Orange City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the regular City Council meeting of July 14, 2026 to order. If you have not silenced your cell phones, please do so at this time. So we've got some new protocols we're gonna implement tonight and that is due to state law, new state law as to how council meetings are to be opened up to those who are not here and they may be online. So I'll be reading some of that as we go through tonight. So welcome to all of you and to any of that are participating remotely. Tonight's invocation will be given by Pastor Marco Salinas of Spirit and Truth Worship Center to be followed by a Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Taveleris. Please stand.

Mr. Mayor, for the invitation for prayer this evening as we pray together. Lord God, we thank you for the opportunity to gather together in service of our great community Lord, we ask your blessings upon this city council meeting for our mayor, for our city staff, and every public servant who works for the good of our residents. We pray, Lord, for wisdom in this chamber to make sound decisions and the desire to do what is right and integrity, Lord, in every decision. We pray, Lord, for peace within our city. We pray for protection over our families. We pray that you'd watch over our police officers, our firefighters, first responders, and all those who faithfully serve our community each and every day. Lord, your word reminds us that blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. And we ask that you would guide our leaders and direct their steps. so that decisions made here tonight would promote justice, peace, and blessing towards every person who calls this city their home. And we pray all of these things in the wonderful name of Jesus. Amen. Amen.

Please place your right hand over your heart and remember those overseas serving us in this great country.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Pastor Salinas. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

I am present.

Council Member Barrios. I'm here. Council Member Dimitriou.

Present.

Council Member Tavaleras. Here. Council Member Gutierrez. Here. Council Member Gillenhammer.

Here.

Mayor Slater.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you. We have no presentations or announcements this evening. I'll ask the City Attorney if there's anything to report out from closed session.

Nothing to report at this time.

Very well. So I'll ask the council if they would like anything to be reordered or removed on the agenda. Is everyone good? Okay. 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, how many speakers do we have?

We have eight, Mayor.

Okay, public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. And additionally, due to the new protocols, If any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council on non-agenda items, please raise your hand. If you are calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We will hear in-person speakers first and then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up and then you will be muted. So our first speaker this evening is Dan Swoish, followed by Greg Arrowsmith. If the next speaker could make their way toward the front, it would be great.

Good evening, City Council. I appreciate the time. This is the third City Council meeting in a row I've been to to take my three minutes. And I'm going to talk about the same two subjects, the illegal billboards and banners that Horton has put up in our Mayberry Ranch neighborhood, and also their dirt hauling route. Both times I've been here, I've read this, and I'm going to read it again. I printed it up on Sunday, June 7th off the City of Orange website. Title 17, Zoning, Chapter 17.36, Sign Regulations, 17.36.150, Special Purpose Sign Regulations, Section A, Number 2. In a residential district, no such sign shall exceed six square feet in area, and no freestanding sign shall exceed five feet in height. What they've put up is 18 times larger than the code and six times higher. It seems pretty black and white. I actually called code enforcement again last week, and the person I spoke to said that they and somebody named Anna and then a person, apparently the director, which I was assuming was the director of code compliance, was going to meet with Horton about this. I don't know if they had that meeting. But at this point in time, with all due respect, if the city of Orange is not going to enforce the codes, just tell me. I won't waste anybody's time. Because I'm tired of coming up here and going over this. But the other thing I wanted to talk about was their haul route. They want to drag their 10,000 truckloads of dirt down Yellowstone, right through the main thoroughfare of our neighborhood. Back last October, they said that they would build a temporary bridge and they would bring the dirt in from that side. Not only did they not build a temporary bridge, they dammed up the creek. It's a riparian area. They threw down about a 40-foot pipe that's about 30 inches wide. I've been down there. I've looked at it. Then they plowed over that and hammered it down. It's probably 10 feet high. And you could drive two cement trucks side by side over this dam they built. Now they know for sure, and I just want to get it on public record, it's guaranteed, there is no way when we get our first rain that that pipe they put down there can possibly handle the water flow. They did that purposely, so they're creating their own act of God. So as soon as we get our first rain, they're gonna come and say, look at the act of God, what can we do? We have to use Yellowstone. Mayberry Ranch has been there for 47 years. You as a city council are our only defense against, you know, Horton's the biggest. They brag they're the biggest. They know all this stuff. They've played every game, and they're just looking for the first rain so they can drag everything down Yellowstone. I hope you guys will stand up for us and take care of the residents in Mayberry. Appreciate your time.

Thank you, Dan. Following Greg Aerosmith is Kurt Peterson.

California Brown Act of 1953, enforcing local government agencies to be transparent with the taxpaying citizens. I did. For this information, order the USDOJ. Focus, California community colleges receive funding primarily through taxpayer contributions via the state general fund in 2025-2026. California community colleges received approximately $22.4 billion. from the general fund as well as receive significant financial support from local property tax revenues. The dual revenue resources help maintain the operational stability of community colleges, ensures that they can provide educational services to students throughout California. In the fiscal year of 2024-25, Rancho San Diego Community College District received $148.28 million from the California General Fund and $144.05 million from the local funds, which I assume are property tax revenues, taxpaying citizens. Political science and U.S. history should be mandatory classes at our high schools, I'll include high schools in this too, and colleges. It is imperative that our students increase their knowledge and patriotism about our country and constitution. Number two, the introduction of investment and retirement classes should be mandatory at our high schools and colleges. It sickens me that 42% of our full-time working Americans and 79% of our part-time working Americans do not have access to retirement plans. Number three, blue collar trades should be available to all of our high schools and community colleges. There should be access for students to learn all the trades, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, landscaping, general contracting, pest control, et cetera, to build and maintain a structure from the foundation to the roof. Mike Rowe continues to push our younger generations into blue collar trades due to the importance of the help work in need as well as there is good money to be made. I'm a prime example of that. Number four, community colleges should be marketing our senior citizens retirees to have the option to take classes, which is very important to his or her health. Boredom and loneliness from our senior citizens retirees can lead to depression, which leads to a decline in physical health, increased risk of chronic diseases, and eventually higher mortality rates. Furthermore, OUR AMERICAN FLAG SHOULD BE IN EVERY DAMN CLASSROOM.

THANK YOU, GREG. FOLLOWING KURT PETERSON IS JOSHUA HERVEL.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY. TONIGHT I'M HERE ONCE AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT REVENUE SOURCES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAX INCREASE. Some of what I'm gonna discuss have been discussed before, some of it's for public consumption. I think it's time to have a yard sale and sell all properties that the City of Orange owns that are not part of the government infrastructure. Yes, sales would be a one-time only revenue gain, but it would be a significant gain and it could help pay down some debt and get us going in the right direction. I did a public records request for property inventory, and the city owns, among a lot of other things, property on South Orange, leased to architects, two residential properties on Cypress Street, on Palm Avenue, property leased to a preschool, two parcels leased to Chapman Brewery, two parcels leased to Streamline Restaurant, the Royer Mansion leased to several businesses, and a hair salon on Main Street. Also, according to the report, the city owns the property that Selma and Chevrolet sits on. I found that one a little bit disturbing since they're being considered for the VIP program. And it's right there on the list that I got. So I don't have it with me, but I'd be happy to share that with anyone. And then finally, I think we need to sell the Taft Library. sell the Taft Library, take whatever proceeds are needed to bump up the El Medino Library to 32 to 40 hours a week and make it a viable choice. We have the second lowest residence to library ratio out of 13 local cities in the county. Two of those libraries are only open 16 hours a week. Why not make two full-time libraries and again, make it work. I'm asking that if it hasn't happened already, the city should take any necessary moves, including NOAA's, and get started as soon as possible.

Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. Following Joshua is Craig Atanasio.

Thank you, everybody, for allowing me to be here and speak. My name is Joshua, and I live on Olive and Palmyra. There was recently a permit parking enforcement on the street that I live on, and as of right now, the current code states that there's only one permit per dwelling. I live in a one-bedroom apartment with my significant other. I legally am not allowed to park on the street I live on. That kind of just feels a little absurd. I legally can't park on the street that I live on. But I do have some solutions potentially. Chapter 1030 in the parking requirements, subsection 1030.40, section B. No person shall make, duplicate, reproduce, transfer, sell, or give any permit issued from the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program without authorization of the City Council. I would like to be able to park on the street that I live on. Please. Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua. Following Craig is Donald Tulford. I'm sorry, you're after Craig.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, distinguished council members. It's good to be back. Kind of missed you. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. It's been about a year since I began coming out here, and I've learned a lot of things. And one thing I never did realize is that you're all only getting $600 a month to do this. which makes you practically volunteers, and I respect the hell off of that. In this world where there's so much indifference and apathy to see a group of men and women that are gonna make these sacrifices that it takes to run this city is truly amazing. I can't imagine all the headaches, the hassles, the egos, the meetings that you have to deal with, all the endless public petitions, the occasional cranks, But you're all seasoned pros, and I'm sure you can handle that. My wife can handle my life. You can deal with me for three minutes. This is all very surreal to me. Five years ago, we had a violent insurrection in our capital. And the man that fomented that is now our nation's leader. He's a convicted felon, and he's a pedophile. His name appears in the Epstein files more than Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, by a factor of 40. How's that for a biblical number? Furthermore, today there are armed troops in our nation's capital, and there are armed mass paramilitaries basically terrorizing our cities and our communities, taking people off the streets without due process. And breaking up families, and just tearing apart communities. And my comment on that, this is my message tonight, is that don't you realize that when we as a society allow one group to degrade another group, we degrade ourselves. Now, there's not anything that we can do officially about this matter, but you all have soft power You are influential in your communities. People listen to you. And that's what I'm asking for you is to speak up and let this be known that this is not acceptable behavior. This is not acceptable leadership. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. The man made $2 billion last year. Do you think he cares about you, your children, or your grandchildren? He's in it for himself. And we need to speak to this and have the courage to speak to this if we're going to continue as a society. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thanks, Greg. Now you're up, Donald, to be followed by Mary Oberschlake.

Good evening, Mayor Slater and City Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council this evening. My name is Donald Telford. I have been the owner and operator of Holiday Skate Center since October 1st, 2023. I've been an Orange resident also since 1984. For nearly 53 years, Holiday Skate Center has been serving residents of Orange and the surrounding communities. It's a safe, inclusive, and vital community hub that promotes physical health, youth sports, and social connection for people of all ages and backgrounds. It's one of the few remaining affordable, family-friendly indoor activities in the area. On a daily basis, we host birthday celebrations, school skate parties, fundraisers, and public skating, of course. There are no other traditional roller skating rinks in Orange and only one similar facility in all of Orange County. In a time when many people feel a lack of connection with others, Community and recreational spaces like Holiday Skate should be protected and celebrated. There is now a great deal of concern in Orange and beyond that Holiday Skate Center will be demolished to make way for a residential project. Such project is currently pending review by both the Planning Commission and the Council. As of today, more than 12,000 of our guests and supporters have signed an online petition opposing the project. The issue has received considerable attention in social and traditional media as well. I'm aware that many members of the community have communicated directly with all of you to share their concerns. I've been leasing Holiday Skate Center premises since October 1st, 2023. I have offered to purchase the property as a means of maintaining it in its present use, but the owner's representative has declined. I've also offered to extend the existing lease arrangements at an increased rate. That's also been declined. Meanwhile, I've received notice from the owners directing that we remove all of our property and vacate the premises by August 31st. I've asked the property owner for reconsideration. But ultimately, the city's leadership will be tasked with deciding whether to approve the development entitlements that the property owner is seeking. I hope that you, all of the members of the city council, city leadership, will seriously consider the community's interest as well as those of the property owner. Perhaps an arrangement is possible where Holiday Skate can be allowed to remain while the city facilitates the proposed residential development in another location. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Donald. Following Mary Elberslake is Jack Williams.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, city council members. Fourth of July, just got back, was with the largest group of veterans and active duty service members protesting what is happening in our nation since Vietnam. It was an honor and a privilege to be there. There are currently 80 to 100,000 flock ALPR cameras active in nearly all states across the United States, capturing more than 20 billion vehicle reads every month. Every license plate that passes by a license plate reader is captured indiscriminately. AI detects unique features of each vehicle like bumper stickers, damage, or vehicle mounted accessories to create a searchable vehicle signature. No reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or judicial warrant is required. All of this data is easily searchable. It goes into a privately controlled block database. Customers like Orange, Costa Mesa, Los Angeles, can easily use this tool to track our movements both in real time and historically. Dragnet mass surveillance is not making us safer. Aggregating our data into a privatized AI-powered mass surveillance ecosystem that is retained indefinitely with no public oversight backed by tech billionaire investors with a stated anti-democratic purpose is not public. safety. Now I know that all of my locally elected representatives or our locally representatives stay current and are aware of what's happening in Los Angeles and that they did not renew their flock contract and most likely will not. I'd like us all to sit with this and think about what it means for here in Orange. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mary. Jack Williams.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council, city managers, staff, and members of the community. My name is Jack Williams, and I serve as the Public Affairs Specialist with the United States Small Business Administration Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience. Today I want to speak about the Garden Grove Hazmat Materials Incident and to discuss how we continue to partner with the City of Orange to support local businesses and residents. Many people know the SBA for helping entrepreneurs start and grow businesses. However, one of our most important responsibilities is providing long-term disaster recovery assistance following federally declared disasters. Our goal is to ensure that eligible businesses, private nonprofit organizations, understand the resources available to them, and help them recover. Some businesses may have experienced reduced customer traffic, canceled appointments, supply chain interruptions, or temporary declines in revenue, and even with physical damage or without physical damage, those type of economic impacts may make an eligible business appropriate to explore assistance through SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. Even businesses that remain open have experienced reduced customer traffic, appointment cancellations, employee absences, vendor delays, supply chain interruptions, and temporary revenue declines. These indirect impacts are exactly why Congress authorized the SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program to help eligible businesses recover from disaster-related financial disruption. Since arriving in Orange County, I have focused on building partnerships to help us reach businesses where they already received trusted information and outreach efforts have included meeting with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, the North Orange County Chamber of Commerce, Anaheim's Economic Development Team, and Government Affairs Team. We believe that the City of Orange can play an important role in expanding the efforts by disseminating this information through their city newsletters, business outreach, community meetings, and existing partnerships. We would like to propose the opportunity to explore our MRV vehicles to allocate assistance for potential applicants at any location that is based inside of the City of Orange locations as we continue to be a resilient partner for the City of Orange. Thank you.

Thank you, Jack. That ends the speakers that are present. Are there any remote speakers?

We do not have any remote speakers, Mayor.

Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to the consent calendar. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion, approving the recommended action listed on the agenda. Any member of the city council, staff, or the public may request an item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion or separate action. Are any of my colleagues like to remove anything for further discussion? Mayor, can I pull 3.4, please? Okay. Okay. Council Member Barrios?

I'd like to pull 3.6, please.

Anyone else? This time I'll also ask if any members of the public are participating through Zoom, wish to address the council on any consent calendar item, please raise your hand. If you are calling in, please press star 9 to raise your hand.

So we have a motion to... Mr. Mayor, you have a public comment on 3.5.

Thank you. Thank you. Is that remote or present?

In person.

In person, okay. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion to approve the balance with exceptions of item 3.4, 5, and 6 made by Councilmember Tavares, second by Councilmember Gutierrez. Please vote.

Could I get the mover and the seconder, please?

The motion was Councilmember Tavares, and the seconder was Councilmember Gutierrez.

Thank you.

