case with Staff reports); Or even any transparency to the process. The Design Review Committee (DRC), likely the most qualified group to determine if CEQA should be considered, isn't allowed to consider CEQA impacts. The Planning Commission generally accepts, without question, Staff's recommendation that a project is CEQA-exempt.

Unfortunately, the only option to dispute Staff's claims that a project is CEQA-exempt is to take legal action against the City -- a costly and time-consuming burden for individual residents, preservation advocacy groups, and the City. If Orange didn't have an historic district (or multiple districts as we have) then this might not be an issue. But to effectively preserve our unique historic districts the City must develop a check-and-balance system such that exemptions from CEQA can more easily be evaluated, debated, and challenged, by a means other than utilizing the courts. I would suggest that as DRC is in place, is already evaluating projects and has the expertise on the Committee, that they are the logical choice to be given this role.

Currently it appears that only larger projects within Old Towne appear to trigger CEQA (Urth Cafe and the K Dorm, for example), in spite of the fact that there there isn't any project size or financial threshold threshold for CEQA -- any project that has a significant impact on the historic resource can (and should) trigger CEQA. And even then Staff has recently proclaimed that larger projects within the historic district are categorically exempt, without any oversight or further consideration by the City:
- West End Gateway Project -- adaptive reuse of historic structures, demolition of some historic fabric (subject to debate), and addition of multiple restaurant spaces; Potentially 800+ patrons with 2- accessible parking spaces, no onsite parking, and an encouraged mid-block pedestrian crossing (effectively City-sanctioned jaywalking) with no traffic control, crosswalk, or other pedestrian safety features.
- 515 and 529 S Grand St Projects (likely a $3M project inclusive of acquisition and proposed improvement costs, when bundled together, as they should be, based upon their cumulative impacts of the historic resource - a CEQA exception to the exemption) - Ronald McDonald House Expansion (at some point it was determined that an MND was necessary, but faulty logic was employed as comparison of new-to-existing construction were based upon the non-contributing structure that was built prior to the Design Standards being in place); and there may have been a lawsuit brought on by the residents in the immediate area that drove that decision.

Based on the above the 529 Grand St project should be considered in concert with the adjacent property at 515 S Grand St (cumulative impacts to the historic resource), and a CEQA study should be commissioned prior to any approval or development on either parcel.

Thank you for your time, efforts, and consideration of this information.

Sincerely,
Tony Trabucco
Address on File
For reference:

From the California Office of Historic Preservation:
"Categorical exemptions are identified by the State Resources Agency and are defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15300-15331). Unlike statutory exemptions, categorical exemptions are not allowed to be used for projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource (14 CCR Section 15300.2(f)). Therefore, lead agencies must first determine if the project has the potential to impact historical resources and if those impacts could be adverse prior to determining if a categorical exemption may be utilized for any given project."
Section 15300.2 - Exceptions [to Categorical Exemptions]:
(a)Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these 5 classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b)Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c)Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(d)Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
(e)Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource."
6 Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
Address
br. 4 both Mouse - 837E Adams Ave
a teasingenet
About 7 br, 4 bath House - 837 E Adams Ave
suchased as a rental peoperty Tenant will ram to gresmmediate ration to detached underry dwelling unit durg dane and July lis 837 E Adams Ave Chew H C Separate Prop Trust leased shortly thereafter as a 7BR/4BA house.

No. Fats Allowed
RENES 4090)
Her policus: No Dogs Allowed. No Cats Allomed
7 be. 4 bath House - 837 E Adoms Ave is a house Iscated - 457 N Batavia St 10 Prax Partners LLC *Approximately 5500 square foot property with parking for 15. Easily house 20 students."
1/21/2021 - Plans/Permits in process
420 N Batavia St Holding LLC
420 N Batavia St 10 10.5 Young & Lewin Capital
https://www.younglewincapital.com/property/4
20-batavia
1/18/2021 - Construction in progress
570 N Cambridge 10 10.5 Young & Lewin Capital https://www.younglewincapital.com/property/5 70-cambridge
1/18/2021 - Permits in progress
https://www.younglewincapital.com/property/5
552 N Cambridge St 10 10.5 Young & Lewin Capital 52-cambridge 552 N Cambridge St Holding LLC
590 N Cambridge St Young & Lewin Capital additions of BRs/BAs won't apply; Currently permits on file to add 2BRs (for total of 5).

