Orange City Council - Regular Meeting

Calling the regular city council meeting of August 25th, 2026 to order. If you have not already done so, please silence your cell phones at this time. And I am to announce that we are welcoming those that are in person in the chamber and those participating remotely. We'll begin tonight with an invocation led by Pastor Rob Carrington of Orange Villa Bible Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Gilenhammer. Please stand.

Let's pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight to acknowledge your authority and to thank you for the opportunity to bring our prayers before you. We are thankful for this great city and all it stands for. We thank you for our elected officials and city employees that serve this city. We thank you for the many groups that work to make this a great place to live. And so on behalf of a grateful community, we ask for your blessings on your public servants. We thank you for rising up leaders committed to a greater good. And may we be reminded that we are to pray and support our representatives. And as to the past, we thank you for the foresight, the wisdom of our pioneer leaders who laid the foundation for this community and envisioned the success we now live. We thank you for the men and women who have toiled not only for the progress of our prosperity, but also the quality of our character. And so for this day, we pray for wisdom to mediate between commissioner and petitioner. The challenges they face are enormous. Their work is important and their agenda is full. Grant them insight as they steward our precious resources. Give them understanding and wise judgment as they must make difficult choices among competing priorities. Show our leaders how to preserve the best of the past, yet build a future for the generation to come. In the same way they stand with all and respect on the shoulders of those who precede them, may all who follow in their footsteps in the same way honor them. We have no doubt that you have elevated these men and women to leadership, for such a time as this. We praise the name of Christ.

Amen. 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.

Thank you, Pastor. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

Present.

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

Present.

Council Member Tavalares. Here. Council Member Gutierrez. Here. Council Member Gillenhammer.

Here.

Mayor Slater.

Here.

Ed Quorum is present.

Tonight we have a presentation that has become a traditional thing we do for the month of September. A proclamation recognizes September 2026 as Hunger Action Month. Tonight we have Mike Lioracos with CEO of Abound Food Care and Jenny Collette, Manager of Public Affairs at Orange County United Way to accept the proclamation and Council Member Gutierrez will read it.

Thank you. So this is a proclamation honoring 2026 Hunger Action Month. Whereas hunger and poverty are issues of vital concern in California, where 22% of California households and 27% of households with children experience food insecurity and do not know where their next meal will come from. And whereas everyone needs nutritious food to thrive and people are working hard to provide for themselves and their families. Yet over 387,000 individuals, including over 112,000 children, that is one in six children, here in Orange County are food insecure. And whereas the City of Orange is committed to taking steps to combat hunger in every part of our community and to provide additional resources that those in our community need. And whereas the City of Orange is committed to working with the Orange County Hunger Alliance and educating people about the role and importance of food banks and food care in addressing hunger and raising awareness of the need to devote more resources and attention to hunger issues. And whereas in 2025, Orange County Food Bank and Second Harvest Food Bank collectively recorded an average of 808,473 individual food distribution visits per month from our community members facing food insecurity and distributed 72,837,548 pounds through their partner networks of food pantries at senior citizens, a senior center, sorry, schools, colleges, universities, houses of worship, soup kitchens, shelters, and other community organizations. And whereas Abound Food Care helps to facilitate the recovery of more than 25 million pounds of excess edible food in Orange County, each year, reducing food waste and diverting the food to those who need it. And whereas the month of September has been designated as Hunger Action Month in order to bring attention to food insecurity in our communities and to enlist the public in the movement to end hunger by taking action, including volunteering, donating, and advocating to ensure every community and everybody in it has the food they need to thrive. And whereas food banks and other organizations across the country including the members of Orange County Hunger Alliance, will host events throughout the month of September to bring awareness and help end food insecurity in our local community. Now, therefore, Dan Slater, Mayor of the City of Orange, do hereby recognize September 2026 as Hunger Action Month in the City of Orange and call this observance to the attention of our residents, dated this 25th day of August 2026. And are they here to receive the proclamation?

I see Mike and Jenny. If you'd please like to come forward and...

You want to all come down?

Or don't want me just to take it? You are welcome to. Great job.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate it. There you go. Thank you. Let's get a photograph.

Thank you, Mike and Jenny, for all you do. All right, it is time for public comments. Ask the city clerk how many public comments are in so far.

We have 20 public speakers so far.

Did you say 20? 20.

Okay.

That will make this decision a little easier. 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 this evening, due to the amount, are limited to three minutes, I'm sorry, two minutes per speaker. Unless a different time limit is announced, it will be two minutes. 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'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 the in-person speakers, the first one up is Kurt Peterson, followed by Pilar Gutierrez Lucero. And if the next speaker could make their way toward the front and be ready to go, that would be great. Mr. Peterson.

good evening i'm speaking on behalf of wendy raglan my longtime friend who couldn't make it tonight she states last week i received a formal letter from the city clerk's office directing me to remove a stylized city of orange graphic from the city of orange political forum and to stop using the city's name in the forum title frankly i found that extraordinary the city of orange political forum exists for political discussion, civic engagement, and public oversight of local, state, and federal government. The title simply identifies the subject of the discussion. We discuss City of Orange politics, so the forum is called the City of Orange Political Forum. The city clerk based her demand on Orange Municipal Code 1.12. While I understand the city's interest in protecting its official seal and logos, I do not believe that the interest extends to dictating how residents identify or discuss their government in private political forum. I complied with the request because I had no interest in turning a Facebook graphic into a dispute with City Hall. My compliance should not be mistaken for agreement. What concerns me is the president. A municipal ordinance intended to protect official city identifiers should not be used in a manner that reaches into a private forum dedicated to political discussion and civic participation. Residents should not receive government demand letters for engaging in discussion about their local government. I'm asking for the council to review the chapter 1.12, to review how the chapter 1.12 is being interpreted and applied to the formal, and to formally retract the city's letter. Political speech, civic engagement, and public oversight are not problems to be managed. They are essential parts of local government. Thank you.

Thank you, Kurt. Following Pilar is Kevin New.

Good evening. This is a public comment on the 2411 North Glassell Street warehouse. I'm not here to oppose to it. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Pilar Gutierrez Lucero, and I'm here as a resident to ask you to stop the proposed warehouse project at 2411 North Warehouse Street. I understand that the city has an interest in economic development, new businesses, jobs, and additional revenue. I also understand that the developer may believe this project makes economic sense. But tonight, I ask you to consider a different question. Does this project make sense for the people who have to live next to it? The proposal is for a nearly 299,000 square foot industrial warehouse with 36 loading dockets operating in an area where homes are approximately 54 feet from the project boundary. This is not an abstract development somewhere far away from a neighborhood. This is a massive industrial operation being placed immediately next to people's homes. And the consequences will not be temporary. If this warehouse is approved and built, residents will live with its impacts for decades. We are talking about increased traffic, diesel emissions, noise, nighttime activity, lighting, and the cumulative effects of industrial operations immediately adjacent to the homes. The health issue alone should make all of us stop and think. People cannot choose not to breathe the air outside their homes. They cannot choose their ears to track noise every night. They cannot simply move their homes farther away from an industrial facility once it has been built. And children cannot make that choice either. The city has identified air quality noise, transportation, and cumulative effect as issues requiring environmental review for this project. South Coast AQMD also submitted formal comments on the sitting environmental document. I respectfully ask you to look beyond the financial benefit of this project and consider the responsibility you will carry if it is approved. Please choose the health, safety, and long-term well-being of Orange Racing. Please deny this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Pilar. After Kevin is Rachel Rolnicki.

Good evening. I live in the neighborhood next to the 2411 North Glassell project coming up. Here's what's changed this week. A 298,980 square foot industrial building running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The nearest bedroom, 54 feet from the property line. Fletcher Academy is a quarter mile away inside. The distance California law flags for schools. The children who walk there live in those bedrooms. 24 hours a day means backup alarms at 2 in the morning, 54 feet from a child's window. The city's own environmental document puts the cancer risk at nearest home at 10.7 in a million before mitigation. The threshold is 10. Significant one measure, cleaner construction equipment brings it to 9.48. That's how it became less significant, by half a point. The version they analyzed has five loading docs. The same document shows a second version with 36. The numbers I just gave you are the five-doc version. Rexford has confirmed in writing that they're building the 36-doc version, not the five. Our regional air district called that marginally high sensitive to its assumptions, starting with a fire pump modeled at 50 hours a year that can run four times that. The city told the city to rerun it. Those documents exist tonight. If the September 10th hearing holds, the public first sees them September 3rd, seven days over Labor Day weekend. Ask your staff tonight why we can't see them now. Yesterday in writing, the city refused to reopen the comment period. Nothing changed. It says about the documents no one has read. If the commission approves this September 10th, it's finished. Never reaches you guys unless a resident pays to appeal it. So I'm telling you tonight, while it's free, my neighbors have stood here before. We'll be back September 8th, and if we have to, we'll pay for the privilege to stand here again. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you, Kevin. Following Rachel is Andrew. Gregorian?

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Rachel Rolnicki. I want to speak with you with urgency tonight about Rexford Industrial Realty's proposed trucking warehouse at 2411 Glassell and explain why my neighbors and I are strongly opposed to this project. I'm a District 3 homeowner in North Orange, and I live just 80 feet from the proposed development site. This is not an abstract issue for my family. My husband and I have a one-year-old daughter. We chose this neighborhood because we plan to raise our family here. But this project is forcing us to seriously question what the future of our neighborhood will look like. Rexford is proposing to demolish the existing office warehouse park at Glassell and Fletcher and replace it with a nearly $300,000 square foot warehouse with 36 truck bays operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This will be built directly next to homes and a quarter mile from Fletcher Elementary. The impact of that level of trucking activity would be enormous. More heavy truck mean more emissions, more noise, more traffic, more wear on our city streets, and more danger for the people who already live there. My neighbors and I would be breathing the same pollution from those trucks every day, and so would the approximately 500 children attending Fletcher Elementary. Parents navigating the streets around the school should not also have to contend with the large, constant stream of trucks traveling through the same corridor. Fletcher may be one day my daughter's school, and we don't want to face this. And this does not stop when the school day ends. Rexford is proposing operations throughout the night, on weekends, and every day of the year. Residents living beside this property would be expected to endure truck activity noise and sleep disruptions 24 hours a day. This is not the Orange way, and I want to be very clear, we are not asking for better conditions, reduced hours, or small concessions that attempt to make an inappropriate project less harmful. The fundamental problem is the location and use itself. Orange should not make our neighborhood the precedent for placing intensive trucking operations beside established homes and near an elementary school. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Rachel. Following Andrew is Darcy DeCastro.

Hello, my name is Andrew Goyen. I'm a fourth generation Orange County resident, and I'm here today to talk about the flock cameras in Orange. This has been a massive topic going, I mean, around the U.S. currently, and the issue with them is that there is no oversight into these cameras being placed and how they are used. They are collecting massive amounts of data of where people are going and Logging it and allowing for people in other states and other jurisdictions to see where people are going. There is a story of a man in Florida stalking his ex-wife 717 times. That is a police officer, a sworn police officer that was stalking his wife with these cameras. There is another issue where flock themselves have been known to look at pools. and children's gymnastic rooms while trying to show off the capabilities of flock cameras. These are dangerous for our community for a multitude of reasons. I know that I'm uncomfortable knowing that they are here because they have been upgraded multiple times to be able to ping Bluetooth off your phone and get a data scrape of what's on your phone and your information. These cameras aren't to be used by anyone, not just who has access to them and police can use them, But anyone... the police can use them, and they don't need a warrant. I feel like that is just completely un-American. And it goes back to what George Orwell warned about in his book, 1984. It is mass surveillance. And in this country, we, I believe, have a right to not be stalked from place to place. If someone was following you from your home to your job and then back, you would call the police. Why is a camera that is logging that same data and sending it to a massive corporation any different? Just because it is a corporation that is working with the government, there is no oversight. And these cameras are dangerous for our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew. Following Darcy is Sharon Edlin.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Darcy DeCastro. I've lived in Hartman Street since 1990, 36 years in the same house. I know this isn't your item tonight. You aren't voting on anything. It goes to your planning commission of September 10th. I came anyway because by the time it reaches you, if it reaches you, it will be too late to say quietly. Three offices and a parking lot, that's what's there now. What's proposed is a building about the size of five football fields open around the clock, with the nearest bedroom 54 feet from the fence. Three things, and I'll be brief. The trees. There are 282 on that property. The plan takes 232 of them. The city's own study says birds may nest in those trees. The protection it offers is a biologist walking the site before the saws start, deciding on the spot how much room to leave. No distance, no number, nothing anyone could enforce. The nights. Ours is a quiet neighborhood. It is quiet at night and has been for 46 years. Others will give you the air quality numbers tonight. I won't repeat them. I'll tell you what the noise study assumed instead. Three loading docks in use at one time. A version of that same building in that same document has 36. And the children. This will change the neighborhood the children here are growing up in. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Darcy. Following Sharon Edlin is Allison Telford.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I represent St. Mary Magdalene Church located at the corner of Almond and Glassell. We are asking to be placed on the next agenda to consider allowing the church to participate in a parking permit program with the other residents along Almond Street. We are asking that you give us the same consideration that you have with those residents. We are not a retail store or a restaurant. We are a house of God. Since 1982, we have lived across from the plaza. At that time, the city desired to have someone take over a rundown old building that was co-located with a historical building. When the church purchased the building, there was a mutual understanding that the city would assist the church as parking. with parking as needed because of the small lot size. In 1982, the city had very few restaurants, was not open on Sundays, so I am speculating that there was no need for a written agreement. Today, things are much different. We are suffering from a loss of available parking near us, and that is why I'm here. We are not asking for free parking. We are not asking for you to consider us as an exception. We have been an exception since 1982. There is no city employee that is identified that I know of to speak on or to talk to about exceptions. We are now asking for your thoughtful consideration in this matter by placing us on the next month's agenda. Thank you so much for hearing us.

Thank you, Sharon. Following Alison Telford is Chloe Flannery.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Alison Telford, and I wanted to be an additional voice to encourage the preservation of the roller skating community and history in Orange by preserving Holiday Skate Center. As I reflect on my skating journey that started at Holiday Skate Center in the 90s, I think about the community and history of Holiday Skate Center that I believe extends to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other skaters impacted by Holiday Skate Center throughout the last 53 years. RollerSkin offers a community that allows people to strengthen bonds while also making new connections, helping to protect from loneliness. The US Surgeon General's 2023 advisory about loneliness and isolation quantified the danger of loneliness, stating that people who are socially disconnected face up to 29% higher risk of premature death. A Cigna report from 2020 has estimated that loneliness could cost the US economy over $406 billion a year. Holiday Skate Center helps prevent loneliness. Skaters help each other up or teach each other new skills, even if they don't know each other. Everyone is looking out for one another. And skaters who are once strangers become acquaintances, friends, or even family. And I feel like there is multiple people in my family here tonight. Skating in the Holiday Skate Center gives people a chance to be part of something bigger. I'm grateful to have heard so many stories from the community that come to these city council meetings and at the rink that showcase the rich history and legacy of Holiday Skate Center and prove that it's not just a building, but a piece of Orange history. These stories range from those who worked at the rink to those who competed to those who attended or hosted birthday parties, school events, nonprofit events, filming, fundraisers, or day camps, even those who met their spouse there. It's also a multi-generational community where grandparents can skate with their grandkids, and it's multi-generational. It's a beautiful place, and I hope when you have the opportunity to make a decision that you help balance the protection of this community and historical asset with the landowners' desires. Thank you.

Thank you, Allison. Following Chloe is Betsy McEnate.

Good evening. I would like to take this opportunity to read a short speech written by Dr. Viet Tran, a professor at Ohio State University, about flock cameras. I will begin now. Flock is a dystopian violation of our rights. And what I mean by that is that it inverts the very nature of how police are supposed to function. In traditional investigations, a crime is supposed to happen first. And then detectives are supposed to identify a list of plausible suspects. And then those suspects are placed under investigation. But under Flock, we are all, everybody in this room, every day, at every time, when we get into our cars, under investigation at all times for all crimes. When a crime actually does occur, the police have a list of pre-investigated suspects. That's you, that's me, that's everybody in this room who gets in a car, that is everybody in the city. Today, our constitutional rights, especially our Fourth Amendment rights, are flagrantly violated every single day as a matter of regular government policy. The primary argument for investing in Flock is that it lets us investigate crimes. Flock lets us prevent crimes. But it's my position that this is actually a misnomer. Despite what others have said here, Flock does not investigate crimes at all. It is not a tool for investigating crimes, and that misnomer has apparently confused several people. Flock is, at its very foundation, a tool for investigating pre-crimes. Not crimes, but pre-crimes. We can have Flock and preserve our civil liberties. This is a misnomer. We can make this technology work for us. This is a misnomer. We just need to install more safeguards. The very nature of this technology is that it cannot be reformed or regulated or managed. It is investigating pre-crime. This is not about efficiency. This is not about technological process. This is about taking shortcuts that will be detrimental to our most vulnerable populations in Orange, not the least of which young women and our migrant communities. Please reconsider the flock cameras in Orange, California. Thank you.

Thank you, Chloe. Following Betsy is Rickles.

