June 13, 2023
City Council Meeting
Written Public Comments
General Public
Comments
Jennifer Connally
From: Janice Brownfield
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 8:47 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Non-Agenda Item
As exciting as the mayor's vision is to make Santiago Creek like a "Grand Central Park," so is his plan for a Nature Park, which can likewise improve our quality of life. If the park is to be at City Hall, it could include replacing the grass lawn with beautiful and sustainable native and drought tolerant plants. A display at the park could show plans for Santiago Creek and invite suggestions from the community.
At a meet-and-greet for newly-elected councilmembers, John Gyllenhammer noted he is on the City's new Santiago Creek Committee, which will explore opportunities to protect and preserve the creek by looking at it "from Hart Park to East Orange to first identify the components of the creek and determine what we are trying to achieve." City staff has previously found the Greenway Alliance's Santiago Creek Vision Plan, updated in 2018, to be consistent with the City's General Plan and objective to promote the creek as a multi-purpose community amenity including recreation, flood protection, water supply and natural habitat functions. Every segment of the creek has been detailed in the Vision Plan's more than 100 pages, with projects rated in a City memo as easier (restoration of native vegetation on public property), more difficult (improvements/facilities on public property), and most difficult (on private property and significant public improvements). City staff found the Vision Plan competitively positions the City and non-profits to pursue grant funding for project implementation.
Also at the meet-and-greet was Denis Bilodeau, who after an eight-year break from the City Council said he and his new colleagues are "going in the same direction." A licensed civil and traffic engineer, he also said, "We have to make our medians more attractive. You can tell when you leave Villa Park and enter the City of Orange." The City could install monument signs similar to Villa Park's that would also enrich our City's identity and foster pride with historical and agricultural themes.
The City could also implement street improvements to protect our health and lives. Transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions, producing air pollution causing asthma and other health conditions. They could easily be reduced with synchronized traffic lights, and with roundabouts in place of traffic signals or stop signs that would ease traffic congestion and also improve safety for motorists and pedestrians. The City can use its portion 1 of the State's Motor Vehicle Registration Fees surcharge, which is intended, pursuant to AB 2766, to develop programs for clean transportation.
Item 4.1
Nature Park at City
Hall Presentation
CITY OF ORANGE
CITY CLERK
Pamela Coleman 2023 JUN 12 AMIO: 13 June 11, 2023
City of Orange City Clerk
Att: City of Orange City Council
Subject: Support for Passive Park Space at City Hall
Dear City of Orange Council Members,
I am writing to you today to share my support for a proposal to remove the turf in front of City Hall and to replace it with passive park amenities and California native plants and trees.
There is a great need specifically in Old Towne Orange for more park and open space opportunities for our residents. As a City, we should continue to take more steps to create opportunities for our community to connect and learn through nature.
Supporting a project like this will reduce water and maintenance costs for City Hall. It will provide habitat and biodiversity for native bees and pollinators and could become an outdoor learning space for some of our local schools. It will also help the City stay in compliance with the General Plan's natural Resource section.
Inviting residents to come sit, stay and be part of City Hall rather than pushing them away with grass that shouldn't be walk-on seems to be a much better message to the community.
The City has underutilized space to do this. There is a lot of funding available from different organizations and conservancies to support projects like this. I would love to see the City of Orange pave the way for other cities to implement some of these positive environmental changes.
With Gratitude,
MegaPers
Megan Penn
Orange CA 92866
Item 8.1
Landscape
Maintenance
Assessment Districts
86-2 (Santiago Hills)
& 15-1 (Santiago Hills
Overlay)
Jennifer Connally
From: Jeremy Livermore S.E. P.E.
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 3:00 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item #8.1
Coming from the professional architecture and engineering world, I can tell you this commonly used phrase could be true for this neighborhood: "We shape our spaces and then our spaces shape us." This neighborhood was master planned to be a space where people get out of their homes, integrate with nature settings, and interact with one another. Goal being that the people of this neighborhood would become more communal and not fragmented; experiential and not isolated. At least, that is the marketing lure of this space. Like other potential residents, we certainly were deceived.
We moved to this neighborhood 4 years ago after working in Orange for 10 years. My house is 1 house over from the city-maintained park, sidewalks, and greenbelts that wind through this district. We picked this neighborhood over all areas of Orange County to experience the walks and outdoor activities with neighbors on the sidewalks, greenbelts, and park; walking our toddler to the daycare 4 streets over, walking to the park daily, walking to the elementary school, and walking to the shops/restaurants. That dreamed was/is absolutely ruined by the ubiquitous and frequent use of the loudest blowers available on the marketplace in use on residential lots and city maintained regions in between. Instead of getting the refreshment we need with that dedicated time outside, we get slammed by the extremely loud buzzing noises.