Address Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
Feb 2022 - Advertised as 7BR/4BA with an ADU
461 N Citrus St 11 Young & Lewin Capital to follow - Likely 4BR/4BA model 04/4/2022 - via ads "WALKING distance to
Chapman University. This gorgeous 6 bedroom,

3.5 bath main house with a is walking distance to
Chapman University... -- ADU will be built in June
483 N Citrus St 10 7.5 Prax Partners LLC 1. Rent will be discounted if the extra two bedrooms are not built by August 1. Rent is
$7500 for main house and $1,800 for ADU
rooms."
SUMMER LEASE starting in June. Large house
521 E Collins Ave 3.5 Prax Partners LLC located minutes from Chapman University. 1/18/2021 - Plans in process
337 E Everett Ave 10 10.5 Young & Lewin Capital https://www.younglewincapital.com/property/3 37-everett
Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
Address
"Single Story Home Near Chapman University. 1202 E Everett Pl, Orange, Lin Lo-Han The L-H Lin CA 92867
1202 E Everett 2.5 Apply online at orangeleases.com" - Note: Tax Living Tr MENT $5,250
Records indiate 4 Bedrooms
5 beds 2.5 baths
it treate manual
Avalacie 06/01/2023
1/10/2018 - '''PLEASE NOTE: We are renting an
individual bedroom within a house of 7
bedrooms. One bedroom is $1,000 per month
454 S Glassell St Cameron Irons and $1,000 for the security deposit. Maximum 1 person per bedroom. At this time we have 3
individual bedrooms available."
525 S Glassell St. Shoreline Capital Group, LLC
1/21/2021 - Currently occupied by foreign high
414 S Grand St Sharon S Living Tr Groenendyk school students (private high school).

Feb 2022 - In process of being sold; Indicates 6BR
John J Bollinger (being sold Feb in main house (3 in basement) and a studio over 287 N Grand St 2022)
the garage.

Address Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
Likely illegal boarding house - Same owner as 350
S Olive and 390 N Shaffer (likely also illegal
365 N Harwood St 3.5 Tom Walsh boarding houses). Ad indicates "Currently 5BR/3.5BA" (implies more on the way?)
Flipped In process of being sold neighborhood, this property is also ideal as a 1414 E Lael Ave rental property to students and faculty of nearby Chapman University."
701 N Lincoln St, Orange,
"Rarely available. One of the nicest rentals in CA 92867 2 Sierra Jiwani Orange. Near Chapman University and The Plaza. KEN: $6,125 701 N Lincoln St
Completely remodeled." - Note: Tax records
Sbods aboths 1,900 sqft.
indicate 4 Bedrooms)
0I:2i0 06/01/2023
"Rarely Available. 7 bedroom 5 bath. Near
365 N Magnolia Ave Helen Brierly Chapman University. 365 N Magnolia St, Orange, CA 92866
Apply at orangeleases.com"
RENT $7,350
7 beds 5 baths
"Chapman University is in your backyard.

Students are welcome to apply as well!" - From
Land Use Planning Docs: A request to construct
331 N Olive St; Orange 2 Young & Lewin Capital an 800 square foot one bedroom detached ADU on a property with an inventoried structure in
the Old Towne District.

Address Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image

HOUSE FOR RENT
1/18/2021 Boarding House - Up to 10 Chapman
Tom Walsh - Walsh TA & BA Students being advertised (Note - also owns 350 S Olive St, Orange 10 Fam Trust property at Shaffer/Sycamore that has burned twice).

Tom Walsh - Walsh TA & BA 1/18/2021 - Tom Walsh also owns 10BR property 388-390 N Shaffer St Fam Trust on S. Olive St
291 S Shaffer St William and Charlotte Day
Address Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
2/8/2023: "A large 6 Bedroom and 3.25 bath, 2
story Pool home. Close to Chapman University (1
mile). Great for a large family or roommates.

Can accommodate 6 OR 7 roommates with the
large shareable master bedroom. Chapman
University students are welcome but must have a
parent guarantor (ONLY ONE parent is required
1451 N Shaffer St 3.25 Doron & Sharon Refael as a guarantor) - This house is set for 6-7 roommates and been a Chapman Student house
for several years. Families are also welcomed. For
students: The Group MUST HAVE ONE
lease as Guarantor." Note: 10/2019 - Permits
pulled to convert Family Room to 2 Bedrooms
5/10/22 MLS Ad: "Located in a QUIET
neighborhood and only one block from Chapman
University, this BRAND NEW home is ready for
621 E Sycamore Ave 3.5 Ruishu Dong & Xuejun Wang immediate move-in. Central AC and heating.

Security system. Brand new appliances that
include refrigerator, washer, dryer, dishwasher,
and microwave. Two car garage plus driveway for
Always-King Management Awesome House! Apply at OrangeLeases.com 729 E Sycamore Ave LLC
Address Beds Baths Owner's Name Notes Image
1/18/2021 - Not yet in progress
https://www.younglewincapital.com/property/3
67-n-waverly-st 5/2022: "4 bedroom 4
367 N Waverly St 10 10.5 Young & Lewin Capital bathroom is the perfect house for any group.

With 4 en suite bathrooms, each room in this
house is the master bedroom. Students are
welcome to apply! ADU is being built in garage.

Tenant could also rent this out as well."
"Conveniently located next to Old Towne Orange
and Chapman University..." - From City Land Use
562 N Waverly 2 Young & Lewin Capital
Suare footes A request to construct a new 300
2/8/2023: "A beautiful 6 bedrooms and 3
bathroom house on a quiet residential street.

Excellent for roommates or a family. available
6/1/2023. Chapman students are welcomed.

Close to Orange Circle and Chapman University.

This house is set for 6 roommates and been a
343 E Wilson Ave Chapman Student house for several years.