That is approved unanimously. Okay, item 3.4. Agreement with Triad Consulting and System Design Group, LLC, for security consulting services. Council Member Dimitri.

Great, just a really quick question. The contract's pretty spelled out, but it raised kind of one concern. was it does reference that this consulting group will be having interaction with security cameras throughout the city. And while I'm a supporter of FLOC as a kind of a standard, are they having access in any way, shape, or form to the FLOC system? Because we've guaranteed the public that we're keeping very tight reins on that and on access. would beg to differ, that would be different than what we've promised the community if there's a third-party consultant suddenly involved.

Yes, sir, they are completely different systems. So we host the Genetech security platform here at the city that does cameras and access control. So this particular contract with Triad is specifically for managing the Genetech platform, the security platform for the city-owned cameras and access control. So they would not have access to Flock.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Okay, motion by Councilmember Dimitriou. Waiting for a second. Councilmember Gutierrez, thank you. Any further discussion? Please vote. That is approved six to one with Councilmember Barrios voting no. Next item is item 3.5, and that is approval of a new license agreement with the California Fire Museum to continue operating a fire department history museum at the old Orange City Fire Department headquarters located at 176 South Grand. And that is a member of the public who is Peter Schumacher, I assume. Peter, come on forward.

Good evening, Council. My name is Peter Schumacher, resident and business owner in Orange. I'm here to discuss the leasing space to the California Fire Museum. I have two perspectives on this matter. First, I am a retired firefighter. I obviously have love for my profession and want our history preserved and shared. Having said that, this agreement and situation placed before us seems inappropriate given the state of the city's budget. Fire Station 1 was moved due to the age and safety hazards of the building. The city issued a bond to pay for the $23 million build, since we did not have the money. I believed the old station would be demolished, the property used for a parking structure or other city needs. At worst, the excess property could be sold to help with the large build. Now, while facing major financial uncertainty, the city is leasing Old Station 1 for $1 a year. This seems inappropriate while we are hemorrhaging good employees, including public safety. This seems inappropriate while asking the residents for a tax increase. This seems inappropriate when firefighters, police officers, and the rest of our good city employees are paid less than surrounding agencies. My second perspective is as a father, my 11-year-old son plays in a local sports league. While I agree with the field use fee increase that we got It doesn't sit well that leagues with focus on City of Orange Youth were asked to pay more, but the Fire Museum pays $1 a year for an entire building. I respectfully ask council to deny this agreement and direct staff to go back to the table with the California Fire Museum. Please negotiate a fair lease that is comparative to what the leagues were asked to pay and help the residents with our current financial issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. I appreciate your perspective. I'll give this a shot, and then if I miss something, Jack, you might want to fill in, but So the council does intend to reuse that site, but to do that was gonna cost a lot of money. To demolish the fire building alone costs a lot of money. Even to put in a surface parking lot temporarily costs a lot of money. So the city is currently looking at selling that property along with other buildings on that half block. But in the meantime, the fire museum is simply a placeholder. and the building needs a lot of maintenance to boot, and they're not asking us to spend any money on maintenance, so they're strictly occupying a vacant space instead of it sitting empty and being subject to vandalism and so forth. They can also be asked to leave with a 60-day notice. So again, very, very temporary situation. And again, the dollar is just because we're not having to do any maintenance on the property. Mr. Moore, did I miss anything?

No, that's correct. So part of the agreement, this is really, it's renewing an agreement that the council had approved last year. So it extends it an additional year. Some of the indemnification language was strengthened a bit. It is a dollar a year license agreement. The California Fire Museum has taken lead on many of the maintenance items. The only items that the city has been a part of is if it falls outside really that first floor where they're operating their museum. As the mayor had mentioned, it's a 60-day notice to terminate the agreement, and they've been very flexible with us and the Orange Police Department to use that space during major events like the Orange International Street Fair.

Great. Thank you very much. Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm echoing your comments. I think this is a great reuse for the site on a holding basis. It costs a tremendous amount of money to maintain building and it costs even more money to maintain an empty building because it tends to deteriorate quicker and we're fortunate that this group has has been willing to maintain the building for us as opposed to the city sinking money into a building which we intend to demolish long-term and probably turn into a parking lot and hopefully in the short term this will bring more visitors to Orange and generate more sales tax to the use of our businesses and restaurants here in Old Town. And I think it's a great reuse. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Demetrius. Great. Thank you, Mayor. This actually gives me an opportunity to address Mr. Peterson's earlier comments in reference to excess properties. All the city properties right now, I believe almost all, are currently going through the Surplus Land Act, which is a requirement that is part of what we can do to alleviate ourselves of said properties. That being said, the fire station itself is no longer usable as a fire station. That's why we did enter in with that bond to build the new one. The number one goal I had, me personally, when I voted to approve the original contract with the California Fire Museum is it's an attractive nuisance of sitting empty. One of our main goals here has been to engage our homeless population and get them services or try to get them into the programs that need to be. And if you have a building that is sitting empty, it is an attractive nuisance to move in and start squatting. So I would rather have an active group, something going on within a property, than sitting empty. The long-term goal on that street that I think is where we need to head is going to be a parking structure. Now, that's just my hopes and dreams, but I know there's other designs or thoughts of a parking structure with a little park. There's some other ideas out there, but for the time being, entering into an agreement with a 60-day notice is probably the most prudent, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Council Member Gillenhammer. A little late to withdraw my request, but I was going to say the exact same thing about the Surplus Land Act. and then just validate what you said. I think you're right on, and there's urgency to make sure that we have a permanent use for that space that's cost-effective to the city. But just a second piece is this is a great organization that'll use it on a temporary basis.

Thank you, Councilmember. You've made a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilmember Dimitriou. Any other discussion? Please vote. That is approved unanimously. And then item 3.6, approval of plans and specifications for Walnut Avenue at Orange Street traffic signal installation authorization to advertise for bids and finding of California Environmental Quality Act exemption. Council Member Barrios.

Mr. Cash, I just had a few questions about this because it's just such an unusual location in terms of, you know, we have the major crossing at Walnut and Schaefer where we have children crossing that don't have similar protections to what we're talking about, light at the dorms, light now, what we're suggesting here. So I just wanted to understand a little bit more about how this, Was this part of a previous development deal? And secondly, does it need a light in this fashion to turn people left or right, or could it just be a right-hand turn? I'm just not understanding that.

So to back up, Chapman University had approached us actually several years ago about the concept of trying to put in a traffic signal at the location because it's the main entrance to the parking structure underneath the athletic field there. And at the time they approached us, we did have some concerns about the location, particularly because of the proximity and the traffic signal there and how that would work in that close of proximity because oftentimes traffic signals that are very close together, they do have to work in conjunction with each other to work effectively. So at the time that they approached us, we did enter into an agreement with the university to pay 100% of all costs related to the project. And from that, we did retain a traffic consultant who did a focused traffic study to look at what it would look like in terms of coordination between the new traffic signal, the proposed new traffic signal, and what it would take to work functionally with the traffic signal at Glassell. That study was conducted back in 24. And through that, they developed a methodology that would allow the two signals to work in conjunction with one another. that would allow for the safe ingress-egress to the parking structure, but to do so in a way that didn't hamper the traffic flow at Glassell. And so from that, our team put together basically plans and specifications, as well as timing methodology that would allow those two signals work together with the idea being that once it's built, that it would actually function as sort of one traffic signal entity. And so tonight, the intent was to ask for authorization to go to bid for that project. When we did do the focused traffic study, it actually showed that with the proper timing connection between the two, that there was appropriate capacity so that you would not have backup on Walnut from the new signal, and that it would also allow for the appropriate throughput on Glassell, and again, so that it's not, the new signal is working in a way where it's not creating traffic issues where we don't have them currently.

I guess my other question is, it's been a while, but when we were first, and I don't think I was here actually, when they were talking about the Performing Arts Center, and I suppose this goes with all the universities' use of the field as well, of how were we going to minimize through a right-hand turn people going into the neighborhoods. And I think, you know, even better than I do, that like Walnut, people just rip down Walnut. You know, so the idea that you not only put in a light and they can go both ways, I'd like that they're synced on Walnut, I mean, on Eccles Settles, so that they're moving off through more of the thoroughfares, but I'm just worried about sending traffic back through the neighborhood.

Well, again, as you go sort of northbound from the parking structure, that... entrance to that neighborhood is already limited, so you can't go across into the neighborhood from the parking structure. This would only impact traffic going into the parking structure and traffic going east and west on Walnut. To a certain extent, there was some feeling that it would not add to speed potential there. If anything, it might actually act as a little bit of traffic calming.

I don't know how much I agree with that. But yeah, I just think that I would rather see a protection, just that it's a left turn only, just to get them to the thoroughfares way. But people are gonna wanna go right to connect up with the 55, which I understand. But yeah, it's gonna be a big impact over there. Probably already is, but anyways, that was my concern.

Thank you, Councilmember. Motion to approve this item. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau. Council Member Dimitriou. I'm sorry, but let me follow.

Is this going to be a, is it a four-way stop? Because there's the center median, there's a concrete center median there, and people, I mean, I've seen it lots of times where they just drive around to go north on Orange. It's a misstatement saying they don't go into those residential neighborhoods.

There's a divider there to prevent it. Yes, you can go around that, but that's not, That's not legal, but yeah, you could go around it. The traffic signal really is for ingress, egress to the parking structure and then controlling the traffic on Walnut as you are going in and out.

Okay, so then the lighting will only affect people exiting the structure and then... Yeah, it would only be the three legs and it would not allow you to go straight across into the neighborhood. All right, and the westbound traffic on Walnut would not be affected at all?

It would be because you're allowing traffic to go in and out, so there would be, westbound on Walnut would be affected, eastbound on Walnut would be affected, depending on the phasing. Because it's allowing for a green light left or green light right out of the parking structure, as well as a left turn into the parking structure.

So then will the lights be synced then, not just with Glassell, but also with, was that Center? Grant.

No, it will not be with Grand, it's just with Glassell. It's considered too far away, and so there was not a feeling that that particular signal would impact the capacity at that intersection.

All right, thank you. Mayor Pro Tempilato.

Briefly, I don't see Larry Tay here, the traffic engineer. He's not. Well, that's unfortunate for you. Yes.

Do you know... That's why I'm trying to do my best. Do you know, you took this to the Traffic Committee, right? This does not go to the Traffic Commission.

Okay.

Do you know if...

I'm sure a warrant analysis was... It does. It met a warrant, an EUTCD warrant? Yes.

Okay.

That's all I needed to know. Thank you very much. I like that this was... initiated by Chapman University. It's being entirely paid for by Chapman University. This intersection is a problem, especially if you're trying to get into the parking structure heading westbound, because all the eastbound traffic cuts you off and westbound traffic backs up, so I think it's sorely needed. Council Member Gutierrez.

I just wanted to follow up on Councilmember Dimitriou. So this light, like you said, will be a three-way in order to turn right onto Walnut, to turn left into the parking lot, and then I'm assuming to turn left into the parking lot coming from LaSalle. Is that correct?

So if you're coming

If I'm going eastbound, there's going to be a right turn into the parking lot. And if I'm going westbound, there's going to be a left-hand turn signal. And if I'm exiting the parking lot, there's going to be a right turn signal. Right? Because that center divider.

But there will be a green arrow to allow you to leave. And then if it's green, obviously you could go about a stop or you would just.

But it will not affect the through traffic going, because that will, no, no, no, not into Orange, but continuing on to Walnut. So if I'm going westbound on Walnut, you're going to have a dedicated lane to turn left. But once I get the green signal to turn left into the parking structure, I will be green to go straight through as well. Yes. Okay. And you have that then synchronized with Glassell?

Yes. All of the controllers for both the new intersection as well as the existing intersection actually all have to be modified as part of this and upgraded. and there will be communication between the two so that they're working in a way that does not create a traffic issue.

And that center median will stay, is what I'm understanding.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, thank you.

There's a motion to approve made by Mayor Pro Tempildo and a second, Council Member Barrios.

I just had one more question, Mr. Cash. I'm wondering if on that... Well, technically they'll probably be signage, so you can only go right or left and you shouldn't go through and go over to, you know, go through Walnut or go around that barrier. Was there any thought given to maybe putting like some type of like pork chop right there so that nobody could directly easily get in there, that the only way to get into Walnut is either coming, I mean, not Walnut, Orange. across the road from Walnut. You know what I'm talking about? Yes. So that for the protection of that neighborhood, the only way it's more kind of residential than residents get in there, not unlike what you see in the Floral Park area where you can't really turn off main really easily or somebody can't come through that way. It's just much more calmed.

So you currently can't proceed straight across now. Are you asking if we're upgrading that? Yeah. Or...

just doing a little bit more. Like you said, you shouldn't, and it's illegal, but I have seen lots of people do it.

We can certainly look at seeing if we can upgrade the existing park shop so that it really precludes that.

Right now, it's just like a median, but versus on the orange side, facing the parking structure entrance.

They can only go left or right. They can only go right. You can come in left, and you can go out right.

Yep.

Now. Okay, I guess I'm just not expressing myself well. So, thank you.

Council Member Dimitriou?

I think what she's saying is on the north side of Walnut, on the entrance to Orange, is creating that pork chop there to where it only takes the westbound traffic to go north and the southbound traffic on Orange to go westbound. And not allowing, because if you go around the center median, you run into that concrete. That's what I think she's trying to, and I mean, I'm understanding it that way.

Is that, yeah, we can certainly look at adding that into the design package and beefing that up. Okay.