My name is Betsy McEnany, and I live a literal stone's throw from the proposed warehouse at 2411 North Glassell. I stand in solidarity tonight with many families in the neighborhood to speak against the project as proposed. According to the warehouse city database maintained by the Redford Institute and Pitzer College, there are nine operational warehouses in the city of Orange.

None of them

are adjacent to residential neighborhoods, and only two of the warehouses are bigger than the proposed project, and they're quite old. Existing warehouses have easy access to the 57 highway without passing by family homes. This new proposal puts a completely unfair burden on hundreds of families living near North Glassell. with 36 diesel truck berets operating 24-7, and a projected 810 additional trips down Glassell per day. It's ridiculous for the city to claim that the additional air pollution, noise, and safety concerns won't significantly affect our lives and health. Among other threats, the city's draft mitigated negative report showed an estimated cancer risk that exceeds regional standards, but cynically offered a mere tweak to the project that nudges the estimated impact just below the threshold. That's not acceptable. And it leaves us questioning the city's commitment to protect us. We're asking that you insist on a full environmental impact report that uses realistic, current, and transparent assumptions to model the impact of the proposed project. There is far too much on the line for the families in my neighborhood to accept an overly rosy and superficial analysis. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Betsy. Following Rick Olson is Faith Shimono.

Greetings, Mayor, Council, city staff, and citizens. My name is Rick Olson, and I bring news. You're a 250-minute man this year from the Sons of the American Revolution. My most important report is that on July 4th, the Continental Congress indeed approved the Declaration of Independence. For the support of this declaration with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge each of other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Each of these 56 delegates from the 13 colleagues signed knowing the consequences if our cause failed. Indeed, many of them paid the price. On July 8, the bells rang throughout Philadelphia, calling the citizens to the Pennsylvania State Building for a public reading of the Declaration. The State House Bell became the most famous bell to ring that day. Twenty-six earlier, it was cast with a verse from the Book of Leviticus that came true. That day proclaimed liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants. The next day, General Washington read the Declaration to the assembled military in New York. Soon after, the crowds gathered around the statue of King George III, melted it down, and turned its led into thousands of bullets to fight, ironically, his very own army. George Washington reminded us, it is one thing to proclaim independence, it is quite another to earn it. We have begun the long fight to win the freedoms we have dreamed of, And in all the decades and centuries of our future, the citizens will need to earn it, not only defending our freedom from outside armies, but from internal conflicts as well. Thomas Jefferson said, understood this and warned Americans will soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess or assume. The public money, the public liberty will soon be discovered as sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them. Congress should look forward to a time, and that is not a distant one, When corruption in this, as in the country which we drive our freedom from, will be seized at the heads of government and be spread among them through the body of the people, when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time is guarded. Benjamin Franklin closed and said, we have a republic if we can keep it. Thank you, Rick.

Nice uniform. Following Faith is Sarah Chen Call.

Hello, I'm here to oppose the rezoning of Holiday Skate Center. There's about 20 of us here, and we've all been skating there a very long time. I personally have lived in this city for about 23 years, and Holiday has definitely been a part of all those 23 years. I was really planning on making it the rest of my life, but it's kind of up to you guys. So I really hope you do not rezone Holiday Skate Center. I'd really like to keep skating there with all my friends and my family now. And Alison Telford has pretty much said it all. I echo everything that she says. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Kay. Following Sarah is Eric Knapp.

Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak about Holiday Skate Center. Roller skating first gained popularity in the U.S. during the Great Depression. For 50 years, Holiday Skate Center has become more than a building, it's a community. My argument is simple. Where in Orange County can a family of four spend an entire afternoon together for less than $100? Holiday Skate Center is one of the last answers to that question. When families walk through that door, something remarkable happens. It doesn't matter what neighborhood you're from, how old you are, what language you speak, what you believe, or how much money you have. People come together, they laugh, they skate, they belong. That kind of place cannot be recreated on a zoning map. We all want affordable housing in Orange County. But affordable housing without affordable living is an incomplete promise. Will families move here if they can only put a roof over their heads? You cannot build a thriving community with just walls. I ask you to protect Holiday Skate Center zoning, our community, and a piece of American culture. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. Following Eric is Jane Holiday Sussleman.

Hi, my name is Eric, and I'm a former DJ over at Holiday Skate. And before I get started, I'd like to see a group of skaters who came here. If they could stand up. Come on, guys. Stand on up. These are some of the faces that you'll see if you ever go down to skate at Holiday, which is no longer in existence. And that's up to you, as Faith says, to keep from rezoning that particular area. I've been in the sport for over 50 years. I remember back in Orange County in the 80s and 90s when we had 10 rinks here. Now we're going to be down to one, Fountain Valley. That's it. Holiday has been my home for the last 17 years. I watch people like Natalie over there. Natalie, stand up. Natalie is a seven-year-old young lady who's blossomed to a beautiful, beautiful butterfly. And she's always been my favorite. And some of those things that I really enjoy When I go into skate or into DJ, the smiles, the laughter, people you've never met before becoming friends, I always consider it like a sanctuary. It's a place where people can go no matter what your color is, what your disposition is, your politics. It makes no difference. You walk in the door, you throw on a pair of skates, and you're having a good time no matter what. I'm sure that's going to happen. Yeah, I know there is still one rink left to go to, but I hope you guys will vote to not rezone that particular area and keep holiday going. And I'd love to be able to DJ for you guys, too, if you come back and skate. I'd really enjoy that. As they know, I really enjoyed a lot, and yeah, that's pretty much it. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric. Following Jane is Tammy Depot. Be sure to pull the microphone. There you go. All right.

Hi, my name is Jane and I'm here to talk about Holiday Skate Rink. Holiday Skate Rink has been a home. And when I was little, my sister Sadie, she kept going there. And I really, really wanted to go, but I couldn't roller skate. So when I grow up and Sadie was going to go to Holiday Skate Rink, My mom asked, do you want to go? And I was like, yeah. And then I was so excited. And then I got to go. And then I had the best time ever. And then I kept continuing going on there. And I got funner and funner. And now I'm doing lessons with Natalie. And it's really fun. She's teaching me really cool tricks. And she's a great teacher. And so... Just save Holiday Skate Center and don't rezone it, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Jane. Following Tammy is Natalie Chen.

Hi, my name is Tammy and I'm speaking for the second time. I hope you all are doing well today. I would like to speak about what Holiday Skate Center means to me and my kids and all of us here today. Holiday is a place where we find happiness. The music plays. It's just you and your skates. You're in a different world of just leaving all your cares behind. You're on this rink and it just, it helps you in every single way. We all face struggles. You know, there's teenagers out there that need a place to go to. They're on the streets. I pick up teenagers every week when I go. And we have such a blast there. And echoing what Eric said. Thank you, Eric. He makes it fun for everybody. Every single Tuesday we go there and it's just a place where we find so much happiness. We could be at work, you know, struggling with something. We go to the rink, we leave it there. Our cell phones go in the lockers. It's just us, our friends, having such a great time. I'm a librarian for Anaheim City School District and a student walked in last week and said, Hi, Mr. Poto. I saw you skating at the rink with all your friends. You were having such a great time. Everybody was having such a great time. And he didn't know the rink was going to close. And I had to tell him. And he was actually in tears. So he just started skating there. And he would like to continue skating there, he said. My son, when he was seven, he sprained his hand. And I had to take him to the doctor. And he said, I'm never going to go on to Holiday Skate Center again. Up to this day, he's going to be 18 next month. And he just wants to skate like never before and enjoy skating. like all we do, skating every week, please keep this rink open and consider the rezoning. It means a lot to us and all of our family here. Thank you.

Thank you, Tammy. Following Natalie is Maggie Sesselman.

Hello, mayor and council members. I'm here to talk about the rezoning of Holiday Skate Center. Currently, the landowners are asking to rezone the property to make townhomes. We have a over 50-year-old roller skating rink sitting on that property. I'm here to talk about not rezoning it because of the amazing life it has provided me, and I know it provides to all these kids like Jane and Maggie. I started there when I was six years old. And I stepped onto that floor and absolutely hated it. I wanted to get off as fast as possible. And I talked to the chaperone, and he said, I need to skate around the whole rink in order to get off. And by the time I got around the rink, I fell in love with it. And I went home and told my mom about it, and I was so excited. Usually I don't remember these field trips, the names of the places. I made sure to memorize the name, Holiday Skate Center, ingrained into my brain so I could go there. And she brought me the very next day, and I've been going there for lessons every week since. And now this has led to an 18-year-long artistic roller skating career and has allowed me to represent Team Yosei, Several times. And that is quite insane to see a little kid who was afraid of putting skates on has now got to represent her country. This opportunity, because I went on this field trip, it has allowed me to work with Chanel, HBO Max, Diana Ross, Nile Rodgers, and Usher. All because of this one field trip I took. Now, roller skating might seem just like a little hobby, but this is a place where people feel at home. I was bullied in school, like I told you guys last meeting, and it allowed me to find my friends of all ages. Like Eric, I got to meet him, and he was DJing there, and he was doing the throwbacks night, and I did not know any throwback music when I was eight years old. I thought YMCA was it. So I'll tell you more about that next time.

Thank you, Natalie. After Maggie is Gloria Ranallo.

I'm here to talk about Holiday Skate. Holiday Skate is my second home. I've been skating there for a very long time, and I've been learning new tricks, new stuff, and a lot, and I just got a lesson today. And if I have all those tricks, I don't know where to, like, do them, and because... Every day I think about holiday skate closing and I'm like, what am I going to do if holiday skate closes? I'm going to have to find a new subject. And then the thing that I will find, I won't really find because I'll keep thinking about holiday skate. That's the one thing I want to do. And I want it to keep going, so just don't rezone holiday skate. It's really, really a home to me.

Thank you. Thank you, Maggie. Following Gloria is Kevin Reyes.

Hello, good evening. My name is Gloria Ranallo, and I'm here to oppose the giant warehouse that's in consideration on the corner of Fletcher and Glassell. I live across the street, just on the two houses from the project. My husband and I have lived there for 32 years. We raised our children there. We went to Fletcher Elementary and Villa Park schools And we've been proud Orange residents forever. We love Orange. So when this project arose, we thought, OK, I'll give them a chance. Let's see. We're always pro-improvement. And it sounded OK until we started like, asking questions. And those questions were just vaguely answered. And then as we probed it a little bit more, then we discovered, hey, this is not what they're talking about, this, like, six-bay project and only certain hours and yada, yada. And I thought, I feel deceived. And I feel like, no, I don't want the pollution. I don't want the noise. It's just... too much for our families and our children and the future. It's like we haven't, in that area, there's a lot of, it is zoned commercial. And because of that, we're gonna add more. I'm just going, what's going on with us here? And let's look after our families. Let's look after each other. And that's what I feel is important. Yes, you know, improvement is great, but we need to look for each other. And I find this just kind of disappointing that someone would let that happen to us. So that's my piece.

Thank you. Following Kevin, we have a remote speaker.

Dear City Council, Mayor Slater, owners of the land, everyone watching, and anyone with an ear to hear. I come bearing support for approving a Heritage Commission, a proposal for an Environmental Commission to create a report for warehouses in Glassell, to oppose the rezoning of the land on which Holiday stands, and to request that a redlined version of all city meeting agendas be provided to the public from this point forth. A Heritage Commission will help the city government become a certified local government, which will help it gain access to funding provided by the California State Parks Department. or provide a report to the City Council much like the Planning Commission. The scope of the Heritage Commission will be preserving cultural significance, which is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. And if it were co-opted by Confederate, white supremacist, racist, fascist, or colonizing agents and forces, that a clause already be built in to overthrow it, much like the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Don't cut off the pursuit of happiness from Orange. One possibility of this pursuit is becoming the birthplace of Olympic artistic roller skating. What is required is a wooden rink like Holiday. Don't tear it down. Instead, get funding to refurbish it. If not Holiday, build a new wooden floor because everyone else is not the same. Mayor Slater, as a skateboarder, you know that there's nothing more frustrating than having someone snake your line. We already have a wooden floor. Why demolish it? If we do, it is an action we cannot take back. For what good is salt if it loses its saltiness? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as useless. Preserve the wooden floor for holiday. Preserve holiday. Approve of a heritage commission. Become a CLG. Consider an environmental commission. Provide us redlined versions of all council meetings. Oppose the rezoning and Advocate for what is left of the American dream. This one is for Dolly Parton. Rest in peace, Dolly Parton. This one's for you. Thank you, guys, and may the best man win.

Thank you, Kevin. We have a remote speaker, and congratulations. You are our very first remote speaker since COVID. Who is that?

It's caller... Caller with ending 6264.

Okay. You're on. You have two minutes. Yes.

okay hi my name is leslie and i'm the resident of cluston i'm calling you to the call for thought security in your city i've been able to solidify my instruction at city council for allowing these events to take place in the city i've been discriminately watching everyone without possible cause i'm certain you're already aware of events from a press that block an a.m and we're going to talk about where i'm sitting on right now if you are a public servant Uh, you use your public services to protect the crime scene. They give the people to do something else to protect. No amount of what they say you're going to take from this. And then we'll find out what competition you have in your city this far. But again, we are getting from the public to allow us to come to light. as it has happened in Tufts and Coates and Mesa and Fullerton. They're going to be next when the residents start to dig to see where you have failed them. When you sign your name for the money, when you decided it was fun, then all that money was lost to those actually big and educated ones that I really need to actually want them when I'm here in the community. And an important question again is, is the Orange City Council for the people or did they then leave for corporations like Auburn instead? Thank you.

Thank you. All right, that ends the public comments. Next is the consent calendar. I'll start with my colleagues. Does anyone have any items they'd like to pull for discussion or questions? Council Mayor Barrios.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to pull 3.3, 3.5, and 3.8. I think that was it. Yes, those are the only ones. Thanks.

Any other of my colleagues? Do we have any ones that we need to pull from the public?

Yes, Mayor. We received speaker cards for item 3.3 and 3.10.

Okay. We have a motion to approve the balance from Council Member Dimitriou. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Gillenhammer. Any discussion on the Remaining items? Seeing none, call for the vote. Approved unanimously. Okay. Item 3.3, agreement and appropriation of $87,182 in grant funding received for fiscal year 2025 operation Stone Garden Grant Program. Council Member Barrios.

I have to make a disclosure real quick. Sure. I have to just disclose for the public record that the administrator of this grant is my employer. It's the grant division. I am in a different division, which I receive no income, I receive no benefit, financial interest within the award or the distribution of funds. Thank you.

Council Member Barrios.

Yes, first I want to thank the city manager and the chief for providing additional information to both myself and Councilmember Gutierrez, but I have a number of additional questions that I'm going to try to get through without coughing, so I'm going to ask for the chief to head on up. And while you make your way up, obviously it's no secret about how I feel about some of the departments with which we're working with and the takes of those federal operations. So I went through this very, very carefully. And there were still a lot of things that weren't obviously transparent. For example, while it was clear that how OPD would use the grant in terms of administrative oversight, overtime pay, and body armor, it was not clear to me at all what operations you would actually be doing or would be done under the auspices of this grant.