Families are also welcomed. for students: Group
MUST HAVE ONE designated parent guarantor
that will sign the lease as Guarantor" Note:

Permit pulled 3/2019 to convert Living Room to
add'l 2 Bedrooms and 1 Bath.

Total Bedrooms 210
Equivalent 3BR Houses: 70.00
Jennifer Connally
From: Patricia Ricci
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:38 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: 529 S. Grand
I am concerned about this project and the fact that the city did not follow proper CEQA protocols. This project needs to be looked at again. The Volovichs bought these 2 houses(515 and 529 S. Grand) as investments. They do not care about preserving historic homes. Why does the city continue to allow the chipping away of our historic resources? I have lived in Old Towne for 37 years. We began fighting then and we are still fighting. When is the city going to begin to protect the largest National Historic District in California? As a side note, David Fletcher, who plays middle infield for the Angels, was born in Orange. So I decided to Google him.

After the listing of his baseball statistics was the comment that Orange is known for it's collection of historic homes! And they started talking about baseball.

Why do we have to keep fighting to protect what the city is known for? Jennifer Connally
From: Kristin Caballero
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Anna Pehoushek <[email protected]>
Subject: 529 S Grand St - DR #5077-22 - Construction Proposal Ms. Pehoushek - I am sending this email to state my adamant opposition to the construction of an 1,102 sf duplex with attached 227 sf garage at 529 S Grand St in Orange:

I purchased my 1910 home in 1995, it was a neglected triplex for over 25 years. What the prior property owner (but more apropos to call him a slumlord) had done to a beautiful old home was disgraceful. I am proud of the changes made over the years, which include legally changing its multi-residential designation back to a single family residence. As a long-time homeowner of over 27 years, I have seen the negative impact of too much construction and too many rentals in Old Town. The density is ridiculous, street parking is a nightmare and the zoning allowance invites transiency:
- It is rare to get to know your neighbors because many rent and leave within 1 year. - Old Town Orange continues to devolve into a less welcoming family neighborhood. I raised my 20 year old daughter here, it is the only home she has known and there were no families with children on the entire block. Many homes on both sides of the street are not owner-occupied.

Many properties with multi-units within the 1 mile radius of historic Old Town do not have driveways or if they do, they are not shared with all residents/tenants. - Lack of driveways and/or garages increases street parking. The streets aren't getting any bigger but the buildings and people continue to increase because the City allows it.

Unconcealed disregard for adequate infrastructure is ongoing in Orange County, cities approve endless building.
1 - Inability to find available street parking due to an overabundance of rental units discriminates against tax-paying homeowners, whose taxes support both tangible and intangible resources and services.
- For many residences with existing garages, the primary use is storage, not to house vehicles, thus adding to the street parking concentration. - On street sweeping days it is challenging to find parking when it's required to leave one side open for the city maintenance vehicles. On this I speak on behalf of neighbors, I am not impacted because I have a long driveway and our personal vehicles use it.

However I witness the struggle that comes with limited street parking as well as the financial impact when neighbors are ticketed.

Multi-unit properties drain resources:
- We live in a drought-impacted state, how does new building reduce water consumption?
- The power grid is already strained and use-costs continue to rise, how does new building reduce electric consumption?
- Natural gas installation and use is under attack and prices are skyrocketing, how does new building reduce gas consumption?
Why does Old Town Orange zoning remain R-2-6, allowing multi-residential new build? The answer:

GREED, plain and simple. Greed from the property owner who wants an income stream and greed by the City, who wants the tax revenue.

How deadint diesal housing to Old Town Orange enhance the qualiy of lite for How do homeowners benefit from a new 1,102 sf structure and 227 sf garage at 529 S Grand St? They don't.

Are rental properties better maintained than owner-occupied residences? In most cases, no.
2 My position is not anti-renter. Homes prices are astronomical and prohibitive to new buyers, that is a reality. What I am opposed to is building new housing when it is of zero benefit to a nationally recognized historic district; new, unnecessary building IS NOT historic. I AM a proponent for owner-occupied residents who are contributing members to this community, the heart and soul of the neighborhood. Non-resident property owners are not concerned with how their construction negatively impacts local residents. For onsite property owners residing in a front house and desire a new back unit for income, shame on them. If they loved Old Town Orange, they would not add self-indulgent housing to an over-populated neighborhood. Those who truly respect Old Town Orange and its history would advocate keeping new residential construction to a minimum. If this project is allowed to happen, the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council are driven by self-interest and do not care about what is best for this special neighborhood and its residents.

On this matter, I am hopeful the Council will do what is right for Old Town Orange and vote on behalf of its local citizens and NOT in the interest of revenue or special interests.

In closing, just because one is allowed to build doesn't mean one should. The current R- 2-6 zoning needs to end, after all these years it senselessly remains, but again the only answers as to why can only be self-interest and greed.

Regards,
Kristin Caballero-Rubel
Orange, Ca 92866
3 Jennifer Connally
From: Annalisa Goode
Sent: My dyne Public 1302023248 PM
To:

Subject: Public Comment Item #9.1
Dear Mayor Slater and Councilmembers:

I am opposed to the proposed construction at 529 S. Grand Street. I implore the Council to review the cumulative effect in and around Old Towne Orange. I agree with OTPAs appeal of this proposed project until the City leaders can review CEQA applications.

