Public Comments — Orange City Council, September 22, 2026

September 22, 2026
City Council Meeting
Written Public Comments

Orange City Council
Meeting Time: 09-22-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Orange City Council 09-22-26
18:00
33 31 8 13 2
Orange City Council
09-22-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

At this time, members of the public may address the Council on matters not listed on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, provided that NO action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker unless a different time limit is announced. 8 3 5 0

8.1. Public Hearing to consider revision of the Master Schedule of Fees and Charges for various City services
2 0 1 0

8.2. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 15-26 modifying posted speed limits on various streets throughout the City
1 1 0 0

8.3. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 14-26 repealing and replacing Chapter 17.17 of the Orange Municipal Code with a new Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Ordinance and related procedural amendments to Chapter

17.08, and finding of California Environmental Quality Act exemption 5 2 1 1

9.1. Proposed Mills Act Program Guidelines 14 2 5 1

9.2. Implementation of permit parking on portions of Almond Avenue and Washington Avenue within Permit Parking Opportunity Area No. 6 1 0 1 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Overall Sentiment
William Melcher
Location:

Submitted At: 5:17pm 09-22-26
I support the ongoing efforts in regards to following SB-1383 (composting/green waste). Thank you for recognizing efforts made by companies to adhere to the law.

I encourage the City to support broad adoption of correct waste sorting and food waste composting by providing restaurants and residents with the information, tools, and support they need to make it work.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 12:43pm 09-22-26
have the proper environmental review processes been conducted? Do we know if proper air monitoring/sampling will be conducted to determine the amount of exhaust being put into the atmosphere from the 24/7 trucks? will AQMD be involved? Was a phase 1/2 done to determine if there are any current contaminants of concern? Does the site have a land use covenant with the state to determine if restricted use is needed? Have noise impacts been conducted to determine how it will affect local residence and the environment? Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 11:36am 09-22-26
Rexford Proposal for 2411 N. Glassell Street, Project Case SP-1180 A project of this size and scale, as well as the hours of operations is inappropriate, and this project should be declined. The developer should create a reasonable use of the property, one that benefits the residents, the city of Orange, and creates long lasting good relationships.

The City’s project information identifies 570 employees for the 298,988-square-foot warehouse. Are these permanent, full-time, part-time, or seasonal employees? What wages are these jobs expected to pay? There is also a useful comparison that should be made. The Orange County Business Journal reports that SA Recycling has 415 employees in Orange County. 570 is not a significant increase from 415, and it’s certainly less than the tree building could employ, as well as less than were employed by Volt when it was there.

The City should be comparing job quality, wages, job density, and fiscal contribution among reasonable alternative uses of this property. Could an appropriately scaled office, research and development, life-science, or mixed-use employment project generate more permanent, higher-paying employment and greater long-term economic value while being more compatible with the surrounding community? Saying that a project will generate revenue is not the same as showing:

How much revenue will the City actually receive?
Which taxes and fees will generate that revenue?
How much will be recurring each year versus one-time revenue? How much will go specifically to the City of Orange General Fund? What additional costs will the City incur to serve this development? I also believe the City should examine the potential costs associated with the project's increased truck traffic, roadway impacts, traffic management, police and fire services, infrastructure, noise, and other ongoing demands.

What is the estimated annual cost to the City to provide these services? What is the City's projected net fiscal benefit after those costs are considered?
There is another question that deserves to be answered. Has the City analyzed whether a nearly 300,000- square-foot industrial facility, with substantial truck activity and its proximity to established residential neighborhoods, could affect surrounding residential property values? Approximately 1,200 homes appear to be within the half-mile area surrounding the project. That makes the potential impact on the surrounding residential community particularly important.

Has the City analyzed whether the project's truck traffic, noise, visual impact, pollution, and other environmental effects could affect nearby property values? If surrounding values decline, has the City considered the possible long-term effect on the City's property-tax base?
I am not opposed to putting this property to productive use. I am asking the City to determine whether this particular use and this particular scale provide the strongest long-term benefit to Orange residents.

A large building does not automatically mean a large economic benefit. Before approving a nearly 300,000- square-foot warehouse, the City should be able to clearly demonstrate the number and quality of jobs being created, the jobs being displaced, the annual revenue the City will actually receive, the public costs associated with the project, and the potential long-term effects on the surrounding community.