Well, good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. We do have a staff report with Lieutenant Mancini that I think would be helpful because it will cover a majority of the operational questions like what will this look like? Who's in charge? All of those type of questions. Before we did that, I just want to lay out just so you understand the police department's position on this. The item you have before you is a consideration of entering into the agreement with the US Department of Homeland Security through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, also known as OES, for Operation Stone Garden. Our interest in this grant is to fulfill the specific direction of this council to each department to find new ways to fund their priorities given the state of the city's budget. There was a statement from the council to look in the couch for cushions for money. We are constantly looking at grants to ensure we are able to meet all of our priorities. In addition to this grant, two additional grants through ABC and OTS were on the agenda. Our top priority is service to our community and providing public safety. We do that in several ways, including the disruption of drug suppliers and traffickers. We believe that Operation Stone Garden provides the funding for us to manage this priority. Because I'm certain this will come up, I'll say the following and I've said it before but I'll keep repeating it like a broken record. The Orange Police Department does not enforce immigration. We follow state law and department policy which prohibits it. We can't break the law to enforce the law. We would not enter into an agreement that would put us into a position where we would knowingly break the law just to receive funding. Language specifically mentioned, In this grant to enforce local and state laws subject to the California Values Act, also known as SB54, and prohibits specifically stating shall not enforce or aid in the enforcement of immigration laws correlates to the involvement of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, which allows for our participation and allocation of funds. With that, I'd like to have Lieutenant John Mancini provide the overview of the operational side so that you can have a better understanding of how the funds will be used, and then we can answer additional questions.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Operation Stone Garden is a public safety grant whose primary purpose is to provide funding, overtime, equipment, and training to address transnational criminal organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and weapon smuggling. These funds will enhance our ability to combat organized crime, and improve public safety without placing an additional burden on the city and taxpayers. It's no secret that fentanyl is prevalent in our community and in our parks. Just last week, we responded to El Camino Park and provided Narcan for a male who was overdosing. In total, officers have responded to nearly 40 of these similar incidents this year in 2026. You may have seen the news last week where three members of the Mexican Mafia were sentenced to life without parole for a murder they committed in Orange. This case involved three members of organized crime who murdered a drug trafficker in Old Town for failing to pay taxes to the Mexican Mafia. Last week, the Orange Police Department SIU served a search warrant in the 900 block of East La Vida and arrested a drug dealer and convicted felon. This incident resulted in the seizure of fentanyl and over 40 guns. We are located in the center of a major California county, and we have five freeways that run through the city limits. I spent three years of my career working undercover with the DEA, and there's no question that drug and human trafficking organizations operate within our city limits. The Orange Police Department has a team of detectives known as the Special Investigations Unit, or SIU, and their duties include the type of work for which this grant is intended. Drug interdiction, intelligence gathering, surveillance, and the disruption and dismantling of criminal organizations. This grant will help us fund and manage those priorities. The SIU sergeant is the individual who supervises the day-to-day operations of this unit and will oversee the grant. His detectives establish enforcement surveillance and strategies, sorry, enforcement and surveillance strategies. All of their cases have a nexus to the city of Orange, but oftentimes as cases grow, they expand beyond our city limits. Over the last year and a half, SIU has conducted numerous operations and seized millions of dollars worth of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other illegal drugs. It is because of this that the Orange Police Department was recognized by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department as a worthy subrecipient of the grant. Under this grant, the Orange Police Department would not take any direction from an outside agency. Simply put, there is no collaboration with Border Patrol, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, or any other agency regarding how we work our cases. These funds do not obligate us to work side by side with the United States Border Patrol or other federal agencies. These funds do not require our officers to check immigration status, communicate immigration information to other agencies, or perform any other action that would violate the California Values Act. Our standard practices do not change. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department is the grant recipient for this region. They award funds to subrecipient agencies who have demonstrated commitment and competency with these types of investigations. That is the extent of their role in this process. Riverside County Sheriff's Department does not determine or approve our operations. They have no say in our involvement or how we conduct our activities. The same could be said for any other agency. Further legitimizing its compliance with the California Values Act, this program has been vetted by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. If there is further concern about the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security, the language in this grant is clear that these funds cannot be used for immigration enforcement. On page three of the agreement under section 4.2, it states parties will enforce local and state laws within their designated jurisdiction subject to the California Values Act. We shall not enforce or aid in the enforcement of immigration laws on behalf of US Customs and Border Protection and US Border Patrol. This agreement does not provide federal authority to parties to enforce immigration laws. Accepting this grant does not change the Orange Police Department's mission or commitment to serving every member of the community fairly and professionally. Our officers will continue to prioritize public safety, violent crime reduction, narcotics enforcement, and the protection of victims regardless of immigration status. This grant allows our city to leverage federal resources to enhance public safety while maintaining local control over our policing priorities and continue to build trust with the community we serve. This grant as investment in public safety is not a change in local immigration policy. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

I didn't notice before, Mr. Mayor, that there are two public speakers, and I think they should probably go first.

Okay. First speaker is Reggie Menekes, followed by Mary Oberschlake.

Hi, I support this grant. I think it's a good idea to take this money. We need to do everything we can to get the illegal drug trade out of our community. And one of the things that people can do on their own is to discourage the use of illegal drugs. Because if there was, nobody was buying fentanyl and all these other things they're selling now. We wouldn't have to do this, okay? This is very corrosive and destructive and dangerous in our community because the traffickers, not only do they sell products that kill people, If you get in their way and they think that you're expendable, they'll kill you. So I support this grant, and I think it's necessary for our city to do this. And there's safeguards in place. It has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. It's like we deal with OCTA a lot. They give a lot of grants. It's like if you get a grant... from them for a particular kind of environmental mitigation. We were supposed to do planting in a certain area, and then you, for some reason, decide to try to use it to fix Hart Park Pool, it's not going to work. They're going to come after you for that. So this is good money. We need to take it. Thank you.

Thank you, Reggie. And Mary?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp, city council members.

I have written statements tonight. I apologize for my speech impediment. I stand before you tonight as a representative of Indivisible Orange. We have grave concerns about accepting the Stone Garden grant. In light of what we are learning about data breaches with ALPRSs and companies like Flock nationally, and even here in our county, There is legitimate cause for concern about the impact of participating in a program like this. In a 2025 memo to the Trump administration, the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized Stone Garden, arguing that technology companies steer police into applying for the program to sell them needless surveillance technology. We don't need to spend our money needlessly. Are there any guarantees or guardrails in place to ensure that we maintain compliance with SB 34? I know you've spoken at length about protections for our immigrant neighbors, but what about the rest of us under SB 34? Are we protected from future lawsuits over potential civil rights violations? How is the data we collect here being sent outside of our community? We, the people of Orange, need to know. There are ramifications for where this data goes and how it's used and the impact it can have on us in the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Mary. There is a motion to approve this item on the floor by Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau, seconded by Council Member Gillenhammer. I'm back to Councilmember Burrus.

And thank you for everything that you just said. It did answer a lot of my questions. But I did read the staff report, and I did read then the agreement, too. And in both items, it talks about that some of what you said, but it contradicts what you said because it says we're going to share intelligence amongst organizations, not only those in the grant, but also state, federal, and local, multi-agency. I think it says multi-jurisdictional. multiple times in both the agreement and the staff report. So I was just a little confused about that and who is the actual lead agency if there is one? Or are you saying that there really isn't a lead agency other than the Riverside Sheriff's Department as the fiscal agent and everyone is running their own operations? That's where I got really tripped up.

That's correct. That's the second way you put it. So Riverside's the recipient of the grant, and that is the extent of their involvement in the investigative side of this. They provide money to us, we conduct our own investigations, and all we provide to the grant recipient is statistical data. We made this many arrests, we seized this many drugs, we seized this many guns, and we arrested two felonies, and we don't provide immigration stat, we don't provide anything different than what we do on every other arrest that we make every single day. It's just statistical data. There's no immigration information. We don't even, we don't ask that. So we don't have that to give them.

It's okay. It's just me. You don't have to be nervous. I just want, there are a lot of people like me who are like, wait a minute, what is this? And so the clarification is really, really important for the community who's looking at this and like me, jumping to conclusions. So it's really helpful to understand exactly what this is getting to. And when it says multi-jurisdictional and multiple agencies and local state and fed, What does that mean? So it could mean simply as our normal FBI reporting.

Yes. Okay. The information sharing with other agencies, it's no different than what we already do. If we have an investigation that carries into another city, like Costa Mesa, who's always also a grant recipient on this, we would call them to notify them that we're in the area or that we're – it's not – It's not a network where we're having crossover on cases or we're doing multi-agency investigations unless something led us to something like that. We're not bringing in other agencies into our investigations.

Well, and that also explained the waterways, which I didn't quite understand because we don't have those necessarily. But the city manager also let me know that this is a program that had been in place since 2005 that you could have gone after funds for. So I think you answered that question that the reason you went after now is because of the just kind of turning over every, so to speak, stone to find other funding opportunities. Yes?

That and we have an exceptional unit who has done a lot of good work recently in the last couple of years and were recognized for that and basically recruited us into this program or said, hey, if you guys want to apply for this, you guys are a legitimate candidate for this money.

Okay. And then again, the question about the operations, when it talks about multi-jurisdictional operations, it's not necessarily talking about that someone above OPD is going to be dictating to our officers and our units about what they want to do. It might be that it might be something that we do a joint operation on.

We do joint operations, but for the purpose of this grant, we're not taking direction from anybody or we're not doing, the purpose of this grant is not to do these multi-jurisdictional investigations. It's basically to fund the work that we're already doing. It's not a new project or a different task that we're taking on. It's our everyday activities.

Okay. And I would just point out that while I thank you for going through all my questions, the staff report could have been a little bit more clear on that. It just wasn't clear enough to give a great sense of comfort. Understood. So sorry to put you through the wringer.

Council Member Gutierrez.

Chief, and I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name.

John.

John. Thank you so much for clarifying all the operational things. As Council Member Barrio said, when I saw this item, a bunch of bells and whistles went off. I was very concerned. And I also reached out to our city manager. And I also reached out to our county supervisor, as he represents my district. and a good portion of orange. And as I was reading the report as well, saw that it came before our board supervisor. So I thought that was an opportune thing to speak to him about it. So you answered a lot of the operational questions. I appreciate that. He also said he had a lot of concerns when it came forth to them as well. And once it was explained very much, as you just did, that they The reason for it, the monies, was just, as you said, the enforcement of drug trafficking and smuggling human trafficking as well. He felt more comfortable to vote on that issue and just talked me through it. And so I appreciate hearing from you as well and how we're gonna use it, cuz I believe that's what our public needs to hear the most. I had concerns, they have concerns. Just in regards to all our data, when you say we don't share it, it's just like your regular, the way you do all your information. Is that like, explain to me a little more. Is that digital? It goes into your digital database and they cannot access your digital data? How does that work? So can you explain that a little more to me?

All right. As far as information sharing for the grant activities, every time that we have a grant, whether it's this or like our traffic grant or THE OTS HIGHWAY, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE STATISTICAL DATA TO THE GRANT RECIPIENT. IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY.

YES, BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW, LIKE, WHAT EXACTLY? AND IS IT, I'M ASSUMING OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIGITAL. ARE YOU GIVING NAMES, ADDRESSES, WHERE THEY LIVED? IS IT JUST, IT WAS THIS MANY AND THAT, NOT NECESSARILY TYING IT TO AN INDIVIDUAL?

CORRECT. IT'S MALE ADULT OR FEMALE ADULT. arrested for this felony or that felony and booked at Orange County Jail.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Again, thank you so much for clarifying this for us because this was very alarming to me when I read this. So thank you.

Council Member Dimitriou.

Thank you, Mayor. Chief LT, there obviously will all be little differences of opinions. I thought your staff report was pretty clear. It made it abundantly easy to read. I understood it. I just think the big holdup or hangup here is just the title of where the money's coming from, because on 3.6, we had no problem taking a bunch of federal money for... SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT. IT WAS UP TO FEDERAL FUNDS OF UP TO $306,000 AS OPPOSED TO THE $87,000. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER BARRIOS POINTED OUT THIS HAS BEEN A PROGRAM AROUND SINCE WHAT, 2003, 4, 5 AREA. SO IT'S BEEN THROUGH MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS, MULTIPLE POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS AND IDEALS. AND IT WAS REALLY PRIMARILY FOUNDED FOR ORIGINALLY WITH SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES. with the sole intent purpose of keeping poison off the streets that's killing children. So I'm gonna support this 100%. I have no problem with it and I'm glad you guys did exactly what we as a collective body had asked multiple times was find money to fund our programs to keep officers on the street to enforce the law. Thank you.

Council Mayor Barrios. I just had one more question of clarification, because as I was reading through the agreement, there's a specific call out to FEMA, and I didn't understand that.

FEMA is the federal authority that provides the money to the Department of Homeland Security, who then provides it to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

And Council Member Tavares.

Thank you. When we go out and ask for money, grants, specifically for public safety, are we in the habit of questioning the methods in which they were given or who gives it? I think just because it comes from a political party here is against the White House political party, and so the city of Orange can't take money, I just find this a little ridiculous. You are here to fight crime. We are here to protect and serve. It seems pretty simple. To question our police officers asking their motives, I think we all know what their motives are. So fight crime. And for you to come up here and spout your political beliefs and then tell us we can't accept money because of who the president is is pretty pompous. If they're giving us money, take it. Let's fight crime. That's what we do. And we take an oath to protect and serve. I think dividing criminals by whether they're legal or not legal is going down a rabbit hole. I don't think you want to go down. We are here to protect our police officers, and they are here to protect us.

Thank you. Any other comments? Any questions? I will call for the vote. I'm sorry, Council Member Gutierrez?

I just want to clarify that mine's not a political issue. I want to clarify when I read CBP, and we know exactly what happened with individuals in Minnesota, and that was CBP, that was my alarm in reading this. I'm not questioning our OPD. I have 100% faith in our Orange PD. And so all I wanted is clarification on this because that is alarming to me, and it's insulting to me as well. That is what the clarification was. And there was no way that I would ever not want to give them their tools, but I wanted explanations and understand it better. That's where I just needed to clarify that.

Wait, wait, excuse me, wait, excuse me. Are you finished, Council Member Gutierrez?

I just want to clarify my position. And I don't know if you're speaking to me or others, but I want to clarify why it was alarming to me. And that, to me, is not political. It's clearly what occurred. And so I need to clear it.

Council Member, please, wait, please.

Okay, but I just want to clarify for myself and the reason we brought it forward. Again, I would never question you, gentlemen. I just want clarification. And I always want to be able to give you your tools. So thank you.

All right. I don't want to get into a political debate, but Council Member Tavales, you're up.

But you did question them. And you're questioning their motives because they took money from the federal government, which, by the way, Governor Newsom's office approved of. So there's nothing political here, but when the lady comes up and says, I'm here for whatever their political operation is called up indivisible, And she's saying, we are against this because of this. And then you're coming out and asking, well, do you do this and do you do that? Then we're questioning the motives in which our own police officers are. We're doubting their motives on the street. That's not correct. We are here to protect and serve our community, not based on who is citizen and who is not a citizen. They've explained that. at nauseam as the chief has said to us, but we keep bringing up these problems because one person and one group of people could find a conspiracy and everything. We need to protect our cops and support them. And I don't care who they voted for or where the money's coming from. We need money. We told them to go out and get it and they got it. Now we're questioning the method in which they got it and where they got it from. It's just, let's protect our police officers.

I'm going to call for the vote. Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau has made a motion. Council Member Gillenhammer has seconded it to approve this item. Motion is approved unanimously. Item 3.5 is agreements with the California Department of Health Care Services and Cal Optima for a one-time intergovernmental transfer for fiscal year 26-27. Council Member Barrios. Item 3.5.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I just need to get there. I'm not sure who would take this, but I just wanted some clarification because there are three different organizations listed in here. There's Siemens, there's the... I'm sorry, I didn't bring my laptop today, so I don't have everything with me. So there's Gentech, there's Siemens, and then I think there's a third one. I'm almost sure there's a third one.

3.5 is Cal Optima, which are the agreements with the Department of Health Care Services.

Sorry, stuffy head cold. The reason I wanted to ask about this one is because of the way not only do we get reimbursed for funds on this, but the reimbursement was actually better in terms of like what we could get back once we went out and we went after this funds. So would that in future be an argument towards expanding the AO program to increase our ability to go get more of those calls for future reimbursements? Am I making, I hope I'm making sense.

I believe you are, if I'm answering this correctly, the answer to that is yes, because it's based off of, simply put, these are monies that are reimbursed, federal money that's reimbursed, that we obtain to offset unrecovered Medi-Cal ambulance service cost. So simply put, I could give you an overview of actually what exactly this program is, and it might explain it a little bit better for you.

I think the staff report did that well. I was just trying to get out that there seemed to be a significant return on investment.

There is, and the reason being is because half of the monies that are supposed to be reimbursed are done by the state, and the other half is federal. But in order to access the federal funds that we get, we have to front the money, and then it comes back, if that makes sense. Yes. The state doesn't front the money for us, so we have to do it ourselves.

Okay, that was all I wanted to clarify. Thank you very much.

There's a motion from Council Member Demetria and a second from Council Member Gutierrez to approve this item. Thank you, Chief, for accessing federal funding for Orange. Thank you. Any other further discussion on this item? Questions? I'll call for the vote. That is approved unanimously. Next is item 3.8, which is First Amendment to Agreement with Siemens Industry Incorporated for Maintenance of Surveillance Cameras, Hardware Infrastructure, and Licensing Supporting the City's Existing Genetech Security Platform. Council Member Barrios.

So I think you already heard the prelude to this. So it was just confusing of where we were going with this. There were three different companies involved. But it sounds like you're in the middle of procurement.

Correct. We are in the middle of developing an RFP. But our existing contract with Siemens will expire in September. And we don't anticipate we will be prepared with the results from the RFP and contract negotiations. So it's essentially a bridge contract to get us through the RFP process with Siemens.

Okay.

We probably overcomplicated the staff report with the background.

Yeah, there was a lot. So, and then just within, in terms of the infrastructure and what we're managing with the Gen Tech security platform.

Yeah, so it's all of the city's closed circuit TV cameras. So in parks and on this campus, in the library, in the police department, it's all controlled internally here. It doesn't ever leave the property, as well as all the access control doors and readers. So it's all of that.

Right, okay, so that was what I was trying to get at. So thank you very much.

Okay, we have a motion from Council Member Gillenhammer, a second from Council Member Gutierrez to approve this item. Any further discussion? Please vote. That is approved unanimously. There's one more. Item three. 310 is an award of contract to Ultimate Maintenance Services Incorporated for custodial services for city facilities. We had a public speaker, is that Mr. Peterson? Mr. Peterson, you're up. You do have three minutes.