Cordially,
Annalisa Goode
RUTAN Alisha Pattersor
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4663
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP E-mail: [email protected]
February 13, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
City of Orange City Council
Re: Item #9.1 on Agenda for City Council's February 14, 2023 Meeting Appeal No. 0561-22 - Approval of Design Review No. 5077-22 529 S. Grand Street, Orange, California 92866
Honorable Members of the City Council:

Our office represents Alison and Michael Vukovich (collectively, the "Vukoviches"), the owners of 529 S. Grand Street (the "Property") and applicant for Design Review No. 5077-22. The Property is already developed with a single family residence and garage (collectively, the "Existing Unit"). The Vukoviches are requesting approval from the City of Orange ("City") of the design of a new 1,102 square foot unit with an attached 227 square foot garage (collectively, the "Second Unit") in the rear yard behind the Existing Unit (the "Project"). The City's professional planning staff recommended approval of the Vukoviches' application. The City's Design Review Committee ("DRC"') approved the application, and the Planning Commission upheld that approval.

For the reasons discussed below, the Vukoviches respectfully request the City Council deny the appeal submitted by the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA) and approve Design Review No. 5077-22.

As a threshold matter, the Vukoviches are grateful to City staff, the DRC, and the Planning Commission for the thorough and diligent work they have put into the Vukoviches' application and the subsequent appeals by Councilmember Barrios (to the Planning Commission) and the OTPA (to the City Council). The Vukoviches share the appellants' dedication to protecting and preserving the unique historic character of Old Towne Orange. To that end, the Vukoviches have invested significant time and resources to rehabilitating the condition and appearance of two historic homes in this very special area. With respect to the proposed Second Unit, the Vukoviches listened to the community's concerns and significantly scaled back their original proposal. The proposal that was approved by the DRC and Planning Commission and that is now before the City Council fully complies with all applicable zoning, development, and design standards and tastefully balances historic preservation with the acute need to responsibly increase housing supply in Old Towne Orange.

The Vukoviches retained our firm to assist them with this appeal because of our expertise helping municipalities and applicants successfully navigate the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State's Housing Laws. Based on our review of the record, the City's professional planning staff, the DRC, and the Planning Commission have already exceeded Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, gth Floor
Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 2499/037941-0001 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 18816221.1 a02/13/23 RUTAN

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

CEQA's requirements when they determined the Vukoviches' proposed Second Unit qualifies for CEQA's Class 3 New Construction exemption. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15303.) This Design Review is Statutorily Exempt from CEOA.

Under CEQA, the nature and extent of environmental review depends on the particular decision at hand. Here, the Vukoviches are proposing:
• A duplex use (i.e., two dwelling units)
• On a site surrounded by other duplex uses
• Where the City's zoning (i.e., R2-6) and General Plan land use designation (i.e., Low Medium Density Residential) permit duplex uses by right. (See Orange Municipal Code ["OMC"] §§ 17.13.030, 17.13.040.EE.)
To be clear, the decision at hand is not whether to allow the Vukoviches to construct a second unit. That decision was made when the City approved the Duplex Residential District zoning and General Plan land use designation for the Vukoviches' Property. CEQA generally does not allow an agency to retroactively revisit the environmental impacts of prior zoning decisions because a property owner exercises the rights afforded by that zoning. (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.)
Here, the decision at hand is whether the design of Vukoviches' proposed Second Unit complies with the City's Design Review criteria, which are set forth in Section 18.10.070.G of the Orange Municipal Code ("OMC"). In applying these criteria, the City's professional planning staff, DRC, and Planning Commission evaluated the Vukoviches' proposed Second Unit for conformity with, among other things:
• The City's Municipal Code (which includes the City's Zoning Code as Title 17); • The City's Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange (a.k.a., the "Old Towne Design Standards" or "OTDS");
• The City's Infill Residential Design Guidelines; and
• The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (36 C.F.R. § 68.3) and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

The City's professional planning staff, the DRC, and the Planning Commission determined that the proposed Second Unit complies with all these standards, guidelines, and criteria. The Planning Commission made written findings memorializing this. (See Attachment 1 to Staff Report.)
2499/037941-0001
18816221.1 a02/13/23
RUTAN
RUTAN & TÚCKER, LLP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

Although Design Review involves the exercise of discretion on aesthetic matters, it qualifies as a "ministerial" review under what is known as CEQA's "functional test" if the process "lack|s] ... any discretion to address environmental effects" (as defined by the CEQA Guidelines'). (McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.Sth 80, 94, as modified (Jan. 25, 2019); see also Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.5th 479, 494.) Here, the City's Design Review process only allows the decision-making body to review the design of the Second Unit to "ensure that [it is] compatible with community aesthetics including architectural design, massing and scale, context, color palette, signage and landscaping." (OMC § 17.10.070.A.) Design Review does not afford the decision-making body any discretion to modify or deny the underlying use, which in this case, is permitted by right. (OMC § 17.13.030.) To the extent Design Review qualifies as "ministerial" under CEQA's functional test, it is statutorily exempt from environmental review. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15268; see generally Pub.

