As someone who tries to stay civically engaged, I occasionally speak at City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and Design Review Committee meetings, whether it's regarding an agendized item or during the Public Comments period where one can speak on any non-agendized topic (within reason, I suppose) for up to 3 minutes. Prior to speaking one generally completes a speaker card, indicating one's position on a particular agenda item, your name, address, phone, and email address. Likewise, your name is called at the appropriate time to approach the podium to speak, and the chair or Mayor will generally ask you to state your name just prior to speaking. All standard fare. Likewise, when submitting written comments, I've always included my name as well. 

Recently, I noticed that written comments were being submitted to the City without a name attached. I asked the City Clerk about this, and apparently the Brown Act doesn't require that one identify themselves to attend a public meeting. A quick online search confirmed that information, but it's a little less clear on whether or not speakers need to identify themselves (and likewise whether or not written comments need to include the identity of the speaker). There is apparently case law that implies that a speaker doesn't need to identify themselves and likewise wouldn't need to include identifying information in written comments, and the City Clerk indicated that other City Clerks with whom she communicates have also noticed a trend in people not identifying themselves in written comments to their respective cities.

While it may be the law, and increasingly a common practice, I think it's a further erosion of our civility as a society. I also think that if one is trying to influence public policy by persuasively speaking or writing to the makers of public policy (Commissioners, Council Members, Committee Members, etc.) then at the very least one should identify themselves, if only voluntarily, to the policy makers and the public audience. It's simply too easy to be a keyboard warrior and to express opinions and/or mis-statements of facts without any accountability -- and that's not healthy for our community.

Home stagers, Realtors, and the media have made it abundantly clear that one should properly stage a home, either with one's own items/furnishings and/or items brought in from the outside to make the space "pop" such that prospective buyers couldn't imagine themselves not living there!

But what about the spaces that the general public doesn't always get to see first-hand, but that their home inspector checks out? I think it's equally important (if not more so) to make sure that these areas are in good shape, as they indicate to your prospective buyers how well your home has been maintained. Here are a few examples:

- If your home has a crawl space or basement area, make sure that it is free from debris. Contractors are not always the best about cleaning up after themselves, often leaving behind old galvanized pipes, scraps of new pipes being installed and/or of the old pipes being discarded. Wood scraps under the house are also not a good sign, as termite inspectors will call them out as cellulose debris, or "Section 2" items -- items that may lead to termite issues in the future (what termite doesn't want to chomp on some loose wood in a protected environment!).

- In crawl spaces, also make sure that there is no moisture on the ground from leaking pipes (either drain or supply lines), a shower stall, or from a leaking AC condensation pump. If wet after a rain, check around the foundation, and make certain that downspouts are functioning properly and draining away from the house/foundation. 

- In both the crawl space and the attic, make certain that all electrical junction boxes have covers. It is very common for inspectors to call this item out, and it's a simple and inexpensive fix. Not having them is an indicator to a buyer that the seller hasn't paid attention to these types of details. Also, there shouldn't be any electrical or low-voltage (TV cable/phone) laying in the dirt -- all wires should be properly affixed to the floor joists or ceiling joists/rafters if in the attic.

- Likewise, in both the attic and the crawl space, check that any visible flexible ducting is not touching the ground (if underneath) and that there are no visible holes/tears in the ducting insulation. If so, have repaired/replaced by a skilled HVAC professional. If it appears to be older, asbestos-covered ductwork, then best to leave to a licensed professional. It's about $1,000 to have the asbestos covered ducts removed from a typical 1950s/1960s tract home, but of course you'll have to have new ducts installed as well.

- Check that bathroom and kitchen vent hood ductwork (generally in the attic, except in the case of downdraft stoves, which may be in the crawl space area) are in good condition, and that they properly exit through the roof (and are flashed properly on the roof so that they don't leak) and don't simply terminate in the attic. While you're on the roof, with a spray can, paint all of the pipes that protrude through the roof the same color as the roof -- makes a subtle yet noticeable difference when driving up to the house. 