Very well. Any other discussion, questions? Please vote. That is approved five to two with two no votes, Council Members Barrios and Dimitriou. All right, that ends the consent calendar. Item four, reports from Mayor Slater. I just wanna report out that according to the city manager at their next council meeting on July 28th, there will be a report on fireworks enforcement. A lot of members of the public are anxious to hear how we did with that this year, particularly the drone enforcement. Stay tuned for that at our next council meeting. Reports from council members, 5.1, Chapman pilot agreement to Council Member Barrios.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry, I have a lot of stuff on my desk. So this is something that I think all my colleagues know that has been near and dear to my heart and I've worked on for a very long time. But sadly, I'm coming back to my colleagues to convey some bad news, and that is that on June 24th, I received a call from Melissa Driscoll, who I recognize is here in the audience, in response to numerous calls and emails and text messages to President Parlow about this issue. And in the call, Mr. Skoll conveyed that Chapman would not be negotiating or speaking with the city any further on this initiative. Needless to say, I was more than disappointed at hearing this news and frankly, a little stunned that it didn't warrant being given the courtesy of a direct call from the president to explain just the reason why such a decision had been made. So I really think it's important that, you know, to have this opportunity to just Kind of go through a little bit of the factual context as to why this hits really viscerally in a visceral way. A little over three years ago, our former police chief, Chief Dimitropoulos, met with Chapman CFO, Mr. Hewitt, to explore the possibility of Chapman adding the cost of paramedic subscriptions. paramedic subscription program to each student's tuition bill. Chapman had just raised their annual tuition by 2% or approximately $1,500, but adding an additional $68 to help pay and cover costs that their students would use and as well as faculty and other employees was apparently just inconceivable at the time with Mr. Hewitt firmly telling Chief DeMortopoulos and what I think is kind of a rude way that they would absolutely not entertain such a fee and that was that. So armed with that knowledge and facing at that time the city's very first kind of understanding of our fiscal crisis and where we were at, and the council at that time was tasked with we need to go out and find new partnerships, we need to be innovative, we need to find new revenue streams, I, along with Mr. Jeff Lawrence and Mr. Doug Redding, researched and identified the pilot program concept, which is used extensively on the East Coast. Every single Ivy League has one. Stanford has one. It is not an unknown quantity. It was something that we felt really strongly about. About two years ago, with the council's blessing, we formed an informal ad hoc committee, studied programs at all the universities, looked at their endowments, what their enrollment is, what their fees and tuitions are, and all the money that other cities get from this type of program. We made a full presentation to the council, and then we were very public about it. We talked about it extensively, what the needs were, what the methodology was behind it, just a phenomenal amount of research. And I think that's important because for over two years, we talked about this. We met with Chapman reps. We discussed the concept in detail. It was part of our council discussions. It was part of our public forums. It was part of our discussions about fiscal responsibility. So for it to be dismissed out of hand is really bewildering. Furthermore, when the mayor created a new ad hoc committee at the beginning of this year, one that I wasn't a part of, I made my concerns known to the mayor that I was really concerned that the pilot program was being kind of pushed under the table and we were losing out on potential win-win for the university. My understanding is that committee met last week and it was made very clear to the members of the committee that not only were myself and the city treasurer asked not to attend, which was hard, but that also there were very strict parameters put on what could not be talked about in that meeting. And that included the pilot program, that included talking about some of the recent findings in the latest treasurer's report that just came out, with the help of chapman students and that we weren't going to talk about the infamous undie run so i am left to wonder what kind of partnership is this if or is it one at all because this is not how partners treat one another and after the awful behavior we witnessed this year at this year's student run um how how can you not want to address those things between partners between public safety and really look to be better and find a new way forward I just find that baffling. So when we are about to embark on a campaign asking our residents and businesses to sacrifice, to step up, to approve a sales tax, how can we not press Chapman to the best of our ability to pay their fair share too? This spring, the university made a momentous announcement, and that was that they had reached a milestone in their endowment of $1 billion, billion with a B, and yet they cannot be trouble to come to the table and at least give us a reason, but continue this conversation. And I will share, I think I've shared with most of my colleagues, that first meeting was hard. It was really hard when we sat down. Things got better. I thought we were on a much improved path, doing things the right way, so it's just really hard for me to think that I'm gonna ask residents to sacrifice when the biggest thing that impacts my district and, you know, brings both problems and treasure at the same time, because I have great relationships with Chapman students. I'm over there at least once a month talking to students. And there is so much more we can do. I know you, Councilmember Gillenhammer, have tried consistently to find new ways and new partnerships and be innovative, and we just seem to keep being rebuffed. And I'm, for one, kind of tired of being treated as such. So with that, it's important to know, again, billion dollar endowment, because all of that is taken off in terms of expansive amount of real estate that's off of our property tax rolls because of nonprofit status. So what I am doing tonight is not only sharing all this information with my colleagues and to the public, but also to seek from my colleagues an opportunity that we agree that we deserve a little better than this and we should talk about it and we should talk about it publicly. And I would like to ask if you would agree with me that we need to agendize in the weeks ahead so that we may explore our options with the city attorney's guidance and discuss what mechanisms can be instituted that will create a more equitable environment and a real partnership going forward where our residents aren't solely bearing the burden for services. With that, Mr. Mayor, I would ask my colleagues for their approval.

So It's good to have this discussion. I just wanted to fill in a few blanks about the liaison committee that you referred to. As you know, the Grant Thornton report recommended that we work more closely with Chapman University. So I propose that we create a liaison committee to do so, and the liaison committee was with the intent of talking about how we could be more cooperative and work together internships, for instance, small business development, using the knowledge that Chapman has with their business school, as we saw the presentation a couple of months ago about what we can do in West Orange next to the OC Vibe. Things like that. It was made clear by Chapman University that they did not want to use the liaison committee to discuss controversial topics or revisit the pilot program or things like the UNDI run and so forth. So with that agreement, we proceeded. And so the pilot program really is Different animal that you're bringing up tonight so but I wanted to give the perspective of what the liaison committee is all about and Should the pilot program ever be discussed and as a result of the liaison committee? That's why you're an alternate on this committee, and we would love to have you present for that So just just a couple words about that Any my colleagues like to CHIME IN OR RESPOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER BARRIOS' REQUEST TO AGENDIZE THIS IN THE FUTURE. MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY?

YES. AND IF I CAN RECOMMEND, TONIGHT'S ITEM IS SIMPLY A BRIEF REPORT. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF TO RETURN WITH follow-ups at a future agenda, the council may absolutely direct staff to do so. But I would like to remind everyone to limit the conversation to ensure that it's a future discussion. Correct. As no action can be taken at this time. Thank you.

Correct. So that would just take consensus of council members to agree that it would come back. Okay. Council Member Dimitriou. Thank you.

Mayor, I'm going to disagree with you on a little bit. I was not aware that any of our discussions were curtailed by dictation, by what Chapman wants. My understanding was everything was on the table for that meeting. And I think we had great discussions about a lot of stuff. Specifically, I mean, I know we made some asks right off the bat for their film school. We made some asks for their economic MBA students. but I wasn't ever aware that I couldn't ask a specific thing or discuss something. I think that as kind of the first meeting of this liaison committee, We accomplished some very minor goals, but it was really the kickoff into what I think is going to be, and what my anticipation of this committee is, is to build that broader door so we can have back and forth, we can have discussion, and we can work on items just like this and bring forward a discussion, working with all the parties that are involved in order to reach a consensus to bring it forward for policy, not necessarily allowing any one entity to drive the ship, but to protect our interests and our residents' and our businesses' interests first. That's the priority. And at no point do I believe that any time when we meet should there be restraints. And that includes on Chapman's side. If they have complaints that they want to air, that they feel that they're being unfairly treated by planning or by another section, that's what this is for, is to hear their grievances as well, and to work through those, and our grievances for that, or trying to look at how can we make sure their students, when they're utilizing services, specifically, you know, the fire department and paramedics, or if law enforcement has to get involved, how we recapture costs. I think that's a really important discussion, but towards its first committee meeting. I think it was just that, it was the start of something that is going to continue and I think is very valuable not just to this council but to future councils as well to have that interaction and open communication.

Thank you. I agree and I think that the whole paramedic issue is something that perhaps we could explore. I was just referring specifically to discussion of the pilot program, and I was asked that that not be part of this particular committee, and that's all.

Yeah, I just, like I said, I was never made aware of any handcuffs. I just, I felt it was, since it was a first meeting of hopefully many, that as a first meeting and kind of, it's kind of like a first date. You stay away from the controversial topics, and you bring that out the next time, and that's kind of the way I was looking at this, is This is the first time we're having this interaction. First time that there were folks from Chapman University's administration, never met before. I didn't think it was right, especially I wanted to go after some of the items that were associated with their night activity a couple weeks prior and talk about that and some of the vandalism that occurred that was associated with that. But this first meeting was not the appropriate time to do it. The next one, I'm going to. There's no way around it, but we're gonna talk about it, because I think it's important for them to step up and realize when there's a responsibility, regardless of if it's a sanctioned university event or not. But I wasn't aware of any constraints on conversation.

Well, I'd like some direction from council then because the idea of the liaison committee was to be a positive working group that worked on issues and not issues necessarily, but projects and causes that we could work on together and positive momentum. By the way, and just so all my colleagues know, Chapman also facilitates a, I believe it's a quarterly neighborhood meeting that I go to all the time, and that's where problems like this often are raised, and it's a good meeting to go to and raise these issues, and that is certainly open to any council members that would like to attend, I believe. Mayor Pro Tembilito.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank you and the committee members for taking your time in working through these issues with Chapman. Obviously, there's a new chancellor there in Matt Parlow, and I know that he's anxious to work with the city to iron out perceived problems that may be there. The one thing I wanted to discuss, though, was I believe back when Daniel Strupa was still the chancellor, you did have an agreement in principle with him to provide funding for the city, but then that kind of fell apart. And I've heard various tales about that as to why that happened or how that happened. And I just want to be enlightened as to why that got sidetracked. And I don't know if that's anything you can enlighten us on.

I can do that. But for that, Council Member Barrios.

Please feel free to answer his question first.

Okay. So, in full transparency, some of the missing pieces. We, Council Member Barras and I, had many meetings with Daniele Struppa, the former head of Chapman, as well as their finance director, as well as Alisa Driscoll, who's here. And we made tremendous progress, and we were that close to having a pilot program in place. And then at the meeting on May 27th, which was our last official meeting, if you recall, Council Member Baez, you made additional requests to which Chapman did not react well to. And on June 2nd, I received this letter.

So I will pass down to... Mr. Mayor, if you're sharing a document, we will make sure that it is also publicly available for anyone who chooses to inspect it.

Sorry, I only have four that way. This, unfortunately, letter was written by Daniele Struppa. Dear Mayor Slater, I hope all is well with you, et cetera, et cetera. Looking forward to seeing you at the opening of the new research park. I'm writing to express my position after hearing from Brian, Chapman's COO, and Alyssa Driscoll regarding the recent meeting they had with city council. We entered this discussion to help the city in its fiscal crisis. However, I must share that the counterproposal from the city is a non-starter for us. The increase of the period from three to five years, we had agreed to three years, the increase of payment from $100 to $150, The request that we do not offer any more fireworks and that we eliminate the undie run are all requests we cannot accept. Therefore, at this point, Chapman declines to continue pursuing an agreement with the city. As you know, I'm retiring as president of Chapman in a few months, September 2nd. It's possible that my successor, Matt Parlow, may wish to reopen discussions, and so I recommend you and the city council reach out to him in due time to discuss options. I immediately forwarded a copy of this letter to Council Member Barrios. I immediately reached out to Daniel Struppa, who was on vacation in Italy at the time. He contacted me immediately, and I convinced him to please, please, please come back to the table. We were so close, and he said, I will come back to the table if we can resume where we left off. before the last request came in from Council Member Barrios. I said, that's fantastic, thank you so much. So we're just about to resume discussions. Council Member Barrios let me know that there was no renegotiating. So quite frankly, that was the end of it. So the new administration, we waited for them to come in place then. And Matt Parlow made it very clear that he was not interested in discussing the pilot program. However, he was very interested in doing the liaison committee. So I took the best I could get, and that's where we are today. So quite frankly, Council Member Barrios, the reason we do not have a pilot program lies squarely at your feet. And with that, it's your turn.

I am just absolutely floored because anybody who knows me knows that I have a memory like a steel trap. And had I received this ever in the last year, we would have had conversations about it. But we didn't. And in fact, every time I saw you, you would tell me, oh, we've talked to him. We're going to get together. We're going to meet. We're going to meet. This is from a year ago. This is insane. I mean, this is just beyond insane. I would challenge anybody who sat in the room on our second meeting to say that we didn't have a collegial meeting, that wasn't anything but professional and nice But I want to draw your attention back because you're forgetting some things where our first meeting with Mr. Strupa and with Mr. Hewitt was terms dictated by them and an agreement written by them that also included two, not one, two quid pro quos that are illegal and we could not enter into and we had to talk to them about that. We had to talk to them at length that those things were unacceptable. And not only that, it was an agreement that was, it just wasn't even the type of agreement that you would bring forward and that you would, with all seriousness, ask any municipal agency to enter into. So when we had that second meeting following up at that point with Mr. Skoll and with, and I'm sorry, I don't know Brian's last name, but I just remember that meeting as nothing but collegial and nice. Yes, I wrote up new terms because they had brought us an agreement. They didn't even bring us a term sheet. And at that conversation was, here are terms, clear, professional, now we have a starting off point to discuss and to be professional. And as someone who has sat in many, many negotiations, that's exactly what you're supposed to do as a starting point. Yes, because it was new, there were some of these other items in there, but I distinctly said in that meeting, You can't blame me for trying. I'm putting these in here because there are things we need to discuss. If those aren't acceptable and we need to take them out, that's fine. And we have sat on this dais and talked about it before where some of my colleagues wanted to charge them $250. And we had not agreed on three years versus five years. You're remembering what they dictated to us in the very first meeting without us even bringing terms to the table. That was the very first meeting. And the fact that they even suggested in that meeting to do something that we could not do, which was, we'll give you this if you give us our specific plan, which was a huge no-no. And then on top of that, they argued with us about what our legal department had said about the Panther Village, which was, you know, we're just paying that out of the goodness of our heart, which our legal team, thank God, immediately, and Tom Casella at the time, jumped right in and said, that's not true. That is not true. Look at this agreement. This is what the agreement is and you know If you want to lay all this on my shoulders and you know nicely done that somehow I'm the villain here what I say is I am tired of being treated and I think the residents are tired of being treated and I think the city as a whole should be tired of being treated as a second-class citizen in our own town and Beyond that, we have said this over and over. Are we a town with a college or are we a college town? And I want to be a town with a college. They advertise and market, come to Orange. That is why we are a great university, because we are in a safe place. That safety happens because of our cops. Come to Orange because the crime is low. That crime, that low crime rate is because of our cops. Your safety is there and guaranteed because of our fire. And everybody pays for it. So to not fight for this or to act like this is my fault is insane, number one. And number two, it is just a lie. I have never seen this letter before ever. I'll go back, look at every single thing that I've ever been given and see if that's in there. But I am just, I'm just absolutely flabbergasted. But thank you.

Everything I said can be documented, and if you check your text from a year ago in June, you'll see a copy of this letter that I sent you, a copy of, so.

If I may, perhaps the City Council can return to the original question provided by Council Member Barrios. If I can, the request was whether the City Council would like to provide direction to staff to prepare an agenda item evaluating the feasibility of a voluntary pilot program and other looking at it from a legal or policy standpoint and return at a future date. If I can ask the Council to please focus on that, that would be great. Much appreciated.

Thank you city attorney very much. We do have a public speaker, Mr. Doug Redding.

Good evening council and team and first responders and everyone that's here tonight. The pilot program is something that's near and dear to me and a few other people in the community. We spent a lot of time researching without a motion the feasibility and the mechanics of a pilot program and what it would do for the city and why. And I know that some meetings have gone astray here and I think that in negotiations you try to get, you know, it's kind of like a Senate bill. You end up sliding all these things in at the end and then the whole thing gets thrown out. And it sounds like that's what's happened here. But I'm asking this council or this ad hoc committee to get back to the basics of why we need a pilot program. We want a pilot program, which is completely discretionary, not mandated by any type of law with Chapman University. It's because the host city is primarily responsible for that great institution and their growth. And the amount of properties that they have purchased to sustain their growth most of them, especially the larger ones, are tax exempt. And that's property taxes that don't go to this city. And the number one revenue source for all cities and the state for the past few years has moved away from retail sales tax to property tax. So we're feeling that squeeze. We've been feeling the squeeze since COVID, and we've been feeling the squeeze with Chapman's expansion. And so that's what this does is As Ariana says, it helps them to pay what would be their fair share. We have plenty of other example cities with Stanford, with Boston University. You can go on and on and on. The data is out there to support a pilot. If we get into the emotional side of things with the underrun and all that, in my opinion, it takes away from the real reason, which is an established reason. The pilot program stands on its own. You don't need to add other things into it, in my opinion. It's solid enough to make a good, wholesome request from Chapman University, and then let them decide what they want to do. That's all I have to say about it.

Thanks. Thank you, Doug. Council Member Gillenhammer?

Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of comments. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN THE CITY, AND IT'S NOT AN UNKNOWN OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS MY STANCE ON THIS UNIVERSITY. I THINK IT IS, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY opportunity to be a fantastic partnership for us in a lot of ways. I do think the relationship is very symbiotic. I think the health of one or the other does impact one or the other. And I think we've benefited from each other. City of Orange has benefited greatly from Chapman's presence and vice versa. I don't think it's in our best interest. I don't think it's in Chapman's best interest to allow the relationship to devolve and the reputation of a great university to be negatively impacted by this. So I think we've used them in a handful of capacities over the last three years in consulting. They've done some economic development work. They've done some sustainability work. We've leveraged them for internships. student time and effort and professor time and effort has helped the city. I think they've opened up their economic forecasting, invited us, and I think there is, there are some partnership components here that I think have been valuable over the last few years. Ultimately, I think the city should be primarily concerned with our fiscal health. I think I celebrate a billion dollars on the part of Chapman. I think they should be primarily concerned with their fiscal health. But I do think an open conversation is not a bad thing, right? To look at not just money, right? And I don't even know if I'm an advocate for a pilot program right now. But there is a time and talent component that Chapman brings in terms of their capabilities, their volunteerism efforts potentially on the part of a freshman class. The knowledge that some of these students some of these leaders bring that could substantively impact and positively impact the City of Orange. Again, devolving this relationship in a public setting is not valuable for Chapman, and it's not valuable for Orange, in my opinion. So as to the question at hand, should we move forward and have future conversations? I think we should, simply in the case of putting that conversation and partnership front and center again. to discuss how we can have that healthy and substantive relationship going forward.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Gutierrez.

Gosh, Councillor McGillin, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you're saying. And I really, you know... value Chapman. My son will be attending there next year. To me, they're a partner with our city, and that is the way Matt Parlow presented himself when I met with him and with Alyssa, and very open and how can I help the city and how can we be in partnership. So when I hear your relay of how your meeting progressed and And the constraints that were put on this meeting, that disheartens me. And that is not what I would expect from an open relationship with this university. And sometimes we have to have difficult conversations, but we need to be allowed to speak freely about any potential issues or things that are of concern. And so I just question as to why even have the liaison committee then if we're not going to be able to speak freely on any topics that we deem necessary for our city, because we did need to look out for our fiscal health, just like Council Member Gillerhammer said, and very proud that they are looking out for their fiscal health as well. But it shouldn't be a hindrance in our communication or this meeting. I really want us to think about it, and I know you're here, Ms. Driscoll, and that is not what I came away with meeting with Matt and yourself. And so I'm very disappointed to hear that there would be, yes, we can meet, but we can't speak about this, this, or that. And why would that be? I want answers as to why we couldn't continue speaking on that. And even this letter, it doesn't tell me why... they were unwilling to accept those terms. Like, be more specific. I want more reasoning for it. And in a very respectful manner. And we could be told, and OK, we could understand it. But I also, you know, you talked about decorum. Mayor, and I do not like how you just put everything on her. And just, that was very out of line, very not what you just talked to us about at our last meeting. You could have just presented it and let it lie, and we could have all inferred it on our own without you saying that. But I do worry about this committee that you have, this ad hoc committee. What's the purpose of it, then, if you're not able to speak freely on any topic? So you guys need to really explain to myself and the public why even continue on with those ad hoc committees. But I want that relationship with Chapman, just like Council Member Gillerhammer indicated. We need that. Their students have done great research for us, and we want to continue that, the internships. But there should not be any hindrance, Ms. Driscoll. And I'm disappointed in hearing that. And I want us to be able to work together. Because, you know, you guys have a great think tank there. And we want to be able to continue fostering our relationship with you all. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Council Member Dimitri?

Yeah, I'll take a whack at a couple things. I'm going to start real quickly with Council Member Gutierrez again. Nothing was relayed to me that was off the table. It was a carte blanche. Why do we need the Ad Hoc Committee? You just said it, as did Mr. Gillenhammer. Having the open communications on items and having regularly scheduled opportunities to meet, it has significant benefit because for the last years and years and years, there's never been like, just sit down and here's a problem here's a thing and while we were in there uh in this last meeting we had an agenda it was you know introductions it was the pleasantries of course there was some back and forth of different items we came out of there with their uh using their film school and their connections to try to bring more production to town their their help with kind of incorporating the vision of those young students that came into the, I hate the word orange yards. I agree with Brandy. I can't stand that name calling it the orange yards. They had a whole different perspective with the students, but incorporating that, how do we utilize Chapman University to absolute solid benefit of the city and try to extract as much as we can from their, not just their student population, but their professional staff population as well. That's not going to happen from the dais and back and forth. And towards Ms. Barrios, I have no problem with continuing a conversation. It takes so damn long for anything to happen in this city that it's valuable still to proceed with the interaction to talk about the pilot program, what it might be, what it can turn into, what are the benefits and what are the negatives. So I have no problem with moving forward. I do have two things, and there's some things thrown around, so I'm gonna make a request. The first is, Mayor, if you can provide proof that you transmitted the letter, that would be valuable. And then my second question is to Ms. Barrios, based off this letter and what was said, I'm just gonna ask you just a truthful question. Did you unilaterally transmit a counteroffer outside of your own committee? Did you counter something or make an offer to Chapman University that was outside of the actual structured meetings that you guys were having to discuss?

In terms of, okay, so I guess I just need to walk that back and explain it. So we only had two meetings. One, the mayor and I, President Strupa at the time, and Mr. Hewitt at the time. So I believe Tom Casella was there, Aaron Schultz was there, and I want to say Mike Houston. I'm just, I'm pretty... Rob Houston, I'm sorry. Or that Rob Houston had advised Tom Casella at the time. When we met, there were no deal points. It was the very first meeting I had been in to talk about it. Mr. Hewitt brought a whole agreement, and I have all these documents, so I'm happy to share it with everyone. And he brought a document, we didn't bring anything in, in terms of talking points, deal points, anything like that. He had something that he was bringing to us. So my understanding was that was gonna be the first time that we did kind of talk generally about What are the big broad strokes of this? But no, it was a full agreement. And part of the discussion with the full agreement was that we would, I'm a little rusty on what that full agreement was because I just dismissed it out of hand. There was the discussion about Panther Village. There was the discussion about the specific plan number seven that at that time was coming forward. and that specifically what we won't talk about, we're not really going to be interested in moving forward with the pilot unless our specific plan rolls through. And Tom Casella at the time immediately said, duh, duh, duh, duh, those need to be very separate discussions. But other than that, did we bring something to the table? We did not bring anything specific at that point. it was supposed to be that broader conversation. So at the next meeting, Mr. Strupa wasn't there, Mr. Hewitt had just retired, and it was Alyssa Driscoll, it was Brian, I don't know the name, their interim CFO. And I think that was it from the Chapman side. Well, yes, of course, the two of us were there and Tom was there. So at that point, because we had asked for them to send over their copy of the agreement so we could work on it or kind of... negotiated at that point and or at least playing with the language, but The city attorney at the time had said this this agreement. It just won't work. You need to go back to bare basics So in and in preparation for this next meeting I brought a written up set of potential deal points So in terms of did I unilaterally change anything there wasn't anything to unilaterally change and I just put things on a sheet of paper. I had sent it to the mayor ahead of time. I had sent it to Mr. Casella ahead of time, like either the day of. And then it was, this will at least give us something to talk about. So yes, they didn't like the Indy Run, didn't like the fireworks thing. And there was one more, but it was so clearly at the time. Can't blame you for throwing these in here. But nobody else was bringing forward something professional that we could talk about and start working and negotiating on. That was the first time we were even talking about things with straight deal points. I'm happy to share that again with my colleagues. I think I shared it about six months ago, but I'll share it again. So exactly what it is so you can see apples to apples. And maybe that's part of the conversation to have, which I see like the motion things have been taken off, is to start there and say, okay, rip it apart. This isn't what you want. But we had talked about it on the dais. And I clearly remember you saying, well, why don't we charge them $250,000?

No, no, no, no. I never said $250. If we're going to be clear about things, mine was very specific to no more than it was $50 per semester that the student was enrolled. That was my thoughts were $50 a semester per student.

Okay.

But that's okay. You answered my question and I'll move on from there.

Thank you. Council Member Tavalieris. Nope, yep, one more. I'll give you the opportunity. But again, another reminder, friendly council discussion. Motion on the floor I have is the question. No motion. No motion. Direction.

No motion on the floor, just direction.

Is what legally available mechanisms may exist to ensure large tax-exempt institutions contribute an appropriate share towards municipal impact? So again, if there's council interest in that, we can certainly evaluate those options and bring them back at a future meeting.

Ma'am. Thank you. First of all, Jeff, is Jeff still here? Or Doug? Doug's still here. Jeff didn't come tonight. Jeff Lawrence. I want to thank you. Well, you're my constituent, so I can say thank you for working with Councilwoman Barrios on this. So appreciate all your work. I knew nothing about the pilot program until you guys started working on it. And I have to say it's probably, there's a lot more I probably don't understand about it. I just find it very intriguing. And I like ideas. So I want to thank you guys. I mean, you did that on your own time. And I thank you. I think somebody said something like how we make $600 a month. You don't even make $600 doing what you're doing for our city. And I want to thank you. And I don't want that to go unnoticed that we rely a lot on our residents and and your expertise and your interest, and I really appreciate you and your passion for this. You know, when I was a resident before I got on council, and the edict or the lawsuit was agreed upon that Orange would go into districts, I was kind of pissed off. I was like, that's so stupid. I think that's a stupid idea. Orange should be at large. And I was kind of against it. And then lo and behold, God has the sense of humor. I'm on council. I'm like, oh, all right. I got to tell you, it's kind of grown on me. And I see the beauty of it, even though I kick the old Kathy in the butt about it. But there's a beauty in it, and that is we really get to focus on certain neighborhoods. And for me, and I know for Councilman Barrios, we're representing the district that we actually grew up in. trick-or-treated in and played games in and all that stuff. So I always try to tell people who want to have business in the city, excuse me and my colleagues if we get a little personal because we just didn't move here a few years ago. This is our home and we're not leaving. But with that being said, I understand your passion for your district because I have it too. And believe me, the biggest point of influence in my district is the mall. And our city manager can tell you I leave here sometimes, which is smoke coming out of my ears. And I'm sure there's many times that the mall owners don't like me because I'm pretty blunt, like Mrs. Barrios. But we make up in the end and we come together because we want what's best for the city. But I understand the passions that go into these meetings sometimes. Again, we go in with a little bit more like, you know, this is my hometown. You know, you're messing with my hometown. You have to go through me to get to my hometown. And so I I just want that to be said out there and I appreciate the passion so much. Regarding the motion or the motion that you're seeking, I would want to know, and I don't even know if we have the answers tonight.

Direction.

Or the direction tonight. I would want to know how we go forward if Chapman doesn't want it. If they told you, Mayor, that they don't want to do it, how do we go forward? I mean, you guys talk about, you and Doug talked about a volunteer. I'd like to hear more about that, a volunteer pilot program. Maybe there's other institutions that we can help or talk to. I don't know. But I just want you to know how much I think I appreciate the three of you guys working on this. And I know that you only had good intentions for the city and for Chapman. I just want to know where we go from here. I get it. I get what's going on here, but let's talk about it and figure out how we can best go on. I think Chapman is an integral part of the fabric of our community now after all these years. We're an integral part of theirs, and there's going to be some tension with that, but we need to continue to talk to each other. I have to continue to talk to the mall owners, even though I'm sure there's times that they hate me too. But just know that we're out here fighting for you guys, and this economic situation kind of seeped its way in in the middle of all this, and it makes things a little bit tougher. But Councilwoman, if there's anything I can do to help on this subject, I want to help. But again, I just don't understand where we go from here if the University doesn't want to discuss it. But I agree with Councilman Dimitri that we should keep this liaison committee for now, just in terms of going forward, repairing what we can repair. I appreciated when they came and talked about Orange Yards, which is in my district. Those kids blew me away. What I had struggled with names and all that, they just solved within 10 minutes. And I was like, oh, where have you kids been all my life? But I appreciate... CHAPMAN SO MUCH IN BEING ON OUR COMMUNITY, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN TALKING THINGS OUT AND JUST SAYING WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID AND HAVING THOSE TOUGH CONVERSATIONS. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HELP, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PATH FORWARD WOULD BE. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I'LL JUST CONCLUDE. I AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION. ALWAYS WE CAN BENEFIT FROM FURTHER DISCUSSION. I would love to see Orange have a pilot program. A lot of work has been put into it already. And again, Doug Redding and Jeff Lawrence did a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes on this. However, as Council Member Tavalera said, we can talk about it all day long, but unless we have a cooperative person on the other side of the table, a willingness to consider it, It's not going to get very far, and I just hate to see us spin our wheels and waste staff time when it's not going to get anywhere due to whatever circumstances are at present. So I will support the direction just because I'm all for discussion. And I would, like I said, the liaison committee is making some positive strides in the right direction. And we need to continue to work with Chapman. And Chapman needs to know that we appreciate them being in our community. I know that there are some rough edges, certainly, with regards to some student behavior. And I've talked about that ever since before I was even elected. That has to change. and the problems still need to be resolved. But that aside, how can we work with Chapman to benefit both the city and Chapman University? So just to move this along, I agree with the direction given, and I think the city manager knows what to do. Any other last-minute comments? Yes, Mr. Dimitri.

Moving off that subject onto a different one, if possible. Over the, you know, a big believer in our 3rd of July show, as Mr. Gillenhammer is. I love that show. So I went and found a 3rd of July show to go enjoy, which was in the city of Los Alamitos, which out of our 34 cities in the county, it's the next to smallest with a population of just over 11,000. And they blew the doors off everything we've ever done in this city for 3rd of July. It was really impressive. Huge stage, multiple bands, vendor area. But they did it with sponsorship, which is something I've said time and time again. And the kicker was they didn't charge the residents a dime. It was completely open and free. So I'm going to make a plea for our community services director. to reach out to Los Al, figure out what they did, how they did it, because it is a blueprint to success. And if a city of 11,000 people can put on a party like they did for seven hours or six hours, we certainly should be able to at a very low cost. I believe their cost, I'm waiting for their, their city manager Chet Simmons to forward the numbers but it was significantly lower because they did have and they offered commercial booth space and they worked with some of their larger city vendors to underwrite the program which is something we've continually talked about but never seemed to get accomplished and I want to see July 3rd back this next year it's It has to come back. It is one of those programs that people really want in this city, and it's one of the very few that we have as a community building block for our residents. So there's a way to do this. We have a city out there that's done it. Now, granted, the city of Seal Beach also participates. We have a city we surround. Let's reach out to them and see if they're willing to kick in some money. But I think there's a value, and I've got to say I was thoroughly impressed with the city of Los Alamitos and how they celebrated our 250th. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Any other reports from any other Councilmembers? Okay. Okay. Moving along, item six, any AB1234 reports from any of the council? Okay. Item number seven, reports from boards, committees, and commissions, appointments, design review committee, and planning commission. And I think I need to read this again. If any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you're calling in, please press star nine. Raise your hand. We'll hear in-person speakers first and then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up and then you will be muted. So merely tonight, we have two vacancies on the design review committee. We have a qualified applicant in Donnie DeWeese. Donnie, could you please stand? You've been impatient. Donnie DeWeese served on the Design Review Committee from, I believe, 03 to 08. He actually is an architect, of which we don't have any on the Design Review Committee currently, so it would be nice to finally have one. The other appointment is Connie Benson to the Planning Commission for a four-year term. By the way, Donnie DeWeese is my appointment. The Planning Commission appointment is Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau. And... I would look for motions to approve these two appointments. I have a motion from Councilmember Dimitriou. We have a second from Councilmember Tavelaris. Any other comments or discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Approved unanimously. Thank you. Okay, reports from city manager.