Good evening again. This will be quick. I'm a big fan of the added services that this program would bring for the part-time porter at the garage and the frequency increase at the public library. I'm even a bigger fan of fiscal responsibility. What I'm not a fan of is the over $224,000 this is gonna cost with 204,000 coming from the general fund and another 19 plus coming from the water fund. I'm even less of a fan of the saying, while the general fund appropriation increases the expenditure budget for custodial services, the city is currently experiencing salary and benefits savings associated with vacant positions that are projected to offset. You guys have been doing all the heavy lifting, I say this all the time, saving money, and now we're gonna take money that you guys worked your butts off to save and we're gonna spend it. I'll bet in 30 minutes any one of us could sit with that budget and shave off a little bit here, a little bit there, frequencies of services, and shave off what this added service and cost of doing business increase is going to take. As a city, we need to be demanding that every department land their numbers, plain and simple. We don't save just so we can spend it someone else's money somewhere else. Either we're in this to save money and get through it, or all we're doing is shuffling the cards and spending money over and over and over again. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. We'll bring it back to the council. Council Member Barrios.

This was the one that I had missed, and I was glad to see that there was additional services put in for the parking structure because that has been a source of major concern for residents and different businesses who are now directing people to park over there. It called out specifically the parking revenue that we're already getting from what's happening in Old Town. Is that for all of those expenses of adding on that particular... Because that is that the parking garage has been such a huge problem.

So, Mayor and members of the council, the parking revenue portion will be used specifically to pay for the parking structure portion of the contract.

Okay. So that's not coming out. It just wasn't clear that it was all coming out of there.

No.

Okay. That was my specific question.

Council Member Gillenhammer.

Chris, just a couple questions. I saw each section in the standards that we're going to hold them to. Who on our team confirms that they're executing those standards? I guess first question.

So I'm going to turn it over to our field services manager, Matt Lorenzen, who is that person who will be checking that. So Matt.

In addition to myself, we have a lead custodian that oversees the work that's performed by the contractor. They have a daily checklist that they review. In addition to that, we have a monthly meeting with our vendor, and we address certain discrepancies that we see.

I see in each section there's hour allocation for day porters for various roles. What's the total hours that we're going to be paying for? Do you have that? And then how does that compare to our existing service contract in terms of dollars per hour?

The day porter, are you referring to the day porter at the parking structure?

Total contract.

Okay, so there's two that are proposed. One's at PD, currently working eight hours a day, Monday through Friday. And then the one at the parking structure is part-time, four hours a day, seven days a week.

If we were to back up and look at... the total hours we're paying for in this custodial contract. I'm not sure if you have that information, but what is the total hours of service we're getting across the city? What is the dollars per hour we're paying? And how does that compare to the existing contract?

So I'm going to jump in on this one. So this is a service contract. And the way that the contractor proposes is a lump sum cost with the exception of the day porters and with the exception of what I'll call the two a la carte items that we have. So the day porter provides an ancillary or additional layer of coverage to the staff that then comes in and performs, I'll call it the regular routine practices. It's not necessarily, it's based on completing certain tasks, but it's not based on an hourly demarcation of those tasks to the contractor.

It's like a piecework contract. Right.

It is not that type of contract.

Got it. How does that compare to our previous contract?

So it's a 17% increase since the last time we bid it out in 2021. Okay.

And then what is the percentage increase in workload or task to this contract from the previous one?

So it is exactly the same scope of work as we have now, which is actually a reduced scope of work that we undertook as part of the budget reductions over the last few years. The only additional scope is the parking structure and the additional vacuuming of the library.

Okay, my last question is, the previous contract we had, when did that start, how many years did it go for, and did it have an escalation clause in it?

Yeah, it started in 2021, and it was good for the first three years with no increase, and then the subsequent years to that, the following two years, had a cap of 2% CPI, and this one follows a very similar model to that.

Got it, thank you. Councilmember Demetriou.

Sure, real quick question. A couple quick questions actually. So other than anecdotal information, is there hard data on actual need for the parking structure for cleaning? Is there reports or anything that shows that it's a justifiable expenditure at this point?

Yes, as part of our agreement with Metrolink, we're required to provide daily inspections, and that's documented on Main Star. And so we do have that data. I don't have anything to share with you at the moment in terms of the hard data that you're looking for.

Okay, but it is documented? It is documented. There's trash here, or there's this there?

Trash, public urination. A lot of the issues in the stairwells, that was something that in the past the day Porter took care of.

And since you hit on it, which was my next question, this was a joint venture parking structure with OCTA and Metrolink. Is there anything in the contract anywhere that says we can recoup any of that cost on cleaning or maintenance?

No. They provided funding to build it, and part of the agreement is that we operate it and maintain it.

All right, final question is, what's the lifespan on the parking structure?

It's 50 years.

Okay, and what, we're in 10 years into it?

2019 is when we took the keys to essentially, yeah.

All right, thank you, that's it.

So I have two comments. The only thing that I saw we were increasing in this contract versus last year was number one, adding the parking structure, which I'm very happy about. Every time I use the stairwells, they're not where they should be. And with all the extra parking now going over there, I think that it's important to keep it clean and I'm glad it's being paid strictly from parking revenue downtown. That makes sense. Also very happy that we're going from monthly vacuuming of the main library to weekly, which still doesn't seem adequate, but it's the right thing to do versus monthly. Clearly that's a heavily used library. You know, all of us have had to, you know, step up in these tough budget times. Every time I walk to my office in City Hall with people behind me, I notice the big dead cockroach on the floor leading into my office. And every time I walk by, I think, why haven't I picked that up yet? Tonight before I go home, I'm going to be sure to do that. So is there any further questions or discussion on this item? Council Member Barr is.

I had a question for the city manager. We just heard it mentioned that this is a 17% increase since the last time we went out for this. Obviously, we're adding services, so that's one part of it. But for the last at least year, maybe almost year and a half, There are signs all over City Hall and everywhere else that employees were asked to maintain the areas and the environment that we don't share necessarily with the public in order to keep our costs down and to be mindful of costs. Is that going to change? Is this becoming like a new full service contract and we're changing that particular element?

ma'am nothing changes on City Hall's campus employees and it's part of picking up cockroaches I have spiders in my office and termites last week yeah that we are responsible for clean but no nothing changes around our campus so just a 17% increase is just the cost of doing business generally thank you right this motion from councilor Dimitri to approve this item I have seconded it is there any further discussion all right please vote

Approved unanimously. That is the consent calendar. Did I assume there were no remote speakers?

No, Mayor. We did not have any remote speakers.

Thank you. Four reports from Mayor Slater. I have nothing this evening. Reports from council members. Any council members except Council Member Gutierrez?

Thank you, Mayor. This past weekend, myself and Council Member Barrios with the fire chief and four of our firefighters were able to visit our sister city, our fire sister city in the city of Querétaro. which I found out that Councilmember Demetriou and Bilodeau are head of the foundation for the sister city. I would love for you to speak more on that too. So we were invited out by our fighter fighters and I so happy that I was able to attend and as I'm certain Councilmember Barrios is and was as well. We were able to be there on Saturday when it was National Day of Firefighter Day throughout the whole country. And that's when they hold a ceremony to acknowledge all of their firefighters, but also to introduce their new graduates. And so that was just a fantastic ceremony to participate, as well as firefighter Querétaro Bomberos have been in existence for 77 years. And they had a generation one firefighter sitting in the stadium. was 96 years old, so it was fantastic to be there. In that presentation, they created this video that I wanted to share with you all because I cannot tell you how grateful they are that the city of Orange is their sister city. It was just impressive to see how hard trash they have turned into a treasure. You know, they have taken our trucks that suppose things maybe weren't working and they've stripped out what it needs to, where it's digital, and they've created great trucks that now continue running. They use the turnout clothes. You can see some of our firefighters' names on their back on their turnout clothes that they currently use to fight fires with. And they use artillery and USARS and things of that nature. So they're so appreciative. And they want to continue, obviously, fostering that nation. But I wanted to share the short video that they showed at the ceremony because I think you're going to find it quite touching as well as I did.

Every great story has a moment to change the story. For Guilherme, that moment came in 1947, while President Miguel Alemán Gávez was meeting with local businessmen A fire suddenly broke out at the Grand Hotel with no organized fire department. Government officials, business leaders, and citizens faced the emergency with whatever they had at hand. From the flames of that day, a commitment was born, one that would reform the history of the city. In 1949, Bomberos Querétaro's first

the community and the government by a kind quarter of Minchon Ocampo and Zaragoza.

We came home to the Central Fire Station, a symbol of safety built upon the courage of its first volunteers. In 1973, we crossed borders. Our sister department partnership with the Orange Fire Department was formally established, an international alliance that has now endured for more than half a century. As the state grew, so did the need and with our families came together. Underneath the demands of the modern world, we created our training SDG, preparing firefighters from Quilebao and across Mexico according to their national standards. The fire at the Grand Hotel left more than smoke. facing danger, with more courage than resources, has become an unstoppable force. Today, the institution emerged from the ashes is recognized nationally and internationally, a living testament on how to evolve, how we protect, and how excellence is achieved when service runs through our veins. Bomberos Querétaro, 77 years of making history.

So I was very touched. And, you know, they are so appreciative of our firefighters going out there yearly to train them. And they're so proud of that they're using techniques that we here at the City of Orange have taught them. And they are really feeling that they're coming, elevating their level of service because of the training and the sisterhood that they have with our city. So I was very appreciative and touched to have been there. And so grateful to those who started that back in 1973.

Thank you, Council Mayor, for that wonderful presentation. I got to go to Queretaro as a council member representative in the 90s. I think at that time there was only one fire station. Anyway, yes, beautiful city, and they truly do appreciate the City of Orange and the hand-me-down fire equipment that we've given them that they've taken very good care of and happy that... they're able to use it. So thank you for that presentation. Any other council members?

I'll touch upon something just because Councilwoman Gutierrez made a point of the Orange Sister City organization. It is a formal organization. It's actually a California corporation. It doesn't rely upon any city funding. And we actually have several sister cities. Um, we have, um, Orange, New South Wales, Australia. And, uh, I've been able to visit that a couple of times actually. And we've received several guests from there, myself and Mr. Dimitri, uh, here at the city. Uh, we have Orange, France. Um, we have Kietro, of course. Uh, we have, uh, Timaru, New Zealand. But, uh, I haven't had contact with them, uh, formally yet. I've been there. And the most interesting one is Novo Casino Moscow, which is a district of Moscow. And I guess for a variety of reasons, we haven't had any contact with them recently. But the purpose of the sister city organization initially, when it was formed, it was a lot of student exchanges. Families would host high school students in their homes from all these different countries. That's a little tougher nowadays. So we're now focusing the efforts more on more economic development and also providing funding to our fire department to help them with these training programs that they do with Key or Throw. And that's all.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Council Member Dimitri.

I'll touch on it real quick too. So I'm glad you went. It's a wonderful place. I've been down there twice now. So what's really interesting is earlier we had that discussion on the flock cameras and one of the really phenomenal things they have established there is they have this fusion center, for lack of a better phrase, if you got to take a tour of it, where they're the safest state in the country of Mexico because of their integrated policing and the way they use technology, use those different tools in order to solve crimes quickly as well as a number of other things. But what I was most impressed with every time I've been down there is really the resourcefulness of the members of the fire department, especially a mechanic. I was really just taken back. There was one guy basically working in a yard, fixing everything. And it was really impressive to see his, for lack, you know, for those of us that were 80s kids, you'll understand this, how he would just MacGyver everything. You know, you give him a paperclip, a banana peel, and some screwdriver, and he had a fire engine running. And while I was there, I was fortunate. We were all gathered for one of the nights for dinner, and they actually had a swift water rescue incident that was occurring. It was live on their television, and all of us were looking at the same thing, watching one of our old trucks there, and then... the aerial being in a negative position, which was like, whoa, what are they doing? But it was successful and took a great deal of pride recognizing almost every one of those firefighters that were out there scooping people out of this little river, knowing that our guys were the ones that had just trained them on exactly that duty earlier that day. So it was really something special to see. And then to see the pride on our fire department members that they had a hand in through their experience, through their teaching of saving lives in another country. And I think that's one of the most important things. I've also, oddly enough, been to Orange, France, by accident, got on the wrong train and landed there, and then realized this is a sister city, and they actually, a really cool item is they actually still have a Roman Coliseum that's intact there that was built in those days, and it is a phenomenal place to go tour and for a vacation, so thank you.

All right, Council Member Gutierrez.

Yes, I was forgetting, and how could I forget? I would like to invite the community to our groundbreaking ceremony this Thursday at Grijalva Park for our so needed skate park. So I hope you can all be there. It's at 5.30 PM, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, it's this Thursday.

Is it 4.30?

I thought it was 5.30. Can I just check then? Because maybe I'm saying the wrong time. But it is Thursday. Is it 4.30? Okay, well, geez, I better show up at the right time. 4.30. Sorry. So I just want to invite the community. I think it's well overdue, so I am excited. I hope to see the contenders out there and the skating community and my council member colleagues as well. So I just wanted to make sure I invite everybody.

Just clarification, 4 o'clock. Yep, 4 o'clock.

Now it says 4 o'clock? Okay, 4 o'clock. Oh, gosh. I know, I have to rush. All right, thank you.

All right, anyone else? City Clerk had asked me to make a couple of quick announcements. We have some boards, commissions, and committees with vacancies currently on them. We have one on the Audit Advisory Committee. We have one vacancy on the CDBG committee. Is that going to be the case still? Okay. Two vacancies on design review committee. Two vacancies on the investment advisory committee, which has been the toughest to fill, but I hear that we have some applications coming in. And one vacancy on the park plane and community events commission. Any other council reports? All right, moving on. Any AB 1234 reports from council members? Seeing none. Reports from boards, committees, and commissions. Appointment to the Community Development Block Grant Program Committee. If any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you are calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We will hear in-person speakers first, 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 basically this evening, James Gushon, who is council member, Marios is represented on the Parks Commission, is asked to move over to the CDBG committee and also as her representative. James Cushon, apparently you would like to say a few words.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of council, city's first responders, and my fellow citizens. I would like to thank you for the time to speak tonight. When it came time to make my next move in my personal life, in my professional life, and we made the decision to start the new foundation to serve the city in a new way, it became apparent there were gonna be a lot of conflicts of interest with my service to the city on the Parks Commission. And when I spoke with Council Member Barrios, she made the recommendation to join the Community Development Block Grant Committee and when I looked into it, I thought that it was a perfect match for me having grown up in a economically depressed household. I understand the idea of what it's like to deal with the challenges of economics and dealing with low income situations. So I look forward to using my real life experience should the council decide to confirm me to continue to serve the residents of Orange in that capacity as well as with my new professional endeavor. I will leave it to the discretion of council, and I thank you for the time, and I thank you for the privilege to serve on the Park Planning and Community Events Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, James. Motion from Council Member Barrios, second from Council Member Gillenhammer. Any other discussion? Please vote. Proving Ashley, thank you for your service on the parts commission. Mr. Kushan. Welcome to see CDBG committing Okay reports from city manager Nothing to report and I'm glad it's not my birthday Okay We'll wait a time until then. All right, moving on. Administrative reports, 9.1, agreements related to the restoration and future reconvance to the city of the approximately 67.7 acre former Sully Miller property of 6145 East San Diego Canyon Road for permanent public open space. If any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you are calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We'll hear in-person speakers first and then move on to other speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up and then you will be muted. Mr. City Manager, is there a...

I have a staff report if you'd like one. If not...

I think we should have one. Thank you very much for the very thorough staff report already, but please continue.

No, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Tonight represents an important step in what has been a very long story of the Sully Miller property. For decades, this property has been subject to development proposals, community debate, referenda, and litigation. Tonight, we have an opportunity to begin writing a very different ending, one centered on restoration, preservation, and ultimately public permanent open space. I want to briefly walk through what the agreements accomplish, how the process would work, and importantly, what they do not approve tonight. Jack, next slide, please. So there are two agreements before the city council. The first establishes the pathway under which approximately 67 acres could ultimately be conveyed to the city. The second establishes environmental responsibilities, indemnification, insurance and other protections associated with the future conveyance. The most important part is that the city is not taking ownership of the property tonight. The City Council is also not improving an INDEFO, a grading plan, a reclamation plan, an operating plan, or future regulatory permit. Tonight merely establishes the contractual pathway that allows the process to move forward while preserving the regulatory and environmental review processes that remain ahead. So this slide puts tonight in context. Mining and aggregate operations have occurred for much of the last century. Since then, the property has been subject to several significant residential development proposals. Fieldstone proposed 189 homes. Rio Santiago proposed 395 units. The Trails Project proposed 128 units. Each generated substantial community discussion and, in some cases, referenda and litigation. In 2025, the city negotiated a framework that created a fundamentally different possibility. Instead of continuing the decades long debate over development of this property, we now have an opportunity to move forward with the restoration, preservation, and ultimately public ownership. And Sully Miller doesn't stand alone. We have approximately 14 acres associated with the Chandler Hurwitz property. approximately 30 acres that we acquired through Milan in a dedication earlier this year, and then after this, potentially another 67 acres through this transaction. Taken together, that represents approximately 112 acres of public open space preservation along the Santiago Creek corridor. That is significant. It represents an opportunity to preserve a substantial amount of land and build upon the open space vision that the community has pursued for decades. So there's a clear path forward. How do we get there? First, Landify would seek to acquire the property from Milan. The appropriate regulatory agencies would continue their work and establish the requirements that apply to the site. Landify would then undertake the in-def-o grading and site preparation. Only after the contractual closing conditions have been satisfied would the property be conveyed to the city. This is expected to be a multi-year process. Tonight doesn't complete the process, it just creates the pathway that allows us to begin. The regulatory process is important and it continues independently from the agreements before council tonight. I want to briefly note that since the preparation of the staff report, we have received correspondence from the LEA and the Water Board. That correspondence was received after the report was finalized and after the report had gone out to print. The correspondence provides additional information regarding the regulatory work that remains and will help inform the requirements of the site. Importantly, it does not change the nature of the action before city council tonight. Again, the council is not approving the in defo, the grading plan, a reclamation plan, or future permits. Those processes remain ahead and will continue through the appropriate agencies. All of the applicable regulatory permitting, environmental review requirements do remain in place. Because this is a complex multi-year process, city staff has spent considerable time making sure the transaction is structured to protect the city. The simplest way to think about it is Landify owns the property while the work is being performed. Before the city takes ownership, all applicable environmental and geotechnical requirements must be addressed. The required approvals must be obtained, grading completed and certified, and the contractual closing conditions must be satisfied. The agreements also provide for pollution legal liability insurance and a phased reclamation security. The work comes first and city ownership comes later. I don't want to repeat all the protections, but I do want to emphasize a few. The independent, again, the independent regulatory processes remain in place. The city does not take ownership until the closing conditions are satisfied and each grading phase is backed by the reclamation security. So if the transaction is successfully completed, the property would then be conveyed to the city for permanent public open space purposes. Taken together, these provisions are intended to protect the city while providing a pathway to the permanent preservation. While the regulatory and restoration work proceeds, we have time to thoroughly consider the future of the property. I don't think city staff should do this alone. We need to engage the surrounding neighborhoods, Orange Park Acres, trail and equestrian users, and environmental organizations. There are a number of possibilities to evaluate over time, including trails, equestrian uses, habitat restoration, environmental education, passive recreation, scenic resources, etc. We will have the time to pursue the grants, the technical assistance, the partnerships, and the philanthropic resources. So the goal isn't simply to acquire the 67 acres. It's to thoughtfully plan for and responsibly steward this land for future generations. I'll close with where I started. Again, the Sully Miller property has been debated in this community for decades. There have been development proposals, referenda, litigation, considerable uncertainty about what would ultimately happen here. Tonight does not complete that process. There is significant work ahead. But tonight gives us an opportunity to move forward in a fundamentally different direction. Restoration, preservation, and public ownership. And if successful, combined with the other efforts, this would represent approximately 112 acres of new public open space along Santiago Creek. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP IN A VISION THAT HAS BEEN DECADES IN THE MAKING. WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENTS AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. ANY QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC SPEAKERS. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? All right, we'll begin with Reggie Mundicus, followed by Laurel Maldonado.

I support this, which has been about 23 years in the making. It's a good use of a long-term property and gets it to a point where everybody can enjoy it. So this is the beginning. of a pathway to making this into a really wonderful restoration of a natural habitat. So, strongly support this, thank you.

Thank you, Reggie. There is a motion on the floor by Councilmember Gilenhammer, whose district this is in, I have seconded it. Next speaker is Laurel Maldonado, followed by Drew Whitefeather.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. The one thing that I should be talking about is CEQA, but someone else will talk about that, so I'll set that aside. And let's talk about why signing this agreement tonight might be a little premature in its own terms, financially, legally, and procedurally. Start with sequencing. The stipulated notice and order is still open. Just six days ago, the Regional Water Board found arsenic contamination in four stockpiles that must be removed. and gave Milan until October to submit a work plan. The local enforcement agency reviewed Landify's own draft operating plan and called it, in its words, not complete or correct. There's an unresolved cease and desist proceeding on this property right now stemming from stockpiles being moved without authorization earlier this year. None of that is completely resolved. We are being asked to sign a binding transfer agreement before regulatory foundation it depends on even exists. Next, look at financial exposure. The pollution liability policy Milan is required to obtain caps at $3 million per claim and in the aggregate. Given what we know now, arsenic across the stockpiles, contamination in the subgrade down 51 feet, an abandoned well we haven't even located, is $3 million actually enough to cover a serious cleanup event? Nobody in this room can answer that tonight, and that should concern us because the agreement allocates shortfall based on who caused it, which is exactly the kind of dispute that ends up in litigation not resolved by policy. Then there's the deadline pressure. Your own staff report states Landify has told the city its participation is time sensitive and it's only committed to pursuing this through the end of the year. That's not a reason to sign faster. That's a reason to slow down when one party to a multi-year, multi-million dollar transaction the one setting the clock the other party you the city should not be negotiating against the clock and consider what happens if this doesn't work if the project becomes commercially infeasible landify can walk the city can get no property and taxpayers have spent years of staff and legal time on an agreement that produced nothing the staff report says the city isn't obligated to accept An incomplete site, but it doesn't tell us what happens to the public trust and the momentum we've built in the community if this falls apart midstream. Finally, this property is a 20-year history of rushed decisions that didn't hold up. Approvals that were rescinded, referenda that overturned them, and EIR that the council itself had to unwind. The history that should teach us one lesson. Get the sequencing right. Resolve the S&O, confirm the insurance is adequate, and then bring it back. I'm not asking you to abandon this. I'm not saying that I don't support it. I'm asking you to wait until the ground under it is actually solid. Thank you.

Thank you, Laurel. Following Drew is Sherry Pantaha.

Mayor and city council members, I'm asking you to look more closely at the staff's findings that CEQA does not apply to tonight's agreement. The city's position is that this is just a contract, a framework for future transfer, and that the real environment decisions come later, but an agreement that commits the city to a definite course of action exactly what Sequel is designed to catch and this is this one does our own staff report says if land of high performs and performs and the closing conditions are met the city will be contractually obligated to accept the property no second vote this real commitment is made tonight and and that the Commitment to the specific physical outcome, an IDAFO, nearly a million cubic yards of new fill, stockpiles graded to 50 feet. This site is currently zoned sound and gravel, not open space. The county's own LEA has told the applicant in writing that THE OPERATION PLAN MUST EXPLAIN HOW THE SITE GETS REZONED. A REZONED DOESN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT, AND IT ISN'T IN TONIGHT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AT ALL. THE EXPECTATION STAFF IS RELYING ON REQUIRES CERTAINTY, CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY OF SUSPICIOUS EFFORTS. I DON'T THINK THAT CERTAINLY EXISTS. THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD FOUND ARSENAL CONTAMINATION IN THE STOCKPILES THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY. THE STATE NOW own, OHA, founded that recreational adult children and outdoor workers all exceed acceptable health risk thresholds. There's an abandoned well unlocated. And our staff report says testing is still underway and the scope of the work required hasn't been finalized. I support turning the property into open space. That's not what's in dispute. What I am asking is that we get there through review, not around it. So before making a no CEQA finding tonight, I asked the city attorney, to answer one question on the record. What is the legal basis for concluding that the rezone, the grading, and the fill placement agreement is built around our reasonable foreseeable consequences and approve it tonight? And if- Thank you, Mr. White River. Please conclude further.

Sorry. Sherry, after that is Theresa Sears.

My name is Sherry Hart-Pantea. I'm a multi-generational resident of Orange Park Acres and the current president of the Orange Park Association. Thank you Mayor Slater and Council for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Orange Park Association to formally express our support. of agenda item 9.1 regarding the agreements related to the restoration and future conveyance of the property to the city for permanent public open space. We understand that all the entities involved are working closely together with the LEA in developing a plan to best serve our community. The OPA plan promotes the Santiago Greenbelt plan, phasing out of the gravel pit operations along Santiago Creek and its restoration, and the preservation of Santiago Creek. The agreements before the City Council are in alignment with the OPA plan. This effort by the many entities involved is a remarkable opportunity to fulfill many things. Advancing the City of Orange General Plan long-term open space vision, serving future generations, creating a lasting public benefit, and adding significant value to the rural character of the surrounding area. We appreciate the hard work and painstaking effort by all parties involved to establish a path to transform the Sully Miller property into permanent open space under city ownership. The Orange Park Association supports the recommended action and urges the city council to approve them. Thank you again.

Thank you, Sherry. And then Teresa Sears.

Good evening, Council, Mayor Slater. I appreciate the opportunity. I have lived in Orange for half my life. I won't tell you what that number is, but it's more than half my life. I am a resident of Orange. I want that to be known. I live in Orange, and I've always lived, my property has always been in the city. So it's not often that the stars align in favor of the public good, especially when you have competing interests involved. At the same time, it's not uncommon when trying to work through complicated deals like this to have obstacles to overcome. Any important conservation effort, and I know them, Saving of Barm Ranch, Banning Ranch, Coyote Hills, the Hurwitz site, stopping the sprawl out into the canyons. The 20,000 acres that we now know as the Irvine Ranch open space. All of those have had challenges, twists and turns. Lots of stories can go with that. As Reggie would know, stopping the sale of the Orange County Fairgrounds. That is another example. So there is no playbook. There is no class. There is no YouTube video that explains how to achieve success. Okay, this kind of work is very messy. It's not often understood by the public. It's compound, complex, and at times, I can tell you, it requires the willingness, the collaboration, and smart people working together for the common good. I point this out to simply say that I am pleased with the effort of the city, Landify, and Milan, and the effort they have put forth to preserve Sully Miller as envisioned in the San Diego Creek Greenbelt Plan, the OPA Plan, and the East Orange Plan. That is not a simple task based on the history of Sully Miller, some of it a very tortured history. I can attest to that. That being said, one step at a time, and I believe we will achieve our mutual goals. I'm encouraged that the entities are working together with the regulatory agencies to find solutions and more confident that we will succeed. My suggestion is to hold tight, keep going, support our city manager and his leadership. He has done an excellent job. Have faith. be creative, stay positive, and focused, and more importantly, I urge you to support the five recommendations that staff has carefully crafted for your approval. I've been on this road many times. It can be bumpy, but tenacity has netted out thousands of acres of public open space for generations to support, to enjoy. So I ask tonight for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Teresa. That ends the public speakers. Are there any remote speakers?

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

Thank you. Councilmember Dimitriou.

Great. Thank you, Mayor. Just real quickly, I've got to say it because I wouldn't be me without it. But 67.7 potential new acres of open space, park space into the inventory relatively quickly with the work that needs to go down. And I'm still looking forward to another 1.8 acres in West Orange. Really hoping we can get that across before I term out or disappear. I do want to say that overall, I agree 100%. Ready for this, Teresa, with Ms. Sears? This has been a battle, multi-decades, in order to create the visions that were foreseen by many before us, many in the community that have come and gone. And in the end, I'm hoping now that as we progress and we have staff and Landify, Milan, the governmental agencies that are gonna be involved watching this as it progresses and develops into either the open space, the park space, whatever ends up happening towards the benefit of the community will finally heal the Hatfields and McCoys that are out there. We can come back together as a community in that area specifically and start to heal and actually start becoming family again. My last statement, and I'm gonna support this, but my last statement is really to congratulate Mayor Slater. He set out with a goal. I remember him talking about it and thinking, good luck. But if and when this 67.7 acres comes to fruition, it's 112 acres in total that's been now dedicated to open space, protected around the Santiago Creek. And that's no mild accomplishment, but that was a promise she made to the people of Orange. And I remember that and I take notice. So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council member. Council member Barrios?

I just wondered if the city manager or Jack, if you could answer specifically the public speaker that brought up the finding of arsenic in recent days. Can one of, or maybe you, Madam City Attorney?

No, I'm happy to address that. The finding of arsenic came from the water board letter. So the water board, the county health care agency acts as the lead environmental agency. There were over, I believe, 1,300 soil samples taken on site through all the stockpiles, and I believe it was approximately 18 of them that had findings of arsenic. What I can say is what does remain unsolved is this regulatory work and the agreements were specifically structured for it. That said, it is something that we're going to have to work through. I can't comment on it now. I'm not a geotech, but again, the letter was received, I believe, last Friday, or I had it at my office last Friday, and we're working through it right now. Again, it doesn't change my opinion of the agreements. It doesn't change my recommendation tonight. It is still very much to approve this and let us work through it over the coming weeks and months.

Okay. And I guess that leads to my second question, which is one of the things that's just kind of bugging me in the back of my head is about CEQA. CEQA was designed for projects like this. You know, is it overused? Yes. Is it a big pain? Yes. Do we need to improve it? Yes. the finding that this project of all projects would be CEQA exempt just kind of baffles me. Is it because there's so much other testing going on and it's part of the agreements? I just want to understand instead of it just being out of hand, nope, we don't need to do that because this is, CEQA perfect as far as a project?

I can clarify. Please do. The CEQA determination before the council tonight is limited to the approval of the agreements. The agreements establish a conditional framework for a future property transfer. They do not approve or authorize the IDEFO operations grading a grading permit or actual physical work. The regulatory agencies continue to monitor the site and retain their authority, and the city's regulatory authority is expressly preserved. So at this time tonight before you, Council, the city is not making a determination tonight regarding the IDEFO or the grading for the actual project itself.

So CEQA could apply at a future point, say when the land was transferred?

Yeah, it could apply, right? As we work through the regulatory process, future actions will certainly be evaluated for CEQA, if applicable.

OK. Council Member Gutierrez.

I would like to ask a question of Landify, if they're available.

Some Rep. Jonathan or?

I see them sitting in the audience.

Yeah, please step forward.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I hope you didn't have to fly long hours to get here, or you've been around locally, hopefully. I just want to, well, first of all, as you stand there, I want to just say, you know, Jared, in the year that you've been here, you've had to learn Sully Miller like this. And so I appreciate all the hard work that you've had, too, in meeting with Landify. meeting with Milan, meeting with our residents, and you speak to all of them out in OPA, and I appreciate that. And you've had to learn fast and furious. And you're trying to get a resolution for us. And so I'm understanding that this agreement is with Landify and ourselves at the city, right? that Milan would hand this over to you all. I want to hear your commitment. I guess I'm concerned with the regulatory aspects of this new letters that just came in that I have yet to see with this arsenic and the this and that. I'm concerned with your commitment to making certain that you meet all those regulatory and that you will stay with it until you've cleared all those hurdles so that, in fact, we can take it over. after all that, and CEQA is then taken care of. So I just wanted to hear that that is your commitment with this pathway forward, with Milan basically handing it over to you for you to be able to then take on the reins and go through all the regulatory processes. And that, in a sense, you won't say, this is just too much. I'm done. We're not going to continue. I just want to hear that coming from you, because I read it, but I'd like to hear it from you, voiced out to the public.

Steve Brown with Landify. There is quite a few regulatory hurdles that we have to go through that will set standards that we have to adhere to and that we monitor. We have projects elsewhere in the state that we're meeting similar standards. So we are an environmental company at our core, and we are a community-centered company at our core. I'd like to say trust us, but I can also tell you we're a business. So if there are any cynics among you who are worried that we're not going to deliver, what I can tell you is our next project depends on our last project. We are committed in our corporate values for delivering, but it's also true that we are going to be monitored from a regulatory standpoint. The city will have opportunity to monitor what is happening. You all have the ability to, not the ability, you will review and have the right to approve the grading plan. But more than that, we have to be good corporate citizens or we won't stay in business.