What are Orange residents actually receiving in return for a project of this size and intensity? Dave Simpson
Location:

Submitted At: 9:56am 09-22-26
My comment is on Item 1.4, specifically the much needed recognition of Maribel Hernandez. Thank you for recongnizing Maribel's work with El Modena Family Resource Center. In my involvement with Orange non-profits, I came across many who serve our community to help others who need a hand up. Maribel stands out as a superstar in this area and her work is well known. At one event at the Center, we held a painting exercise with the El Mo Resource center where kids joined us as we all painted a picture. At the end of that simple event, I was told the young boy I was painting with may have never spent as much time with me (a white man) in his life. That struck me. We all have a role to play in supporting all in our community and Maribel Hernandez has been facilitating such opportunities for a long time. Congratulations to her! Orange is better for it! Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 12:05pm 09-21-26
I support Jill Hargis's speech on businesses working toward SB 1383 by reducing food waste that ends up in the landfill. When food waste goes to the landfill, it decays and emits methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. CR&R has an anaerobic digester facility in Perris, which takes organics (including food waste and paper/cardboard with food residue on it) and converts the emitted methane into power rather than emitting it into the atmosphere. The infrastructure to remove all food waste from the landfill is in place. Orange needs to continue pushing restaurants and residents to recycle appropriately. There is no reason why anyone from Orange should dispose of food waste in the trash bin. The Orange Sustainability Group's efforts have been monumental in spreading the information and recognizing those who go above and beyond to not only comply with the law, but to prove it can be easily done.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 4:12pm 09-20-26
Rexford Proposal for 2411 N. Glassell Street, Project Case SP-1180 Hello Councilmembers, just wanted to state our objections as i sit in my dining room looking at the parking lot of the current Volt building and want you to ask yourselves ONE QUESTION. Would you want a 36 SEMI TRUCK bay warehouse operating 24/7 out your front door? I don't think any of us do and surely not any of my neighbors.

I hope you will make the right call and reject this developers project as my neighborhood is just not the right place for this project. Orange residents since 1990, and would prefer to stay here and raise my grandkids in the current peace and quiet we now enjoy, at least on nights, weekends and holidays when office workers are not next door.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 2:18pm 09-20-26
Rexford Proposal for 2411 N. Glassell Street, Project Case SP-1180 My name is Danett and I’ve been a resident of Orange since 1972.

I grew up in the 1970’s and 1980’s when we regularly had third-stage smog alerts, when taking a breath meant deep pain in your lungs; I remember the smell and taste of the air – it was metallic and acrid. I now have asthma and lung issues from those days. Me and my brother would get bronchitis every year because of the heavy air pollution. I cannot go outside if the particulate level is high. This project will exponentially increase this count, not to mention the increase in noise pollution.

SCAQMD sent the city of Orange a formal comment letter (Control No. ORC260414-01) flagging serious problems with the developer's environmental study. There were six serious concerns.

The people in this neighborhood are already negatively impacted by RJ Noble, which operates their gravel pit 24/7, with diesel trucks in and out of the property all day and all night. There is frequently a horrible tar odor coming from the property. There is also a scrap metal recycling business on Frontera that also emits toxic fumes frequently, and just like RJ Noble, diesel trucks are in and out of the property all the time.

I’ve been a climate and environmental activist for years and the fight is always the same. Unchecked greed is the engine that drives decisions that impact everyday people’s lives. Developers never consider what impact their decisions will have on the people who have lived in these areas for decades.

The Trump administration has taken significant actions to roll back environmental protections, including eliminating regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, canceling funding for pollution reduction programs, and promoting fossil fuel extraction. These actions have been described as an unprecedented attack on climate policy and public health. We see a snowballing effect on state and local jurisdictions, with this being a perfect example of that effect.

AQMD has raised serious issues with the environmental impact for this proposed project. It will always exceed the very thin emissions margins, just as RJ Noble does and has for the last 6 decades. Increasing diesel fuel emissions in this already impacted area will only exacerbate health issues and quality of life.

Agenda Item: eComments for 8.1. Public Hearing to consider revision of the Master Schedule of Fees and Charges for various City services
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 11:37am 09-22-26
The new fee will generate approximately $320,00.00 annually. It is hard to believe that this is the cost of this program. We (the participants), should not be responsible for past mismanagement of this program. In the past the city did not fulfill their part in this program. No accurate record keeping and periodic inspections. For instance, I have had three inspections and my neighbor has had zero over approximately the same contract period.