Res. Code § 21080 [CEQA "shall apply to discretionary projects" such as "the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps"].) There are no exceptions to CEQA's statutory exemptions.

This Design Review is Also Categorically Exempt from CEQA.

To the extent the Design Review qualifies as discretionary under CEQA's "functional test" (i.e., because it allows discretion to address environmental effects), the City's professional planning staff, DRC, and Planning Commission correctly determined it is categorically exempt as Class 3 New Construction.? (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15303.) This exemption expressly applies to "a second dwelling unit in a residential zone" and a "duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units." (Id., at § 15303(a)-(b).) There are six exceptions to CEQA's categorical exemptions (see 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15300.2), but as outlined below, there is no evidence in the record that any of the exceptions are applicable here. ' The CEQA Guidelines define "significant environmental effect" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15382.)
2 Although the DRC and Planning Commission did not need to make this determination, the proposed Second Unit is also categorically exempt as Class 32 Infill Development because it:
(1) "is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations"; (2) "occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses"; (3) is on a site that "has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species"; (4) will not "result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality"; and (5) "can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15332.) 2499/037941-0001
18816221.1 a02/13/23
RUTAN

RUTAN & TUCKER, LIP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023
Exception to CEQA Exemption Design Review of Second Unit

1. § 15300.2(a) - Location (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 The Vukovich's Property is not § 15300.2(b) - Cumulative Impact - "the There is no evidence in the record cumulative impact of successive projects of the that the design (or existence) of the same type in the same place, over time is Vukoviches' Second Unit would significant." have a "cumulative impact" on the
environment (as that term is defined
The CEQA Guidelines define "cumulative impact" in the CEQA Guidelines). (See, e.g., as "two or more individual effects which, when Hines v. California Coastal Com. considered together, are considerable or which (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 830, 857 compound or increase other environmental [cumulative impact exception did not impacts" such as "the change in the environment apply to new residence in riparian which results from the incremental impact of the zone solely on the basis that it may project when added to other closely related past, result in other property owners present, and reasonably foreseeable probable building residences in the riparian future projects." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355.) zone].) To the extent there are perceived
cumulative impacts associated with
duplex uses in this part of Old Towne
Orange, the City accepted and
planned for such impacts when it
zoned this area as a Duplex
Residential District (R2-6) and
adopted corresponding development
standards.

3. § 15300.2(c) - Significant Effect - "there is a There is no evidence in the record of reasonable possibility that the activity will have a "unusual circumstances." The significant effect on the environment due to Vukoviches are proposing a duplex unusual circumstances." use on a site zoned for duplex uses and surrounded by other duplex uses.
2499/037941-0001
18816221.1 a02/13/23
RUTAN

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 5 ends

Exception to CEQA Exemption Design Review of Second Unit § 15300.2(d) - Scenic Highways - the project The Vukoviches' Property is not near "may result in damage to scenic resources, any "highway officially designated including but not limited to, trees, historic as a state scenic highway." buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources,
within a highway officially designated as a state
scenic highway."

5. § 15300.2(e) - Hazardous Waste Sites - the The Vukovich's Property is not a project is "located on a site which is included on hazardous waste site, nor is it on any any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of list compiled pursuant to Section the Government Code." 65962.5 of the Government Code.

6. § 15300.2(f) - Historical Resources - the project The Vukovich's Second Unit "may cause a substantial adverse change in the consists of new construction in the significance of a historical resource." rear yard behind an existing residence that is screened from the
The CEQA Guidelines define "substantial adverse public right-of-way and surrounding change in the significance of an historical properties. Their proposal will not resource" to mean the "physical demolition, result in the "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the destruction, relocation, or alteration" resource or its immediate surroundings such that of any historical resource. It will not the significance of an historical resource would be result in any change whatsoever to materially impaired." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § the "physical characteristics" of 15064.5(b)(1).) The significance of a historical any historical resource. It will resource is "materially impaired" when a project comply with all of the Secretary of "[d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse the Interior's Standards for new manner those physical characteristics of an construction related to historic historical resource." (Id., at § 15064.5(b)(2).) resources.

Generally, projects that follow the Secretary of the In light of this, there is no evidence in Interior's Standards "shall be considered as the record that the design of the mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact Second Unit "may cause a substantial on the historical resource." (Id., at adverse change in the significance of 15064.5(b)(3).) a historical resource."
The OTPA appeal claims the City Staff Report for the Planning Commission appeal did not consider the exceptions to categorical exemptions. Even if that is true, CEQA does not require the City to negate the applicability of the six exceptions. Rather, the burden is on a party challenging the exemption to produce evidence supporting one or more of the six exceptions. (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 961, review denied 2499/037941-0001
188|6221.1 a02/13/23
RUTAN

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 6 ends

(Feb. 9, 2022), quoting Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105.) In response to public comment during the Planning Commission hearing, the City's professional planning staff (Ms. Pehoushek) and interim City Attorney (Ms. Binning) explained the criteria for the "cumulative impacts" and "historic resources" exceptions (i.e., 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15300.2(b) and (f)). After careful consideration of this criteria, the Planning Commission upheld staff's and DRC's determination that the Second Unit qualifies for the Class 3 categorical exemption. There is no valid basis to reverse this determination.

