City Council
Meeting Time: 08-22-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council 08-22-23
18:00
46 13 2 8 2
City Council
08-22-23 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.
2 0 0 2
6.1. Consideration of an appeal of the City Traffic Commission's decision to deny removal of on-street parking on the south side of Katella Avenue between Sacramento and Handy Streets, Appeal No. CTC 0001-23. 8 0 8 0
6.2. Adoption of an Expense and Reimbursement Policy for City Councilmembers for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. Resolution No. 11485. 2 2 0 0
8.1. Public Hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving the demolition of an existing 40,000 square foot (SF) manufacturing facility and site redevelopment with a 57,900 SF truck terminal that includes 52,900 SF of warehouse space, 5,000 SF of office space, and an accessory 5,400 SF maintenance building located at 534 W. Struck Avenue; certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 1870-20; and adopting all findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Applicant: Prologis, L.P .)
1 0 0 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 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.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:36am 08-18-23
OC Animal Care is wasting the cities' money. While the county makes all the decisions, the cities bear 93% of the costs. The county is indifferent to the consequences of their policies, because the county not footing the bill. It’s up to the cities to protect themselves and their taxpayers.
During the pandemic, fewer animals were coming into the shelter, mitigating the negative impact of bad policies.
But now the numbers are returning to pre-pandemic levels, and the full impact of OCAC’s bad policies will fall on the cities.
The increase in costs to the cities is driven by the increase in length of stay, which is the consequence of the bad adoption policies.
If we compare FY 2021-22 to FY 2018-19, we see that:
The number of animals coming in dropped by 37%
Admin costs increased by 15%.
Net cost per intake increased by 69%. This is not caused by inflation (the Consumer Price Index increased by only 11%).
The cost increase is caused by the fact that the shelter is too slow in getting animals adopted. With each animal staying longer, the shelter is warehousing more animals, and all expenses increase accordingly.
This is what the Assistant Director of OC Community Resources (Cymantha Atkinson) wrote on November 14, 2018: “[The OCAC director] can fill you in on the essential component that play groups play in accurate dog evaluation and expedited dog placement. Both these factors decrease length of stay in the shelter which serves our primary goal of providing excellent animal care while simultaneously reducing the financial impact to our partner cities. [The director] can also point to other shelters nationwide that implement this best practice.” OCAC forgot its responsibility to the cities and is keeping pandemic-era policies in place. OCAC and the county don’t care about the financial impact of their bad policies, because they’re just passing the costs to the cities. The cities are told the increase is driven by external factors (inflation, intakes) when in reality it’s driven by bad policies and bad management.
Alex Brown
Location:
Submitted At: 10:32am 08-18-23
The city cannot trust OC Animal Care. The shelter just retracted and replaced its 1st Quarter statistics. Their statistics page now states:
"An incorrect version of the 2023 1st Quarter Shelter Statistics report was posted on April 26, 2023. It has been replaced with the correct information as of 8/11/2023.” https://ocpetinfo.com/about-us/shelter-statistics
These are the shelter’s main statistics. They took action only when an advocate presented iron-clad proof that the statistics were made up. Y ou can find the details in Voice of OC:
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/lawther-oc-animal-care-is-unable-to-keep-track-of-its-animals/ In fact, you can read in the Fullerton Observer that their statistics are still fishy:
https://fullertonobserver.com/2023/08/16/oc-residents-raise-concerns-over-oc-animal-care-shelter/ It’s worth asking the county:
- Is it up to ordinary citizens to discover the errors in a county agency’s key report and then patiently wait for dismissive county managers to take the evidence seriously? - Why should the public trust any numbers put out by the shelter? In most cases, OCAC is unable to back up its claims with any details, data, or calculations.
- Why are the 2nd Quarter statistics (April-June) not available? (All other area shelters put them out weeks ago.) Is an audit going to be ordered?