The Mills Act is supposed to be a partnership between the city and historic caretakers. Implementing a near-$800 annual administrative tax significantly erodes the financial incentive intended by the state law, essentially rewriting the rules of our long-term covenant.

We need a full accountability as to how this money is to be spent.

I also have to question the legality of this fee increase. This is a lawed Cost-Recovery Justification. Under California law, municipal fees must strictly reflect the actual, reasonable cost of the administrative service provided. The City must fully demonstrate and justify how routine, annual oversight of an existing contract requires a 700% spike in staff time and resources.

In light of past comments by some Council members that suggest dissolving all Mills contracts, this egregious fee appears as an attempt to encourage individuals to quit the program to begin the elimination of this importing preservation program.

I hope this is not true .

Again, please reconsider this fee change to makes it fair and legal for all.

Thank you for your time and for protecting the residents who protect Orange’s history.

Jeff Frankel
Past OTPA President, Vice President and Preservation Chairman (20 Years) Agenda Item: eComments for 8.2. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 15-26 modifying posted speed limits on various streets throughout the City Overall Sentiment
A.J. Ricci
Location:

Submitted At: 3:33pm 09-21-26
Thank you to city staff for looking at these posted speed limits and recommending a reduction in multiple areas.

With the mass adoption of electric vehicles alongside improved acceleration technology, cars can take off faster then ever. These new recommended speeds will help temper traffic and hopefully lead to less severe accidents and overall safer travels.

Agenda Item: eComments for 8.3. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 14-26 repealing and replacing Chapter 17.17 of the Orange Municipal Code with a new Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Ordinance and related procedural amendments to Chapter 17.08, and finding of California Environmental Quality Act exemption Overall Sentiment
A.J. Ricci
Location:

Submitted At: 4:56pm 09-22-26
Without a doubt the City of Orange needs a Preservation Ordinance to address the inconsistencies within the current interpretation of the Orange Historic Preservation Design Standards. But I urge cation on how this ordinance has city-wide impacts in the interest of property rights such as:
- Broad definition of "Character Defining Feature" that can also include the interior features of a home/commercial property which also includes landscaping.
- A property that has been given an "Exemption" Status only holds for 5 years before it is subject to the same screening process again.
- The review trigger of a building being just over 45 years old opens up the entire city to this initial unfunded mandated admin review.

Again, we do need a Preservation Ordinance, but lets be careful not to hinder economic development in other parts of Orange while we are attempting to encourage new businesses to come in. This is a great start, just need to iron out a couple details.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 3:25pm 09-22-26
I support the passing of this ordinance and encourage a yes vote! I would like to point out that in Section 17.17.103 Definitions, the definition of "Major Alterations" and "Minor Alterations" have left a hole for 2 types of projects: additions that exceed 120 square feet and are not visible from the public right-of-way, and additions under 120 square feet that are visible from the public right-of-way. Those types of project do not fall under either definition and it is unclear whether it would require a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Certificate of Appropriateness. I suggest changing the wording for the definition of "Major Alterations" to be "additions measuring 120 square feet and over to a property OR are visible from the public right-of-way..." I believe that would close those loopholes.

Respectfully, Carol Fox
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 12:44pm 09-22-26
The Orange Park Association supports the Citywide Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Ordinance No. 14-26 and urges the City Council to approve it. We ask you to vote Yes.

With the adoption of this ordinance, Orange Park Acres would have the opportunity to showcase our local history and unique lifestyle as we prepare for our 100th anniversary in 2028.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 12:35pm 09-22-26
When will new applications be allowed to be submitted for the Mills ACt? Adrienne Gladson
Location:

Submitted At: 4:46pm 09-21-26
Pleased to support the adoption of this ordinance.

Through the citywide Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Ordinance, a new pathway for citywide property owners to request their property/site be listed will be established through the Orange Historic Register.

The local register will achieve an overdue general plan goal the community has been asking for a long… long… time! Delaying this further puts the city at risk.

What this really means is EVERY ORANGE NEIGHBORHOOD MATTERS! No area is excluded from consideration or participation. Every neighborhood can participate and celebrate their own history! So, what does this really mean?
If you live in the El Modena or Cypress Street barrios? Your property or neighborhood may qualify.

If you live in the community of Olive or other areas of Orange? Your property or neighborhood may be eligible too.

