City Council
06-24-25 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. 1 0 0 1
3.4. Agreement with Nieves Landscape, LLC. for landscape maintenance services for City properties, right-of-way, and assessment districts. 1 0 1 0
3.7. First Amendment to agreement with Common Area Maintenance Service, Inc., dba CAM Property Services, for sidewalk steam cleaning services.
1 0 0 1
3.17. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow Single-Room Occupancy housing as a permitted use in certain zoning districts and related definitions and development standards.
Ordinance No. 11-25.
1 1 0 0
3.28. Review and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1887-24 and approval of preliminary project plans for the Cannon Street widening project. Resolution No. 11616.
3 0 3 0
8.1. Continued Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of an ordinance amending provisions in Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the number of chickens allowed on residential properties and setback requirements; and finding of CEQA exemption. Ordinance No. 08-25. (Continued from June 10, 2025) 3 2 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 unless a different time limit is announced.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:37pm 06-24-25
Dear City Leaders,
My name is Rocio, and I’ve lived in Orange my entire life. I loved growing up in this city so much that I chose to raise my own children here. I’m a proud product of Orange and of OUSD, and my children will be as well.
Like many others, I’ve seen the disturbing videos circulating online of masked, unidentified individuals removing people from the streets or their workplaces in unmarked vehicles. Thankfully, the City of Orange has not seen much this happen. I’m writing to urge you, as our elected leaders, to use the power entrusted to you by your constituents to keep this kind of violence and injustice out of our community.
If I were to witness someone being taken by individuals who are masked, unidentifiable, and driving unmarked vehicles, I would have no choice but to assume it is a kidnapping. That assumption may result in overwhelming our 911 operators.
I sincerely hope our city continues to be the calm, peaceful environment we want for our children.
Thank you for your commitment to protecting ALL who live in our city.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.4. Agreement with Nieves Landscape, LLC. for landscape maintenance services for City properties, right-of-way, and assessment districts.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:47pm 06-24-25
I oppose the agreement with Nieves Landscape. The company has consistently violated the city's natural resources section of the general plan by destroying native and habitat-supporting plant resources throughout the City and increasing the impact of urban development on important ecological and biological resources.. They use toxic pesticides and polluting gas-powered equipment which are known health hazards to humans and wildlife.
They are unwilling to incorporate sustainable land management practices. They have no understanding of the local ecosystem and directly cause the decline of native pollinators, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
Some of the Nieves landscape equipment operators are disrespectful and threatening to tax-paying residents when approached about their own toxic and destructive practices. I recommend that the city request proposals for a landscape company that is educated in sustainable practices and the local ecosystem and is willing to follow the City's own policies in regards to natural resources, health and safety.
Joel Robinson
Orange, CA 92869
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.7. First Amendment to agreement with Common Area Maintenance Service, Inc., dba CAM Property Services, for sidewalk steam cleaning services.
Overall Sentiment
A.J. Ricci
Location:
Submitted At: 5:18pm 06-24-25
Would like to see the city at a later date, have an RFP with consideration of vendors within the City of Orange. In my personal opinion, the current downtown merchants are not satisfied with the current contract's results in the downtown area.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.17. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow Single-Room Occupancy housing as a permitted use in certain zoning districts and related definitions and development standards. Ordinance No. 11-25.
Overall Sentiment
Bonnie Robinson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:59pm 06-24-25
I'm in support of the adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow Single- Room Occupancy housing in certain zoning districts. The 7 identified motel and 22 small business properties would be an excellent use of those properties to meet affordable housing needs of the community for low and very low income households. These properties are already built with adequate parking, resulting in lower building costs and in some cases fewer police calls, as well as limiting impact on our critical open space, while serving an important need of our community.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.28. Review and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1887-24 and approval of preliminary project plans for the Cannon Street widening project. Resolution No. 11616.
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:58pm 06-24-25
I request that the City deny the preliminary project plans for the The Cannon Street widening project because it will have significant environmental impacts to residents and biological resources and the mitigation measures are inadequate.
Prior road widening and extensions to both Cannon Street and Santiago Canyon road have accommodated an significant increase in commuters at the expense of current residents. More widening will will exacerbate a problem that is causing significant air, noise, light and water pollution.
The project threatens open space and habitat of special status species, including least Bell's vireo, legless lizard, southern tarplant, mountain lion, coastal California gnatcatcher and other sensitive declining species.
Joel Robinson
Orange, CA 92869
Bonnie Robinson
Location:
Submitted At: 5:26pm 06-24-25
Have traffic studies determined that the majority of the northbound traffic on Cannon from Santiago Canyon Road actually turn right at Serrano? If not, this is an extremely expensive proposal that will only result in a significant slow down of traffic immediately beyond the Serrano turnoff as the additional lane ends. If this has not been statistically determined, I ask that the Mitigated Negative Declaration not be approved. In addition, continuing the expansion of the roads in this area only invites additional traffic, another reason not to approve this MND. While
traffic is slow at peak times on Santiago Canyon Road, it has been widened to the point of acting as a freeway through our community during non-peak times and is often used as an unofficial racetrack at midnight. This particular road widening will also threaten the city's open space preservation efforts of the floodplain of the Santiago Creek and will have negative impacts to special status wildlife species including least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, mountain lion and other declining species. Thank you for your consideration.