The same management team that led the production of the wrong statistics is still in charge . Isn’t it risky to trust its next round of statistics?
Agenda Item: eComments for 6.1. Consideration of an appeal of the City Traffic Commission's decision to deny removal of on- street parking on the south side of Katella Avenue between Sacramento and Handy Streets, Appeal No. CTC 0001-23.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 1:54pm 08-22-23
Opposed - this plan makes no sense.
It will negatively impact property values, parking for residents guests, food/package delivery, cause more disruptive traffic noise, increase the risk of death destruction to pedestrians on the sidewalk and to the homes lining the road, and will also negatively impact the parking in the neighborhood behind this stretch of road as residents, guests, etc may reroute there if forced. Gardening services for the front yards will also have nowhere to park and can’t always be granted access to the front from the alley. Removing the street parking from Katella is not necessary or logical. It solves nothing, as there is no traffic issue on the eastbound side during peak hours or any other time of day. I live on this stretch. I see the traffic flow during all hours of the day, ever single day. There are no issues with back up traffic heading that direction. This idea would only cause more problems, while solving none at the same time.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 1:25pm 08-22-23
The west bound side has a big sturdy wall running along the road and protecting the backyards of the homes on that side of the road. The east bound side on the other hand has the front of homes, bedrooms where families/children sleep, lined along the road just feet from where you are proposing to add a third lane that would remove the on street parking. I see nothing in your plan the indicates how you intend to keep those families and their homes safe from the added risk that allowing more cars to flow through that area at one time would certainly pose.
Accidents that do occur on the eastbound side are not from peak hour traffic, but rather are due to drunks flying up the road coming back from the bars down Katella or from people literally racing each other up the long straight stretch of road. This silly plan only further accommodates that recklessness AND takes away the one thing that the people who live along this stretch can do to protect their homes and families - park along the street IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES to protect themselves from careless, reckless drivers plowing through their bedrooms while they sleep. This is not a hypothetical scenario, this very situation happened in early June of 2022 when a huge truck driven by an inebriated individual barreled through the front bedroom of one of the homes, and also took out the gas meter. By sheer luck alone, no one happened to be in the room at the time, but that careless driver demolished that house. Had someone been sleeping in there at the time, they would not have survived.
Even before this terrifying event happened, and certainly ever since, we have parked our cars in front of the house FOR PROTECTION and so that we can sleep without fear. And now you want to take away the one tiny shred of comfort and planning that we can do for ourselves to protect our lives? How about when it rains? Now instead of having cars parked along the sidewalk that floods out about 4 ft from the curb any time there is water, you want to make a lane for people to drive along and potentially hydroplane through? It takes one-twelfth on an inch of water for a car to hydroplane and lose control. Again, the only course of action these homes have to protect themselves from a potentially devastating situation is to park their cars in
front of their homes and block any vehicles that have lost control from plowing through what should be their safe space.
Unfortunately, I see no mention from Mayor Dan Slater or those proposing this idea for how they would address protecting the homes and lives of those of us who live here from the added substantial risk of their grand plan. If anything it appears that they don't care at all, since they are trying to appeal the decision after we already voiced our concerns loudly back in June this year when this proposal was denied. To try and push it through anyway shows they care more about their own agenda and not about the community members who live here, and that would not be forgotten.
Don Dawson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:30pm 08-21-23
None of you, if you owned one the properties that will be impacted by adding an additional lane from the 55 to Handy would be happy with it. These property owners will be losing parking and property values. It's time for the City Council to do what's right for the Citizens of Orange. Prior councils failed us with the acceptance of STR's.
Y ou certainly would not like one next door!
Please don't fail the citizens of Orange again.
Patrick Gallagher
Location:
Submitted At: 8:55am 08-21-23
Having read and considered the mayor's plan, I propose a reasonable compromise.
Since Katella Ave is considered to be one artery of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, one can easily observe that the obvious eastern terminus of that artery should be the 55fwy, not Wanda Road.