Nothing tonight, sir.

All right. Okay, we'll move on to our one public hearing this evening. 9.1, a public hearing to consider a request to establish a planned unit of development and subdivide a 2.02-acre parcel into 11 single-family homes at 647 North Rancho San Diego Boulevard and finding of California Environmental Quality Act exemption CEQA. and I will ask for a staff report.

Yes, thank you, and good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. I'm Hayden Beckman, planning manager in the community development department. The item before you tonight is a request to establish a planned unit development and subdivide an existing 2.02 acre site into 14 new lots. Of those 14 proposed lots, 11 numbered lots will accommodate single family detached drawings, and the remaining three lettered lots will accommodate front yard setback areas, a private road, and common open space. A planned unit development allows alternatives to standard residential development when the existing general plan density is preserved. Planned unit developments may also be located in any zoning district for residential uses. The project site is located at 647 North Rancho Santiago Boulevard and is currently vacant and undeveloped. The existing zoning designation is R-110, and the general plan designation is low-density residential with a maximum density of two to six dwelling units per acre. To accomplish the project request, the applicant has filed five applications with the city, a zone change and conditional use permit to establish the plan unit development project and the applicable land use on the subject site, a tentative track map and major site plan review for the subdivision of the property, and the construction of 11 new single-family detached homes, and finally, design review to analyze conformity with the city's design guidelines. The current parcel is 133 linear feet in width at the frontage and 626 linear feet in depth. Under current zoning, this street frontage configuration would allow a maximum of just two residential units. Through a PUD request, the applicant proposes a subdivision that would result in a private road that provides access to 11 new residential lots, which is consistent with the existing general planned land use density. The applicant proposes 11 new two-story detached single-family homes, each with a two-car enclosed garage. This project is designed with consistent architectural theme and includes complementary colors and materials on each elevation. Private and common open spaces are included, as well as six on-site guest parking spaces. Site access and design orients the entrances to the residences along this private street with ample yards and landscaped accents located throughout. The project fully complies with the development standards of the R110 zoning district and does not include any requests for a variance or affordable housing. The proposed units would be market rate single family homes. Tonight, staff's recommendation is that the City Council make a finding of CEQA exemption, adopt City Council Resolution Number 11709, and introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance Number 1226 in order to change the underlying zoning classification of the subject site, thereby approving the project. That concludes staff's presentation, and we, as well as the applicant for this project, are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any questions of staff? Council Member Dimitriou.

Yeah, real quick question. Can you go back to the project map? I think that's the best way to describe it. That one, yeah.

So the fire department buy off on this project? Yes, Council Member, they did.

So where's the kind of the turnaround point or a hammerhead? Because it doesn't look like that's going to work with the way that's designed.

No, that's a great question. On the right-hand side of the image that you see on your screen, which is the easternmost portion of the lot, a hammerhead has been provided for in accordance with the standards that the fire department requires for residential development. And that hammerhead exists outside of the guest parking spaces that you see. You may notice that in front of lot 11, which is the easternmost lot, there's a little bit of a jog in the front yard. and that jog is the beginning of the Hammerhead approach, and that turnaround can be accomplished through the end of the linear roadway as well as the area where the three spaces are located to the north. If you like, I can try to pull up an example from the plans, but that has been accomplished on this site plan.

Okay. And then my next question, will there be CCNRs for mandating parking in the garage and it's not being used for storage? Yes, there will be. All right. Is that already a permit parking area in that neighborhood? I can't remember. On Rancho?

Unfortunately, Council Member, I couldn't answer that for you, but I'd be happy to.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that it's clearly understood that, or, you know, I don't want a bunch more cars that are suddenly in the neighborhoods there because we don't need another impacted area. All right. Thank you.

Council Member Gutierrez.

Thank you. Could you show that same rendering again? Sure. So in the front of the property, which is Rancho Santiago, currently there is no sidewalk. You can barely even see the gutter. So I couldn't read it. I couldn't find it. And I really couldn't see it either. Will there be a sidewalk created? And I do see how much wider it is than when you get to the property of the church. So is the road going to be widened? Or is that going to be the sidewalk piece? Can you explain that a little further for me?

Certainly. There will be a six-foot total dedication along the frontage of the property as a result of the project. That dedication will bring the ultimate right-of-way back. So really the dimension of the right-of-way is not changing, but the location of where the sidewalk will be is in accordance with that dedication. So connecting south to north, there will be a new sidewalk on the frontage that's constructed that's within the right-of-way.

But it definitely will not match up with the church. It still will be.

There will still be a small jog, yes.

Okay. That's what it's called, a jog. Okay. And then to Council Member Demetrius' point, two parking, the garage fits two cars, and then their driveway also fits two cars? That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you.

So I had a question. concern that I brought up with staff, Councilmember Gutierrez, regarding particularly the front setback, and that's why I was trying to reach you. Currently, the proposal is to take the right-of-way all the way back as far as the adjoining church, which would be a significant street widening. And that's, to staff's credit, that's just a policy decision that they do for projects like this. But I met the Mayor Pro Tem there because he's traffic expert, and there really is no viable reason to take that much street back. It would also involve removing an oak tree right on the corner up toward the church at the north end and a beautiful, very mature Chinese elm under the power lines. So I talked with staff, and they said we don't really need to take all that. We can leave the existing curb line. However, interestingly, because I don't even know if this lot has ever even been developed, but the owner of the property owns all the way to the middle of the street. So we only need to take the property about eight feet past the curb to include a new sidewalk. But I would like to ask that the curb remain where it is and that the new sidewalk be between, you know, provide a parkway similar to what's across the street and that we preserve those two mature trees that are currently on the property, the oak and the Chinese elm. So with that, I'll...

Could it look anything like the sidewalk adjacent to the middle school? Because they're the same widths.

Yep. And it doesn't change. That's what I had in mind.

Okay.

Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

Thank you. Question. The private drive aisle in front of the homes, how wide is that? Excuse me. I can't tell from the plans that it's too on the screen. Is it like 24, 25 feet?

Councilmember, it is 25 feet wide.

Okay, which is our standard, correct?

Correct.

Okay. I'm very pleased with this proposal because I know that given the new housing laws that have been foisted on us from Sacramento, this applicant could have come in with something much denser. Much, much denser. I know that. He could have come in with something with 20 units on this project. But he didn't. And these are only two stories. So I'm very impressed. Thank you.

And do you agree with my assessment of the street?

Yes. And the reason is because this street is not on the master plan of our share of highways. So we're not obligated to widen it. And if you do widen it at that location, what you're gonna do is create a speedway, because when you have a very wide street, like a travel lane that is more than 12 feet, you're actually gonna encourage people to speed, which is why we do traffic calming and try to narrow the travel way so that you have that side friction. So I don't see a reason that you would widen it further, because as you go south down Rancho Santiago, none of those properties are going to get widened. I mean, they're old, established properties. They're not going to turn over for development, and it wouldn't make sense to have just that one area super wide, and I think it'll cause problems, actually. So I actually agree with your assessment on it, that it doesn't need to be widened at that location. And provide more opportunity for landscaping or an enhanced sidewalk, potentially, by leaving the curb where it is.

But also would it blend as, like I said, from the middle school all the way to that property, it's the same widths. And so if they move over a little bit, but yet they're now in more than the other properties, but not enough to match the church, it just looks, it doesn't look right.

Well, I think we're actually the, the church itself, the frontage, it, uh, the street widens and, uh, But that's the only property where it's wider. All the rest are on the same curb line.

This is still not going to be as wide as the church, so it wouldn't make sense.

Yeah, so the church itself, though, it was widened, I think, more accommodate the right turn pocket to make that right turn. And clearly, there's very little traffic on that street. It's very, when I was out there on Saturday. Yeah, I could see that. But it does have along the whole fringe of the church, It has that right turn pocket, and the storage is very adequate. So you would just be increasing the storage length of the right turn pocket, which I can't imagine is necessary that that many people are making a right on Bond, onto Bond. They're gonna go straight, right, up to Villa Park Road.

Thank you.

Council Member Gillenhammer?

I like the project. I support the project. in terms of the frontage, will the frontage still have a sidewalk established? And then I guess is the proposal to maintain those trees as a result of maintaining this land? And then will the project as it exists hold and then have that frontage just be landscaping then? Is that the proposal, I guess?

I'll let staff answer to be accurate. I know that the oak tree would become a street tree, but the other tree, I'm not sure.

Yeah. I think it would be best if we have our public works director, Chris Cash, come up to speak to this. Just in looking at the street view on the maps, where the trees currently sit. There is a little bit of a sidewalk in front of the current property. It's more of a goat trail type system. It's not a defined sidewalk. But Chris, do you want to mention this?

Yeah, I think when we looked at it, our thought was that the existing landscape that's proposed at the front of the development would just be widened and that the sidewalk itself, similar to as it is in front of the church, would be directly adjacent to the curb.

Thank you. Answers to my question. I'm good with that. Thank you.

However, Mr. Cash, if we did that, then that would take out an oak tree. So if we create a parkway that there was like four feet between the curb and the sidewalk.

But then it would come back along the frontage because I think it's the oak trees at the corner of the property. Correct.

Yeah. Okay. All right. At this time, I open the public hearing. Any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you're calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We'll hear in-person speakers first and then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up. Then you will be muted. I'm seeing no public speakers. Anyone remotely?

We do not have any speakers remotely.

Okay, and I am closing the public hearing and bringing it back for a motion or further questions. Council Member Gutierrez, is this your district, Council Member? It's Council Member Gillenhammer, okay. Motion from Council Member Gillenhammer. I'm sorry, motion from Council Member Gutierrez, second from Council Member Gillenhammer. Just one last question for clarification. Mr. Cash, is it possible that instead of bringing the sidewalk to the curb, that we could have a parkway consistent with the neighborhood?

We could certainly do whatever the council's pleasure.

That's what would be my pleasure, if that's okay with the maker of the motion.

Do we need to get agreement from the developer?

Developer, good. Yes, please step forward if you'd like.

Thank you, David Blumenthal with Sagecrest Planning, 27128 Paseo Espada. The location of the curb, that's gonna be fine either way, however the city sees fit for that. Right now it's designed so we have adequate space for a parking lane, as well as the bike lane and your travel lane. But that could be adjusted however the city sees fit. I do wanna address the question on those trees though. There was an arborist report prepared on those. There are all the trees on the front or either there's a palm and then there's the Chinese elms. There is no oak tree up there. All those trees have been deemed by the arborist unfit to be kept. So those all do need to be removed. Okay.

Well, I guess the one that would be on city property that we could make that determination, the oak tree. Yeah. But you don't care where the sidewalk is.

Again, we can adjust however the city sees fit for that. The spacing will come from somewhere or go somewhere.

Thank you very much. My argument is that a sidewalk adjacent to the curb looks very commercial. And when you have it set back as a parkway, it looks more residential. So, yes, sir.

Mayor, if I just may add, the current development pattern in the neighborhood is the curb to sidewalk appearance. This would be the only property, including the properties directly across the street and the church that are directly curbed and sidewalked. There aren't any other parkways.

I beg to differ. The homes across the street do have a parkway, and it's only the church that has the sidewalk adjacent to the curb. You're looking at a map? Really? Boy, that's sure not what, I've been out there twice. Anyway, I would like to see a parkway created if possible. Council Member Gillenhammer?

Would that setback allow for the opportunity for additional street parking, assuming street parking is allowed in that area?

There, cars are already parking in front of the, currently on the street, so it wouldn't create additional parking.

I guess I mean the setback giving additional space for parking to not minimize or allow for greater flow through that area. Dennis, maybe you can weigh in on that. Setting that back, allowing for that area, which inevitably will have parking on the street, I assume, is it more beneficial to set it back to have that spacing for parking?

Well, actually, people do park on the street in front of the site right now. Totally. Now, it's kind of a quasi bike lane. There is a white line. You know, there's the curb face. Then there's a white line of a kind of a parking slash bike lane that might be about six feet wide. What I would suggest we do is... kind of leave this question open to the Public Works Department and the Planning Department to kind of work this out with the applicant as they come forward for permits and things to come up with sort of the best way to make this all come together in terms of the final configuration. Because it sounds like there's, there may be, an issue either way, so.

Yeah, and just to clarify, we're really only talking six feet. It's six feet that would stay within the, would be reduced from the dedication. So that six feet, I think, becomes sort of difficult to use, at least in terms of a parking add to the area.

Yeah, I assume there won't be a parking at as much as there'll be additional space that doesn't retract or it gives us an opportunity to push away from the main thoroughfare.

It's probably for a residential street. It's probably pretty consistent to what we see on a lot of streets in terms of curb parking.

Okay.

Okay, there is a motion from Council Member Gutierrez and a second from Council Member Gillenhammer. Any further discussion? Okay, I believe.

Can the maker of the motion please read it?

Yes, I was just going to say that. Thank you.

Adopt City Council Resolution Number 11709, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving tentative track map number 0052, conditional use permit number 3203, design review number 5119, and major site plan review number 1137 to establish an 11-unit plan, unit development, and subdivide a 2.02-acre parcel into 11 separate parcels located at 747 North Rancho Santiago Boulevard.

