Orange City Council
Meeting Time: 04-28-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Orange City Council 04-28-26
18:00
67 7 2 2 3
Orange City Council
04-28-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
3.1. Waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda 1 0 0 1
9.1. Public Hearing to consider a request to subdivide an existing vacant site and construct 15 detached three-story residential dwellings at 715 W.
Fletcher Avenue and finding of CEQA Exemption (ENT25-0015) 1 0 0 1
9.2. Public Hearing to consider revision of the Master Schedule of Fees and Charges to adopt revised fees as a result of the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
1 0 1 0
10.2. Establishment of Permit Parking on both sides of Olive Street from Almond Avenue to Palmyra Avenue
2 0 1 1
10.3. Consideration of Resolutions pertaining to the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election including a one-cent Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) Measure
1 1 0 0
11.1. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 02-26 amending Chapter 8.13 of the Orange Municipal Code to impose strict liability on social hosts for allowing, facilitating, or failing to prevent the use or discharge of illegal fireworks, and establishing enforcement penalties and administrative fines
1 1 0 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.1. Waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Leslie Manderscheid
Location:
Submitted At: 10:38am 04-28-26
Some Consent Calendar Items do not include the cost of the proposal. All Consent Calendar Items on the Agenda should include the total cost of each item directly on the Agenda Item description. We shouldn't have to read through the attachments to figure out the costs.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.1. Public Hearing to consider a request to subdivide an existing vacant site and construct 15 detached three-story residential dwellings at 715 W. Fletcher Avenue and finding of CEQA Exemption (ENT25-0015) Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:56am 04-28-26
Fletcher Small Lot Subdivision comments – Item 9.1
April 28, 2026
Adrienne Gladson, AICP
I’m struggling with the review process for this project. Last October, City Council’s ordinance missed including the applicable OMC section removing Small Lot Subdivision (SLS) projects from the DRC’s review city wide. I missed it too only to uncover the error recently in March which I shared with planning staff and legal team. Staff appreciated it being brought to their attention. I understand a clean-up action will be done asap. It does put the future path of these types of projects in legal limbo.
But as to the project’s design and its needed public benefits, the project is a solid example of how to achieve compliance with our code when it is followed. When a project like this comes forward ready to go it’s easy to make the legal findings to recommend Council approval.
The project achieves the following:
*Provides a work-force affordable unit for a deserving family to achieve the dream of homeownership. Yippie! *Three-stories with an average overall height at or under 32 feet with the 35-foot heights at the top of high roof pitches. The 15 homes will fit in well with the existing character of the two-story neighborhood. *Use of strong building articulation and a mix of materials and windows making it appear less imposing and boxy. *Sensitive, non-egress third story windows placed higher in the master bedroom as shown on all rear elevations (facing the neighbors). This feature is very thoughtful and respects the existing two-story units to the west and east that were here first. Further, it provides improved privacy for the new owner as well as existing neighbors. *All egress windows for the third-floor bedrooms are located on the side or front elevations to provide improved privacy for everyone.
*Full master ground level bedroom and full bath for aging in place options. Maybe I’ll move here? *Smart design of the second level floor space with useable balcony/patio *Private and Common open space
It is easy to understand why the Planning Commission approved this unanimously. Please see my call outs (red colored arrows and purple lines) to the Attachment 4 of the staff report indicating the well-done elements of the project. Thanks to the efforts of Senior Planner Ryan Agbayani and Planning Technician Alyssa Jurkevics for caring about the neighbors and carrying this forward for Council consideration.
Let me close with sharing that I am a strong supporter of the goals and purpose of Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance. This tool is a great way to achieve homeownership in the R-3, R-4, and Neighborhood Mixed Use zones. The reality is the SLS ordinance needs a thorough clean-up to address conflicts when a project is located next to single-story residential properties. Not to mention downtown and next to open space sites. In Orange, our Residential and Commercial zones are objectively limited to 2 stories and 32 feet citywide with taller heights allowed for projects on the westside of Batavia, Main Street and Town and Country areas, and Downtown, if legal findings can be made. Our R-3a zone further has an objective standard of one story which also needs attention.
I point to the project not recommended for approval by the DRC and Planning Commission in 2024, now under construction at Katella and Cambridge as why more work on this ordinance is required. Let’s get it fixed.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.2. Public Hearing to consider revision of the Master Schedule of Fees and Charges to adopt revised fees as a result of the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 5:35pm 04-27-26
I support the fee schedule changes. 100% recovery is the goal for most things. But had to mark something so I selected oppose. We need to establish at flat rate fee for non-applicants to appeal decisions. Here are my recommendations.