All right, and that is what I wanted to hear. Thank you so much. I just wanted you all to get an opportunity to speak so that the public can hear what your commitment is to our city and to that project site. So thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions of Landify? All right, thank you very much for coming. Any other questions, comments? As the city manager said, this has been a very, very long road. It's not over, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. And tonight is an important step to continue and start that journey. So I think we're going to get there, but we all have to continue to work together and with the community, of course. And I think we can make this happen for Orange. I will call for the vote. The vote is to approve the five recommended actions. Approving unanimously, congratulations. I'm going to call for a quick 10-minute break, if that's all right with everybody. 10 minutes, please.

you

Okay, we're back in session. Item 9.2, County of Orange Unincorporated Island Annexation Study and Policy Direction. This was continued from August 11. I will ask for a staff report.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. So tonight for your consideration is just an overview and discussion of potentially looking to annex our existing county islands. Ultimately at the end of this item, what staff is looking for is policy direction on how to proceed, including engaging with the current County Island residents and property owners, as well as the County of Orange and OCLAFCO. It will be a partnership with all three if we move forward. So before I jump into the process, I wanted to just explain why this is being presented to the council tonight. And so back in February, we had our strategic planning session, and if the council recalls, we did that dock exercise where, for staff, It helped us identify those immediate policy priorities of the council. Looking at our potential annexing county islands, that received really the highest number of dots. So six out of seven council members said we wanted to look at this. And so with the revised strategic plan being adopted and the budget now being adopted, we are bringing this to the council to receive that direction and to see if we wanted to look at annexing all or some of the existing county islands. And I wanted to provide just kind of a brief background. So in the early 2000s, we had the city at that time took a big approach in annexing many of the county islands. Initially, and I was doing the research, it was initially looking at 13 county islands. Ultimately, 11 of the 13 were annexed. The ones that were removed at that time were Lincoln and Glassell. as well as the Santiago Creek or the Bond Pits. So those ones were a part of the initial analysis. They were removed. And then the 11 islands that were evaluated were ultimately annexed. I will say that you take out the Santiago Creek, you take out Lincoln and Gassell, the remaining islands that are there were not a part of that initial analysis. And you can see that with this map that was included with that staff report back in the early 2000s. So if you look at North El Medina right here, and you have El Medina here, none of them were really evaluated. And here's all of Heights. So these were islands that were existing, but at the time, for whatever reason, those were not evaluated as that initial exploration of whether or not the city was going to annex them. And so that's why we have the six remaining today. And then I wanted to provide where these are at in relation to our current district map. Most of them, three of them, would go into District 6, with 1 and 2 not having any existing county islands. So there's really two approaches to starting this process, and it all hinges on the size of the county islands. It's 150 acres or less. It can be kind of classified in that streamlined approach. There's no protest proceeding with that. It's more of an administrative action. We would work with the county and OCLAFCO to make that happen. We would also engage the residents that are living in those particular county islands. Most of the ones that we're looking at tonight fall within that category. The two that are outside of that and are 150 acres or more are OPA, as well as the Santiago Creek area. If you look at the different steps you have there, by and large, once you get to step five, they are pretty similar to one another. There are some differences, but there are similar approaches. It departs when you get to steps six and seven, and that's because of the protest proceedings. So if we get the direction tonight, Staff would have those preliminary discussions. We would look at the feasibility analysis, looking how much we would expect that cost would be for the city, as well as negotiating revenue shares with the county. We would adopt a resolution. If it's 150 acres or less, the council would adopt a resolution making findings that this is, in fact, less than 150 acres, and that we meet certain criteria to be able to streamline the approach. If it's on the 150 acres or more side, that council resolution really just initiates the proceedings. The County Board of Supervisors would then approve an annexation agreement. Now that's when staff would come back before that happens to talk about the different revenue shares that ultimately would be incorporated within that annexation agreement and considered by the Board of Supervisors. When we get to step five, and I mentioned that's kind of where we depart, if it is 150 acres or less, OCLAFCO would hold a public hearing and ultimately would, if they approve that, which is more of a administrative action, that would approve the annexation and that would go to the city. If it's 150 acres or more, that's when it goes to OCLAFCO. When they hold a public hearing and they approve it, it's commencing the protest proceedings, which is detailed in six and seven. OCLAFCO would schedule the protest hearing for a period generally ranging from 21 to 60 days. I'll note the election could be required. If there is no majority protest or election or the election succeeds, then OCLAFCO will issue a certificate of completion and the annexation would become effective. I would, we have both of the 150 acres or more, so it's OPA as well as Santiago Creek, they fall into each of these. So OPA would fall into inhabited territory. The Santiago Creek area would fall into the uninhabited territory. So if we were to move forward with that and everything got to that point, we're at steps six and seven. For OPA, you'd fall into if less than 25% were to come out and protest against it, the annexation would be ordered. If you got 25% to 50% or protest is submitted by 25% of the owners who also own at least a quarter of the assessed value of that territory, then an election would be administered. And that's OCLAFCO working with the city and the county ROV. If we receive 50% or more protests, then the proceedings are terminated and we're done at that point. That first part with the inhabited territory, that's the process for OPA if the council went that direction. The uninhabited territory is that small portion with the Santiago Creek, which is essentially the basins. By and large, that's owned by the Orange County Water District. I think we wouldn't really even necessarily get to this phase. I'm sure we can reach out to them and see if there's any interest in there. Since they own really the lion's share of that property, I think we can engage with them and see if there would be any interest within that area. But for consideration of 150 acres or more, we have those two county islands. One would fall in each of them, and that's the approach we would take. So I have a slide for each one just to give an overview of the county islands we're considering. So the first one's El Medina. Again, less than 150 acres, 101 acres. The estimated population, and this is from Osulafco, so I'm sure these numbers will change as we get into this. But it's 2,700 housing units. We have 684 housing units. We will work with the county on this, but it is likely that if we were to move forward, we would have to absorb the RHNA units that are associated with each county island. And so right now, 328 are assigned to the El Medina Island. And I just have a note there that this one is streamlined. This one could go through the streamlined approval. North El Medina is even smaller, 31 acres. Estimated populations is up by 20 with 126 housing units. No arena units are assigned to North El Medina, and again, this one would be a streamlined approval. Olive Heights is right around the same range, 32 acres, estimated population is 500, 166 housing units, 431 reading units assigned there with a streamlined approval applying to that one as well. Lincoln and Gassell, it's mostly industrial. Surprisingly, it has reading units assigned to it at 624, but given its size, that one would also be eligible for a streamlined approach. And then we get to our two final ones, which are above that 150 acre threshold. This is Orange Park Acres, 394 estimated populations, a little over a thousand housing units at 386. And then there are no unit assigned to that. And that's coming from the County of Orange. We worked with them last year when we first started looking at this and that's where we're getting those numbers. Lastly, you have the Santiago Creek. No one's living there, and its streamline approval would be no, and it's 187 acres. So I just wanted to provide an overview of what each of these county islands look like. Again, we have six of them that we are discussing tonight. When we look at how services are provided in our unincorporated areas, I have the different agencies that are providing services. It is kind of a hodgepodge of different agencies that are involved. I will note that when it comes to our fire department, Orange City Fire Department services many of the unincorporated county islands through mutual aid agreements. However, they do not provide ambulance transports out of these areas. So if annexed, this is a service that we would need to evaluate in consideration of the existing ambulance contract that's currently operating out of there. If it were to come over to the city, you would have things like our library would come to the City of Orange's library, animal control, we are already contracting with the county that would continue planning. All of that would become city services, and of course, Orange Unified School District serves these areas as well. So ultimately what staff's looking for tonight is we're wanting to see from the council if there is a desire for staff to work with the property owners, the residents in these areas, to work with OCLAFCO as well as County of Orange staff, particularly in the CEO's office, to see if this is something that we can bring back to the council with the cost estimates of what it would take to service those areas if they came to the city, as well as the revenue shares and the exchanges that would happen between the city and the county. There are existing property tax exchanges, but that's something I think we can work with the county and see if we can make this work. They are interested in working with us to make this happen, and so right now staff is looking for direction, and based on direction, we'll work with the relevant agencies.

Very well. Before we get to public comments, are there any questions of staff? Councilor Talares, did you want to go first? All right. Everyone fine with that? All right. Before we call up our first speaker, if any members of the public who are participating through Zoom wish to address the council, please raise your hand. If you are calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. We'll hear in-person speakers first and then move on to remote speakers. You are participating remotely. The city clerk will announce when your three minutes are up and then you will be muted. First public speaker, in fact, it might be the only one, Mr. Peterson. I'm sorry, there are quite a few.

All right, good evening again. Once again, I'm speaking on behalf of Wendy Ragland, who couldn't make it tonight. I'll just read what she has. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Wendy Raglin, and I live in Olive Heights, one of the unincorporated county islands under discussion tonight. I oppose annexation. My neighbors and I chose to live in a county pocket for a reason. We value the semi-rural character of our community, the independence it provides, and the fact that it remains distinct from the city. Before annexation proposals moves forward, I encourage the council to consider a fundamental question. Do the effective residents actually want it? For many of us in Olive Heights, the answer is no. We wish to preserve the character of our neighborhood and remain a county pocket. Trust matters in discussions like this. The city is asking residents in unincorporated county islands to trust city government enough to become part of it. At the same time, the city recently sent a demand letter to a private political forum over a graphic and page title. Those actions send very different messages about the civic participation and community engagement. If the city wants residents to embrace annexation, it should first demonstrate that it welcomes public participation, dissenting viewpoints, and community oversight. I urge the council to respect the wishes of the residents who live in these communities and not assume annexation is a preferred outcome. Thank you. Regards.

Thank you. There are several other speakers. The first one is Reggie Mundekas, followed by Lori Sestina.

Hi. This is something that sounds good, but there's a lot of details because each of these areas have their own codes and the way that the residents live and I'm not sure if everybody is going to want to adapt to Orange City code when it comes to things like the number of animals you can have and some of the other code issues and some of the other issues with non-conforming structures. This would also cost money because They have infrastructure that needs to be upgraded. My suggestion is that if the sales tax measure passes, we bring this back not in 2027, because that would be the first year of that money, but at the end of 2027 or the beginning of 2028 for further discussion, because then if the sales tax measure passes, we would have some funds to actually put towards this. And in the meantime, you could have discussions with the residents of those areas to see if they want to join the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Reggie. Following Lori Cicina is Laurel Maldonado.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. In January, a council meeting Councilman Dimitri said residents should be surveyed before the city gets too far into this process. Councilman, and I'm going to pronounce your name wrong, Bordeaux, also supported finding out what residents wanted early. So I'm asking you to honor that. Councilmember Gutierrez, you originally brought the county island annexation forward. Before the city moves ahead with annexing El Medina and OPA, you should support a survey asking the affected residents whether they actually want to become part of the city. Residents need to know exactly what annexation could mean before they are asked to support it. For Orange Park Boulevard and Elmo, that includes differences between county and city regulations affecting horses, livestock, chickens, as well as affected horse trailers, recreational vehicles, and where they may be parked on private property or public streets. These aren't minor issues, and in an equestrian community, they affect how people have used their properties for generations. Residents also deserve a clear explanation of the financial consequences Annexation does not simply allow the city to raise everyone's Proposition 13 property tax rate, but city residents can be subject to voter approved bonds, assessments, or other property related charges that may appear on their property tax bill. Before this moves forward, residents should be given a written comparison showing the county rules versus city rules explaining any potential changes to their property tax bill. Orange Park Acres and El Medina may be different communities with different annexation rules, but we have one very important thing in common. The people who live here deserve to be asked first, and they deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to join. Thank you.

Thank you, Lori. Following Laurel is Drew Whitefeather.

Hello again. I don't really have a prepared speech. I just wanted to kind of understand the process of this. It's my understanding that if one of these islands is considered to be annexed, all six have to be annexed together. If that's not true, that's great. Orange Park Acres, my family has lived there since 1965. The whole entire area had been county. The only reason that it's not is in 1973, land started to be sold and be annexed into the city. And approvals for communities that were not equestrian communities, not large animal keeping, were being approved at lightning speed. Luckily, we had forefathers that were smart and residents that then put together a committee and they created our specific plan. It stopped future developments from destroying our rural character. But we have them in there and we had to deal with them. But we stopped that. And so the fear is annexing into the city is going to be the first step that we're going to lose our rural character. And we're going to lose our ability to keep our equine and our livestock and our kitchen and our chickens and. It just doesn't seem like it makes sense right now. Financially, you guys are struggling as a city. Get things together before you start taking, trying to take and annex us into the city because you're not gonna have any money to support us the way that we need to be supported in our county. I ask you to just think about what you're doing. Be sure that you ask the residents. in each of these counties that you're trying to annex in, and listen to the residents, because you're supposed to be listening to the residents, not coming in and just taking if we don't want to be annexed into the city. I think we're all open to look at both sides, but I hope you're transparent in providing all information, the pros and the cons, and let the residents make a choice of whether they want to be part of this annexation or not. Thank you.

Thank you, Laurel. Following Drew is Sherry Montauk.

Hi, Mayor and council members. I asked the council to take OPA out of this analysis. One, you guys can't afford us. We have bridges. We have Handy Creek. You look at the city side, it's full of trees. You look at the county side, it's clear of trees. We don't want the same thing that happened to Mayberry with their green belt when you guys come in and say, all these trees got to be cut down because we can't afford to maintain them. OPA, we love our roosters. We don't want to lose our roosters. And in the city, you guys do not allow roosters. I can have more horses on my property because I live in the county than the people in the city. There's a lot of undergrinding issues that would be Technically, I can have as many horses I want, actually, because our property was bought before the law. So I'm grandfathered in. Would the city recognize that? Because the county does. So there's a lot of costs that the city would endure that, with the way the budget is, you guys could not even afford. I mean, I know we bring money in. We don't use a lot of fire. We don't use it until it's needed. We don't use a lot of police other than, you know, Newport Academy. They spend more money on the police than we do, than the residents of OPA. So I just ask you to take this out of the analysis, deal with it later when you guys get your budgets worked out. Thank you.

Thank you, Drew and Sherry.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. As I said earlier, I'm the current president of Orange Park Association. On behalf of the association, I urge the city to remove Orange Park Acres from the current annexation proposal. Annexation is a delicate issue to our rural community and must be approached differently than in other areas because of the Orange Park Acres animal keeping, practices, rural infrastructure, and long-standing community character. If the city wishes to discuss annexation in the future, we respectfully request that it first engage directly with the community, listen to residents' concerns, and consider the ordinances and grandfathering protections needed to affected properties. At this time, we cannot support any annexation of Orange Park Acres. Thank you.

Thank you, Sherry. Are there any remote speakers?

No, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back to the council for discussion. I would encourage you to weigh in on your opinion on all the islands. Then I'd like to do just a show of hands, island by island, if you think it's something we should possibly consider. NOW OR NOT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF THINKING AT THIS POINT. FIRST WE'LL BEGIN WITH COUNCILMEMBER TAVALARES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUPLE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, JACK. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCIAL SITUATION WE'RE IN. I KNOW THAT THIS PROCESS IS TAKEN OVER BY AN ORGANIZATION CALLED LAFCO. AND I WANT TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER staff is asking for us to either approve or not approve or go forward with a study, correct? So they would be the lead agency in that study?

I don't know who would be the lead agency. I'm looking at Jack's. Yeah, we're looking for some direction right now. Right now, the LAFCA report, one of the attachments, has some preliminary analysis. We need to know what the actual true cost is, right? I'm not just going to simply take the county's $2.1 million expenditure at face value and say that's what our expenditure is going to be. So if there was motion prepared, I would prepare something along the lines to direct staff to complete the due diligence, right? What is the true financial impact? Run an infrastructure condition assessment. With that, we'll be able to wrap a dollar amount in a figure around it and negotiate with the county. Fine, I'll take it for a million dollars or five million dollars or whatever that might be. So tonight isn't actually about initiating formal proceedings. It's do you want to conduct due diligence? If so, on what islands? And then do we want to survey residents, right? I Absolutely feel resident engagement is very much, you know, it needs to happen. I wouldn't issue, do you want to be annexed? Yes or no survey, right? I feel we would get a lot of no votes, and then that puts council in a predicament. You surveyed us and you still initiated proceedings, right? I would couch the survey more as what do you want to preserve? What characteristics? We can certainly design around community standards, right? Part of the due diligence would look at our community development code with the county's code. It would address things such as Animal keeping, RV keeping, lot sizes, et cetera. It's a substantial amount of work that would likely take months to complete. If you send us down the path, no problem. Happy to do the work. But I would return likely within six months or so with a true due diligence sort of report, some community survey along that lines. And then council can make the decision whether or not to initiate formal proceedings.

I appreciate that. From my memory, years ago, I remember former supervisor Morlock made a big deal about this because in his then district, he had a lot of islands he wanted to... meld into the cities that they were surrounding, and it was a very popular issue at the time for the county. I don't remember if it was for the cities involved, but it was for the county. So LAFCO has a process. If we do decide, they would, if they're not the lead agency, they actually have a process that goes through, whether it's surveying, asking questions, how this will work out in negotiations with the county if we decide to do so, and so forth. Mr. Mayor, I understand what you're saying. I'd like just to talk about the third district, if that's okay. Jack, could you bring, there's a couple of them in the third district, one of which is where R.J. Noble sits right now. I don't remember what.

Correct, yes. That's the Lincoln-Gassell.

Okay. That, I would ask my colleagues to agree with me that it, That parcel, we can call it that, that parcel is just the business, RJ Noble. There's no homes there. I'm kind of confused why there's RENA numbers there. The county put RENA numbers there?

That's what we received, yeah, that they have RENA numbers tied to that particular island. But yeah, there's no homes there.

I don't want to get into what the county did with their RENA numbers. It's odd, very odd. But anyway, the whole plot, as we all know, since you all here are my neighbors, that is strictly rj noble i know they have no um desire to change anything because it's just a business so i would ask that that not be included in anything going forward um and then the other part that's in district three is olive so olive heights looks like it's it's in district four

Maybe you share the trend track.

It might be a portion of it. The fabulous fourth.

Yeah, the fabulous fourth. So it looks like the Mayor Pro Tem and I share that. There's also, I was telling the city manager earlier, there are some streets near Ambrys Park that are county streets. And those homes were built about, I want to say 20 years ago. And I'm kind of surprised that Lenar, when they were building them, they didn't. do anything. Anyway, I only know because when I walk precincts up there, they're not districted in District 3. They're county residents. And they're melded into those neighborhoods of those new homes. And I'll go tomorrow and get the addresses and stuff, but I just actually do walk my precincts, so I know that those There are some little streets in there that maybe LAFCO doesn't know about. Maybe it was an oversight. But that is District 3. So for that, and I will wait to hear what my colleague, Mr. Bilodeau, wants, I would say let's study it. There's nothing wrong with studying it. It doesn't mean we're doing anything. I'd kind of like to know more about it. And my other thing is... The last question I think, Mr. City Manager, is if we get to the point that slot A looks like something they want and we want, I take it we negotiate, or LAFCO does on our behalf, with the county, so we just don't take it as is with everything that's wrong with it. We would negotiate something in terms of water, pavement, sewers, all that good stuff because it probably hasn't been kept up to the standards of what the city does.