Great. Please vote. Approved unanimously. Congratulations. Nice project. Okay, item 10.1, administrative reports. Consider two resolutions that would submit to the voters a question adopting a city charter establishing priorities for filing written arguments and directing the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. The resolutions are numbers 11707 and 11708. If any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you're calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We will hear in-person speakers first and then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up and when you are muted. Before the staff report, I'll just state the obvious. There's a couple of items that I'm sure we're going to need to take votes on to make provide clarification one will be I think the real estate portion or property rights however you want to refer to it as another one will for sure be the DISTRICTING OR NOT DISTRICTING FOR ELECTIONS THERE'S THREE OPTIONS THERE THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY ALSO WISH TO WEIGH IN ON AND HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE ON SO WITH THAT MR. MORGAN YOU'RE ON THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL SO AFTER CONDUCTING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER TONIGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED OUR TWO RESOLUTIONS THERE'S RESOLUTION NUMBER 11 AND

707, which orders the draft charter to the Orange voters at the November 3rd general municipal election and resolution number 11708, and that sets the priorities for filing written arguments regarding the measure and directing our city attorney to draft an impartial analysis. So understanding that the first resolution, that's 11707, has a draft charter tied to it, that's gonna be generally the focus of tonight's presentation. As we've gone through the public hearings and primarily relying on the last public hearing, there are five different sections that have been largely changed, and they've been highlighted as a part of the document with the agenda packet, and we thought it would be easier just to include that as a Word document version. And I have track changes on in case the council would like to make any adjustments. Those five sections include section 204, which is the open space reserve protection. Section 400, which has to do with the composition of the council. As the mayor mentioned, there's three options to consider there. Section 403 is eligibility of the council. Section 503 is application of term limits. Section 603 is protection of property rights. There's two options to consider there. And then there's Article 8, which was largely changed to have several sections added. There's some that have been carried over, and that has to do with setting spending priorities, voter thresholds, to place a tax measure on future ballots, requiring that a structurally balanced budget be adopted and what that means, and then just generally ensuring that the city is adopting prudent financial practices. So in diving in one by one with that and going to specifically those highlighted sections, I'm going to start with section 204. So section 204 is written here. Now last time that we brought this to the council, this was specific to the Soley Miller site. At the last public hearing, it was requested that this be expanded to include different areas of interest, primarily significant open space lands. So as you see here, we have different sections that are bolded that help put this program, potential program, into place. So I'll go through each one briefly just to summarize what these paragraphs are saying. So establishment of open space reserve essentially says that the council would be able to designate, by ordinance or resolution, property that would go into this open space reserve. Now again, those are gonna be significant open space lands, parks, hillsides, canyons, creek corridors, anything that's generally open space right now, but likely we would see a lot of that in East Orange. And so those would be placed in the reserve by ordinance or resolution. If placed in that reserve, it would then come with restricted uses, and that's detailed in the permitted uses and prohibited uses. So permitted uses is generally for open space purposes, habitat restoration, or public infrastructure purposes. We also have items included in here as watershed protection, wildlife protection, agriculture. It's those kinds of uses that fall along the similar vein. Prohibited uses has to do with development that would be generally inconsistent with that type of use. So some of the items you see here are residential, commercial, and mixed-use development on these properties. Removal from open space can occur after it's been placed within that reserve, but it would have to be done by a vote of majority of orange voters. So if it's placed in there, that would have to be put on a ballot to have it removed. Now, that being said, if the council would like to, once it's placed in the reserve, you have this consistency finding section. It's not to say that no development could occur there. It just has to really fall within the intent of this section, which is likely going to be more passive uses within the area or public infrastructure uses. And so findings have to be made to ensure that it follows along with that section. And so that's what's included there. Then moving on, emergency maintenance activities. That has to do, it's understanding a lot of these properties, particularly when you're talking about the creek. You may have public infrastructure that's in the area, and so that recognizes that this cannot prohibit emergency response or repair activities of those public facilities or trails, so long as they're reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Now, replacement of open space. So say if the council were to place one of those properties on a ballot, voters approved to remove it, this section says to the maximum extent feasible, so there's some flexibility in there, it's not a shall, but maximum extent feasible, shall acquire or permanently preserve replacement open space equal or greater public recreational environmental conservation value. And so that's, again, it's not, if it comes to a place where that was removed and ultimately there's really nothing available out there to replace it, that allows for that, but we would have to make a very strong good faith effort given that language. And then lastly for this section, it just states that this would run with the land and that if there was any attempt to try to amend this particular section, that would have to go to the Orange voters for approval. So again, at the previous public hearing, this was much shorter. It had to do with Soli Miller. And at the public hearing, it was requested that we look at expanding it. And so this has expanded it to give the city council options to be able to include properties into this reserve. And then moving on to the next one, which is section 400. That's the composition of the city council. This one has three different policy options for the council's consideration. Primarily, this has to do with district-based elections. So I kind of look at this, you have option one through option three. It generally runs on a continuum, with the more restrictive one being option one, all the way through option three, which is a little bit more loose and provides a lot of flexibility in shifting responsibility to the municipal code, meaning that councils could adopt procedures by ordinance. So option one and being the more restrictive one makes it clear that council members would be elected by district. Now in all of these, the manner of election and how everything's going to be administered would be done by ordinance. But this makes clear right here that council members will be elected by district. Option two kind of tries to have a happy medium there. It recognizes that district-based elections are currently utilized and may be utilized in the future, but it shifts all of that to the municipal code, meaning that that would be established by ordinance. And then option three goes even further to really just recognize that we will have city council members and we will have a mayor. Everything else will be established by ordinance. So provides more flexibility on option three, where option one is your more restrictive one, where if the council were to opt for that and we are establishing that we are going to have district-based elections, that would have to go back to the voters to change that language at a future time. So those are three options that the council would need to consider. Of course, language could change, but those are the three that we've developed. I'm gonna continue on to the different items, but that would be one we'll have to revisit. Section 403 has to do with eligibility. At the previous public hearing, it was discussed, can we incorporate restrictions to the extent that a person would have to live in Orange for a certain period of time before they are eligible to run for council? So we looked into this and there's precedent on this. There was a case with the city of Long Beach, who's also a charter city, it's Johnson versus Hamilton. And that particular case, the result of it was essentially saying if you go beyond 30 days, It's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. So in taking that information, we incorporated that into the language here, which means there's really three general requirements for a person to be able to run for council. One, that they are a registered voter, they're an Orange resident, and have been an Orange resident for at least 30 days. And more specifically, that they've been 30 days before filing nomination papers. So that's incorporated here. We also mentioned district elections and the same requirements would fall for if we continue with district elections, they would have to reside within that specific district. And if any of those requirements are lost at any time, then a vacancy would occur in accordance with applicable law. So we've incorporated really everything that we've seen just from a legal perspective and ensuring that we're falling in line with existing precedent. So moving on to application of term limits. Same thing here, I know it was mentioned if we can evaluate whether or not this, term limits would not reset. So we looked at that California Government Code, and this is not, I know with charter cities sometimes we talked about municipal affairs and whether or not you can move away from state law. This particular government code section clearly states general law cities as well as charter law cities, and it says that whenever we are going to limit term limits, which this does because there is lifetime bans for both mayor and council once the term limits detailed in this section have expired, that it would one, have to go to the voters, which a charter would go to the voters, and two, they have to apply it prospectively. So we cite that government code section and note that this would be applied prospectively, meaning essentially the term limits would reset and it would apply to the term limits that are detailed in this article. And that means if there's, and I think we'd mentioned at the last time, if you have a council member who has two, before your term, served two years, the additional two years after the effective date of this charter would not necessarily count towards the term limits that are detailed in this article. It's only the new term that has started or has commenced after the effective date of the charter. So that's a following in line with the government code. We made sure to cite that here. So Section 603, and I know we had mentioned, this is two options here. One has to, really this is the same language that we had last time. The policy intent here is the same. Really the only exception with this one that we added is it lists and details everything in a much more concise and easily understood manner. And it also ensures to capture that if we have any provision within the Orange Municipal Code that's inconsistent with this section, it would automatically be repealed. So it helps kind of clean everything up that may exist in the Municipal Code. If the council would like to move with this option, the one item that staff would suggest is that we include the city's ability to tax a transient occupancy tax as a part of the exception here. And as a reminder, what these two sections do, understanding that the policy intends the same, is that ensures that the city is not going to enact measures that limit the price payable for sale, lease, and rent of property. And the things that are excluded from that are the city's vested authority to really administer issues of zoning as well as taxing authority. That's included in this section. It just was not included here. So if the council would move forward with this alternative language, we would suggest that this be included as well. And again, that one, two options there. So staff's recommending selection of one of them. Lastly, we go to Article 8, fiscal responsibility. Now, that's the same as what we've seen from the last public hearing, but this has been largely changed to include different sections, and I'll go through those briefly. So Section 800, fiscal policy, and we get there. That just ensures that the city is going to operate in a prudent fiscal manner with a focus on infrastructure, community priorities, and long-term needs while maintaining financial capacity, structurally balanced budget, What this ensures is that our operating revenues will meet our operating expenditures. So for example, for this year's budget that was recently adopted, we had a transfer out of around 15 million from our capital improvement fund. This would not allow for that. Our operating revenues would have to be our operating expenditures. Now there is an exception here that talks about appropriating from dedicated revenues, grants, fees for your more one-time, one-off projects, your capital projects. And what that could potentially do is that can increase your expenditures beyond revenues, but understanding it's one-time, the focus is on that operating revenue meeting operating expenditure. And so that's what's proposed here as a structurally balanced budget requirement. Independent audit this is language that is carried over from the last meeting So that's just requiring that an annual audit be conducted and be presented to the City Council and made available to the public Section 803 is supermajority vote required to submit new taxes. So it's a council's aware right now based on state law It's two-thirds requirement to place it on the ballot This would increase it three-fourths, which means six out of the seven council members. We need to approve any sort of tax increase or imposition of attacks and And then section 804 sets priorities for additional general fund revenue. So if the city was in a position where it had additional reoccurring general fund revenue, this particular section highlights how that could be prioritized. And that's one, reducing our unfunded pension liability, repairing and replacing public infrastructure, reducing outstanding debt, replenishing and maintaining prudent financial reserves, and then funding one-time capital improvements, equipment, technology, and other non-recurring investments. Now this section does recognize that that should not prevent the city from being able to also take those revenues and to put it into essential services as well. So that provides a bit more flexibility there. But it recognizes that these are some of the items that we would want to focus on if we had additional recurring revenue, which tends to align with the resolution that the council just adopted with Rebuild Orange. So that concludes my overview of the highlighted sections of the proposed charter. Again, these items were the sections that were discussed at the last meeting and then largely changed. But staff's open to discuss any of the matters that are here. Again, I have track changes on for any adjustments that the council would like to make. But specifically, Section 400 and Section 403, or excuse me, 603, there's some options there that we're looking for council direction on.

Thank you, Jack. That's very informative. And here we go. Any questions of staff before we open the public hearing? All right. I will ask for... public speakers to come forward at this time. The first one is Reggie Mundekas followed by Betty Talbert.

Hi, good evening. Reggie Mundekas. I continue my previous stated objections to becoming a charter city. Additionally, under item 400, I think we should preserve district elections. It's allowed a broader range of voices to be on our council. I'm concerned about sections 803 and 804 being in the charter and taking away the ability of future councils to act as they feel they need to act. in the interest of the people who elected them. And regarding 803, just setting an incredibly impossibly high bar for ever passing a tax measure is that, you know, if people want to tax themselves, they should be able to do it. Okay? I know that some of you would laugh at that idea, but... It's America. We vote on stuff. So, you know, just put it on the ballot, and the voters will decide if they want the tax or if they don't want the tax. You really don't have any business setting up rules that prevent people from trying to live a better life. So, again, continue my objections to this whole process, and I have issues with sections 400, 803, and 804. Thank you.

Thank you, Reggie. Following Betty Talbert is Mary Oberschleit.

Honorable Mayor and City Council, I'm here to speak in favor of the city charter draft. I plan to vote for it. I especially appreciate the following points. The interpretation, we will interpret the document broadly in favor of city self-government and local control. We in Orange know better what is good for us than a broader spate of state politicians. We would practice local control better and our needs would be better served as a result. Second, term limits. I support a lifetime ban established for mayor and council members after term limits are achieved. I wish these were eight-year total term limits for council members instead of 12, but I do respect the fact that in light of this state's bureaucratic nonsense, it can be difficult to fix intractable problems in a city in eight years. Our voters can also choose to vote someone out, so there's still an escape valve for voters if needed. The only thing I'm still a little confused about is whether the service the mayor, the council member completed before the effective date of this charter should not be counted for the purposes of calculating the term limits established by this article. I think you said state law requires this. If state law does not require this, I would say that we need to adjust that so that The term limits cannot be extended so long for present members of the council. I just feel a little uncomfortable with that. Third, contracting practices. Place the city in a better bargaining position and we will take advantage of the exemptions from state public contracting statutes. Current state contracting practices work against city's ability to fiscally sound, to be fiscally sound, less wasteful and more effective. Property rights. protections. As a homeowner who knows just how hard it is to buy a home, maintain it, pay a mortgage, and run the gauntlet of constantly escalating insurance costs, taxes, and mandated bureaucracy, and changes that the state requires of HOAs that can make as little sense as some changes levied on cities, the property rights protections measure hits home for me. And that domain... Limits are needed. Homeowners in this state should have more protections on their property, not less. Finally, the fiscal responsibility section of this charter is detailed, specific, has teeth, and will save us money, and is one more tool to use alongside the state's sales tax measure that will help Orange right our fiscal ship. We should put this city charter on the ballot for our citizens to vote for.

Thank you, Betty. And Mary Oberslake?

Once more into the breach. I'm up here to say no on a charter. How much money's been spent, even staff time, even analyzing this? I mean, what are we doing? We're a small city compared to other charter cities. We're a smaller city. I mean, how much staff do we have? How do we gear up for this? And what are the consequences of lawsuits being brought against the city where the state would be giving us coverage. To me, this is not the time or the place for this to happen now. Table it, revisit it after things get fixed. then look at it. I think this will only muddy the waters and make things worse. It's going to be expensive. It's going to be expensive. It's going to have negative consequences. As someone that grew up with family from the deep south, when I hear somebody talking about we know best about our way of life, how we want things to be, we don't need big government coming in here telling us how to behave. I start getting the creeps, my hackles go up. I'm sorry, this is, it's a very frightening way to talk. The implications of what could happen if you were to go forward with the Charter City with a mindset like that, with officials that could get elected, it's very frightening.

Thank you, Mary. Are there any remote speakers?

No, Mayor, we do not have any remote speakers.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve from Council Member Tavelaris and a second from Council Member Dimitriou. We'll continue with discussion. So why don't we go through the suggested additions or alterations one by one. I'll just ask if, I'll begin with the open space reserve protection verbiage. Does anyone feel the need to discuss that any further? Okay. Then moving on to next is the council consideration for elections. We have three choices. Option one, preserve district elections as they currently are. Option two, provide some flexibility with district elections still an option. Option three, start all over and no district elections or whatever the council chooses to do down the road.

And Mr. Mayor, if I may, just to clarify from a legal perspective, the City of Orange currently is operating under a court-ordered stipulated judgment where districting is required. So any proposal to eliminate districts in the future would have to make sure that we're complying with potentially a dissolution of the stipulated judgment, a federal law, and state law. So at this time, the six districts with one at-large mayor would still remain.

So actually I prefer that personally, but are you saying that option one is our only option?

Yeah, so for option one, it ensures that we would move forward with district elections. Option two and three essentially would then defer to a ordinance, so to the Orange Municipal Code. And to the extent that we would need to maintain district elections, the ordinance would just reflect that. But it provides the flexibility of this council, future councils, to be able to adjust by ordinance to the extent we are allowed to.

Okay. Is that clear to everyone? Good question. Any questions? Council Member Dimitriou.

So then if, so option two then would probably be the best to capture if state law, federal law or anything should change then, correct?

Correct. Yeah, it recognizes district-based elections. Option three just recognizes we have council members and a mayor. The ordinance would fill in the rest that would come at a later time. Okay, thank you. I'm good with option two.

Okay. Should we, it sounds like we should probably pause the motion and vote on these individual items.

Yes, please. And Mr. Morgan has a Word document, so the option that is selected will remain as the final if this motion were to pass.

Okay. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah. You don't have the screen up, but... So it would seem to me that I'm given I know there was a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Districts and the drawing of maps and things I just wouldn't want the city to put themselves in a position that if we have to react to a court ruling or the reconsideration of a of a stipulated judgment that if you have to go back to the voters of that, I think it's endlessly complicated then and we wouldn't be able to react appropriately. So I think some of that power has to be kept with a future council to react to future court rulings. So you would send me though an option two would provide that? Option two provides that flexibility, yes. Okay, all right, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem, if I may, the CalA Supreme Court decision currently didn't invalidate the California Voting Rights Act, and the city stipulated judgment. So to the extent that California law continues to develop, then that would provide that option.

Yep, thank you.

So... Could we pause the overall approval so we can make some motions on some of these potential changes? We'll get back to the original.

Oh no, I just have something to talk about.