- Look under all of the sinks for leaks, and/or any flexible, accordian-style flex drains (usually in bathrooms). While convenient, they tend to trap debris and inspectors will always call them out. If the cabinet floor of any of the sinks is decayed or bowed (common, as there may have been small leaks over the years) consider having a handyman remove/replace the bottom of the cabinet. 

- The water heater should be properly strapped (top 1/3 and bottom 1/3, with the bottom 1/3 being at least 4" above the controls). There should also be a copper pipe attached to the temperature/pressure relief valve (TPR) that terminates within 6" of the floor. And with all gas appliances, there should be a "T" (sediment trap) in the gas line near the appliance, where any small particles can be trapped. While not critical, inspectors will call the item out, although most buyers aren't too concerned with sediment traps. Wipe the water heater down, and remove all cobwebs, debris, etc.

- Check the furnace area for cobwebs and dust as well, and clean in/around the areas as necessary, assuming that it's accessible. Also replace the air filter (or clean the filter if it is a reusable filter) as this is an often neglected area in many homes. Check that the thermostat works well for both heating and cooling, and that the condensation pump, if any, is operational -- put a little bleach and/or vinegar in the pump reservoir to discourage algae which can clog the float switch. Inspectors also don't like to see gas flex lines passing through the furnace case (they tend to have sharp edges and there is concern that during an earthquake, the flex line could get sawn through by the furnace case). If necessary, installation of a small length of iron gas pipe through the furnace wall is an inexpensive fix.

- Visually inspect all rodent screens and/or bird blocks (under eaves) to confirm that they are not missing, torn, or otherwise broken, which could allow for rodents to enter the structure. Replace or repair as necessary. 

- If your home has a brick chimney, there's a good chance that it is missing its chimney cap (generally stainless steel or plain steel). Inspectors will always note a missing chimney cap. Not only will it arrest sparks (for wood-burning fireplaces), but it will also just-as-importantly reduce the amount of moisture entering your chimney, which tends to deteriorate the interior surfaces of the brick/masonry. While the chimney sweep is up there, have them seal any cracks in the cap of the chimney as well. 

- Make certain that there is a working, 10-year sealed-battery type (or hardwired with battery backup) smoke detector in each bedroom, and in the hallway outside of each bedroom. For the hallway, you can also use a sealed combination type smoke detector/carbon monoxide detector instead. If not a combination type, then you'll also need a carbon monoxide detector in the hall outside of each sleeping area. For multi-story homes, you'll need a sealed-type smoke detector on each floor of the home, as well as a carbon monoxide detector. If there are no bedrooms on the lower floor of a multi-story home, then I generally suggest placing them near the base of the stairwell leading up to sleeping areas (in addition to the units placed in the hallway(s) outside of bedrooms). If you have a basement or crawl space, it doesn't hurt to place them there as well, especially if your furnace and/or gas-water heater are installed in those areas.

These are just a few examples of areas that can be "staged" at a relatively low cost -- while they won't make any difference in the beautiful photos of your home that result from careful home staging, they'll make a huge difference in keeping the buyer in love with your home, after they've made their offer and are conducting their due diligence! If I'm fortunate enough to be your Realtor when you sell your home, we'll discuss these items and many more to make your home a great deal for prospective buyers!

At the start of the pandemic, the creation of the Paseo in Old Towne Orange was absolutely the right move by the Orange City Council to assist the hard-hit restaurant industry. Outdoor dining was their lifeline.