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of negotiation that has to occur with the county. Infrastructure negotiation, property tax, revenue splits, et cetera. Some of the county islands, I believe, might have a structural fire fund fee associated with them. That correlates to the Orange County Fire Authority. There's going to be months of negotiations back with the county, yes.

Also with the sheriff and OCFA and all the things that. So, for example, if you guys look at that map, if you look at Olive Heights, it's probably one of the small ones we're looking at. Or El Medina, my colleague Gutierrez, Councilwoman Gutierrez, probably talked. There's a crime there. There's something happens there. It's not OPD that goes there. The sheriff has to make a special trip there. So that costs them money. So you can understand from their standpoint, that is not cost effective for them. So, and I do want to, I remember Councilman Dimitri at our our meeting said he'd love to see Orange made whole and it's time to have these discussions and I think that's something good. Does it mean we're going to do it? Just means that we can talk about it. Again, I don't feel I want to overstep my colleagues who represent districts, Mr. Mayor, and talk about their properties because I think that would be not fair for me. But in terms of District 3, that would be my wish for The Lincoln-Glassell to stay as is because it's just a company. It's a gravel site. And then for Olive Heights, at least for my part of it, I'm okay with studying it. I don't think there's anything wrong with studying it. It's kind of an interesting issue to deal with, I think.

Just for clarification to follow up, I'm assuming if anything happened to R.J. Noble property and they wanted to develop it, would that point definitely be incorporated into the city? No questions asked, right? Not right now.

Microphone. No, not right now. It's County and Incorporated Island. Correct.

But if it is developed, wouldn't it not necessarily?

No. No. And they're owners who are very, we all know them, but they have a desire. We've spoken to them, Mr. Bilodeau and Mr. Demetri and I at one point talked to them, and they definitely don't want to be part of it. And I see why as the property itself is just the company. And if you know the history of the company, it goes back, you know, 150 years, and I understand the history without it. But Olive Heights is a neighborhood. I'd like to see what, again, I'd just like to see what the study would say. I think it's kind of an interesting study.

Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tembilito.

Thank you. Jack, what are the fees associated with kicking off a study with LAFCO.

I mean, I'm sure it's not free. So for over 150 acres, I'll have to get with them on that. I know that they waive the fee for anything that's less than 150 acres. They're trying to incentivize agencies to try to start this process. When it comes to any sort of revenue share, the county has given us kind of a layout of what that could look like. But I believe a lot of that would be negotiable. um there is a existing 1980 master property tax agreement so we would get 50 of the property taxes they're receiving county would receive that 49 point percent um there's the county fire fund we've got 100 of that orange county public library fund 100 of that and then we would work on the deferred maintenance that's there There's a formula that they would work that out and it's essentially a one-time payment About three years of maintenance and it's based on the five-year historical average So there's revenues that we would work with the county and determining. What would you come into the city?

Okay The reason why I ask is because Well before I forget before I get to that I wanted to echo what councilman tavalar said about the the R.J. Noble property that the family has repeatedly indicated that they're not interested in annexation. And they'd be the sole voters, so it's sort of a... It'd be a waste of time to have LAFCO go after them. They're under intense regulatory scrutiny because of the nature of their business. And I just don't think they want to get the city involved in that. And they're quite comfortable being unincorporated. So I wouldn't support... Examining event at this time and it's my understanding. They don't generate any sales tax With the sale of asphalt so it wouldn't be some financial windfall for the city far from it In terms of OPA That one obviously is a more than 150 acres and that would require some large fees from LAFCO I would think and it's pretty apparent to me that you'd have an uphill battle trying to get OPA to annex into the city. I think people like the, you know, the rural atmosphere that goes along with being unincorporated. So I don't know that that's even something we should even pursue. I think, personally, I just think it's a waste of time. It's a distraction. The El Medina Islands, generate an astoundingly low amount of revenue from a property tax perspective based on the attachments in the staff report. It looks like this for the El Medina North Island back in 2023 when that was examined, it would generate about $1,500 a year would be the city's take of the property tax revenue. And for the the larger El Medido Island would be about $9,700. I can't imagine that would cover our costs for code enforcement and other activities that would need to occur there.

Yeah, it would be tough. So OCLAFCO gave us this information. I know the county had additional information on what they were proposing when it comes to revenue share. So if the council directed us, we could probably get more precise numbers of what that property tax revenue would be to the city and what we can expect. um because i do have something from the county for march 2025 it's a bit different than when oc lafco was reporting but even with the county's numbers that are a bit higher it's it's tough even based on just the rough estimate that the county's spending to service the counties it it ultimately leads to a net cost to the city if you're assuming those revenues yeah and that's what concerns me is that

I think it's a great idea, but I don't know that something the city can afford right now to take those on. Now, in terms of Olive Heights, I'm interested in examining that. It's in my district. The infrastructure is all in place. There are some areas that have no sidewalk, but it has a rolled curb, but that's just sort of the nature of the development. So I don't think there's any infrastructure that's deficient in that island. So to me, that's worth taking a look at. I could see from the materials you provided us, at one point there was a tremendous amount of sales tax that was generated there, but maybe that's changed, I don't know.

It looks like there's a builder supply in that particular island. And so it's generating quite a bit of sales tax revenue. And I asked the county if that's Bradley Burns or if that's the full 7.75. They said that is the Bradley Burns.

Okay. And that would then go to the city. So that actually would more than pay for itself based on the sales tax production out there. And in terms of Santiago Creek, I think there's only... three property owners. Most of it is the Orange County Water District, who I'm familiar with. And then there's a school, and then there's a place that sells like firewood. I think they're a tree arborist place or something. So they would all get to vote. I will say from just speaking with my Orange County District hat on, we had a lot of properties along the Santa Ana River that about... 20 years ago, the city of Anaheim annexed. They went to Lafcone annexed. And then they went forward and developed public spaces along the river. And it's actually quite beautiful. And it relieved the water district of a lot of maintenance burden. And now the city provides policing and things. And I'm very grateful for that because had we not joined the city of Anaheim, it would have been camp run amok out there with our unsheltered population. So it's actually worked out to be a great partnership. We don't have those issues at Santiago Creek that I'm aware of. We have an occasional fisherman that makes his way into those pits, but we have a way of shooing them off. But I wouldn't be opposed to the city looking into annexing that creek. I recently hosted a group out there that included the mayor And I see Teresa Sears here tonight. And I had a biologist from the water district come out and conduct a tour. And it's quite beautiful. There's areas of sort of behind the scenes the public isn't aware of that is really stunning. And it would be great to develop more public access to that property as a result. So I wouldn't be opposed with going forward with that because there's no cost to the city on that. So... And I think I covered all of the areas, and so I'm just going to stop there. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, Council Member Gillenhammer.

Thank you. Jack, I have a handful of questions. I'll try and rapid fire them. First of all, I think it makes sense to look into this. There's pocketed nature to our city, so it definitely is the right discussion topic. I guess my first question is can we annex a portion of these islands? Like what I mean is like maybe like a third of one of them.

I think that we can always check with OCLAFCO. I'm going to, I think they would likely want us to annex all of it, not just a portion of a given county island.

Okay, but we don't know if for sure that would be... We can ask them, yeah.

Just knowing kind of what the intent is. They're trying to have cities, it's not just Orange, cities elsewhere to annex everything. So I think that would probably be their take on it.

Okay. The reason why that question is asked is because I think the sales tax generating portion of Olive Heights should be annexed if possible. I agree with Lincoln and Glassell. Leave that alone. I agree with OPA. I think it's a large enough community with a key identity that's organized, and they should be engaged in the discussion at the beginning before we move down any path. I frankly think that same logic can apply to residents of some of the other islands, that they should also be engaged in this, although we can annex them. I guess I would say that we should understand what their opinion is in this process. I think as we go about doing this, and we should pursue some of the other ones, we should understand the value proposition that we bring. So the question I would ask is, why are we annexing these islands? And I would think through it a couple ways. One, there's a benefit to residents that live in those islands, and we have to be able to communicate that. Two, there's a benefit to the residents that live around those islands as it relates to continuity. We should communicate that. And then we should know the financial impact of the decision. And that should be both the transition costs and then what the long-term costs are. I find it really hard to believe, Jack, some of the property tax values that I see in here. They don't make a lot of sense to me. So if we can just confirm some of the low values. if that makes sense.

Yeah, no, absolutely. And depending on what the council directs, we'll come back with all of those numbers that have been confirmed and agreed to by the county so we can bring that proposal to the council. Got it.

Thank you. The question on the finances, when you say negotiate revenue shares, are you saying that they're going to retain 50% of the property tax once we annex these islands?

Yeah, the way, so, and I think there is some wiggle room there, but there is an existing property tax share agreement from 1980, and it essentially says that And they have a list here. They'll give what the property taxes are for that particular island, and they'll tell the city, you'll get 50% of that in a percent. It'll be 50.81%, 50.81%. The balance of it would then go to the county still. So that's how they've set this up. It's an existing agreement that's been in place for quite some time. I do think we can work with the county, and if we should... If the city's going and saying we have interest in doing this, we want to be able to see what we can do with this property tax share.

Do we have other pieces of land that we annexed from the county that are currently under that agreement?

The ones that were done in the early 2000s, they fell under that same agreement, just according to the staff report.

Is that agreement time-bound, where at some point we absorb the full property tax of those lands?

I believe so.

What value are they creating for the annexed lands 20 years ago that we now have?

the share of the property tax value that we've been receiving?

Yeah, what value are they creating for land that's already incorporated into Orange where we provide all the services to that land for them to continue to take the property tax?

I'd have to find that, because we're providing the services and they're still continuing to take the property tax.

Can we understand all parts of Orange that have been annexed and where we still pay the county 50% of the property tax?

Yeah, we can find that.

I think as a part of this, we should understand if this is a time bound negotiation, where's the value that the county provides by absorbing half of the property tax as an agreement for any moving forward of these islands too. I think we need to understand the expenses per island as well. So although I think We should engage the residents and get an understanding and a survey. It would be good to know what expenses we would take on. I think we know the revenue. The expenses are within our control. We decide what we want to spend on. So I think tree trimming was brought up. How does that impact the tree trimming contract, which I think that one, it will go up as a result of more trees. but things like policing and fire, we may or may not spend more money in that area if we absorb small islands and just make it a part of the existing service area, right? So I do think that we have some things that we can control on the expense side, and there's some things that are just gonna be borne with picking them up. So if we move forward in all these, we should really have a clear understanding as to what those are as we go through these. And then RENA units, just so I'm clear, like if we were to absorb these county islands and they come with 400 or 600 or whatever, at that point we can distribute it across the city. Or do they run with the land?

I think they would have to be assigned to that particular county island. That's my understanding. And the total is 1,383 that would come to the city if we were to annex all the county islands. So, but I can confirm if that can be spread out or if they'd have to be tied to that particular county island.

Is this a part of an existing or an approved housing element with the county?

Yes, that's what they had remaining at the time that they gave us these numbers. So this could change as we go and work with them. They could have met some of these obligations and those numbers are no longer that high, but we would find that out. But what they've told us and what was kind of new to us when we first talked to them is that that would become a part of our obligation.

Can they just build those 400 units if they wanted to without the city's involvement?

We can certainly talk to them about that, yes?

Well, I guess my question is if they already have them approved, do we have any control over their ability to build 400 homes in one of these islands if it's county-owned? And can we even influence their desire? If we don't annex them and they already have 468 homes assigned to the island, can they go ahead under their own rules and regulations code, et cetera, bypass the city and just build? Um, I believe so. I can answer that.

Yes, that would be correct because it would be outside of the jurisdiction of the city of orange. If it is not annexed, then the buildings, the, the units can be built. Um, Marina numbers specifically do not state that it, it has to be built. It's immediately, it simply plans ahead for those specific units in that section.

Yep. I understand. Uh, I think that's probably something we should consider. Like when we look at each one of these, um, So just to summarize, I'm against OPA. I think we need to engage OPA and we need to understand the value proposition and they need to come to us and say we want to be a part of the city. I think Lincoln and Glassell, I'm against. The Santiago Creek, I guess, I'm for that. I just need to understand the cost or why we would bring it into the city. The other two islands, I'm for bringing in the sales tax generating part of Olive Heights. But for the El Medina Islands, I would, again, refer back to, I think they have their own identity. We need to understand what they want. And I think that's an important part of the process.

Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Dimitriou.

Great. Actually, going back to something you just asked about the county just being able to build, they do go around us for building. As a matter of fact, there's a project right now on Mark's Way that was approved by the County Planning Commission to build affordable units that really, because of the way the law changed, is just ministerial on our side. And so they're putting up units without parking and all kinds of other issues that we never really even got to see. So I have some problems at whole. First, there needs to be a very clear descriptor when we reach out to whole at some point, which that needs to occur first, I think. You need to find out if there's even interest. It's not residents. It's actually property owners. Tenancy of a residence does not give you the right to decide on an annexation. While it's nice, that's not who actually would end up being the deciding factor. It's actually the property owners. Somebody that's living there today may move tomorrow having answered in the affirmative or the negative, and that wouldn't be fair either way. The next portion is I have big objections to, you know, we can't meet our arena numbers now. And then absorbing a bunch is a real problem. So I think that's a big issue that has to be worked out and perhaps somehow kill it, you know, with the county and tell them to put their numbers somewhere else. I doubt that can happen. I think fiscally, right now it's just, It's an irresponsible time to do this. There are a lot of costs that not just, we can just start at the beginning part with the staff working to move this forward, but again, without reaching out to the property owners to really see where we're at, if they're even interested, then we start looking at the stressors if if there is uh if there is an actual annexation the stressors that we have we don't have enough police now on our street we don't have you know that those actions all pile up and then we're starting to add um responsible areas responsible uh responses um crime prevention our code enforcement our policing our even and actually we would have to look at While we're having success with our AO problem, we'll have to look at expanding that to service new islands. Again, I think it's already been said enough, but the Olive Heights, El Medina, Orange Park Acres have identities that I don't think should be and I think when you move in with the city and we start sharing a bed, those identities are immediately lost. You lose, especially in OPA, you lose that rural feeling. It's gonna be gone immediately. So I think that is a danger that I don't want to see happen. And towards, again, going back towards infrastructure costs, that's significant. And let's just remember how the county has already gotten their way with us and we've been disadvantaged. When the Fairhaven Islands, Cully Drive, Canal and Haim areas were all adopted or brought into the city through annexation, we were promised monies for infrastructure improvement which included sewer connections and those still haven't happened in some areas. And that money has been long spent. So the truth is the county will not meet the total cost. It just isn't going to happen. And it's no fault of their own. They're going to say, hey, this is what the cost is. And we're going to come back and the project will be 10 times the amount whenever it ends up happening. So that's a danger as well. I remember when we had this at our strategic meeting, I was the one that didn't put the little sticker on the thing. I think it's, I think the only one worth pursuing if we were to pursue anything. So I'm a no across the board with the exception of the Santiago Bond pits. I don't see really anything that's effective there. And it has great fishing. I've been chased out of there, so.

All right. Thank you. Council Member Barrios.

Yes, thank you. I've heard everybody talking specifically about like absolutely no to Lincoln and Glassell. And I just wanted to, you know, bring up one point about that. So the family, the RJ Noble owners, they own all of this land that is county land from top to bottom.

I'd have to pull that. I think they are the majority landowner. There may be small parcels in there owned by a separate entity, but I'd have to confirm that.

And the reason I bring this up is just to, you know, not to get stuck in the here and now and to think a little bigger, because this is above what is going to become the largest land development in North Orange County OC vibe. So are we being at all short-sighted by saying, well, the family doesn't want it, so we're not going to talk about it? you know, when we could talk about it in a sense of this could have a lot of strategic value going forward, being above OCBIB, at least the river part that's like crossing over the river and above all of the Anaheim coves and all of that. So I just sense the way you, I'm going to borrow your word, Laurel, you mentioned sequencing. Since the sequencing that you've suggested, Jack, is that we would have these conversations in formal, not LAFCO involved, so that we could understand a little bit better what it is that we're actually talking about with annexation. And it's not to say that we wouldn't do a poll or survey residents, but that might come later once we ourselves are educated and we could educate them too about what it is we'd have to do and what is our ability to do. Because we don't know. We have no idea. My recommendation would be that we not move forward on that until, say, January or February of next year when you know about the sales tax. and whether you have because well i think this sequencing with this preliminary mr city manager is not a lot of cost, it would be a lot of staff time for Jack and for Natalie to like really look in and dive in in the land use and what are the ordinances that are different from one to another. Mr. Whitefeather, you and I have talked about this, it's been a long time, but we've talked about this at great length and I could see why everybody would be against it right off the bat. But I do think for whether it's for this council or future councils, understanding what it means and having that so that if anybody else in the future says, why don't we just do this? Oh, well, finally we have a report and it's all here of exactly what that would take because we don't have that. And the other reason I look at the Lincoln and Glassell one is because none of us were around at the time. Main Place Mall was a county island and Orange had the chance. to annex it. And we just said, oh no, that'd be too much. And we lost that opportunity. So we should always be thinking in a much bigger sense, have the information rather than not have it. and work with these separate neighborhoods to really understand them and understand what it would take. So I do like the idea of a preliminary, more informal discussion, but for the time it will take and for what it will take away for what you would need to do for it, I would just ask that you wait and see if you have the resources to do even that. But definitely not go to LAFCO or any of that until you have that preliminary understanding.