If you want to see the neighborhood of Orange Park Acres (OPA) honored? This neighborhood is very unique and turns 100 in 2028.

Is there a cultural icon in your neighborhood? Let the new HRC know.

Just because a building or site is old (over 45 years) isn’t enough to qualify. The eligibility requirements are high.

They should be. Criteria includes having integrity and:

Association with important events: It is, or was at one time, associated with important events or broad patterns of development that have played a significant role in shaping the cultural, architectural, social, historical, economic, or political history of the city, region, state, or nation.

Association with important persons: It is, or was at one time, associated with an individual or individuals whose contributions significantly influenced the history, development, or culture of the city, region, state, or nation.

Architectural, artistic, or design significance: It reflects the distinctive characteristics of a particular style, type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses notable artistic or aesthetic merit; or stands as one of the last or finest remaining examples of an architectural type or style once common but now increasingly rare.

Information pertaining to prehistory: It has produced, or has the capacity to produce, information important to understanding the prehistory or history of the city, region, state, or nation.

I know this has been a long road and so many have given up alot, including myself, for this ordinance to finally happen. Attached is the handout provided to the community during the street fair. We heard strong support for it adoption. Please take a few minutes at look at the visual boards that will be display in the chamber for this item.

I say VOTE YES!
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.1. Proposed Mills Act Program Guidelines Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 5:54pm 09-22-26
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I purchased my 1914 Craftsman home in 2001. I enrolled it in the MIll's Act, grateful for the opportunity to save tax money and restore my home. Since then my husband and I have purchased 5 other historic homes and restored them all. We honor our Mills Act contracts and our homes are in great shape and add value to the neighborhood. Each home has been a labor of love.

After reading everyone's comments, I can save some time, and say I agree with everything Jeff Frankel said! Additionally, the City of Orange has mismanaged their finances for many years. This feels like the council is coming to the citizens to fill the gap. From downtown pay for parking, and now the Mills Act.

Why does Orange need to create a "New Heritage Commission"? Are these paid positions? Another neighborhood group like the OTPA?
Why does the city need to create a Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Ordinance? Why do you need to limit the number of new contracts to 8 per year? If a home is a contributing structure why shouldn't it be added ?
The city should use the existing Mills Act and enforce it.

We need less government in our lives not more.

Thank you, Lisa Switzer
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 5:01pm 09-22-26
When we purchased our 1921 Craftsman in 2014, it was almost a tear-down. We were just starting a family, and the Mills Act is what convinced us to move here from Costa Mesa. Since then, we have put roughly $300k into this property, and it's now one of the gems on our street.

Take away the Mills Act (which you effectively will be doing with an insane and unprecedented 700% increase), and this house would have been sold to BlackRock, and they would be renting it out in the same slum condition it was in when we bought it. But with a fresh coat of paint.

Please do take a hard look at exactly the people you are hurting to gain a measly $335k next year. Many of us don't have an extra $700 laying around as we pay $6.50 to fill up our cars and are down one income.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 4:33pm 09-22-26
My name is Nicole. I am a mother, a proud old town Orange homeowner and a Mills Act recipient of over 12 years. I am appalled at the sudden, 682% rate increase for program holders -- an increase that punishes hardworking families, fixed income seniors, and the dedicated preservationists that maintain our town's charm. A rate that is hiked from $100 to $728 overnight is not an adjustment. It is mismanagement at best and greed at worst.

And at a time when the cost of living continues to level the middle class, the city's decision to add to that burden is another cruel blow. Additionally, it risks something that, once gone, can never be restored -- the character of our homes and neighborhoods. Where neighborhoods decline, so do property values, so do schools, so does tourism, so does revenue. So I am asking the council, as a resident who loves this town, to look at the bigger picture and make choices for the future of Orange. Keep the Mills Act, restore our annual fees, and solve city fiscal and budget issues without harming your residents. vanessa nesbit
Location:

Submitted At: 4:10pm 09-22-26
My name is Vanessa, and I’ve been a proud Mills Act homeowner for over 23 years. I understand that many of the recent program changes are aimed at new contracts, and I also understand the city is trying to address widespread non_compliance among rental properties, landlords, and management companies who have not completed required work or have not paid their fees.

But that is not my situation.