Okay, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

I just want to make sure, or it's a good idea, Jack.

Thank you, it's a good idea, Jack, that whichever option we adopt tonight of these three options, that the seats will be elected in the general election and not the primary election.

And that's just to include that kind of language into this?

I think, just to be more clear, that we are, our elections are held in the general election and not the primary elections.

I don't know if our city attorney had, we can incorporate that language in here just to make sure that that's clear.

Whichever option is chosen, I'm fine with that.

John, did you hear the question?

No, yeah, I apologize, Mr. Mayor. I heard the ordinance, or I, uh, I HEARD THE MOTION. I'M REVIEWING THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW. GIVE ME TWO MINUTES WHILE WE CARRY ON A CONVERSATION. BUT A SIMPLE ADDITION COULD LIKELY BE SOMEWHERE UNDER ARTICLE 4, CITY COUNCIL, EVEN ARTICLE 5, STRICTLY ABOUT ELECTION TIMING. YOU KNOW, ELECTION TIMING, require municipal general elections to be held with the statewide November general election period. Something that simple. Let me see how this will play out, and then I'll get back to you real quick.

Good point.

I would think if we were silent on it, it would default to what the state does, which is in November. Now, I will say, though, that there are some cities in L.A. County that do not hold their elections in November. They have... April, they have these bizarre off, and they get like 10% voter participation. And it's crazy what they do. And they do it purposely. But we don't do that here.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. We'll keep going with discussion while they're figuring this out. Council Member Gillenhammer. Thank you, Mayor.

Before today, I spent time reviewing other charters. I actually spent a lot of time diving into Huntington Beach Charter. I'm not sure if anybody's had a chance to go into that one yet. The detail and depth of some of the charters out there are insane. They're fully comprehensive. They go into every possible element of governance, and they provide context as to how their charter interprets that element of governance. You know, anything our charter does not speak to or is silent about or maximizes local flexibility is essentially a reversion to general law. So I think a charter in and of itself is establishing specifics or differences as to how the city of Orange would like to govern themselves going forward. Huntington Beach has gone to election in 2022, 2024, 2026 for charter amendments in what is a very detailed and intense charter that they've developed over time. But yet they continue to go to election to adjust their charter. While I am in agreement with a lot of the sections that are in here, and we can discuss kind of how I feel about each one of them as we go through it, I think the broader view I have is I fear that if we pass this tonight, we might be missing quite a bit in terms of the depth and detail of what I see as comparable charters out there. And we may be in perpetual fixing or adding or adjusting mode, which would cause us the time and cost of going to multiple elections. So although I agree with the spirit of a charter, right, locking in local control around things that are valuable to us that we want to assert within the realm of what we can assert outside of general law, I just don't think what we have here has the depth, detail, or breadth to stand up without multiple potential adjustments in the future. I think all the work we're doing is good, but this might require much more diligent, off-dias work. this is something i'm discovering as of diving into the existing charters over the last week or so so that's just kind of my fear as we move forward i'll talk through how i feel about all these sections but You know, I think we should just look at some of these that are out there. Huntington Beach is an example of one. Specifically, if I was going to go into procurement, I have a chapter and a section on methods of procurement, competitive billing requirements, exceptions, pre-bid conferences, site inspections, advertisement of bidding opportunities, corrections, withdraws, receipts, evaluations, like the amount of depth that goes into a section that we could take more control over. we might be missing an opportunity to establish that level of control in the submission of this to the public.

Fair enough. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Taveleris?

I just want to say we can't be the enemy of the good. First of all, I don't want to be compared to another city, but all the cities that are chartered, in the state often go back to the voters as the whole point of having a charter to fix and adapt to time. Those charters that are so depth, are so deep is because they've gone back to the voters multiple times. This is our first one. So of course it's going to grow over time as the city grows over time and issues come up. But I don't think it's wise to say you're uncomfortable with something because it will never be in-depth enough for us, because we're going to want to fix everything at once. This is a tool to get started, and it is going to go back to the voters several times long before you and I are on this council. But that's the way it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be a fluid document as time goes by to keep local control. I also want to say that Those charters go deep because they've experienced different things in their cities. We have not experienced the things that they have experienced. Once we do and we know that there's an issue, then we can go back into the charter. But at this point, Jack, if I'm correct, what's not in the charter, we fall back into the code, correct?

Correct. A lot of the items, so like what we have here, a manner of election, district boundaries, terms of office, all of that shall be established by ordinance. So, and I think in the case of the public contracting code, we state that we would be able to benefit or to enjoy the benefits of a charter city with regards to public contracting code, and that would be established by ordinance. That's what's detailed in here. So it would just come at a later time. It sets the parameters and the ordinance fills the details.

Thank you.

So I know you've both expressed your, uh, Council Member Gillian, you're not going to... You're good? All right. Council Member Gutierrez.

Jack, I just want you to, again, go over option... I'm going to the... district, the elections, option one and option two. So if I read the bottom of option one, it says that election procedures shall be established by ordinance and consistent with applicable state and federal law. What's the difference between one and two again?

The difference is, I'm sorry, the difference is right in, I don't know if you, city clerk's office, if you want to pull up, yeah. Sorry, I'm pulling it up right now. So the difference is, so option one has this section right here, and it says council members shall be elected by district in accordance with applicable state and federal law. And then when you go to option two, that is not included there. It says if district-based elections are utilized, the city council shall establish and thus district boundaries as required by law. So that's the difference. Right here, it declares that that's what we're going to be using. Anything that comes after that's going to fall in alignment with that. This leaves it more open-ended, which means it's going to be done by ordinance, which provides a bit more flexibility because you would not have to go back and wait for an election every time. So that's where the flexibility is at. It's just that one sentence right here.

But as a city attorney said, right now we do have to follow our, what is it, our stipulation?

Court approved stipulated judgment and the California Voting Rights Act.

And I guess the word says, for me, if. If you go back to number two, if district-based elections are realized. Because currently right now we do have to. So I guess I'm just caught up on that. Why does it say if?

It's if, so that's their trying to capture what could potentially happen in the future. We would have to, and this is as required by law, we would have, If the council went with option two and this were to be approved by voters, as the city attorney was saying, everything that would come after the fact would have to follow that stipulated judgment. Because that's what we would need to follow. If there was ever a case where there was more flexibility and we were no longer bound to that, that section right there would provide the flexibility.

Okay. I guess I want something in there that says we are following district and then something that if ever there were something to change, blah, blah, blah. Instead of the if, I don't know why. It just doesn't read well to me, but I understand what you're saying.

Oh, that's good. Council Member Dimitriou.

Yeah, just to reiterate, I think option two gives us the most protection in the long run that something could be changed if the state and federal laws change. Getting back to kind of one of the questions that was just raised about charter cities, yes, some big cities are charters that have really immense, really very detailed charters. Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and Santa Ana are all charter cities that are pretty intense. But let's not forget that Boynton Park's a charter city. They're doing very well. Cyprus is a charter city, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and Placentia. Those are all cities that are significantly smaller than us, and they don't go to the voters constantly. They have their charter put in, and as items come up or laws change or the federal government changes something, then they readdress it at that time. But I think across just Orange County, there's a wide spectrum of population base So it's it's not just large cities, but you're right Huntington beaches is particularly Huge And I think it's because of some of the more unique circumstances that are there as well Compared to our city and will will be different as a charter in the city of Los Alamitos Each city will be different and I embrace that the change but getting back to the initial question I that were asking about just with these options I support. I'm just gonna make a motion to support option two.

I was just gonna ask if the maker of the motion was intending to do option two.

Yes.

Okay. If anyone feels that we wanna have a separate vote on that, we can do so at this time. What is your proposal? Protects everything still Okay, so I'm going to assume that that is fine with maker of the motion Next item that we may want to discuss is the

Mr. Mayor, if I may make a suggestion, if you vote individually on these specific sections, then we can kind of finalize, and then at the very end, you can take an overall vote for the entirety of the language.

Again, if there's any will to take a separate motion on the term, I'm sorry, on the council elections, we can do so at this time.

I believe the motion on the floor is to choose.

The motion on the floor is to pass the charter, but we can go back and do separate motions if the council wishes. Is that what you're implying?

No. Before the motion that potentially could put the entirety of the charter is placed on the ballot, my recommendation as your city attorney is to ensure that all of the language is agreed upon so that at the very end you can make that recommendation and the voters will see the language that will be attached to the resolution to be presented.

And I agree with you. Thank you. So my question again is, does anyone wish to Well, then we should have a motion to clarify that we want option two, I guess then. Would you want to make that motion, Councilor Tellers?

It doesn't have to be a motion. Okay.

All right. That's where I was going also. But is there anyone that feels we should have a vote on this? I'm hearing none. All right. Moving. So option two is what we're living with. The next one that, well, eligibility. Does anyone wish to have any further discussion on that? Okay. Term limits. Any further discussion on that? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Okay. Okay. And just again for clarification on that, the law states if we do adopt a charter, we have to begin all over again. Am I correct? I'm on article five, term limits. Oh, sorry.

Okay. Well, none of the things that I asked for to be changed, so I guess I can't really pipe in on here. Because I didn't want three four-year terms for city council members, nor, what is it, for mayor?

Two four-year terms?

Yeah. I wanted to keep it as we currently had, but I didn't see that that got changed.

Council Member Tavalares?

I will say that the reason I wanted it to change was because of our financial situation. Every time we put somebody up for election, it costs money. And I just thought it would be a cost savings. So that's why I did two. And it evens out the mayors. Whoever the mayor is can serve eight years. Just evens it out. I thought six years was odd. But it was a cost savings thought on my end.

Council Member Barrios.

You and I have discussed this before, and as far as the mayor's terms are concerned, I have no problem with that, but as I was just telling Council Member Gutierrez, the three... three, four-year terms, and I get it. I really do get it in terms of like it's a cost savings overall because of having to run the elections, but I just think that's too much.

Oh, it's a cost savings for the mayor, for the mayor going from two years.

Oh, so it's more aligned on that one, but it's for the council members?

Yeah, the other one was because there's a, my thinking was because we're introducing a lifetime term Yeah. So it's like giving it a little, getting a little, so. I get it.

Yeah. I just, you know. So that was my. But that on top of a complete reset, which I'm just, I'm. Well, I don't control state law. I know that. I understand that. But those are the two things that I'm just like, okay. So you're going to have basically a generation. There's a possibility of a generation of leadership that doesn't change.

I think that's a good point. And I think we've had a generation without even asking it. You and I have discussed that as well. Yeah, I know. The same old people running for council every time. I get it. And that's more than 12 years. I know.

Again, if anyone would like to make a motion for an alternative, Council Mayor Baros, I'm hearing that you would probably prefer two terms for the council members for a total of eight years.

I was just explaining my rationale, just like Council Member Gutierrez said, this came through already.

But again, we can have a revisit right now. It's an opportunity. Quite frankly, I would rather see it for eight years as well.

Mayor, I'm in agreement with Council Member Tavares that we'll introduce a lifetime ban, so the three terms is sufficient. Okay.

I would agree the lifetime ban, but I just don't agree with three, four-year terms.

Well, negotiation is back and forth.

I know, but, you know, I think our terms are perfectly fine the way they have, and I think a lifetime ban... Well, this way it would be up to the voters to decide.

All right, I'm going to make a motion that we amend this to have a maximum of two four-year terms for City Council.

I'd like to introduce a substitute motion to do the way it's written. Okay.

Second. I didn't get a second on my motion.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, so the motion is to have instead of three four-year terms, two four-year terms for council. That, I made the motion, Council Member Gutierrez seconded it, and then now there's a substitute motion to go with the language as it is, and that is for three four-year terms. So we're going to, we need to remove these motions.

Well, hold on, you need to clarify something on your... on your motion, Mayor. Is it two terms with a lifetime ban?

Correct.

I'll stick with Kathy.

All right, so the motion without any further discussion is two four-year terms for council. Please vote.

It's the substitute motion you're voting on. So that's three four-year terms with a lifetime ban, correct? The substitute motion from Cavaliers.

The substitute motion does go first. I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction.

Can I get the city attorney to opine on when the four-year term for the mayor would begin? Would it begin in 2028 if this charter is passed?

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you. Again, the substitute motion is for as written, three four-year terms for City Council. The motion is made by Council Member Taveler, seconded by Council Member Dimitriou. Please vote. The motion is approved, four to two, with Council Members Barrio,

Okay, wait a minute.

The substitute motion, I'm sorry. I thought it should have been a no vote. Am I stuck? Yeah.

Unless there, yeah. Unless there is someone that wants to reconsider the motion on the prevailing side.

Which I doubt. I'm so sorry. Yeah. All right, so we'll stick with the original motion, which is the, I'm sorry.

The language as presented by Mr. Morgan is what will be the language if presented to the voters.

Got it, thank you. Apologize, council, for that. Okay. The next one we should vote on is protection of private property rights. Just so you know, the more simpler language, which is the or option, I ran that by Chip Oswaldi today. He liked it, but that also should include, as staff suggested, including number five from the previous option to make sure that we can pass hotel taxes. And actually, I will make a motion to approve section 603, protection of private property rights, with paragraph five from the previous description. Second. It just simplifies it. Does everyone understand? Is the motion a second? Council Member Taveleris.

Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'll withdraw that.

Okay. All right. Everyone understand the motion? Any further discussion, please vote.

Mayor, were you the mover of the motion? Yes. Okay, it's not popping up. And then who was the second?

Council Member Dimitriou.

Okay.

That was approved six to one with Councilmember Barrios voting no. Lastly, fiscal policy. I think a lot of this first bridge was suggested by Councilmember Gillenhammer, Well, with all due respect, I do have a problem with the part that says no ordinance or resolution proposing a city-sponsored measure to impose, extend, or increase a municipal tax shall be submitted to the voters unless approved. Affirmative vote by at least three-fourths of the total membership of the City Council. I agree with Reggie Mundicus in that we had a hard enough time getting a measure on the ballot with five votes. This would require six votes? Yeah, it would. So I would be fine with all of the verbiage with the exception of that sentence. That's my, in fact, I'll just move that. Second.

Second from Councilmember Dimitriou. It was originally sliding towards the proposed language, but I'm not there anymore.

Okay. Any further discussion? Please vote.

I'm sorry, Madam City Attorney, if I can ask for a point of clarification. Are we? voting just to remove that last, or is there alternative language?

That is correct. So the motion on the floor is to approve the language for fiscal responsibility, Article 8, except for Section 803, it would be to completely remove that and default to state law. which is currently two-thirds.

I was confused that we were reverting to the previous version of this.

No, it would be two-thirds, five votes required if we have seven council members.

Do we need to remove the whole section or just the second paragraph? My intent was just the second paragraph. Okay. Well, The first paragraph doesn't really say anything. You want to remove both? Okay, I see. It says title supermajority vote. I'll amend my motion if that's all right with the second. All right. Any further discussion? Please vote.

Mayor Slater.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's getting late. Approved 6-1 with Councilmember Gillenhammer voting no.