The list of other vulnerable bystanders who I watch having to listen to these terrible noises in these spaces include:
- Adult men and women who work from home trying to get a quick break outside. - Children playing after school.
Parents and children walking to and from school and other neighborhood daycares. - Elderly people reading a book in the park
- Neighbors talking to each other while getting the mail and walking the dogs. - Licensed neighborhood daycare homes that use their front yards, backyards, and garages for 2 to 5 year olds. - People that just came home from surgery or other hospitalization that need to be outside in a front or backyard to recuperate.
- People pushing other people in wheelchairs down sidewalks. - People dealing with severe anxiety and depression that need to be exposed to the exterior environment to help reduce the severity.
1 - Family members and caregivers of those dealing with untreated mental illness or dementia that need to be exposed to the exterior to get refreshment for themselves. - People gardening in their front and backyards.
- People entertaining relatives/guests outside in their backyards from out of town. - People who live in neighborhoods that have windy street and culdesac configurations that lead to some houses being in direct earshot of 30 other lots.
- People wanting to pray or worship or perform any other religious expression of faith outside. - Young lovers wanting to hug/kiss in the park.
- People wanting to talk and play with their children in the front and backyard after returning home from work. - People exercising in the garage gyms.
For bystanders 400ft away, across the park or down a greenbelt, the sound is still very audible and super annoying like an pulsing buzzing alarm clock that wont turn off.
I ask each member of the council to imagine being one of these people and living in this neighborhood trying to enjoy the exterior environment when that loud buzzing comes on for 30 minutes, then off for 30, then happens again by a crew working on 2 to 3 houses in a row. The plan for being outside is ruined and its time to pack up and head back in.
Very frustrating.
Instead of continuing this terrorism by city contracted landscaping companies who could care less about our wellbeing, we need a caring solution.
The proposed budget resolution gives $3,500 in excess funds between the revenue generated and the expenditures.
Instead of moving the excess $3,500 over to the reserve balance, as proposed in the staff report, we need you to vote here to modify this resolution to ensure $3,500 is specifically designated for the contracted landscaping companies to buy and use new low noise 65 decibel blowers - which can be either gas or electric.
Sticking with gas blowers, these 65 decibel blowers range from $300 to $550 each. The budget excess of $3,500 would buy 6 of the $550 blowers including sales tax. 6 is definitely far more than would be used by the normal crew size of 3 to 4 guys that roam around these spaces terrorizing me and all those listed above.
The new lower 65 decibel backpack blowers are at a minimum 25% less loud than those in use today and have mufflers that change the tone to sounds that are much easier to listen to and far far less annoying.
In sum, there are plenty of excess funds available to cover more than enough new low noise 65 decibel blowers for the landscape company to maintain this area.
2 The council can easily have the staff go back to modify the resolution or can easily vote here on these 3 modifications:
1) Specify that the $3,500 in excess be designated for new low noise 65 decibel blowers. 2) Require usage of blowers rated for 65 decibels or less and 3) Ensure that any violation would be considered a breach of contract and their company would be banned on bidding on future contracts for this region for 5 years.
Please implement these 3 easy modifications to the resolution to repair the quality of life of those in this neighborhood.
Jeremy Livermore, S.E., P.E
Jennifer Connally
From: Mariam Tukhi
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2:57 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Cc: Kimberly Walker
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 8.1
Dear Mayor Slater and Orange City Council,
I am writing regarding the Santiago Hills landscape management district assessment. I do not support the continued use of toxic synthetic herbicides and pesticides in our district.
First and foremost, I am grateful our parks have been maintained without synthetic herbicides. My family and I have enjoyed playing safely without worrying about exposure to Roundup or Speedzone, which are endocrine disruptors and classified as Probable Carcinogen and Possible Carcinogen.
However, there is continued use of both glyphosate containing herbicides as well as Speedzone, which share an active chemical with Agent Orange. I do not understand how our park can be maintained in a non-toxic way, yet the city cannot find a way to do the same for our neighborhood.
Frankly, in doing so it would be a cost-saving measure, as the price of Glyphosate has increased tremendously.
These chemicals are dangerous, particularly to our children. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is no safe level of herbicide exposure for children. Their systems are still developing, they put their hands/feet in their mouths frequently, thereby increasing their exposure.
Considering all the lawsuits involving RoundUp (Glyphosate) and cases of non-lymphoma, several cities and countries have banned and removed the use of these chemicals. However, the City of Orange shows little interest in protecting its citizens by eliminating the use of these dangerous chemicals citywide.