The Proposed Second Unit Is Less Impactful than a By-Right ADU and JADU.

In an effort to address California's housing crisis, recent State housing laws provide a streamlined, ministerial path to approval of additional dwelling units on the Vukoviches' Property.

Instead of requesting approval of the Second Unit, the Vukoviches could build an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit ("JADU) on the Property. (Gov.

Code §§ 65852.2, 65852.22.) Under the State's new housing laws, an ADU on the Vukoviches Property would be entitled to:
• Reduced setbacks (i.e., the maximum setback the City can require is four feet from side and rear lot lines);
• An increased height limit (i.e., up to sixteen feet); • No off-street parking requirements for the ADU (because the ADU is in a historically significant district);
• No requirement that the Vukoviches replace any off-street parking for the Existing Unit that is lost due to construction of the ADU; and
• Relief from any of the City's subjective standards (i.e., the City could only impose standards that "involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal").
(Gov. Code § 65852.2.) The City would be required to approve the ADU and JADU within sixty days and, as ministerial approvals, the ADU and JADU would be statutorily exempt from CEQA review3 (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15268; see generally Pub. Res. Code §. 21080.) The members of the community who urged the DRC and Planning Commission to deny the Vukoviches' proposed Second Unit expressed concern about density and perceived overdevelopment on the Property, but the Second Unit proposal is significantly less dense than what State law allows through the ADU and JADU approval process. 3 As noted above, the six exceptions to categorical CEQA exemptions do not apply to statutory exemptions.
2499/037941-0001
18816221.1 a02/13/23
RUTAN

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
City of Orange City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 7 ends

Due Process Requires Recusal if a Councilmember Has a Conflict of Interest.

This appeal is a quasi-adjudicatory decision that requires each member of the City Council to be "neutral and unbiased." (Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021.) Through no fault or wrongdoing of officials, conflicts of interests periodically arise that require officials to recuse themselves to avoid a situation where they have a financial interest in the decision (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700 et seq.) or an "unacceptable probability of actual bias." (Woody's Group, Inc., at 1021-1022.) Here, Councilmember Barrios is one of the appellants and has publicly opposed the Vukoviches' Second Unit (i.e., she provided testimony at the Planning Commission appeal hearing urging the Commission to uphold her appeal and deny the Vukoviches' Design Review). Mayor Slater is a member of the OPTA (i.e., the other appellant) and is the OPTA's former president. The Vukoviches have deep respect for Mayor Slater and Councilmember Barrios and admiration for their advocacy on behalf of their community, but in light of their role as appellants (or a member of an appellant organization) who have publicly opposed the Vukoviches' proposal, due process requires that they both recuse themselves from the City Council's decision on the appeal. (Id.; see also Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470; BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205.)
***
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. For all of the reasons set forth above the Vukoviches respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold DRC's approval of the Design Review and determination that the Vukoviches' proposed Second Unit is exempt from CEQA.

Very truly yours,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
abatapar
Alisha Patterson
AP
CC: Via email only:

Tom Kisela, Interim City Manager
Jeffrey Adams, Interim Community Development Director
Mary Binning, Interim City Attorney
Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Mike & Alison Vukovich
2499/037941-0001
18816221.1 a02/13/23
Jennifer Connally
From: Dynamic Wellness
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:39 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item # 9.1
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in support of the CEQA Appeal made by The Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA) regarding the property at 529 South Grand Street.

I believe further study needs to be done on the Environmental Impact of this project - most directly to the homes surrounding this property, but also the impact on our Historical District as a whole.

OTPA is a non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve, protect and enhance the historic charm of California's largest historic district. The protection of this district is guided by the Secretary of Interior's Standards and enforced by our City staff. This past year I have been saddened by the loss and potential loss of contributing structures in our district which should not still be happening! One example is the garage at 291 N Cambridge, a contributing structure that was allowed to be demolished. This past year, the city has been
short-handed, we know. And probably because of this, maybe proper checks and balances were not done. I wonder if the structure was in fact so damaged that it needed to be torn down, rather than preserved. Sadly, we will never know.... and now we have lost that structure which contributed to the Old Towne Orange Historic District.

The issue today is, not removing, but adding a new structure behind an existing and the impact it will have on the neighborhood. The proposed new structure is very equal in size to the original home. The applicant has admitted that it will be rented to Chapman students and that there could be as many as 12 living between the 2 houses. The same applicant has purchased the property next door with the same plan. 24 people living between 2 properties with potentially 24 cars parking, and adding to traffic flow on a street that is so narrow there is only parking on one side, is ABSOLUTELY a negative impact on the block!
The quality of life on this street will be changed forever if these projects are allowed to proceed.

The "Nutwood Tract" is a unique little part of the Old Towne Historic District ~ actually a quieter section of the district, and this project will potentially change that forever.