Can I ask, Mr. Mayor, can we go over Section 801? Sure. Maybe if you can bring that up. So in reading this one, I think this may have some unintended consequences because what this is saying is that basically the city could never use any reserves in the budget without declaring an emergency. Now, you know, in my time on the council, you know, there are times of plenty in which the city's actually building up their reserves. And then there's years of recession in which we wanted to maintain the same service level. and not lay off employees. And so, you know, we look to those reserves that we've built up, the rainy day funds, and transfer those over to the budget to smooth things out. But this really will handcuff future councils in that they can't even use the rainy day funds unless they declare an emergency. So, and I think that's kind of an unintended consequence of this. And so, I mean, you know, so I think we gotta be careful that we don't, we don't get too extreme here in that there are times in which the council has to smooth things over in a time of recession, or like if there's a COVID emergency or something, things happen. And I don't know that we want to just absolutely handcuff future councils from being able to maneuver and imbalance the budget. So, and I think Jack might have something to say about that.

Yeah, and I believe that's the intent of this. So really it's the city, unless we were to declare an emergency, Our operating revenues have to meet our operating expenditures. So I know, like I mentioned with this past fiscal year, we used 15 million in one-time transfer from our CIP fund. This would prevent us from being able to do that. It is truly saying that we have to have a structurally balanced budget. So if we're finding that we are going to face a shortfall, that means that the city would need to identify expenditure cuts or declare an emergency. So that's the way this is written. There is a section, though, and it starts here, that does mention that we can appropriate revenues that are coming in for more specific purposes that may increase expenditures beyond revenues, but the focus is generally on those operating revenues and operating expenditures.

So what I'm worried about is that if, you know, I mean, we're not truly in a recession right now. But if we get into a recession with this kind of language, we're going to have to lay off public safety. I mean, that's what would happen unless you declare an emergency. And I guess you would trigger other things. But that's what would go down with this very strict language. And I'm just not sure that that's what the council intends.

Can I ask a quick question? In a charter now, could it say the city council shall strive to adopt as a target goal rather than just it shall adopt. I think that might, Mayor Pro Tem, does that give enough kind of room to protect ourselves?

I mean, I understand why this is here. We want the public to know that this council and future councils are very serious about balancing this budget. But, you know, I don't think it should be done to the detriment of the city's operations because, let's face it, what, 60 to 70% of our overall budget is expressly for public safety. And you just got to be careful in that suddenly we don't have any flexibility to draw from rainy day funds to keep that level of service. I don't want to put the city in a situation where it's like, well, we had to declare an emergency and guess what? We've got to cut firefighters or police officers. No one here wants that. I know that. I just don't want to set the city up for failure with that kind of language. That's a good catch. You want to make a motion? I just don't know how you fix it. I like your suggestion that we're going to strive to do it, not that we have to do it. It's a goal. It's not an absolute. That way there is some flexibility. I don't know. I didn't write that language. Maybe whoever places in here could maybe OPINE ON IT. MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING. I KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS, BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE END RESULT AND THAT YOU'RE GOING TO REALLY HAMPER FUTURE COUNCILS FROM SORT OF OPERATING IN A PRUDENT MANNER WITHOUT HAVING TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY EVERY YEAR WHEN YOU ADOPT A BUDGET.

So just forgive my ignorance, though. Did we just vote on the whole fiscal policy section or just on 803? Okay, very good. All right.

Just 803. And to chime in there, right, you have 801, comma, except as expressly authorized by the city council for declared emergencies or other extraordinary circumstances. I don't want to get cute with it, but extraordinary circumstances isn't defined. Right, so theoretically, a future council could say our budget deficit due to a major recession is an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, we authorize the use of $15 million in reserves, and that would be appropriate. I hear what you're saying. I don't know how to wordsmith it up here right now. Shall strive. Strive is probably the best example.

I just don't think we should set future councils up to have to declare an emergency every year just to adopt a budget. Everyone's on the same page, I think. If the city's short a little bit and we've got to grab a little bit from a rainy day fund, I don't think we should have to declare an emergency to do that to maintain the level of current public services. That's all. I think emergencies should truly be emergencies. And I don't know how to fix it, but I didn't write the language.

Council Member Gillingham, a suggestion maybe? No?

Yeah. Essentially, we could just remove all of these sections based off of the wording and just kind of be where we're at today, right? So 803 taken out, 804, if you look at the last couple lines of 804, it basically gives you an out from any specific commitment to 804. 802 already happens. We have an independent audit, so that's existing. The structurally balanced budget, It's not uncommon. I think cities, states, that is something that's passed generally as a policy. We will balance our budget. So if we want to put strive or try or if into this charter, we might as well not put the words in period and just stick with what we normally do. So I think respectfully for this section, unless there's something that's hard like a percentage vote change or something that we want to hold onto as a tenant, I think we just take the section out. Because it's like a vision doc, if that's the case. We already have that in our mission and vision. We want to run a structurally balanced budget. We already have this wording in our mission doc.

What might be better is, in the first sentence, strike the word structurally. That way it says the city council should adopt a balanced budget each fiscal year. which is, by the way, we're required to do that by state law anyways, and then strike the second sentence in its entirety, and then the paragraph that's on the next page, that's fine. It lays out all of the different avenues that the council could use to balance the budget, and maybe that takes care of it. So again, strike the word structurally in the first sentence and delete the second sentence in its entirety, and I think that would fix it.

Is that your motion?

That is my motion.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Defeats the whole thing. Any further discussion? Okay. Let's vote.

Who was the second? I'm sorry, it didn't come up on there.

Council Member Demetria. Thank you. Approved five to two with Council Members Barrios and Gillingham voting no. Any other final tweaks, suggestions? If not, we're ready for a motion on the Council Member Gutierrez.

Because I know we're moving on to vote. are we willing to put this up for, on the ballot? And I just, again, I've said it twice before, I still don't understand why if we know we have these other pressing measures that we're putting forth to the residents, why this, at this time, needs to come forward. Could we not just table it for a future time? So that's my first thing. And then secondly, We keep talking about local control. We need local control. We're going to get local control. When bottom line, the only control you're going to get is procurement flexibility and being able to manipulate term limits, which I find very self-serving. And we are here to serve the public, not to serve ourselves. And I just have a really hard time with presenting this to the voters at this time when we have other pressing matters and also with what we have for the terms. I mean, the terms I was hoping would stay the same. But that is what I've been, I've said it the past two times, there's truly no local control. We keep saying that Sacramento is taking away our power. Well, they already have. And so the only benefit, and we've heard it already, was procurement and elections in regards to terms. And again, that's very self-serving. And I can't support this. If we could bring this back in a future time, but not at this time. And so I'm sorry, Council Member Tabalares, and I know this is near and dear to your heart, but I just need you to know why I cannot support this. And at this time, I just don't think it's the right time. And I would... I'd be happy to discuss this in the future after we get ourselves out of this structural deficit that we have. And I just don't like the terms and not necessarily the district stuff either. So I just cannot support this at this time.

I'd like, we need to go in the order of, so let me go to Council Member Barrios and then we'll get back to you. Council Member Barrios.

Yes, thank you. I just want an opportunity to say, because I'm very much a council member, Gutierrez is, but I didn't want to take the vote based on what I was thinking about this. And it really just comes down to the term limits for me and how that's going to roll over. Because I wanted to be very vocal about my gratitude to you, Council Member Tavalares, because you and I have been shoulder to shoulder on a lot of things. being innovative, getting out in front. And I just so admire that you want to do this. And I don't think that overall this is a bad idea. I want to see it go through. go back and forth and back and forth, and it's those turbulence that are just tripping me up. And I would so much love to like say, could we just talk about this and give it more time to bake? But I just am so grateful to you for bringing it forward, for thinking of new ideas, for talking late at night to me about going through it all, because I just, We need more of that, and I'm so grateful. So I just wanted a chance to say that.

Thank you, and I appreciate the openness to even consider this. It's been a long process, and I know it's a change, and Orange doesn't do well with change. But I do want to just say one thing. When you're saying it's self-agreed, self, that I'm somehow doing it for myself, I'm doing it for the city. I mean, I find... You said it was self-aggrandizing or whatever. I take umbrage to that. You know... By the way, I don't believe in term limits at all for anything, except maybe the president. But I think the term limits come from the people. But I understand that that's just the way it goes right now. That's nothing to do with what I didn't plan to be on this council. So this is not my life. But I didn't do this for personal reasons. Nothing I do here is for personal reasons. Like I said, like Ariana said, I get yelled at every day about the mall. It's not fun being up here sometimes. I did it. because I think it's a tool that we can use so these things don't happen in the future. I thought I laid out the case, and maybe I haven't. I think that if you talk to people from other charter cities, Anaheim included, they'll tell you the benefits that they have from it. And I hope, if it does pass tonight, that the voters will consider it. And if they, like with everything, I will respect what the voters say. It's just an option, and I want to keep giving the voters options, and I like doing that.

Council Member Gillanammer.

Um... Um... This is, I want to vote on this, Kathy, specifically because of the conversations we've had and the engagement we've had and the effort put forth behind this. Here is my main issue. I think when we make decisions, there's something called a two-way door decision and a one-way door decision. I think this is a one-way door decision, and what makes that that for me is that it requires a substantial investment in time and cost to change what we submit, right? So, you know, the concept of good versus great, I get that, but we have to have something in my opinion that is maybe less piecemeal and more substantive and all-encompassing that clearly defines where we have differences and where we claim differences on a local control level versus general defaults to general law. And I think as we've gone through these sections, specifically the finance section, essentially what we've done is we've defaulted to how we do things today. So that's my concern, is that this is less of a, like, we go in and we can make the adjustments type thing. Because of the investment required in changing this thing over time, I think it's more of a one-way door decision. And we have to, in my opinion, present something that has a more developed and detailed specific impact on how we are claiming local control and how we're different than general law. So that's how I feel about this one. You know, again, I love the idea. I just don't think we have a product to bring forward.

Thank you for considering it. You've been part of the discussion since day one. If you wanted it more depth, you could have it more depth. If you look back at the first draft I submitted, it's very different than where we are right now, because I can count to four, and I know what I can get away with. What I want most of all is a tool for this city for this not to happen again. The seven of us are bound by what happened to us. We didn't create it, and I'm not blaming anybody. We were told one day, guess what? You're $30 million in debt. And that started at the beginning of all of our terms. And it's a cold slap in the face. And that, to me, means things have to change in the city. And change is harder in Orange than in any other city. And what I'm trying to offer, even when I throw out these things that everybody said no to, selling water, selling this, doing that, I just want to get it out there and say, let's talk about it. Let's talk about these things. A charter is a tool. That's strictly all it is, is a tool on how we govern ourselves. It's also a flexible tool. It means we don't have to just rely on what the state tells us, that we also can rely on ourselves and our voters to tell us how they want to be governed. That's all it is. There's no agenda. I didn't do anything to get anything. I'm not getting anything out of it. Got a lot of grief out of it. But it is what it is. If you don't want to vote for it, we're still friends. And I appreciate you listening. But you were part of this process, just like everybody else. And you could have, you know, asked to add things or delete things. I mean, Chip Allsweet of all people called and had some great ideas. And he's not part of this council. A lot of people have called with different ideas on how to do things. Is it perfect? No, nothing in this world is, and nothing definitely in politics is. What I am offering or what I'd like to offer the voters is, number one, a chance. If you don't like it, you don't have to vote for it. That's OK. That's the way it works. If you do like it, if you want something different in the city, then the same old thing going over and over, and the same old people serving on this council over and over, and $30 million coming in debt, and people saying they solved it eight years ago when it was never solved, and all this other stuff, then keep doing the same things. That's the definition of insanity. Thank you.

Council Member Dimitri.

Thank you, Mayor. First, thank you, Council Member Tavalaris. This has been your passion project for the last couple years. I know you've been working very tough, very hard on it. You know, it doesn't miss me that the founders, when they drafted a constitution, it's been changed a few times, adding amendments and making changes as the time goes on, as things change. But I'm supporting this really for a couple reasons, but one of the big ones is when we had the sales tax vote, there were items within that that some of us agreed to, some of us didn't agree to, but in the end, it was we're letting the voters decide, and it was pushed forward, and I know very specifically that Councilmember Tavares voted to support going to the voters specifically because it was being left with the voters to make this decision. We're putting something out, as Reggie Mundica said, because we're Americans, let us vote. I think that was, even though she's against it, was a key thing, was let the people vote. That's all we're asking is put it out there, let them vote, make a decision, However that decision lands, that's it. Then that discussion's done. And it is done on, Mayor Pro Tem, when's the election? Is it November 2nd? November 3rd. And then November 4th, we're done with it. either direction for now.

Unless the count takes a while.

Yeah, unless the count takes a while. But, you know, Council Member Tavares has worked very hard on it. I've continued to support her in her efforts and support the efforts to allow people to have a voice in the future of our city, and I think this is something that's valued in the end, and so I'll continue to support it.

And I'll just chime in that I think there's a lot of good in this charter proposal that will help the city in the long term. And so for that reason, I am also going to support it. And if there's no further discussion, I will call for the final vote on the charter. Motion has been made by Council Member Tavelera, seconded by Council Member Dimitriou. Last and final, any further discussion? All right. Please vote.

Mayor, I just need clarification. That is to adopt resolution number 11707.

Correct. It's the first resolution 11707.

Mayor, would you like me to just run through all of the changes that we had? I haven't tracked changes just to make sure everyone is going to be okay. Okay. Okay. So we had no changes to section 204, and you'll see the track changes as we come up on here. I removed option one. We're moving with option two. This language was just a description of the language that would be presented to the voters, so that was removed. And then option three is removed. Eligibility, nothing has been changed. Application of term limits, nothing has been changed. We removed the original language on property rights protection measure, but I did include the TOT exception here, and the formatting we will adjust. We are removing structurally from here. We removed the second sentence here. The one thing I may want to ask the council, since we removed structurally here, would you like staff to remove that terminology elsewhere in the section just to be consistent?

Yeah, that works structurally, yeah. Okay. In the Y, of course, structurally.

Okay.

And right after Section 801, I think you didn't strike out the Y in structurally.

Oh, yes.

There we go.

Okay, so it's been removed. This has been removed in its entirety. And those are all the changes.

Mr. Morgan, Section 804 now becomes your new 803.

Yeah, we'll make those adjustments.

Everyone clear? Yes. Yes, Council Member Gutierrez. No, but unfortunately. Council Member Barrios, would you change your opinion if we did change the terms to what the motion was supposed to have been? Would you support the charter? I know, I'm just asking.

I think I wasn't quite clear. Well, yes, I could get there on the terms. My actual issue about not voting for this right now has to do with the timing against the other things we've brought forward. We've done a lot of hard work. I don't think it's a bad idea. I think we need more time to get there, and that's really what it comes down to for me at the end of the day.

Thank you. I just want to clarify. All right, let's vote. That is approved four to three with council members Barrios, Gutierrez, and Gillenhammer voting no. Okay, we have one more resolution. That is 11708, and that's who would be taking the leadership on writing the ballot proposal and obtaining signatures. Council Member Tavaleras, I'm assuming you would probably like responsibility for that. Any other council members like to join her? Yeah, I'll sign on. Okay. So motion is for council members. Is that the motion, Council Member Tavaleras, that you would be the head of... and Councilmember Demetriou would be, okay? Everyone understand the motion? Okay, Councilmember Tavaleras would be the lead, Councilmember Demetriou would help assist her, or they both actually would be. Please vote.

Mayor Slater, are you making the motion? Who's making the motion?

Councilmember Tavaleras, are you making the motion? Yeah.

Okay.

Please vote. Approved four to three with Council Members Barrios, Gutierrez, and Gillenhammer voting no. All right, Council, we did it. The next regular City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 at 6 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Closed session began at 5 p.m. If necessary, we are adjourned.