Now that indoor dining restrictions have eased, it's time to return the Old Towne Orange Plaza back to its former configuration. Glassell St needs to be re-opened as the major thoroughfare it was intended to be. Residents in surrounding historic neighborhoods never signed up for all of the increased bus, truck, and vehicle traffic through their once quiet neighborhoods. The desire of a few folks to eat outside on occasion shouldn't trump the rights of the homeowners and renters living in the adjacent neighborhoods. There are currently outdoor dining standards in place, which could be modified to accommodate additional outdoor dining on the sidewalks, or even to some degree in the parking spots outside of the restaurants, which has been done throughout the country (while keeping the streets open). I was recently in Boston on a couple of separate occasions, and in Boston's historic North End, they have a very vibrant restaurant community -- with a lot more vehicle traffic than we get in Old Towne -- and their streets are wide open. Likewise, in the historic city of Winchester, MA they had the same configuration. And let's not even consider making it year 'round -- we need the parking in Old Towne, and few people want to drink or dine outside when it's too hot or too cold.

Here are all of the restaurants (nothing official -- just off of the top of my head) that had outdoor dining available prior to the pandemic:

So for me, the argument of lack of outdoor dining doesn't fly. Likewise, the position that it's somehow "safer" to have Glassell closed off also doesn't make any sense. All of the outdoor dining noted above is either on private patios owned by the restaurants (or their landlords) or is on the sidewalks -- and to my knowledge, the City of Orange hasn't had issues with cars driving up on the sidewalks (or private patios) and injuring diners. I don't believe that the public's occasional right to dine/walk in the middle of the street trumps the surrounding residents' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their homes (whether owned or rented). And the public (aka the taxpayer) owns the street and the parking spaces -- giving them away to private businesses for the generation of profit to private businesses doesn't make sense for either the taxpayers or the businesses who don't benefit from the closure of Glassell -- whether in the Plaza District or elsewhere throughout the City of Orange. ​

View of North Glassell on December 23, 2021 at about 2PM. I parked at the parking structure and walked in the rain to The Plaza to do some last-minute Christmas shopping. While the rain was definitely a factor, this is not the definition of a vibrant downtown -- especially two days before Christmas. I'm relieved that Glassell is going to be opened back up within the next couple of weeks!

Chapman University has again announced plans for a proposed expansion, three years after shelving plans to try and add an additional 3,500 students. This time around it's 1,800 students.

In the interim, Chapman did support the local party ordinance, which has quieted things down considerably. They also invested heavily in additional housing for students, with the acquisition of an apartment building in Anaheim, and the build-out-in-progress of the Villa Park Orchards packing house property, which will add approximately 400 beds. The Anaheim site will provide an additional 900 beds or thereabouts in the Fall of 2018 when the current leases run out and the property can be configured for students (I'm not sure that I would want to live that far from campus if I was a Chapman student, but that's a discussion for another day). Chapman will also be adding some additional parking to Panther Village on West Chapman, that will allow them to house an additional 100 students.

Prior to the housing (in progress) noted above, Chapman housed approximately 38% of its students (compared to 90%+ achieved by some 97+ other well-known colleges and universities - click here for a list from U.S. News and World Report). With the new dorms, they should be able to house approximately 50% of their students. While an improvement, it's still not enough.

Back to the proposed expansion. Chapman hasn't completed the housing in progress that will add approximately 1,400 beds, and now they want to add 1,800 more students -- we'll be 400 beds behind from where we started -- how does that make any sense?!

As one of my neighbors stated very simply during Chapman's scoping session a few years ago, 1,800 students is 600 3-bedroom houses. So if we get back 467 houses (1,400/3) when the new dorms are ready, and then add another 1,800 students (600 3-bedroom houses) then we're not only back where we started, but are 153 houses worse off!

I've stated before, I'm not opposed to having Chapman University in Old Towne Orange -- I'm just opposed to them getting any larger. We all know about the crazy person with too many cats. Most people are OK with a couple of cats, or maybe even 3 cats. When someone has 20 cats, they've probably crossed the "just- the-right-number-of-cats" line. I think Chapman is at that 2-or-3 cat happy-medium point in their existence right now, but are quickly approaching the "crazy cat person" level. Enough is enough!