Hundreds of cities have moved away from the use of synthetic chemicals for landscape management, including:
• NYC, NY
Seattle, WA
• Portland, OR
• Austin, TX
• Miami, FL
• LA county
• OC Parks
• Tustin
• Burbank and Burbank Unified School District
Contra Costa County
• Irvine
Long Beach
1 • Marin County
Mount Diablo Unified School District
Napa
• Novato
• Oakland
• Sonoma
• Thousand Oaks
• University of California
*List provided by Non-toxic Neighborhoods.
The City of Orange should use an organic approach or fully ban synthetics for landscape and pest management. There are thousands of pending lawsuits regarding the health effects of RoundUp alone, with millions of dollars already awarded to plaintiffs. The continued use of these toxic chemicals is not worth the fiscal impact of lawsuits and most importantly the health and well being of your citizens.
I kindly request the City of Orange to eliminate the use of these chemicals in the Santiago Hills District and to consider banning the use of these chemicals in all our parks.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mariam Tukhi
2 Jennifer Connally
From: Kimberly Walker
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2:04 PN
To: City Council Public Commen
Subject: Agenda Item 8.1
Attachments: Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System_A Systematic Review.pdf RE: Agenda Item 8.1
Dear Mayor Slater and Orange City Council,
I am writing regarding the Santiago Hills landscape management district assessment. While I agree with the assessment, I do not support the continued use of toxic synthetic herbicides and pesticides in our district.
I want to first applaud The City of Orange for keeping Santiago Hills Park non-toxic. Over these past few years since our park has been maintained without synthetic herbicides my family has enjoyed playing safely without worrying about inadvertent exposure to Roundup or Speedzone (both of which are endocrine disruptors and classified as Probable Carcinogen and Possible Carcinogen respectively). In addition, in corresponding with Mr. Nathan Bluhm I have learned that in Santiago Hills the city is making efforts to reduce the use of synthetic chemicals such as RoundUp and Speedzone, instead using hand pulling of weeds when possible. This is a step in the right direction.
However, he did confirm the continued use of both glyphosate containing herbicides as well as Speedzone (which shares an active chemical with Agent Orange or 2,4-D). It is still difficult for me to understand how our Park, which has large green spaces, can be maintained in a non-toxic way and the city cannot find a way to do the same for our neighborhood in the budget they are given. If anything, it would seem to me to be a cost-saving measure as the price of Glyphosate has increased significantly since 2021.
I have written previously on the dangers of these chemicals particularly for our children. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is NO safe level of herbicide exposure for children. Their systems are still developing, and they put their hands/feet in their mouths frequently, thereby increasing their exposure. Considering all the lawsuits involving RoundUp (Glyphosate) and cases of non- lymphoma, several cities, towns, and countries have banned and phased out the use of these chemicals, but the City of Orange shows a limited desire to protect the health of its citizens by eliminating the use of these chemicals citywide. Evidence continues to emerge on the dangers of glyphosate (see attached recent publication on a review of the dangers of glyphosate not only to humans but to the environment. Costas-Ferreira C, Durán R, Faro LRF. Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 21;23(9):4605. doi:
10.3390/ijms23094605. PMID: 35562999; PMCID: PMC9101768.) Hundreds of towns, cities, and districts that have moved away from synthetic chemicals for landscape management. To name just a few:
NYC, NY
Austin,
Miami,
Anchorage,
Tucson,
LA county,
OC Parks,
Portland,
Seattle. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-10/why-u-s-cities-are-banning- glyphosate-pesticides
Tustin
Benicia and Benicia Unified School District
Burbank and Burbank Unified School District
Contra Costa County
Encinitas
Davis
Greenfield
Irvine
Lodi
Long Beach
Marin County
Mount Diablo Unified School District
Napa
Novato
Oakland
Orange county
Oxnard School District
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Santa Rosa
Sonoma
Thousand Oaks
University of California
Watsonville
Woodland Joint Unified School District
*List provided by Non-toxic Neighborhoods.
I will continue to push the city to be added to this ever-growing list. The City of Orange should take an Organic First approach or a full ban of synthetics for landscape and pest management even if only for an abundance of caution to protect its citizens. There are thousands of pending lawsuits regarding the health effects of RoundUp alone with millions of dollars already awarded to plaintiffs. It is not worth it to risk the fiscal impact of a lawsuit and most of all the health of your citizens to continue to use these toxic chemicals. I would like the City to eliminate the use of these chemicals in the Santiago Hills District and furthermore I would ask the City Council and the Mayor to consider banning the use of these chemicals in all our parks.
In addition to my opposition to the use of synthetic herbicides and pesticides in our community, I would also like to see more community involvement in our landscape management district. We have 2 not had a meeting- even a virtual one for over 3 years. The city is essentially acting as our HOA.
However, this is happening without adequate input from the community.
Kind Regards,
Kimberly DeLehman
3