August 11, 2026
City Council Meeting
Written Public Comments
Orange City Council
Meeting Time: 08-11-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Orange City Council 08-11-26
18:00
38 7 1 4 1
Orange City Council
08-11-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 1 0 0 0
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 1 0 0
3.3. Agreement with UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. for environmental and survey services for the Riverdale Avenue Complete Street Improvement Project and authorize continuation of unspent grant balance and required match for Riverdale Avenue Complete Streets project 1 0 0 1
3.6. Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 13-26 amending Chapter 12.48 of the Orange Municipal Code pertaining to parks to update sections related to smoking and vaping
1 0 1 0
8.1. Public Hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 to consider approval of the Vehicle Incentive Program Participation Agreement with five Orange franchised automobile dealerships, contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax Measure
2 0 2 0
9.1. County of Orange Unincorporated Island Annexation Study and Policy Direction
1 0 1 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Overall Sentiment
Sam Miles
Location:
Submitted At: 11:46am 08-11-26
To: Members of the Orange City Council
City of Orange, California
From: Samuel Miles
Operator, Diamond Spa
, Orange, CA 92865
Re: Request to Amend Ordinance Code No. 08-26
Dear Members of the Orange City Council:
I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider Ordinance Code No. 08-26, which temporarily restricts the issuance of new massage spa business licenses in the City of Orange.
My wife and I have legally operated Diamond Spa at 925 E. Lincoln Avenue since 2022, providing massage services as part of our established day spa. Last year, we entered into a five-year lease for this location and currently have approximately four years remaining, with a monthly obligation of nearly $4,000 through August 2030. We also invested approximately $95,000 to purchase and establish our business at this location.
We recently opened a new day spa at 1976 N. Tustin Street at Tustin Square Plaza, which was intended to replace our Lincoln Avenue location. Our plan was to sell the existing Lincoln Avenue business, use the proceeds toward our investment in the new location, and resolve our remaining lease obligations.
Importantly, we had already entered into a purchase agreement for the 925 E. Lincoln Avenue business before Ordinance Code No. 08-26 added the additional 22-month restrictions.
I understand and support the City Council's concern about the number of massage establishments within the City of Orange. I agree that the City has a legitimate interest in regulating the number, location, and operation of these businesses.
However, I respectfully believe the ordinance has an unintended impact on existing, lawful massage spa businesses and their owners. In our case, the business already exists, the location is already operating as a massage spa, and the proposed transaction would not create a new massage spa location. It would simply allow an existing business to be sold and transferred to another qualified owner at the same location.
For this reason, I respectfully ask the City Council to consider an exception to Ordinance Code No. 08-26 allowing the sale and transfer of existing, legally operating massage spa businesses to qualified new owners at their existing locations, subject to all applicable City licensing, zoning, code enforcement, and other requirements.
This exception could be narrowly limited to existing businesses that are legally operating and in good standing. It would preserve the City's goal of limiting new massage spa locations while protecting the legitimate business interests of owners who have made substantial investments and entered into long-term lease obligations.
Such an exception would also allow the City to continue receiving applicable business license fees and other revenues from existing businesses rather than preventing their lawful transfer.
I respectfully ask the City Council to review Ordinance Code No. 08-26 and consider this amendment. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss our situation and provide documentation regarding our business, lease obligations, investment, and purchase agreement.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Samuel Miles
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: 1:42pm 08-10-26
I support trying to keep the Holiday skating rink in Wayfield in Orange open for the future. At least until the owner Los of the land are ready to start construction
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.3. Agreement with UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. for environmental and survey services for the Riverdale Avenue Complete Street Improvement Project and authorize continuation of unspent grant balance and required match for Riverdale Avenue Complete Streets project
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 11:25am 08-09-26
I would like to know if this agreement, Item 3.3, will eventually lead to fixing Riverdale Avenue? What exactly does "rehabilitate the existing pavement" mean? That street is really bad, and I would like to see the potholes repaired and the entire street resurfaced.
Agenda Item: eComments for 3.6. Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 13-26 amending Chapter 12.48 of the Orange Municipal Code pertaining to parks to update sections related to smoking and vaping Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 4:21pm 08-07-26
In our city's fiscal situation, can we please get a "No" vote for this ordinance, so that we don't have to spend money that we don't have updating signs at all of our city parks? I don't like smoking, but the discussion from the police in the prior meeting left me thinking that they're rarely if ever going to enforce this law, so we don't lose much by waiting until the city has got budget to update all the signs. Thank you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8.1. Public Hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 to consider approval of the Vehicle Incentive Program Participation Agreement with five Orange franchised automobile dealerships, contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax Measure
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 4:59pm 08-11-26
This is discriminatory against all other auto dealers in the City of Orange, and is discriminatory against all other businesses that that could use this benefit.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:31pm 08-11-26
I oppose the Vehicle Incentive Program. Every business in the City of Orange should contribute an equal percentage of their sales. I purchased my car at Toyota of Orange and have my car regularly serviced there.
Toyota of Orange does not appear to be suffering from a lack of sales or revenue. They continue to expand their dealership and service space and have often used other properties in Orange to store their vehicles. Most people would like to purchase their vehicles close to home to access followup services. Even with a 1% increase, our sales tax will be lower than many adjacent cities. We do not want to defeat the purpose of an increased sales tax. Our city can't afford to lose the money that would need to be reimbursed to the auto dealerships if the Incentive Program is approved. Every business should pay their fair share. Auto dealerships will retain their business if they continue to offer excellent customer service. Thank you for your consideration.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9.1. County of Orange Unincorporated Island Annexation Study and Policy Direction Overall Sentiment
A.J. Ricci
Location:
Submitted At: 3:43pm 08-11-26
The City of Orange is not in a financial position right now to be taking on unincorporated county land, not when we're already struggling to fully take care of what we have. Our police, fire, code enforcement, and public works are stretched thin. We do not need to add 850 more acres and nearly 5,000 more residents to that load with little to no commercial property acquisition for sales tax.
Staff's own report says we need an infrastructure audit because we don't even know the condition of the streets and storm drains we'd inherit, meaning years of deferred County maintenance becomes our bill to pay. And by the report's own admission, annexation "would likely result in an ongoing net fiscal impact to the City" under the current revenue split, plus over 1,300 RHNA housing units with no added revenue attached.
And the next step tonight authorizes staff and consultant time to study whether we should spend even more money later, on a problem we haven't even confirmed our residents want solved.
We are not financially positioned for this. Let's fully fund and staff what we already owe our current residents before we go looking for more.