Above are non-owner-occupied sales (based on tax mailing addresses) from 2008 - 2018 - approximately 550 properties (of a total of 1,818 sales) - Source: Chicago Title and CRMLS

The City of Orange recently released a draft copy of the revised design standards for the Old Towne Orange historic district. The current design standards document was published in 1999 and so a new version is welcome and long overdue! Click the photo to the left to view the draft.

You'll see in the draft references to elements such as solar panels, vinyl windows (not appropriate), vinyl fencing (not appropriate), modifications to non-historic (aka "non-contributing") structures, garage doors, satellite dishes, in-fill projects and the like.

Please review -- if you see something you don't feel is correct, or this is missing, please let the City know! They are currently soliciting input prior to submitting the final version for City Council approval. Comments and/or suggestions can be left here, and they will be passed along to the City, or you can email the City directly:

Ani Mnatsakanyan (Ma Not Su Kon Yen)
City of Orange - Associate Historic Planner
amnatsakanyan@cityoforange.org
(714) 744-7223

I'm not sure if it's the combination of watering restrictions during the recent drought and the subsequent record rains that we've had, but it seems that more and more people in Old Towne Orange are neglecting their lawns and parkways.

I understand that there are elderly and disabled folks, who through no fault of their own can't maintain (nor afford to pay others to maintain) their yards and parkways -- so they get a pass. What is troublesome are homes that have changed hands within the past few years that are either owner-occupied, or that are owned by out-of-the-area investors, where the lawns/parkways get little to no attention. Even a dirt parkway is better than a parkway covered with the tall weeds of neglect.

Pro-tip: Landlords, if your tenants ask that you knock $75/month off of the rent and they'll maintain the yard -- guess what --- they won't (in many cases). Chapman University parents who own houses in the neighborhood -- if your son or daughter tell you that they'll take care of the yard -- they won't (again, in most cases). If you can afford to send your child to Chapman, and purchase a house for them while they attend school, then I suspect that you can afford to hire a lawn maintenance service to help keep our neighborhood looking sharp. Likewise, if you are an investor who recently purchased a property as an investment to rent to either traditional tenants or Chapman University students, please have your yard/parkway professionally maintained such that we can maintain our beautiful little oasis here in Southern California! A little bit of effort makes a big difference!

The Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) has been in existence now for several months. While I'm not on the NAC, I know several members who are, so I tend to follow their proceedings fairly closely.

Like all large committees, progress is slow.  While there seems to be some progress being made with regard to an awareness of the issues, one glaring omission is Chapman's insistence that it wants to increase the number of students on the Orange campus, in spite of their inability to house them. This was most recently expressed in an interview with the Voice of OC, whereby Dr. Struppa reiterated his intentions to see Chapman University grow by several thousand students. The statement by Dr. Struppa touched off numerous comments by interested parties on both Facebook and NextDoor.com.

A couple of items with which I'm not comfortable:

• Chapman indicates that they will strive to be able to house 50% of their students in Chapman-owned (preferably on-campus) housing. 
• Not all of the intended growth will be at once, that it will occur gradually over the years

With regard to the first item, while that's an improvement, and we have to start somewhere, 50% seem very low, and will not significantly mitigate the impacts felt from the current overpopulation of students in the residential neighborhoods.  Many colleges and universities house 90-95% of their population.  I believe 85% is a more realistic goal for Chapman. And while difficult to achieve, would demonstrate to the community that they are serious about confronting the issue.  50% just seems like such a small step from the 35%-38% that they currently house.

With regard to the 2nd point, whether the increase in students is gradual or all-at-once is immaterial -- it's still population growth that Old Towne Orange can't currently handle.   And once Chapman gets to its goal of 50% of students living on campus, then they will need to expand on-campus housing further prior to adding more students.  If they don't, it simply puts us right back where we are now.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read (and join) the threads on FaceBook and NextDoor.com -- interesting perspectives both for and against Chapman University's continued growth.

And I'll say it again - I'm not against Chapman University -- just against aggressive Chapman University growth.