Our neighborhood east of the fwy can best be described as a transition zone. It is a residential zone while everything west of the fwy overpass toward Tustin Ave is commercial zone. Driving east from the overpass there are now two lanes. The proposal to widen that road at Sacramento Street would do little to increase traffic flow through our residential neighborhood. The traffic already flows well above the posted speed limit throughout the day. At peak commute hours between 4:30pm and 6:00pm, there is eastbound congestion that begins at the intersection of Katella Ave and Wanda Road, which is a permanent bottleneck with only two eastbound lanes beyond Wanda. This intersection typically backs up traffic from Wanda Rd to Handy Street during peak traffic hours.
I propose that the city test its theory of traffic flow by adding a third lane beginning at the intersection of Katella Ave and Handy St. extending toward Wanda Rd. This would not impose any hardship on the commuting public or on our households.
I also propose that the northbound exit off the 55fwy be adjusted as well. Currently, there are 3 lanes on that exit.
The left and center lanes are designated for left turns only. If the center lane was changed to allow for both left and right turns onto Katella Ave, the backup on the fwy exit would be lessened. Chapman Ave southbound exit off the 55fwy serves as an example for this proposal.
This compromise seems reasonable considering the negative impact of the loss of available parking in front of our homes.
The extra 10 feet of roadway provides protection against cars careening off the road, over the sidewalk and ramming into our homes.
We have had 2 major accidents requiring ambulance service between the 55fwy and Handy St within the last month. It was a parked car on Katella Ave that prevented one of those vehicles from jumping the curb and possibly running into a house, which has already recently happened in this neighborhood.
The parking strip is also necessary for receiving visitors and for receiving services such as ambulance, gardening, plumbing and for receiving deliveries from FedEx and Amazon.
This is a reasonable expectation for homeowners in this community.
The last study of the parking conditions on Katella Ave was taken on July 14, 2023 at 4:30am This is not nearly relevant a point of measurement considering the effect of your decision for all the 12 households whose front doors face onto Katella Ave.
Visitors, service providers like plumbers and gardeners as well as delivery services do not need to park near or infront of our residences at 4:30am. They need access to the front of our homes during daylight working hours.
They cannot park in the alley and cannot be expected to access our properties through the fenced backyards of our houses. Before you decide to so drastically affect our lives, please consider recalibration of the traffic light signal time intervals at the intersection of Katella and Wanda Rd. during peak commute times and test whether a third lane between Handy and Wanda would increase flow and help relieve the bottleneck Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:21pm 08-20-23
The master plan logic is stating that Katella is unbalanced with three lanes on the west bound side and only two lanes on the east bound side. This is so flawed because the west bound side doesn't have homes facing the street. The front doors of the houses on the east bound side face the street so it is only logical that you can park in front of your home and use your front door.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 9:27pm 08-18-23
I am against removing the parking on the south side of Katella. I live off of Handy and Katella and I don't understand how adding a third lane here would benefit anything or anyone. I exit the 55N onto Katella everyday on my way home from work during rush hour traffic and the traffic between the freeway exit and Handy is NEVER backed up all the way to the freeway off ramp. I never have the issue where I cannot turn right because Katella is never backed up. Right before the freeway exit heading east on Katella towards Handy from Tustin Ave there are only two lanes and right after Handy, between Handy and Wanda the road is only two lanes wide. So will everyone have to merge after crossing Handy after an unnecessary third lane is added on the south side of Katella? Even if a third lane between Handy and Wanda was added as well, it would still turn into a right hand only lane onto Wanda. It doesn't make sense! It takes away the parking for the residents whose homes are on Katella. The alley cannot accommodate all those cars and would create more cars parking on Garfield, the next street. The outcome of adding a third lane would not benefit the residents or the drivers on east bound Katella.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 6:54pm 08-18-23
Parking on the south side of the street helps to slow traffic and keep the speed to a residential speed limit, safe for everyone.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:28am 08-18-23
Removing on street parking from this portion of Katella will negatively impact my neighborhood in the following ways:
1. Encourages cars to drive faster on that portion of Katella, creating an unsafe situation for pedestrians, especially children headed to school
2. Increases traffic congestion on Katella when there are several other streets with freeway access
3. Forces all people who visit the district offices i.e. weekend youth sports, district meetings, etc ... to park in the surrounding neighborhood, creating more unsafe pedestrian movements in the area There is a lot of pedestrians on this corridor, it puts citizens at safety risk to do anything that would allow more fast moving vehicles in this area, especially children! There are hundreds of students every day that walk this exact path, please consider their safety. The traffic commission has already denied this request for good reason. - Colleen Jendreas, homeowner, 10+ years resident, 3 children with OUSD Agenda Item: eComments for 6.2. Adoption of an Expense and Reimbursement Policy for City Councilmembers for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. Resolution No. 11485.