The Planning Commission needs to re-evaluate the negative impact as it is absolutely an issue with regard to the California Environmental Quality Act. I am very concerned that if this project (really both projects) are allowed to proceed, it will be setting a precedent that investors and developers can come in, alter the historic fabric of our historic district, and basically begin running a business in a neighborhood not zoned for running a business. This, then, historically altering what many are working so hard to preserve.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,
Victoria Laughlin, Vice President
Old Towne Preservation Association
1 Orange, CA 92866
February 14, 2023
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Ave.

Orange, California 92866
Re: 529 South Grand Street
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
CEQA prohibits approval of a project with significant impacts when less impactful alternatives exist.

CEQA requires approvals must be the result of statistical findings not just a matter of opinion.

Staff's CEQA Environmental Checklist item V a) asks if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in 2023 CEQA 15064.5 which says if the resource is included in a local register of historic resources "Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant..."
CEQA requires us to consider the SITE as well as the structure. The Nutwood Place is significant as specified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Old Towne is significant as specified in the National Register Historic Resources.

The City's Historic Preservation Design Standards gives us a statistical means to evaluate the project, "FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a property is the total square footage of all structures on the lot divided by the area of the lot itself. FAR is a calculation of the ratio of development compared to the size of the property. A low FAR indicates that buildings are surrounded by plenty of open space and outdoor areas. A high FAR means that there is less open space and landscape area on the property, both of which contribute to the character and sense of place in Old Towne's residential neighborhoods. Most historic residential properties in Old Towne range from 0.15 to 0.25 FAR. Infill construction that has a substantially higher FAR than surrounding historic properties is unlikely to be compatible with the Historic District. In general, an infill project should aim for an FAR that is no higher than the average FAR on the surrounding block. There are many factors that affect compatibility of infill construction, but FAR provides one tool for assessing whether your project fits into the character of the surrounding neighborhood."
Please send this project back to Staff and the DRC for reconsideration with respect to CEQA.

Sincerely,
Gloria Boice
Infill-Generally refers to a newly constructed building within an existing developed area; Historic Preservation Design Standards
CEOA Guidelines
Association of Environmental Professionals 2022
model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21001, 21002, 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080, 21082, 21082.1, 21082.2, 21083.05, 21100, Pub. 3 Cal.5th 497; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) Resources Code; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 204; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70; 6 Cal.App.5th 160; Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322;, Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Mejia v. City Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344; and City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868.
15064.5. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

HISTORICAL RESOURCES
(a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the following:

A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources (1)
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.

Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead (3)
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public 184
Association of Environmental Professionals 2022
CEQA Guidelines
Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1() or 5024.1.
(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(2)
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its Resources; or
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical culturally significant; or
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics (C)
of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the (3) Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.

A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public Resources Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental documents.
(c) CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites.
(1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subdivision (a).

If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall (2) refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
185
c. In the Old Towne historic
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a property is the total square footage of all districts, historic accessory structures on the lot divided by the area of the lot itself. FAR is a calculation structures were typically of the ratio of development compared to the size of the property. Allow FAR utilitarian buildings indicates that buildings are surrounded by plenty of open space and outdoor with limited decorative areas. A high FAR means that there is less open space and landscape area on elements. Basic rectangular the property, both of which contribute to the character and sense of place in building forms and simple Old Towne's residential neighborhoods roof configurations are Most historic residential properties in Old Towne range from 0.15 to 0.25 FAR. appropriate. Infill construction that has a substantially higher FAR than surrounding historic

9. Infill construction should adhere properties is unlikely to be compatible with the Historic District, In general, an infill project should aim for an FAR that is no higher than the average FAR on to the sections on Standards for the surrounding block. There are many factors that affect compatibility of infill Historic Residential Buildings - construction, but FAR provides one tool for assessing whether your project Setting or Standards for Historic fits into the character of the surrounding neighborhood Commercial Buildings - Setting.

FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Floor Area Ratio Example:

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by Separate Floor Area
Lot Area 6,200 sq. ft.

Light Grey = First Floor Area (not counting porches)
Medium Grey = Second Floor Area 1st Floor Area (Without Open Porches) 1,120 Dark Grey = Habitable Area over 5 Feet in Height Garages & Accessory Structures 420 Total First Floor Area 1,540
ATTIC 15' 1st Floor Area Divided by Lot Area
1,540 / 6,200 = 25 FAR
2nd FLOOR 2nd FLOOR
Second Floor Area 625
Any Attic Area over 5 Feet in Height 180
1st FLOOR 1st FLOOR
Total 2nd Floor Area 805
Second & Attic Area Divided by Lot Area
805 / 6,200 = . 13 FAR
Total First and Second Floor FAR
.25 + .13 = .38 FAR
Block Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
1 1-1/2 2 1
1 1
Number of Stories
.25 .22 .36 .32 .33 .19 .28
First Floor FAR .15 .19 27 .20
(including garages) .08 .03 .14 .03 .03
.03 .04 .03 .03 .03
Second Floor FAR .03 .25 44 .35 .47 .22 .32
.22 .31 .23 28
Total FAR .18
FAR Range .18 to .47 FAR
Average FAR 29 FAR
• 48
Jennifer Connally
From: Sue Vaurs
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:26 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Mtg - Agenda Item 9.1 (529 S. Grand St. Appeal) 2/14/23 City Council Mtg - Agenda Item 9.1 (529 S. Grand St. Appeal) Our historic district is fragile. All efforts and decisions should be made on the side of preservation as there will never be any additions to this District. Old Towne Orange started life as a single-family area, with a few duplexes built during the 1920's, and consists of 1 square mile and approximately 1300 contributing structures - all built prior to 1940. As more homes are modified or remuddled, and possibly lose their status, our numbers will shrink. At what point does Old Towne Orange no longer qualify as a historical district. Where is the tipping point? I, and 1 am sure many others, chose to live in this historical district for a variety of reasons including the charm, character, and lifestyle of a bygone era. There were also financial considerations made such as the cost of restoration and the Mills Act tax break.