On several occasions I've written about Chapman's proposed expansion from its current cap of 8,700 students to its proposed cap of 11,650 students.  The college has recently backed off a bit from that, due to an outcry from the community which extends well beyond the Old Towne Orange area.

But are they really backing off, or just taking a breather?  They've indicated that they will continue to move forward with additional on-campus housing -- a good start but as noted in prior posts, they're a long way from being able to make even a small dent in the need for on-campus housing (about 3,200-3,300 beds shy!).  And they haven't backed off from wanting to expand the student population from 8,700 to 11,650 -- just postponed it.  Get ready for a confrontation, because it's going to happen.

A Pattern is Emerging...

I was looking at some articles from the past -- and Orange/Chapman University have been down this path before, and it's eerily similar to what is happening now:

• Chapman proposes expansion
• Public outcry ensues
• Chapman retreats
• Chapman ultimately quietly prevails

Don't believe it?

Read the two articles below, one from 2003 and the other from 1989.  "Deja vu all over again".  The citizens of Orange need to be on their toes, as this proposed expansion may be the deal-breaker.

Like many in Old Towne Orange, I've been following with interest the news regarding Chapman University's proposed expansion.  I'm not anti-Chapman University, but I'm not in favor of them expanding beyond their current student body count -- even with additional student housing.  While it's probably a little too large for the area now, there's likely no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point, so I think it's best to construct additional on-campus housing and absorb as many of the students into that environnment as possible.

And I have to say I'm at least mildly offended by the cartoon that accompanied a recent editorial piece in the Panther (a copy is in the upper left corner of this post).  The residents of Old Towne Orange have worked extremely hard over the past 30 years, in both time and treasure, to restore the beautiful homes found throughout Old Towne.  If the students of Chapman spent a few years stripping paint, sanding floors, fighting termites, running back/forth to Home Depot, painting (and then painting some more!) they might have a better appreciation of why the local population is resisting additional expansion into our quiet community (and might reflect some of the same haggard characteristics of the old guy in the cartoon!).

A little math:  Chapman can currently only house, on campus, approximately 40% of it's current capped population -- a total of 3,480 students.  To house 85% of its students, again at the current cap, they would need 7,395 beds -- a deficit of 3,915 beds!  The two largest proposed Chapman housing projects of which I'm aware -- one Chapman owned and the other a private enterprise -- only add about 685 beds, and are years away from approval/ground-breaking/completion.

In neighbor-to-neighbor meetings, and various other Chapman-sponsored meetings, they often reference the Claremont Colleges and how the students all live harmoniously with the residents in a similar historic community.  I graduated from one of the Claremont Colleges -- there's a huge difference -- the biggest of which is that approximately 95% of the students live on campus, in college-owned housing.  From U.S. News and World Report:

- Claremont McKenna College - 94% of students live on campus
- Scripps College - 96% of students live on campus
- Pomona College - 98% of the students live on campus
- Pitzer College - 100% of full time students required to live on campus
- Harvey Mudd - 98% of students live on campus (www.collegeexpress.com)

So a goal of 85% is actually a little underwhelming.  Sizewise, the combined enrollment of all of the Claremont Colleges is slightly under Chapman's current cap (about 7,500 students), so it can be done with the proper planning and build out.  The result -- most student life, including the after hours partying, is retained within the campus walls.  The students are happy, and more importantly, the property-tax-paying residents are happy.

So Chapman, build more on-campus housing (without destroying existing historic structures and neighborhoods) and settle into being a comfortable size and a good neighbor -- then we'll all be happy.

Occasionally I'll read an article or hear a comment along the lines of "...the Realtors are driving the prices up" or recently, in the case of the Chapman University proposed expansion, "...the Realtors are making big bucks selling houses to Chapman University".  I touched on this in a prior blog post, but here's the bottom line:

• Realtors don't dictate prices.  The market (willing buyers and sellers) dictate prices.  We educate our clients on the price at which we believe their property will sell, and then they determine the price at which they would like us to market and advertise the home.  The market will quickly tell us, in true Goldilocks fashion, if the house was priced too high, too low, or just right.
  
