City Council
Meeting Time: 09-10-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council 09-10-24
18:00
41 17 7 7 0
City Council
09-10-24 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. 3 1 2 0
8.2. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of two ordinances approving a Zoning Text Amendment and Development Agreement allowing expanded business activities at Blue Ribbon Nursery and dedication of a former sand and gravel pit to the City of Orange as permanent open space at 5309 East Santiago Canyon Road and alternate addresses 1425 North Santiago Boulevard and 1921 Old Country Park Road; and finding of CEQA exemption. Ordinance Nos. 26- 24 and 27-24. Resolution No. 11572.
1 1 0 0
9.2. School Crossing Guard Program Discussion and Update. 9 5 1 0
9.3. Executive Management and Senior Management employees' classification, compensation, and terms of employment and Citywide Pay Schedule. Resolution Nos. 11575 and 11576 or Resolutions Nos. 11577 and 11578.
1 0 1 0
9.4. Consideration of Resident Vehicle Incentive Program. 3 0 3 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 unless a different time limit is announced.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:17pm 09-10-24
Dear City Council-
Protecting our children is vital to the health of our community. Please do not cut the budget of the crossing guards.
Please listen to the citizens of our community. Staff increases in salary should be secondary to the welfare of our kids.
We have not seen anything about why the city ended up in this budget crisis.
Please do research on your own and do not always rely on staff.
Thank you,
The Thompson Family
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:18pm 09-10-24
No comment section available for the 'waive full reading' section, so I am making it here; I oppose the motion to waive the full reading.
Alex Brown
Location:
Submitted At: 4:55pm 09-05-24
OC Animal Care kept its kennels off-limits to visitors from 2020 to 2023. It was the only government-run Southern California shelter to do so. This was a costly error:
https://jsmcah.org/index.php/jasv/article/view/85
https://jsmcah.org/index.php/jasv/article/view/85/134
See also the latest report on mismanagement and dishonesty at OC Animal Care:
https://voiceofoc.org/2024/09/mavrovouniotis-the-oc-animal-shelter-director-is-all-image-and-no-substance/ More reports here:
https://OCShelter.com
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.2. Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of two ordinances approving a Zoning Text Amendment and Development Agreement allowing expanded business activities at Blue Ribbon Nursery and dedication of a former sand and gravel pit to the City of Orange as permanent open space at 5309 East Santiago Canyon Road and alternate addresses 1425 North Santiago Boulevard and 1921 Old Country Park Road; and finding of CEQA exemption.
Ordinance Nos. 26-24 and 27-24. Resolution No. 11572.
Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:37am 09-10-24
I strongly support this item. Thanks for the property owner finding this win-win solution. Like the prior PC hearing, I do have the same request, for a performance timeline and framework be included in the entitlement package. I suggested that would have been best in the Development Agreement itself. But it's not, I think a verbal discussion from staff tonight and the applicant, if needed, on the next steps once this is approved would be helpful. My goal is to track it going forward without impacting staff. For example, the process of approving a Lot Line adjustment will ultimately fall with the County of Orange which the city doesn't control. Plus, the need for a grading permit which we do and the release of the COO. I and I am sure a lot of interested parties will want to know when the City will receive the transfer of the approx. 11-acre Parcel 2 to its ownership along with welcoming the expansion of Blue Ribbon nursery. It would be a great present to have this done for Orange before the upcoming holidays!
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.2. School Crossing Guard Program Discussion and Update.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:53pm 09-10-24
Please don’t use outdated reports with misrepresented data to justify a terrible policy decision. Bring back the crossing guards and stop playing politics with community safety.
This community has organized before when incompetence, corruption and poor governance show themselves.
We have no problem doing it again.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:03pm 09-10-24
Crossing guards are necessary. Without them, children are more at risk of getting hit by speeding cars.
Lewis Livingston
Thomas Rapport
Location:
Submitted At: 4:12pm 09-10-24
It is imperative you restore the school crossing guard program. It is not the responsibility of the school district to provide school crossing guards, these are city streets. Y ou know the dangers of not providing crossing guards but chose to cancel the program.
I am for Measure Z but if you don't restore funding to a vitally important program that protects our children, I have my doubts on how you will be good stewards of the extra money.
I understand you have a vehicle incentive program on the agenda that will cost the city 1.5million. Why now when you are facing a huge budget crisis and vital services are not being funded? All of you live in Orange, stop hurting your fellow residents.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:39pm 09-10-24
Reinstate funding for the school crossing guard program!! * The vehicle incentive program on the agenda will cost the city 1.5million in tax dollars in a city that is cutting programs because of a “budget crisis”
* Why should Orange residents vote to approve a tax increase when the city is just going to throw away that income on the proposed “car buyer incentive program”?
