Orange City Council
Meeting Time: 05-26-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Orange City Council 05-26-26
18:00
47 10 4 5 1
Orange City Council
05-26-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
3.3. Agreement with Belmont Estates Homeowners Association for installation of Flock cameras on City property
2 0 2 0
3.4. Agreement with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for Flock camera licenses, software, and services for the Police Department
1 0 1 0
3.13. Approval of the Santiago Creek Commission's proposed Santiago Creek Strategic Plan implementation strategy
3 3 0 0
9.2. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a commercial property with 71 three-story single-family small lot homes at 2375 N.
Tustin Street, the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 06-26 approving Zone Change No. ZC25-0002, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV25-0001 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 0 1 0
10.2. Review and discuss draft resolutions and ordinance documents relating to a proposed 1¢ Sales Tax Measure, Transient Occupancy Tax Measure, and The Contract with Orange
2 1 0 1
10.3. Vehicle Incentive Program Discussion 1 0 1 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.3. Agreement with Belmont Estates Homeowners Association for installation of Flock cameras on City property
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:22pm 05-26-26
Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Ribuffo and I am a resident of Old Towne (District 1). I strongly oppose the installation of Flock cameras in our community and ask Council to not approve this contract tonight. Flock cameras will not make our community safer, all they will do is increase invasive surveillance on residents and visitors. There are already intersection cameras around town that allow OPD to pull footage and identify vehicles if needed. While Flock may promise that the use of these cameras are be limited in scope, the fact is that there are many reported instances of data breaches and accidental granting of access to other Flock subscribing agencies. Residents have enough challenged maintaining their privacy and identity protection without this unnecessary system in place. The City needs to refocus on the needs of residents - which should be balancing the budget to restore and increase beneficial city services to the community. Flock cameras are not one of those services. Please vote NO on this item.
Ryan Johnson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:29am 05-26-26
May 26 2026
Ryan Johnson, District 1
It's hard to believe the city council is wasting its time and money (for which the city keeps saying is scarce) on public safety snake oil. The city council needs to explain to the public-with evidence-that this expenditure has convincing evidence for its use and also how it plans to address constitutional privacy concerns and related million-dollar lawsuits. (Citations)
https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-dollar- lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20260227692233/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class- action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-a-law-group
https://www.ktvu.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-alleges-flock-license-plate-readers-violate-ca-law-privacy- residents
Y ou're going to have to look hard for that evidence because I'm not finding it! Palo Alto published that out of the 787k unique plates read, a total of 463 searches were conducted. That's a hit rate of 0.0006, and we don't know how many of those searches resulted in convictions.
https://transparency.flocksafety.com/palo-alto-ca-pd
It's especially absurd in the literal shadow of a toxic gas leak that has led to thousands of evacuations. And the company responsible? GKN settled for nearly a million dollars for its environmental violations! Which corrupt, public-safety hazards are brewing right now here in Orange that aren't being discovered because we aren't subjecting these companies to rigorous inspections and enforcement? Where the violation fines are just a small line item in their P&L statements? Which companies are committing wage-theft and labor violations? How much money are we putting into preventing these crimes?
Instead, the Orange City council is considering burning money for a surveillance system that has resulted in:
Police officers stalking former partners (especially concerning due to my work at a rape crisis center) Police pulling a woman out of her car at gunpoint, and doing the same to two brothers on their way to Thanksgiving dinner (separate incidents due to technical errors) Data loss to unauthorized users, putting the city at risk of unjustified privacy violations. How does this make sense?
As journalist Tim Mackenzie stated, “The real business model for Flock is to sell fear to our local police departments so taxpayer dollars are used to lease cameras to let Flock get the thing it actually cares about: our data. WE are the product; Flock cares about making a profit, not public safety.” https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/ex-costa-mesa-police-officer-accused-of-using-flock-cameras-to- track-his-mistress/
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-officer-charged-flock-camera.html https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/san-francisco-woman-pulled-out-car-gunpoint-because https://www.cbsnews.com/news/license-plate-readers-alpr-mistakes/ Let us not be conned! At minimum, you need to postpone any action on this issue until the evidence becomes irrefutably beneficial to the community at large.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.4. Agreement with Insight Public Sector, Inc. for Flock camera licenses, software, and services for the Police Department
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:21pm 05-26-26
Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Ribuffo and I am a resident of Old Towne (District 1). I strongly oppose the installation of Flock cameras in our community and ask Council to not approve this contract tonight. Flock cameras will not make our community safer, all they will do is increase invasive surveillance on residents and visitors. There are already intersection cameras around town that allow OPD to pull footage and identify vehicles if needed. While Flock may promise that the use of these cameras are be limited in scope, the fact is that there are many reported instances of data breaches and accidental granting of access to other Flock subscribing agencies. Residents have enough challenged maintaining their privacy and identity protection without this unnecessary system in place. The City needs to refocus on the needs of residents - which should be balancing the budget to restore and increase beneficial city services to the community. Flock cameras are not one of those services. Please vote NO on this item.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.13. Approval of the Santiago Creek Commission's proposed Santiago Creek Strategic Plan implementation strategy
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 5:08pm 05-26-26
I also support the Santiago Creek Strategic Plan Implementation Strategy, and I hopt the City will begin implementation as soon as possible. I also ask that the Council and Commission review the Chapman Students' report about the Santiago Creek Native Plant Restoration Plan. Whenever possible we should choose native plants for our open spaces and in our yards and other public places.