• Realtors do not select who purchases the home.   The owner of the home makes that decision, based upon the offer or offers in front of them.  Price is only one of many factors that determine whom the seller chooses to purchase their home, as there are a myriad of factors to consider in any offer.  Is the offer contingent upon the sale of another property? Is the offer cash or is financing involved?  What is the preferred escrow period?  is the prospective buyer an owner-occupant or an investor?  Is the prospective buyer strong financially?
• Realtors (the listing agent) have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the seller of the property -- all offers must be presented to the seller -- Realtors do not pick and choose which offers the seller considers (i.e. only investors, only owner occupants, only Chapman University parents, non-Chapman parents, etc.).

• Check and Balance on the offered price -- Appraisers conduct appraisals and are a check and balance in the system to protect the lender's potential interest in the property, as well as insure that a buyer is paying close to market price for a property (and not more).  In many cases the appraisals are close to the price offered by the buyer -- or in some cases there is a sizeable disparity between the offered price and the appraised price.  If the buyer elects to continue with the purchase at the offered price in spite of a low appraisal and it closes, paradoxically now that price becomes a legitimate comparable for the next sale in the area.

In Old Towne Orange, basic supply and demand is a huge factor in the price that prospective buyers will pay.  We have a limited number of homes for sale, a great location for quality of life and for commuters, and an overall unique environment that attracts buyers. So prices go up -- Realtors aren't driving the prices up.  I was in Washington DC last week and looked at a couple of real estate ads just for fun -- by DC standards, living in Orange County is affordable:

Revised 6/25/2015: I posted the exact same poll included in the prior blog entry to www.NextDoor.com, which in my case includes Old Towne Orange and several surrounding neighborhoods.  In addition to the votes, there were also 86 comments regarding the University's proposed expansion -- the majority of comments were anti-expansion, however there were several comments regarding well-behaved students/tenants and enthusiasm for Chapman's proposed growth -- included in the 86 comments were a handful regarding Orange public schools as well.  The results of the poll were as follows (with 86 votes -- more statistically significant than the handful of votes on my blog poll) are shown below.  If you would like to read the comments, simply login to www.NextDoor.com to view and/or join the discussion:

I attended last night's City Council meeting and, as expected, there were several speakers that exercised their right to speak for up to 3 minutes on a topic not on the current meeting's agenda.  By my count, there were 6 speakers who eloquently spoke for their allotted time regarding their opposition to Chapman University's proposed expansion within the City of Orange. 

Which got me to thinking -- aside from Chapman University themselves and their consultants, at the Chapman scoping meeting of a week ago, at last night's City Council meeting, and on a long thread on NextDoor.com regarding the subject, I haven't heard anyone overtly support Chapman University's proposed expansion.  One online commenter did express that she had 2 different groups of Chapman young men living next to her over a 2-year period and that they were all well behaved and only had the occasional weekend party.  So while not directly supporting the expansion (my words -- not hers) she did want to acknowledge that not all of the off-campus students were problematic -- fair enough.

So what do you think?  Results are anonymous and you can only vote once (theoretically).  If there is enough response by June 15, 2015 I will pass the results on to the City of Orange -- so let your friends know and have them vote!

I attended the scoping meeting last night for Chapman University's proposed modifications to its current Specific Plan.  It was kind of a bloodbath, as expected.

On the one hand, Chapman wants to expand its campus and student enrollment, and on the other, residents of Old Towne Orange are pushing back hard.

The primary issue (based upon audience comments from last night and the neighbor-to-neighbor meetings I've attended) appears to be the students themselves.  Chapman University does a commendable job of adaptively reusing historic structures, blending new structures into the current environment, and restoring historic homes that they own near campus.  But there are enough problematic students living in the Old Towne Orange area (and well beyond, as I learned at the meeting) that the aesthetics of the architecture and restoration are overshadowed by the unruly students.  Chapman doesn't currently have enough on-campus housing to provide for the majority of its students, but wants to continue to increase the enrollment while providing additional housing along the way (but still in woefully inadequate numbers to accommodate current enrollment, much less expanded enrollment).

