City Council
Meeting Time: 06-25-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council 06-25-24
18:00
47 7 3 3 0
City Council
06-25-24 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
9.1. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No.16-24 approving a First Amendment to Development Agreement with Chapman Orange Holdings, LLC.
1 0 1 0
9.4. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 19-24 amending Chapter 17.44 of the Orange Municipal Code providing a mechanism for the transfer of development rights, and finding that the ordinance has already been addressed in the scope of the City of Orange General Plan EIR and is also exempt from CEQA. 2 1 1 0
10.1. Fiscal Y ear 2024-25 City of Orange Budget and Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Program.
1 0 1 0
10.2. City of Orange Public Safety/City Services Local General Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) Measure and Presentation from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates on the results from a citywide tracking survey.
3 2 0 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.1. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No.16-24 approving a First Amendment to Development Agreement with Chapman Orange Holdings, LLC.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 10:57am 06-25-24
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11), we submitted a 4-page comment letter to the City Clerk regarding this proposed amendment to the Development Agreement (DA). Local 11 has several concerns with the proposed discretionary DA Amendment, including the following:
(1) Has the City considered the loss of TOT revenue? The Amendment would allow a reduction of rooms from 305 to the currently anticipated 240 rooms, which the property owner may further revise. The reduction of rooms will lead to a decrease in City revenues from TOTs, which amounts to a reduction in public benefits that was expected when the Original DA was approved. (See DA § 6.2) (2) Has the owner satisfied its prior public benefit payment and reduction in City subsidy, and why is the city not considering more than a mere six parking spaces for this third extension? The DA Amendment would entirely remove DA Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3, which seems to refer to the City subsidy granted to the property owner in 2018 (i.e., 33.3% TOT forgiveness first 3 years), which was reduced to 25% in 2021 and accompanied by a $50,000 public benefit payment from the property owner in exchange for the 3-year extension. By eliminating Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3, the City should ask itself the following question left unanswered by the staff report: (i) has the property owner already paid the $50,000 public benefit payment; (ii) has the property owner revised its Participation Agreement to reduce the City subsidy by eight percentage points; (iii) if a 3-year extension was worth eight percentage points and $50,000 back in 2021, why is the City not considering a similar reduction in subsidy for the 2.5-year extension requested now; and (iv) are the six parking spaces offered now a sufficient deal?
(3) Has the CITY considered the value of utilizing some of the site for affordable housing? Under the City’s new Housing Element, the City has a RHNA obligation of approximately 4,000 units (about 60% at moderate-income levels or lower). A key City strategy to create 1,600+ low-income units is the redevelopment of UMU zones, like those UMU zones near the Project Site and UCI Medical Center. Given the high need for housing and reduced demand for hotels (evidenced by the property owner’s request to reduce hotel rooms), it seems that the City should reconsider the best and highest use of the Site—such as a mixed-use housing development would be better than a hotel alone.
(4) Has the City considered new mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts? Since the Entitlements were initially approved in 2018, significant changes have been made to how developments are analyzed and mitigated, particularly as they relate to impacts on VMTs and GHGs, and there are numerous strategies and mitigation measures urged by public agencies like SCAQMD, SCAG, CAPCOA, OPR, and CARB.
The City should consider new measures/strategies to ensure project impacts are minimized (e.g., LEED certification, CalGreen Tier 2 standards, robust TDM measures, max solar panels, native trees, etc.) In conclusion, much has changed since the City initially approved the Entitlements in 2018 and it is time for the City to reconsider the full economic and environmental impacts of this Project. The City needs to ask itself whether granting another significant time extension is worth merely six parking spaces. Local 11 respectfully requests that the City reject the DA Amendment.
Sincerely,
Jordan Sisson, Attorney for Local 11
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.4. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 19-24 amending Chapter 17.44 of the Orange Municipal Code providing a mechanism for the transfer of development rights, and finding that the ordinance has already been addressed in the scope of the City of Orange General Plan EIR and is also exempt from CEQA.
Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:57pm 06-25-24
Strongly support this! Long overdue. Adrienne Gladson, AICP Barry Ross
Location:
Submitted At: 2:14pm 06-21-24
On behalf of the St. Joseph Center Housing Advocacy Team we want to encourage the city to leverage this ordinance to produce more affordable housing by requiring that any housing approved under this ordinance provide at least 15% of the units as affordable housing. This will ensure that the city is meeting its commitments in the housing element. Thank you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10.1. Fiscal Year 2024-25 City of Orange Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 1:26pm 06-25-24
No new taxes across the board. Cost of living is already way too high and these increases in taxes will cost families.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10.2. City of Orange Public Safety/City Services Local General Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) Measure and Presentation from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates on the results from a citywide tracking survey.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:39pm 06-25-24
OC Tax is a non-partisan non-profit dedicated to protecting the taxpayer. We would advocate against any sales tax increases. The City of Orange needs to complete and audit and get it's fiscal house in order before it goes to the voters to demand more of their money. There are plenty of opportunities to support user fees, allowing users of a service to pay for a portion of that benefit. That is a much more equitable way to raise revenue rather than taxing those who can least afford it, and taxing those items they need to survive. No on the sales tax.
Jake Comer
Location:
Submitted At: 5:04pm 06-24-24
I support a "YES" vote on the City Services Measure to submit to the voters a measure on the November 2024 ballot to adopt a new sales tax ordinance to impose an additional sales tax in the City of Orange. As of right now I would vote yes for a Sales Tax, come November, but I don't do so lightly. The City needs to take a good hard look at their spending, and make serious adjustments to avoid this predicament in the future. This could of been better avoided with better budgeting. We should see if the large amounts of FY Budget that goes to Police in Fire is going to those services which directly increase our residents safety and which do not. ($23 m fire station, Large Quantity of Assault Rifles and Military Equipment, etc.) And plan for a "Sustainable" Orange, both financially and environmentally. If we would of taken steps over the past years to enhance our energy efficiency, switch to a cheaper Utility Provider (OCPA), enhanced water conservation, etc. we could of saved millions by this time around.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:06am 06-24-24
I support a "YES" vote on the City Services Measure to submit to the voters a measure on the November 2024 ballot to adopt a new sales tax ordinance to impose an additional sales tax in the City of Orange.