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:38pm 05-25-26
Very supportive of this implementation strategy. Members of my community stand ready to help.
Jake Comer
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 05-25-26
I support the Santiago Creek Strategic Plan Implementation Strategy, and encourage the City to begin implementation as soon as possible. I also ask that the Council and Commission review the Chapman Students report about the Santiago Creek Native Plant Restoration Plan. This report was developed by students working with the office of the City Manager, and set a simple priority for this plan: provide simple, yet evidence-based spatial arrangements of native plants that can be used to improve the Santiago Creek habitat and surrounding parks. This would fit more closely to the proposed Ecological Preservation and Restoration Subcommittee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVtbI0IxRl0&t=3711s
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.2. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to redevelop a commercial property with 71 three- story single-family small lot homes at 2375 N. Tustin Street, the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 06-26 approving Zone Change No. ZC25-0002, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV25-0001 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:19am 05-25-26
May 25, 2026
Mayor/Members - Orange City Council.
I am providing my input on 9.2. My input covers three points:
_ Strategic Policy
_ Good Governance & Vision
_ Fairness
Strategic Policy: Is it a good strategic public policy to change the general plan designation from Commercial to Residential? Is it wiser to consider it along with any land use change(s) for the Mall? Or on Tustin Street? Based on the current commercial real estate market, changing the designation from commercial to residential gives it value. Although that’s speculation, the property tax valuation falls around 70 million that could change due to various economic circumstances. Do we have factual data & proven long-term examples where this works & that it will never need general fund $ or cost the taxpayers a dime? It’s a gamble to approval this proposal.
There’s the typical default view, “well, it could be worst”. “It could be 6 stories with 100s of units”. To be clear, if you approve the project as is, there is no binding contract that locks in the development to only 71 units. The tract map &/or the major site plan entitlements could be ditched but the residential land use/R-3 zoning would stay in place. A six-story residential project could still occur. There’s no land use contract that gives recorded assurances that only this precise project will happen. There’s no certainty. Once the commercial use is extinguished, it’s gone forever along with future sale tax revenue.
Good Governance & Vision: The plans show that the project fails to comply with the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance & Guidelines. Those requirements are easy to read & follow to achieve the required legal findings.
Attached are two approved documents (Small Lot Subdivision regulations) highlighting in yellow showing the areas of noncompliance along with drawings that indicate the locations where egress window relocation could shift to. If not, make the units two-stories. These 3 items were provided along with the HOA “ask” letter of May 14, 2026, & not included in Attachment 15. Plus, there is some confusion on what was said & provided to the applicant on these regulations/precedent issues of similar projects. And there’s the cleanup matter of correcting the ordinance removing these projects from DRC oversight.
Also, the project was submitted to the City in March 2025, but the Coco Palms property owners weren’t aware of it until March 2026. This is not proper, nor is it good public engagement. In my opinion, this cloud puts the Council in an extremely difficult position. In this time of uncertainty, what does this project bring to the table? Does this inform developers that “desire to partner with Orange” what Orange is looking for? Does this represent our economic vision?
Fairness: The Coco Palms one-story community wants to be treated with fairness. They are very aware of what the Viewpoint & Fletcher project neighbors got. That important precedent which should be emulated. It’s fair for Coco Palms, Park 72, the mobile home park to receive the same respect & consideration.
I ask you to get all the answers you require before making any decision. I will be interested in your reasoning Tuesday night & hope it will be based upon the required legal findings supported by irrefutable facts.
It’s not too late to do this correctly.
Adrienne J. Gladson, AICP
Agenda Item: eComments for 10.2. Review and discuss draft resolutions and ordinance documents relating to a proposed 1¢ Sales Tax Measure, Transient Occupancy Tax Measure, and The Contract with Orange Overall Sentiment
Adrienne Gladson
Location:
Submitted At: 2:32pm 05-26-26
Support where this is headed. I have some suggested word changes to make it stronger for Reso 11689. I like using the word people, people's money when we talk about taxes. See the attachment for my other word ideas.
Highlighted in yellow.
Leslie Manderscheid
Location:
Submitted At: 1:11am 05-26-26
This is a confusing Agenda Item. I agree that draft resolutions and ordinance documents relating to a proposed 1c Sales Tax Measure, Transient Occupancy Tax Measure, and The Contract with Orange all need to be reviewed and discussed, BUT putting all 3 of these topics on one Agenda item is confusing to discuss and review them when they are separate items, especially when they are not consistently listed in the same order, and Resolution 11670 only lists the two Tax Measures and not "The Contract with Orange." It's not clear if the revenue measure C (Engage a third-party entity to assess the value of City-owned assets) is the same as "The Contract with Orange." The narrative on Page 2 of 4 (Agenda Item #: 10.2) indicates measures A and B are the only two being discussed. Is the formal declaration to develop The Contract with Orange the same as revenue measure C? Please separate each revenue measure to be independently discussed.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10.3. Vehicle Incentive Program Discussion Overall Sentiment
Leslie Manderscheid
Location:
Submitted At: 1:23am 05-26-26
The Vehicle Incentive Program is discriminatory against other large retailers within the City of Orange besides auto dealerships, and it is discriminatory against smaller auto leasing companies. Several local jewelry stores may sell items for a much higher price than a car and generate more sales tax.