For more than two decades, I have met every fee deadline, completed required repairs, and maintained my historic home in full compliance — even during years when doing so was financially difficult. Now, with the administrative fee increasing by more than 600%, homeowners like me who have done everything right are being asked to shoulder the same burden as those who have not upheld their obligations.

I am retired and on a fixed income, and while I will continue to pay my fees, I respectfully ask the Council to consider whether a sliding_scale fee structure or a differentiated system for long_standing, compliant homeowners would be more equitable. It would allow those of us who have consistently invested in our historic properties to continue directing our limited resources toward preservation rather than administrative costs.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 2:21pm 09-22-26
Mayor Slater and fellow council members,
I grew up with my mother selling antiques in Orange Plaza. She raised me to love the character of age. I jumped at the chance to participate in loving a 100 year old home. When my husband unexpectedly left one year into owning our Mills Act home, my kids and I took on maintaining the home. We could have sold, as many would have, but this home became a safe haven for my children as we painstakingly filled the plaster cracks in their bedrooms, read the 1935 newspaper hidden in the walls, and gave up most weekends in favor of house work. I’ve heard people call Mills Act owners mooches and opportunists taking advantage. My bank account would say otherwise. Pinching my pennies to replace endless rotten wood, shore up sill plates, paint and repaint, plaster and replaster, the tax advantages have paled in comparison to the time and money spent to restore our home.

The fee increase hurt. I understand a nominal increase as age and time permits.

I also heard someone say that no one comes to Orange because of the old homes. They absolutely do. It’s why I came. It’s why thousands come for Halloween and Christmas to walk the streets. It’s why people say “oh Orange is so charming.” They aren’t referring to my neighbors who park on their lawns and live in purpose built duplexes and triplexes. I am the only Mills Act home on my street and people stop in all the time saying they appreciate the work I’m doing. Please remember there are those of us who passionately serve the city through preservation of its original character and who teach their children hard work and pride of ownership through this preservation.

Please also ensure that any changes made to the program adhere to our contracts as they are legally recorded with our homes.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 11:58am 09-22-26
Jeff Frankel Part Two:

The new fee will generate approximately $320,00.00 annually. It is hard to believe that this is the cost of this program. We (the participants), should not be responsible for past mismanagement of this program. In the past the city did not fulfill their part in this program. No accurate record keeping and periodic inspections. For instance, I have had three inspections and my neighbor has had zero over approximately the same contract period.

We need a full accountability as to how this money is to be spent.

I hope this is not true .

Again, please reconsider this fee change to makes it fair and legal for all.

Thank you for your time and for protecting the residents who protect Orange’s history.

Jeff Frankel
Past OTPA President, Vice President and Preservation Chairman (20 Years) Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 11:24am 09-22-26
Part One From Jeff Frankel
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
We were appalled when we received the notice in the mail of almost 700% increase in our yearly Mills Act fee. 700%, really.

The city needs to explain why this increase will be imposed.

We need to see all the financials regarding this increase including cost to the city vs benefits Since the city has been charging a fee for 30 years where did these funds go?.

With this increase the city profiting off the backs of Mills participants? We need an explanation as to why a 700% increase is necessary all at once? If an increase is necessary why not increase it incrementally over time? A 700% jump shifts an unfair financial burden onto historic property owners who have voluntarily entered into a partnership with the City to preserve_Orange's unique heritage and its historic resources.

These resources have been a huge draw to the city bringing in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue yearly.

The Mills Act is a critical and only preservation tool available to property owners and the only incentive for preserving historic resources of Orange. This is not a giveaway, all tax credits are invested back into the maintenance and preservation of these properties.

The city claims a “Full Cost Recovery” when in fact the city’s investment falls short as the city has not kept accurate records or performed periodic inspections in many cases per contracts. So the past cost to the city has been exaggerated.

Not only have we invested our credits back into our home but have spent much more as the credits do not cover all costs.

We have meticulously maintained our property over the past 28 years while other have not invested in they properties per the agreement, so this fee will applied unfairly.

Please consider a tiered fee system that rewards compliance—such as a heavily reduced rate or a waived fee for long-term owners with zero active violations—and pass the heavy enforcement costs onto the non-compliant properties that require the extra staff hours.