Don Dawson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:33pm 08-21-23
Council members put in considerable of time doing their job, they should be compensated.
Reggie Mundekis
Location:
Submitted At: 6:51am 08-18-23
I support adoption of an expense and reimbursement policy which allows City Councilmembers to be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. It is usual and customary for employers to reimburse employees for expenses incurred in the course of conducting business on behalf of the employer and this policy does that.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.1. Public Hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving the demolition of an existing 40,000 square foot (SF) manufacturing facility and site redevelopment with a 57,900 SF truck terminal that includes 52,900 SF of warehouse space, 5,000 SF of office space, and an accessory 5,400 SF maintenance building located at 534 W. Struck Avenue; certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 1870-20; and adopting all findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Applicant: Prologis, L.P.)
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:38pm 08-21-23
Mayor and members of Orange City Council,
I am John Underwood, supporter-advocate for a number of homeless individuals form Orange County and the City of Orange. I am deeply concerned for the welfare of those unhoused individuals who still frequent the homeless services center and food kitchen on Struck Avenue known as the Hub. On Tuesday August 22 it is the recommendation of your staff to certify the Environmental Impact report prepared by T and B Planning Consultants regarding the planned demolition and reconstruction of a 57,000 square ft. trucking and logistics operation at the end of Struck Avenue right next door to the existing and operating homeless service facility you authorized to replace the previous Mary's Kitchen. Y ou will do so without the benefit of review or consideration of
the potential impacts the demolition, construction, and operation of a 24-hour Prologis trucking operation will have on pedestrian traffic attempting to make its way up Struck Avenue mainly on foot, on bicycle, and often in wheelchairs to reach the Hub kitchens. Examination of the proposed EIR pepared for you by T and B has omitted any reference to the potential impacts this project will have on humans on foot (approximately 30-40 per day) approaching or departing the Hub or any provisions for remediation of this soon to be very busy street which terminates at a cul-de-sac allowing only one way in or out.
This is an unacceptable oversight on the part of the planners and a blind spot in the scope of this EIR project that will most certainly jeopardize the safety and very possibly the lives of individuals simply trying to work their way toward the Hub. In all my years of familiarity with EIRs and their potential impact sections I have never seen a scope of study that did not include an assessment and mitigation of pedestrian traffic. . . until now. Pedestrian traffic moving up Struck Avenue to receive much needed services is a well established pattern, and has been so for decades. For your EIR team to simply omit it from consideration as potentially impacted stakeholders is to deny the obvious and potentially may even recklessly open the city to future wrongful injury litigation. So unless you plan to scuttle the Hub and its homeless services the way you hastily terminated Mary's Kitchen, I suggest you forgo voting to certify this flawed EIR until which time as you can properly evaluate and ensure proper safety measures and mitigations on behalf of the human beings who continue to traverse Struck Avenue to reach the services you have promised them, without endangering their lives.
Respectfully,
John Underwood