Therein lies the paradox:  As Chapman, Chapman parents, and investors acquire residential properties to house students and faculty, more students--not fewer--are housed off campus and into residential neighborhoods (and not within the confines of the campus); In addition, if bought by Chapman University, those homes are then no longer available to the general public for purchase, in all likelihood, forever.

As Realtors, we can't control who purchases homes - that is the responsibility of the seller. While many sellers want to find a nice family to inhabit their home and create memories just as they did, ultimately most concede to whomever is willing to pay the highest price -- it's just human nature.  In many cases that may be an investor, a Chapman University parent, or Chapman University themselves.  As noted prior, if Chapman University procures a residential property, it is one less home in the local inventory that we have to sell in the future.  From a quality-of-life perspective, I think that the City of Orange also has some responsibility to make certain that local ordinances and codes are enforced, especially when involving occupancy and parking issues. The City of Berkeley has done just that (click here to read their local ordinances regarding students in residential areas - mini-dorms).

To be fair, I suspect that the majority of Chapman University students are decent humans -- but it only takes a small percentage of the student body to create the wrong impression in the community.  I like to think that there is room for compromise -- as we get older we tend to forget that we were younger once and likely caused some of the same problems when we were in college.  But I also recall having a healthy fear and/or respect for adults when I was that age -- some of that may not be present in the current generation of college kids.  In the interest of full disclosure, I also don't live next door to a Chapman party house -- for those folks that do, I'm sure it's a different story.

Whether you are for or against Chapman University's expansion in Old Towne Orange, I would encourage you to make your voice heard.  Contact the City, the City of Orange Planning Commission, and the City of Orange City Council Members -- especially Planning and the City Council, as they will be the ultimate decision makers.  This will be an interesting process.  Click here for a recent article from the OC Register on the subject.

Direct your comments, for or against, to be included as a matter of public record for the environmental impact review (prior to June 15, 2015) to:

Anna Pehoushek
Acting Assistant Community Development Director
City of Orange
apehoushek@cityoforange.org

Next week, Wednesday, May 27 from 6PM - 8PM there will be a scoping meeting, open to the public, regarding Chapman University's proposed amendments to the Chapman University Specific Plan.  The meeting will be in the Weimer Room at City Hall in Orange.

If you live in Old Towne Orange, or enjoy Old Towne Orange in its current state, you definitely want to attend this meeting!  A few of the highlights from their proposed amendment:

• Increase in student enrollment from 8,700 to 11,560 students (33% increase)
  
• Increase classroom seating capacity from 5,000 to 7,500 (50% increase)
  
• Increase Specific Plan area from 58+ acres to 75+ acres (29.3% increase)
  
• Decrease maximum allowable open space from 30% to 25% of the overall campus
  

There was also a phrase embedded in the document that could be nothing, or it could have a much larger impact.  The phrase is as follows:  "an enhanced circulation discussion".  What does that mean?  Does it imply closing off streets, or multiple streets, to make the campus more contiguous? For whom is circulation being enhanced?  Students or residents?

The list of construction and demolition projects is long (and expected to be completed over the next 10 years), and will impact Old Towne Orange for not just the next 10 years, but for many, many years to come.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?  Has Chapman University's expansion and influence been positive or negative for Old Towne Orange?  I suspect that an argument could be made either way.  I'm anxious to know what YOU think!

I had an opportunity to drive through the new "scramble" (or "Barnes Dance" intersection -- named after the inventor of the unique configuration) near Chapman University today, which was kind of interesting.  I think it will work out well if everyone plays by the rules:

• For cars, no turning on red
  
• For pedestrians, no entering the intersection when there's green lights for cars
  

What I hadn't absorbed prior to reading more about these intersections is that at any given time the intersection should be either "all cars" or "all pedestrians". I just assumed that there was some sort of complex traffic algorithm that allocated specific time slots for cars and pedestrians in various patterns -- nope.  Very simple:  All cars, or all pedestrians.  I think it will take awhile to get used to, especially for the pedestrians.