The fee punishes the wrong people: The increase will create a disproportionate financial burden on long term and elderly participants. The city's current Mills Act crackdown was prompted by properties that fell out of compliance . It is fundamentally unfair to force homeowners who have been 100% compliant for nearly three decades to foot the bill for the city's new, expensive enforcement and auditing software.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 11:20am 09-22-26
Mills Act fee increase : I understand the city's goal of 'Full Cost Recovery,' a nearly 800% fee increase on existing, compliant contract holders is completely unreasonable for three reasons:
1 It punishes the wrong people: The city's current Mills Act crackdown was prompted by properties that fell out of compliance or failed to self-report. It is fundamentally unfair to force homeowners who have been 100% compliant for nearly three decades to foot the bill for the city's new, expensive enforcement and auditing software. 2 It breaches the spirit of our partnership: The Mills Act is supposed to be a partnership between the city and historic caretakers. Implementing a near-$800 annual administrative tax significantly erodes the financial incentive intended by the state law, essentially rewriting the rules of our long-term covenant. 3 A flat fee makes no sense: Charging a flat $782 to an owner who has a perfect, 28-year track record requires the exact same financial burden as auditing a problematic or newly flagged property.

I urge the City Council to direct staff to revise this fee structure. Please consider a tiered fee system that rewards compliance—such as a heavily reduced rate or a waived fee for long-term owners with zero active violations—and pass the heavy enforcement costs onto the non-compliant properties that require the extra staff hours.

Thank you for your time and for protecting the residents who protect Orange’s history.

Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 10:47am 09-22-26
Dear Mayor Slater and Councilmembers,
My name is Gina Cunningham, and I live on Cambridge Street in Old Towne. I have the honor of owning a 104- year-old beauty that I love, cherish and care for. I was born at Saint Joseph Hospital, attended Cambridge Elementary, Yorba Jr. High and Orange High School. I’m a second-generation Old Towne resident and this is my home.

I am not here in opposition to the fee increase - I personally support it. I fully understand that it takes human capital – people - to make any city run efficiently and sometimes we must increase fees to ensure that a program like the Mills Act, has the support it needs for proper oversight.

I am also fully aware that it became a challenge in the past, because little or no attention was paid to contractual obligations by owners and now it looks like you’re scrambling to fix it.

When I was growing up and walked the streets of Old Towne in the 70’s and 80’s, the neighborhood around the plaza was blight, and every home in the community, not just the Royer Mansion, was a haunted house with many falling into disrepair. In 1997, that all changed. Many leaders in this town fought for the square mile around the plaza to become part of the National Historic Register. This is a very special determination and not one that is easy to obtain.

It was a great day for the City of Orange, because we were going to preserve American history, but to do so, we needed the community to join the Mills Act so they could afford to restore, maintain and protect the historic character of a home or building they owned. I am writing you today, because I am hearing rumors that the City Council may be considering getting rid the Mills Act. I ask you, is that another way to save this city from bankruptcy by getting rid of the one thing that makes our city special – its Historic Charm? I hope these are just rumors and not something you would seriously consider, especially those who live outside of it. Our historic character is what drives visitors to eat and shop here, encourages students to apply and learn here, and inspires residents to buy a home and raise their family here. Discarding it for 11% of 1% of property tax would be devastating for so many reasons. Do you want that on your watch? In fact, if this council doesn’t care about preserving our history, perhaps removing the circle altogether and demolishing the buildings around it so people will stop crashing into our fountain is a good idea to consider.

When thinking about this, please be reminded of the love, time and money people have spent restoring homes and buildings to ensure our history, beginning with Chapman and Glassell, remain intact forever. I am very proud homeowner of a historic home that over the last 100 years has had a lot of stories within its walls. I hope to continue to do just that with the support of my city and never ever hearing again that you may choose to abolish our American culture and rich history in Old Towne Orange.

Thank you, Gina Cunningham
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 9:14am 09-22-26
Good afternoon honorable councilmen and women.

I’m hoping that you have an opportunity to read this memo prior to your meeting this evening. I have a couple thoughts that I would like to share…
First off, in reviewing the consultants report, it appears that Finance Department is wanting to charge $318k for a $68k expense!
Current fee - $25,200/$100 = 252 units. New fee - 252 units x $728 = $183,456… 2.7 times more than costs of the program per the consultant reports. Many people would suggest this overcharge is an unlawful tax.

As you are aware, Orange has too many blighted neighborhoods, the Fairhaven Eichler Neighborhood is not one of them. One reason is the mills act supports the continued improvement of its appearance. Moreover, property nearby and adjacent have a tendency to “keep up” with the Eichler bespoke appearance.