Leslie Manderscheid
Location:
Submitted At: 1:52am 06-24-25
I have comments and concerns on the potential approval of this Item and request it be removed from the Consent Calendar and public comments be accepted.
The MND for the Cannon Street Widening Project includes outdated information and unacceptable analyses.
I live in close proximity of the proposed project in Serrano Heights. No one in my neighborhood, nor in the surrounding neighborhoods of Orange Park Acres, nor Villa Park were not made aware of this proposed project during the MND process.
According to the latest Cal Fire map effective April 1, 2024, the project location is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and therefore requires an updated analysis of Section 4.2 Wildfire prior to approval of the MND.
The traffic analysis did not consider the proximity to State Route 241 and the fact that much of the Cannon Street traffic both north and southbound is traveling to and from SR-241 at Santiago Canyon Road.
Current traffic congestion along Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street is unacceptable during both the morning and evening commute times. The project would not eliminate any traffic congestion, it would merely move it to less than a ½ north on Cannon St. and cause additional congestion at the intersection at Serrano Ave.
The Project’s potential to cause significant impacts to habitat, wildlife species, and plant and animal communities within the vicinity of the project was not adequately addressed.
Construction Noise of 85 dBA from 7:00 am until 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and Saturday 8:00 am to 8:00 pm is unacceptable to the surrounding residents.
Combustion emissions during construction would dramatically exceed the operational emission restrictions.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.1. Continued Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of an ordinance amending provisions in Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the number of chickens allowed on residential properties and setback requirements; and finding of CEQA exemption. Ordinance No. 08-25. (Continued from June 10, 2025)
Overall Sentiment
A.J. Ricci
Location:
Submitted At: 5:13pm 06-24-25
Great update to the ordinance. The change to the setback requirements is a common-sense approach to noise abatement with neighboring lots. Also, the update to an even 6 is in line with flocks preferring even pairs as opposed to "henpecking" which occurs when you have an odd number of fowl.
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 1:41pm 06-24-25
Support intent and language added by the Planning Commission. The goal is to allow keeping chickens in smaller properties while keeping the impacts (smell and noise) not impact surround property owners. Don't neighbors have rights too? I suggest the placement of coops should be as far away as possible from the living and sleeping areas of the neighbors. Side yard placement of the coop could be most impactful to that side neighbor with a rear location best. Why should the neighbor that doesn't keep chickens accept the negative impacts of this use. It's about being fair and equitable. Staff dismissing the efforts of the Commission to consider neighbors is puzzling.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 9:59pm 06-23-25
We live in the Presidential Tract just east of the 55 freeway. It has come to our attention that at their regular meeting on 6/24/2025, the City Council will vote to update Title 17 of the municipal code to make it easier to locate chicken enclosures on small residential properties, increase the number of chickens allowed on such properties, and, most important to us, prohibit roosters. We would like to express our whole-hearted support for these revisions to the municipal code.
We have no serious issue with backyard chicken farming. We do, however, take issue with neighbors having roosters. Roosters by nature are extremely vocal. We are daily reminded of this, as we currently share a backyard wall with neighbors who since last fall have kept not one but two roosters. These birds crow incessantly, often starting at dawn and continuing intermittently all day, sometimes even after dark. We filed a complaint with Orange Code Enforcement, only to learn that keeping roosters in residential Orange is perfectly legal, and there was nothing they could do.
For residents who work from home, work night shifts, have sleeping babies or just seek peace in their own space, crowing roosters can, and in our case do, negatively impact concentration, mental health and overall quality of life. Their constant crowing leads to distraction, lost sleep, unnecessary stress, and ill will toward neighbors who are showing open disregard for us and others living nearby. We also worry that this situation might affect any future plans we have to sell this property; we certainly wouldn’t purchase a home knowing a potential neighbor cared so little for the sensibilities of others.
Having had some debate of this issue on Orange Buzz, we surmise that most residents would support banning roosters in residential areas; many Orange residents seem to believe, wrongly, that roosters were already prohibited. We did discover through the Buzz thread that there are “rooster boosters” who will likely oppose this code revision (at least the part that bans roosters). The argument goes that a rooster is required to protect hens from predators like raccoons, hawks and coyotes. This is nonsense. Code (current and revised) requires that chickens be kept in an enclosure and no rocket scientist is required to build one that can safeguard hens from predators common to our city. Furthermore, the reason most people keep backyard chickens is to obtain eggs and roosters do nothing to enhance egg production. Some studies even show that the presence of a rooster can decrease egg production. The only other obvious reasons to have a rooster are to propagate chicks (arguable illegal in our area), engage in cock fighting (blatantly illegal nationally) or “just because I want one.” None of these arguments justifies the crowing or the resulting negative impact on neighborhood peace and goodwill.
We recognize that this code revision, by itself, would provide no immediate relief to our family, since the neighbors acquired these animals before the code revision was passed. But it would at least give us hope that our current plight has an end date. Please approve this measure; it is a common-sense compromise between residents who want to engage in backyard chicken farming and their neighbors who wish to enjoy the many other amenities of suburban life.
David and Karen Bustamante