Prior to homeowners' efforts to save this area by getting it recognized and placed on the Historic Register it was deemed blighted. Preservation efforts have turned that around and now property values for these historic homes are above average. The district and its lifestyle, not just a building, IS the historic resource. Let's not kill the goose who laid the golden egg!
It is unfortunate that the Nutwood Tract area still maintains R2 zoning. This makes it vulnerable to developers more interested in cashing in than the quality of life and preservation of a District.

The proposed construction at 529 S. Grand St. (as well as any future plans for 515 S. Grand St.) will set a negative precedent and create a slippery slope towards future projects. With only 10 homes on this block, changes to these two properties will make a huge impact.

I am asking that you reconsider your prior approval and assess the cumulative impact to the District, as a whole, by conducting a CEQA analysis.

Sue Vaurs
Orange, CA 92866

SEVEN GETTHE SELLER'S ADVANTAGE, ASK ABOUT OUR NO-COST HOMEREFRESH LOAN, GABLES
HEXE LSTATE ¿SEVENGABLESREALESTATE
@SEVENTABLESREALESTATE

SUE VAURS
BROKER ASSOCIATE | TOP
Caica DRE: 000 0013 Leading WORK

LUXURY PLACES
PORTFOLIO 12073-2021

INTERMATIONAL
Sewer Gaite: Rofite
Item 9.2
2021-2029 Housing
Element Update
Jennifer Connally
From: Regina Mundekis
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:49 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment #9.2
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I support item 9.2 Adoption of 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element.

Thank you for your interest in this matter,
Reggie Mundekis
Received for
February 10, 2023
Special Meeting
Jennifer Connally
From: Barry Ross
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 8:52 AN
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: February 10, 2023 Item 2.1 Housing Element
Dear Mayor Slater and City Councilmembers,
My name is Barry Ross. I serve as Executive Director, Justice Partnerships for the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange. I want to thank the City of Orange for your partnership and tremendous support of Villa St. Joseph, which will create affordably housing for persons experiencing homelessness, veterans and seniors is the Sisters former Motherhouse. I commend you and your staff for developing a Housing Element that has informal approval by HCD.

As in most of California, in the City of Orange 54% of renter households spend 30% or more of gross income on housing costs and 26.8% of renter households spend fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. In the 5th cycle housing element period, the City saw only 9 very low and 72 low housing units built. The 6th cycle RHNA targets for the City are 1,067 very low and 601 low housing units to be built.

The housing element that you are considering today does not include policies that significantly improve the chances of meeting the housing needs of the most vulnerable populations in the City. I request that the City Council consider the following policies to make more affordable housing a reality in the 6th cycle:

1. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low- and low-income categories.

2. Prioritize affordable housing funding and programs to increase affordable housing options for families of lower incomes, especially at very low and extremely low-income.

3. Identify city-owned sites and prioritize these sites for the development of affordable housing in Orange.

4. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the initial drafts are realistic and available during the planning period.

5. Ensure opportunity sites are not simply upzoned or rezoned without including affordable housing policies that will capture the financial and land use incentives being given to property owners and market rate developers. An Affordable Housing program is also needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Barry Ross
Executive Director, Justice Partnerships
Sisters of St. Joseph Healthcare Foundation
Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange Fund
Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange
440 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868-3998
www.csjorange.org
f
1 Jennifer Connally
From: Regina Mundekis
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 8:35 AM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: February 10 City Council Special Meeting Comment Dear Mayor and City Council,
I have questions regarding the adoption of the Housing Element which pertain to the Builder's Remedy.

The Builder's Remedy was created in SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and is contained in Government Code Section 65589.5.

Builder's Remedy applies when a city has not adopted a revised Housing Element in compliance with state law. The city cannot deny a housing development which qualifies under the terms of the Builder's Remedy even if the housing development does not comply with the city's general plan and zoning ordinance.

Questions

1. Does adoption of the Housing Element approved by the state end the possible use of the Builder's Remedy for this RHNA cycle?

2. Has the City of Orange (City) received applications to use the Builder's Remedy?

3. If the City has received applications to use the Builder's Remedy, who submitted the applications? What are the proposed projects?
Thank you for your interest in this matter,
Reggie Mundekis

Orange City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Orange City Council
February 14, 2023