Last, I heard commentary the other day that a few members of the council may recuse themselves from voting on this issue because many live in “old town”. Let me assure you that your vote is not a conflict of interest. Your vote is aligned with the constituents in your neighborhood. And your vote to reduce the annual fee back to a reasonable level is more than appropriate.

Thank you,
Mark Lansdon
Fairhaven Eichler Neighbor
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 7:23am 09-22-26
My name is John Paulsen, and my family owns a Mills Act–contracted home in the Fairhaven Eichler neighborhood. We strongly support the Mills Act program, and we ask the Council to revisit the recent increase in the annual fee from $100 to $728. The increase took effect with little notice and no published cost justification.

The Mills Act benefits the whole city, not just contract holders. The tax savings are required to go back into these homes, and that investment preserves the historic districts that draw visitors to Orange and Old Towne, support local businesses, hold up property values in the surrounding neighborhoods, and give Orange its identity.

A 628% increase makes it harder for homeowners to keep up that investment. We ask the Council to pause the increase until a cost analysis is made public, and to phase in any justified change over time.

We also have concerns about the proposed cap of eight new contracts per year. Applying for a Mills Act contract already takes a lot of time and money: a detailed workplan, cost estimates, a financial analysis, and inspections.

Many homeowners won't go through that process for a slim chance of approval. Fewer contracts mean less reinvestment, and over time that will lead to the slow decline of the historic neighborhoods this program was created to protect. We ask the Council to reconsider the cap.

Thank you for your service to Orange.

John Paulsen
A.J. Ricci
Location:

Submitted At: 3:46pm 09-21-26
Many of the historic commercial buildings are leased on a triple net (NNN) basis, meaning the tenant, often a small, independently owned business, directly pays the property taxes as part of their occupancy cost. When a historic commercial property is enrolled in the Mills Act, the resulting reduction in assessed value lowers that tax pass-through, which gives small business tenants real, ongoing savings. Those savings routinely get passed on to customers through lower prices, or reinvested into the business itself. In this way, the Mills Act isn't just a benefit to a handful of property owners, it helps keep small businesses in our historic districts affordable to operate and affordable to shop.

Second, the Mills Act has become even more important since the passage of Proposition 19 in 2020. Under current law, a parent can no longer pass a home to a child at the parent's existing assessed value unless the child moves in and occupies it as their primary residence within one year. For families who inherit a historic home but may not be able to move in within a one year timeframe, or simply don't plan to live there themselves, Prop 19 can trigger a full reassessment to current market value, often a dramatic property tax increase that can force a sale. A Mills Act contract, which runs with the property, gives these families a path to preserve some continuity in their tax burden and makes it meaningfully more feasible to keep historic property within the family rather than selling it off, potentially to a buyer with no commitment to preservation.

I'm in support of the item with the intent that the city accepts new applications from property owners alike. Many are eager to invest in the pride of their historic homes and we hope it is accessible to as many residents as we can sustain and enforced responsibly.
- AJ Ricci
Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 10:38am 09-21-26
Questions that need to be answered: What council members oppose the Mills ACT? 2. Why were no graduated fee increases offered to owner occupied, long time contract holders, property owners in full compliance and seniors? 3. Investors and rental property should face a fee increase first 4. What is the cost to the city for the Mills Act program? 4. Explain how this decision was made and by who Guest User
Location:

Submitted At: 4:33pm 09-20-26
To Whom It May Concern,
I support Resolution No.. 11720
A local realtor who specializes in Eichler Homes has peppered our neighborhood with e-mails and flyers and is trying to get as many as possible to show up in person with pitchforks in hand.

I realize the proposed resolution may have a potential negative impact on her business much like any proposed sales tax increase might negatively impact the various auto dealers in Orange.

I’ve owned an Eichler home for the past 27 years and have not taken advantage of the Mills Act nor plan to do so in the future. Therefore, I consider myself to be unbiased. And yes, I do consider my home to still be a work-inprogress. 8-) If the City of Orange doesn't have staff to properly administer the program then I’m all for the new resolution. We chose and enjoy living in the City of Orange and if the City is currently undergoing some financial difficulties then we should all do our part to help our city.

Regards,
Paul N. Larson
Orange, CA 92869

Orange City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Orange City Council
September 22, 2026