Flat rate fee for appeals by non-applicants:
Flat rate fees for non-applicant appeals are typically focused on balancing the cost of processing appeals against the need for broad public participation and inclusion in land-use decisions. This fee is most often structured as a low flat rate to encourage civic engagement, rather than covering the full cost of the appeal. Currently, Orange requires a deposit of $1,000.00 which chills parties of limited means to appeal most decisions. Plus, the meter continues to run beyond the $1,000 deposit to cover all time and hours of staff attending the appeal hearing. I am aware of four appeals traveling thru the administrative process in the last six years. Pretty low. Aggrieved parties are often correct on how to make the project better just give up due to deposit system. They may feel overwhelmed with the limited time to review a project once the public gets access, their views/concerns will be dismissed and ignored, decisions are perceived as a favor, or view the system as stacked against them.
My request is to consider establishing two non-refundable flat rates for non-applicants appeals:
Non-applicant flat fee for Administrative or Ministerial* (minor) actions: $250.00 Non-applicant flat fee for Discretionary** (major) actions: $750.00 *Ministerial – Decisions by City Manager, Directors, or Zoning Administrator **Discretionary – Decisions by DRC, Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, etc.
Consider changing this and send a clear message that Orange is fair and balanced in how we conduct our business.
Survey of what other OC cities do/charge.
Online survey data in April 2026.
Anaheim
Appealing a Planning Commission decision in Anaheim costs $450 for non-applicants, payable to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days.
Couldn’t find their fee for ministerial or administrative appeals by non-applicants.
Laguna Hills (for applicant or non-applicants)
$1,800 flat rate for appeals by either applicant or non-applicants Costa Mesa – non-applicants
Flat rate
$1,220 for major projects
$690 for minor projects
Fullerton – non-applicants
25% of the application fee not to exceed $2,068.00
Brea – non-applicants
Flat rate
$750.00 (was $50.00 prior to March 2026)
Garden Grove
(flat rate) Fee Amount
Neighbors/Tenants (Within notification area) $100.00
Standard/General Appeal $1,744.00
Building and Planning Appeals $1,744.00
Thanks for your consideration.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10.2. Establishment of Permit Parking on both sides of Olive Street from Almond Avenue to Palmyra Avenue
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:03pm 04-28-26
Dear Mayor and Council members, the new parking restrictions have impacted our neighborhood streets.. speaking about Olive.. I drove by today at 4 o’clock and found the Senior Center had 1 car in it and the streets on both side had none…while Olive was packed.. can we open the Senior Center parking lot at 4 since they close at 4 and extend the 2 hour parking to another hour on Almond? The Senior Center lot right now states.. Senior Center Parking only 8 am to 6 pm…Can the Salon have the frontage curb dedicated to them on Olive and Almond… We are zoned mixed use residential and business..or at the least give the salon 5 permits to be used for the Olive side. The owner of Ricca Donna Salon would pay for Salon Only parking signs under the direction of the City.. these new parking rules have already caused staff turnover, with possible more to come… employees parking in the structure is also a burden and safety issue… after working 10-11 hours the last thing you want to do is walk in the dark carry supplies and personal items , especially in the winter hours.. also starting early in the morning 6am…when the time changes .. a female walking by yourself in the dark is a safety issue.. I hope we can work together and you consider some of our considerations… Thank Y ou, Nancy Rees, Estella Huizar, Fawzeya, Jennifer Salver
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:33am 04-28-26
Dear Mayor and Council Members. I am writing in to oppose the permit parking for the 200 block of South Olive Street as it is proposed. I spoke at the Traffic Commission meeting earlier this month expressing my concern for how this will impact the 300 block of South Olive (my block). The 300 block of South Olive has a density issue with most of the homes converted into multi-unit apartments making parking an issue already. The permit parking on only 1 block in this area is going to create parking issues for all the surrounding blocks. For this reason, I am asking that the council deny this request until further assessment is done including, but not limited to, offering the same for all blocks in this area. Thank you. Vickie Laughlin ~ 320 Souith Olive Street Agenda Item: eComments for 10.3. Consideration of Resolutions pertaining to the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election including a one-cent Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) Measure Overall Sentiment
Leslie Manderscheid
Location:
Submitted At: 10:40am 04-28-26
I support the one-cent sales tax measure.
Agenda Item: eComments for 11.1. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 02-26 amending Chapter 8.13 of the Orange Municipal Code to impose strict liability on social hosts for allowing, facilitating, or failing to prevent the use or discharge of illegal fireworks, and establishing enforcement penalties and administrative fines Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 12:02pm 04-27-26
Vote YES! Long overdue.