* How can we trust a council that votes yes to raises and incentive kickbacks, but no to children’s safety? * On the Measure Z proposed tax increase, “maintaining safe routes to school” is listed as one of the reasons we need to raise our taxes. If the city isn't going to provide that, then why should we vote to raise our taxes? * OUSD protects children in the areas they are equipped to do so. This is not their job. This is a city function.
OUSD doesn’t get to decide the speed limit, crosswalk layout, painting, lighting, stop sign or signal installation, etc. Why would they monitor someone else’s area?
* Every other district in Orange County doesn’t have to pay for the crossing guards (the city has found two beach districts that cover the cost)
* Pedestrians are not the only ones protected. Crossing guards also keep traffic flowing and provide a central point for when cars should proceed (or not)
* OUSD doesn’t need to be the ONL Y large school district in Orange County paying to monitor city streets.
Because that’s the duty of the city.
This doesn’t only impact students who attend schools within the city. If OUSD has to pay for crossing guards the financial impact will be significant. The equivalent of one elementary school modernization will be spent every 5 years.
* City of Orange has to make cuts to balance their budget, why are you leaving kids out of your public safety analysis? Just because OUSD has been prudent with their funds and dealt with pension funding in a timely manner, doesn’t mean we owe the city of Orange to help them out of their budgetary crisis to the financial and educational detriment of all OUSD students.
Michelle Weisenberg
Location:
Submitted At: 2:53pm 09-10-24
We need the city of orange to be good stewards of our tax dollars. Do not punish our students for the problems of the city. Raises need to be put on hold. The vehicle incentive program needs to be scrapped. The crossing guards need to be fully funded!! The safety of our children should ALWAYS come first.
Albert Wong
Location:
Submitted At: 1:58pm 09-10-24
As a parent of 3 children in OUSD, support adding school crossing guards into the 2024-25 budget.
Dawn Aguila
Location:
Submitted At: 12:45pm 09-10-24
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued engagement on the issue of crossing guard funding and student safety. I support reinstating the crossing guard funding, effective immediately.
The decision to cut funding for crossing guards and shift the responsibility to the local school district is not unprecedented, but it reflects a troubling trend in political decision-making—one that directly affects our children.
In a recent email exchange, Mayor Dan Slater stated that, "Santa Ana recently did the same thing." I happen to work in Santa Ana and while it’s true that Santa Ana recently voted to transition to an all-volunteer force for crossing guards, there is a key distinction: Santa Ana has continued to fund their current crossing guards through 2026, with an option to extend funding for an additional two years. This allows for a safe and organized transition, with ample time to plan, recruit, and properly train volunteers - OR - identify that this may not be a feasible option.
Unfortunately, Orange has taken a different and more abrupt approach, cutting funding without a clear transition plan in place.
I urge the council to reconsider this decision and explore more permanent solutions. This includes the full reinstatement of crossing guards at high-risk intersections or the installation of long-term safety measures, such as traffic lights at critical crossings. Simply expecting parents to volunteer their time is neither a practical nor responsible solution. This is not just a logistical issue—it’s a matter of political accountability and leadership. It’s disheartening to see this serious safety issue downplayed, with responsibility passed onto volunteers without the necessary support, training, or planning.
Our children’s safety should not be part of a political game. It requires immediate and thoughtful action. I hope you will take these concerns seriously and prioritize the well-being of our community by finding a long-term solution.
Sincerely,
Dawn Aguila
Orange Resident & La Veta Elementary School Parent
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:29pm 09-10-24
I would much rather see staffed crossing guards than police officials assisting our children to school.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 12:02am 09-10-24
I support adding school crossing guards into the 2024-25 budget, at a minimum for the elementary schools in Orange.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.3. Executive Management and Senior Management employees' classification, compensation, and terms of employment and Citywide Pay Schedule. Resolution Nos. 11575 and 11576 or Resolutions Nos. 11577 and 11578.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:27pm 09-10-24
How are you justifying pay raises for senior / executive roles while simultaneously cutting funding for crossing guards that protect our city’s school children? It’s disgraceful and selfish. Have any of the board members even spent a morning at drop off or afternoon at pick near ANY of the campuses within the district? Y ou’ve made decisions to cut a program because it doesn’t directly impact YOU. I encourage you to postpone or even reconsider entirely the pay raises and think about what your constituents want.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.4. Consideration of Resident Vehicle Incentive Program.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:30pm 09-10-24
1.5 millions for rebate incentives but we can’t afford crossing guards for our school children…. Priorities are askew here. Dealerships should offer incentives to drive business, not the city.
Michelle Weisenberg
Location:
Submitted At: 2:50pm 09-10-24
What's the point of increasing sales taxes if you are just going to give it away with this program? Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:24am 09-10-24
Dealers should be offering their own incentives; taxpayers are not responsible for funding rebate programs.