For example, today I was heading North on Glassell, and needed to turn West (left) on Palm.  When the light turned green, I eased into the intersection and waited for a break in oncoming traffic in order to turn left as I normally would.  In theory, I should no longer have to worry about pedestrians darting in front of me (in this case, crossing Palm from Bruxie towards the law school) but of course the pedestrians see the green light (for the cars) and figure they have the right of way and can race across, completely defeating the purpose.   I'm sure we'll all figure it out eventually.  In the meantime, be alert!

Warning: This gets a little "wonky"!

It's not uncommon for prospective buyers of homes in Old Towne Orange to make comments along the lines of:

- "Aren't there a lot of Historic Society rules that we would have to follow", or 

- "Because these houses are all on the National Register, do we have to get permission from the Historic Preservation Society to make any changes to the house?"

What they are likely referring to is the Old Towne Preservation Association (aka OTPA) which is an oversight organization that exists to insure that construction and rehabilitation projects in Old Towne Orange conform to local, State, and Federal standards that are already in place.  The misconception is that OTPA has enforcement capability or rules -- they do not.  

OTPA works with the City of Orange Planning and Building Departments, and the Design Review Committee (DRC) to determine if local projects follow the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines (aka CEQA - pronounced "SEE-QUH"), The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and/or the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange (which should incorporate the Secretary of the Interior's Standards). Click on any of the orange titles above to link to the respective document.

Note that in the list of guidelines/laws above (local, State, and Federal) there are no "Old Towne Preservation Association/OTPA Rules" -- it's because they don't exist!  Also note that while there are specific buildings and houses within Old Towne Orange that are independently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the majority of pre-1940's homes/buildings in the district are simply referred to as "contributing structures" within the National Register Historic District (and are not on the National Register of Historic Places individually) -- a subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.  It is also important to understand that contributing structures and independently listed structures are both subject to the same review process outlined above.

To summarize:

- There are no OTPA "Rules"
- Local Guidelines - Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange / Orange Municipal Code
- State Guidelines - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
- Federal Guidelines - Secretary of the Interior's Standards

Considering buying or making changes to the exterior of your historic home? Check with the City of Orange, call the OTPA Hotline 714.639.6840, or email info@OTPA.org before you begin your project!

I received a mailer today from one of the larger solar installation companies.  While there is certainly an appeal to "free" energy, unfortunately the panels themselves can be fairly unsightly and not compatible with historic residential areas (such as we have here in Old Towne Orange).  If you are tempted to install solar panels, please consult with the City of Orange and acquaint yourself with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange (click to link directly to document) which clearly indicates what is and is not allowed -- it may save you the trouble/expense of having to move them and/or remove them entirely. 

While on the subject of inappropriate materials for historic homes, vinyl windows are another element that are not allowed by the Old Towne Orange design standards as noted above.  If you have inoperable wood windows or windows in need of restoration or repair, there are several local companies/craftsmen that can restore them without replacing them.  Well maintained wood windows will serve you home for another 100 years, help protect the value of your home (and that of your neighbors), and keep your home compliant with the local design standards.  Lack of adhesion to the design standards can result in fines and/or the City requiring replacement of the vinyl windows with windows that fit the period of the home with regard to both style and materials.

Now that we're officially in a drought, the subject of synthetic grass has also come up as a replacement for natural grass.  Again, synthetic materials, whether grass, windows, or fences, are not considered appropriate materials for historic neighborhoods (i.e. Old Towne Orange), but are allowed in other areas of Orange and Orange County. Drought tolerant landscaping would be a better option, but again it is best to check with the City to determine if your landscape plan fulfills the necessary requirements.