Just briefly, to respond to Councilman Barrios, that area you see at Lincoln and Glassell that's just north, that's owned by the Orange County Water District. in fee. The Water District owns the Santa Ana River right away in fee from Imperial Highway all the way down to the railroad trestle that's just south of Ball Road. So just to clear that up. Secondly, to answer Councilmember Gillenhammer, I know that 50-50 tax split might sound astounding, but you got to remember that the County of Orange provides many regional services to the public, including THE ASSESSOR, THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSOR, THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER, THE CLERK RECORDER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, THE TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, THE HEALTH CARE AGENCY, OC COMMUNITY RESOURCES, WHICH HAS THE REGIONAL PARKS UNDER THEM, THE SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY, AND THE REGISTRAR VOTERS. AND THAT'S WHAT THEIR 50% OF THE TAX INCREMENT IS USED FOR IS TO OPERATE ALL OF THOSE ENTITIES THAT SERVE the entire public in Orange County. And that's all I have to say about that.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Back to you, Council Member Gillenhammer.

Do other Orange residents benefit from those services?

Have you ever been prosecuted? Then you benefit because you get a public defense if you can't afford it. Yeah, I mean, all of those are regional entities that serve everyone in Orange County. And John Wayne Airport, I should mention too.

Totally get that. Do other Orange City residents pay 50% of the property tax? Yeah, there's a property tax split on everybody's tax bill. Oh, so it's the same.

Yeah, it's the same. It's ubiquitous. This was a scheme that was set up in the 80s that sort of memorialized, hey, this is how it's going to be going forward. Okay, so there's no difference. There's no difference. Okay. But as Mr. Morgan stated, you could go in and potentially... negotiate a special deal because sometimes there's a fire sale going on and the county wants to get out of the island business. And I've seen that over the years at the county. I'm working in the various departments. Anything's negotiable. But that is the reason because the county operates a lot of agencies that are for the benefit of the whole public. Okay.

As long as it's the same property tax split that anyone else pays in the orange, then that makes sense to me. That was my question. Yep. My actual question was, we have one other county island. We have the Santiago Canyon dump site, or former dump site. It operated from 68 to mid-90s, stopped taking trash in at that point, and then it's been in a venting program for a long time.

What about that? I can ask OCLAFCO. I know we've talked to them about trying to improve that site, potentially for park uses. They've taken it all the way up to their director, and there just has not been an interest there. They have concerns from a health perspective. But we can certainly ask them and see if that's available. Right now, from based on what OC LAPCO is showing us, it's just not listed as a county island in orange. But we can always talk to them about that.

No, it's county-owned, but it's already within the city's jurisdiction. Ah, got it. Okay, that makes sense.

Cannon and San Diego Canyon Road. Got it. Yep. So although not specific to this discussion, I think we should do something or continue to work with them to figure out a use for that land. At this point, the vending for most of those landfills has already been done, so I would assume this one's got to be close, right? So just keep working with them.

Okay. All right. Well, actually, Council Member Gutierrez, you were up earlier. Did you want to go ahead of me? All right. So I'll start with a question. On the bond pits, there may be two or three owners there, but when it comes to actually voting, it's only people that have residency in any island that actually participates, correct?

Or if it's not inhabited, then it's going to be who essentially has the lion's share of, who owns the most of the assessed value of the property. I think in that case, it would likely be the Orange County Water District.

All right. Good. Thank you. Anyway, I'm glad to see this come up for discussion. You know, when I look at the county islands and orange, it looks like a really bad Swiss cheese. In fact, a really, really bad Swiss cheese. And the county islands, quite frankly, the way I see it, are the poster children for the most government inefficiency that exists in the county. Where you have the Olive Heights, I mean, there's no county islands anywhere near there, so the county has to come in all the way in just to provide police and fire services, and I'm sure it's probably covered by our fire just because we're there. But, you know, police services and the sheriff has to come in. It's really, really ridiculous, in my opinion, and extreme government efficiency at its worst. so that that being said here's kind of how i see the islands i'm going to start with orange park acres i think we should exclude that for now i said i think the first process that needs to take place there is we need to reach out to these residents and have a discussion they need to know that we don't care that to change their situation with regard to their animals. It's been that way for 100 years. Why not stay that way? I don't care. They need to know that we don't want to change their lifestyle. We want to preserve it. In fact, maybe we can help them enhance it somehow. Again, all for discussion. We need to talk about, you know, maintenance of the creek, Handy Creek. We need to talk about sewer connections. We need to talk about trash service. Maybe we can provide them with more affordable trash service because I understand that's a problem. so i would uh suggest we put that one aside and start with a discussion with the leaders in orange park acres um and ultimately we may decide that's just it's just not in the cards and that's fine you know they should live in peace and in harmony um going up to the um Lincoln and Glassell. I don't see the need right now to pursue that. I think it's fine. As Council Member Barrio said, you know, we don't want to miss an opportunity in the future, certainly. But for the present time, I don't, I tend to agree with what I'm hearing from my colleagues to let that one go. The Olive Heights, again, mean is this the 1800s i mean good grief i mean here's an island still sitting up there sure who let them keep it the way they want i don't care but again to have county services have to come all the way in to service that island is uh is inefficient uh the bond pits i think that's the clearest um uh that's a no-brainer in my book that is a beautiful beautiful open space as described by the mayor pro tem that would be a crown jewel to have in the city of orange especially along our san diego creek corridor the water district maintains it the water district sounds like would probably appreciate the city taking some responsibility for for policing there there's there's There's not a lot there. It's a lot of wildlife and birds. It's quite beautiful. And then we get down to the El Medina Islands. That really, to me, is the reason why we need to do this. And I'm anxious to hear what Council Member Gutierrez has to say about that. But to me, Those islands have been a problem, quite frankly, for the city. There's still an active gang there, or more than one. There's code enforcement problems galore, graffiti all the time, and it spreads out from that area and impacts the immediate orange neighborhoods. Again, maybe there's something that maybe make El Medina special. Maybe let them have more of a design standards that are more suitable for El Medina's history. Maybe recognize its culture. But it seems to me that if we Looked at Almadena Islands at the same time, which might be a negative as far as revenue. And we looked at Olive Heights at the same time. It might be a gain as far as revenue. I think we need to put it all in the mix. And so I have a motion that I worked on with the city manager that I'll just run it up the flagpole and it We can massage it or think about it. But just for discussion's sake, I'm going to move that the City Council direct the City Manager to pursue annexation of the El Medina, North El Medina, Olive Heights, and Santiago Creek-Bon Pit County Islands into the City of Orange and to undertake the due diligence, negotiations, technical studies, and coordination with Orange County LAFCO, the County of Orange, affected service providers, and other agency necessary to advance the annexations. I further move that staff shall fully evaluate and address the fiscal, infrastructure, service delivery, property tax, land use, environmental, legal, and transition issues associated with the annexations and seek terms that protect the city's financial and operational interests. Staff shall advance this work over the next six months and return to the city council. By the way, we will have by then seen if we're gonna have the sales tax passed or not. Staff shall advance this work over the next six months and return to the city council no later than February of 27 with an update recommended terms, and any actions or approvals necessary to continue and complete the annexation process.

I second that, Mayor.

Okay, well then I'll move it. And further discussion I would appreciate from the council. This is important steps. But first, Council Member Gutierrez.

Thank you, Mayor. So thank you. I listened to all my colleagues. I wanted to listen to what everybody had to say. And as you all know, that this is something that is near and dear to my heart since when we first started on here in 2021, right? And so I appreciate that we're looking at all our islands and throughout our city and And as I feel about the islands in my immediate neighborhood, as the way Council Member Tabulares feels about her neighborhood and your neighborhood as well. And you're right. Albany has its own identity, but it's been split into two. But we're whole. We keep the same identity. Half is in the city, half is unincorporated, but we all speak the same language. We're the same, both sides. And you've cut us in half. And why that was done doesn't make sense. So we need to be whole. That's the number one thing. And I have no problem doing a survey, but I know a lot of my residents that live in unincorporated. A lot of them are my family. A lot of them are friends and people that I've known for ages. And they feel like they're part of the City of Orange. They don't even realize that they're unincorporated. And when they are, they question why they're not. And that fluidity of services, of continuity, is much needed, because you can't be driving up Hughes and hit Spring Street, and you're in the county, and then you hit Chapman, and you're in the city. And all kinds of different things occur, and that continuity needs to happen, because things happen at La Careta, and those residents that live on Pearl Street want to complain and don't get any help, neither from the county, neither from the city, because we don't know where it belongs to. So those things need to be clarified. And if you're going down Riles, half of Riles is in the county and half is in the city. And so you've got residents that, when you get to the county part, they're using such and such trash. And on the other side of the city, where's that continuity? It needs to be unified. And so to say that El Medina is giving you low property tax and all of Heights is giving you fantastic sales tax. That's true. But Olive Heights' property tax is lower than Al Medina's property tax. And Al Medina is going to give you some sales tax. It's not like they're going to give you none. We do have a little bit of commercial in the county pocket there. We've got Pollo Loco. We've got Chase. I mean, Chase probably doesn't give us anything, but Pollo Loco brings in quite a bit. And we had the feed store, and now they're doing something else there. And we were getting some sales tax. And you're not getting nothing. And if we annex it, you'll also, I don't know, I guess services don't count because the mortuary also services is county. How, you know, I'm sorry, the churches. But yet the mortuary is city. Does it make sense? We took up, when we annexed Almedina, and I'm not talking North Almedina because North Almedina is not Almedina proper. So when you're talking about El Medina and we annexed it, we made sure to take up all the good commercial. I mean, we even took the mortuary but didn't take the church. It doesn't make sense. So again, you're right. We all have our own identity. But El Medina has been intact the entire time. But you've cut us in half. And we need to be made whole. And I would love to bring in North El Medina because that's also very strange when we talk about continuity of lines and services. and it doesn't make sense. Those people that live in North El Medina have issues with things happening on Hugh Street, and they can't get any help because county does not out there regulating with their, what am I thinking right now, not public works, but coming out to regulate what's going on with these big trucks that are parking, what is going on with the sales of the of the vendors on the corner. And a person that's coming from Orange Park Acres is going to complain to the city. Hey, why is there a vendor there? Why are these big trucks there? Not knowing, that doesn't belong to the city of Orange. So those are all things that would help us all with our services. And again, I appreciate Councilmember Tabalaire saying that she has She wants to study her area. And we should all want to study all these areas. And to say you're not willing to study El Medina, but you're willing to study Olive Heights is a little bit of an insult to me, Mayor Pro Tem. So I would appreciate a study to all of them, right? Obviously, OPA doesn't want to be in it. So that's fine. I'm completely fine with that. But I would appreciate to be fair and study all of the islands that we've talked about. I mean... I think, wow, with the bond pits, I wouldn't have even thought about bringing that into the city. But wow, if we could have that additional open space and water, fantastic. But we need to help people. That's what we hear about service. And if I want to keep my identity where I live, then I need to bring in that other half into the city because it's much needed and overdue. And I want to know, when we annexed back in 2002, you were on council. You were, and when we brought in the 11 county islands, who was on council, Mayor?

Well, I came in in December of 22. Who was, you were, Dennis wasn't here.

Okay.

Oh, Council Member Barros was here. No. Oh, 2002. Oh, I'm sorry, 02. Joanne. It was Joanne, Mark, Mike. I went off and.

Yeah, but I mean, you might have been in the discussions or whatever. And when those 11 county islands were brought in, I'm certain all the same thing was discussed, right? That people cost money. It's going to be a net negative. But yet you did it. Why now? Why is it so difficult to bring in these last few remaining islands, right? The Olive Heights people, El Medina, North El Medina, I understand OPA is a rare gem, but they, again, need to be involved in the conversation. And I have been asked by a lot of people in the El Medina area, when are we going to be annexed? Why aren't we in the city? That doesn't make sense. How would I get help? They call me asking for help, and I have to refer them to the county. So I agree. Let's do a study. And I also agree, if there's a survey, why not? I didn't even know that Santiago Creek was an island, so I'm completely fine doing a study on all of them. But to pick at the fact that El Medina is not going to bring in a property tax, that's a little bit of an insult. And I would appreciate that we do include it.

Well, we'll find out. And that was the passionate speech I was looking for. Council Member Gillenhammer.

Thanks, Mayor. This is my last question. Is the This survey piece, it wasn't in your motion. Would you be okay adding just part of this to be an actual survey of these areas? OPA's organized. They're here. They've made their desires known. They're removed from this motion. Like residents in some of these other areas may not have the organization. They may feel a certain way. They may not have been able to get here today. The size of OPA also dictates a completely different approach.

OPA is not in the motion.

I know. And I think it's because they're organized in here and communicating. But to give other residents an opportunity, can we include just a survey? Kathy.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Why don't we turn that around and do community engagement? Because what the city manager said, I think it's the business I'm in. It's how you ask a question sometimes. And a survey can ask a question like, do you like rain? No. No. And I think that if we go in face-to-face and have, that's a very different discussion. So I would say community engagement. I think that's where you're going to get some of the interesting things that Councilwoman Gutierrez talked about with her area. I would just counter that with that.

As the maker of the motion, I would say we need to do community outreach, but a formal survey I don't think would be... the right approach, but I'm happy to hear what my colleagues have to say about it. Council Member Demetriou.

Again, Mayor, I'm going to advocate for that survey. I think it's important. Just this item alone tonight, the public, all the different county islands had six days. It got published Thursday afternoon, and then they have today. That's That's just not the right way to do business. It's almost like, you know, a hostile takeover, really. And I appreciate, actually I appreciate Councilmember Gutierrez's speech. I think it's exactly what you said. It's the passion we all look for. But we do need to still survey the property owners to ensure that before we start chasing anything, that we're not gonna just spend staff time, spend fiscal resources that are critical right now. We don't have extra money to just spend. That we don't waste those funds and if it ends up being a non-starter. So I think the actual survey is an important aspect.

Council Member Taveleris.

I think this is just a dip in the pool to find out what's there and then we can do some engagement and then we can know what questions to ask in the survey instead of do you like it to rain or do you like it to sunshine. I don't want to prejudice the residents on stuff that we don't even know yet or maybe we don't know from what LAFCO has in their best practices. Again, I think if you survey people right now, it's going to be an overwhelming no, because they're not going to know what entails, like the Councilwoman said about her area. I'm not against it in the future. I just think this is the first step in it, and I don't think it belongs in this motion.

Thank you. Council Member Barrios.

I'm going to agree with my colleague, Council Member Taupalares, because as someone who does nothing but community outreach as a profession, we never start with the survey unless you are trying to divine, you know, kind of how the questions should be asked. And I don't think that's what we're trying to get here. In fact, I think we're reverse engineering it by going out to people and saying, not trying to scare them, which I have a hard time with this motion, Mr. Mayor, because Right off the bat, it sounds scary. It sounds super formal. We're pursuing annexation. Whoa, no, we're not. We actually aren't. What we are is pursuing a conversation. And I think if we made a less formal. directive and said let's keep all of these places in because i want you know um jack i don't mean to say your first name i should be more professional but i want you to go talk to miss panetta and say what what do i need to know if we were ever talking about opa or mr white feather and say what don't i know about these areas but also go out and talk to the rj noble family and say what really is the sticking point? Is there some other place that we could be at so that we have that broader worldview before, and then come back and say, okay, these ones really are non-starters. We're just, you know, And talk with each of us, too, who know our area, like Councilmember Gutierrez, who could probably walk you to all the people you need to talk to in her neighborhood. So I think we need a baby step first. I completely agree that there should be a survey, but as the first step, you're just going to get shut down, and then it's going to be for naught. And then again, I go back to, you probably need to do this in February when you do know you have the time and resources for it. But that's my point.

Thank you. I'm going to try this motion without a survey initially and see how that goes. And if it doesn't make it, then certainly we could consider other motions or perhaps continuing it even until next February. But I think we've put this off long enough. So with that, I'm sorry, go ahead. I would. We'll add the engagement piece, but just not a formal survey. And the second of their motion is fine with that. Thank you. I'm going to call for the vote. Motion passes five to two with council members Barrios and Dimitri voting no. All right, we have one more item. And it should be brief. Item 9.3, result of the independent accountant's report on the agreed upon procedures for payroll. I will ask my colleagues if you would like a staff report on this. I'm not seeing anyone jumping up and down. Is there any speakers? I'm not seeing any remote speakers.

No, Mayor.

I have a motion from Councilmember Gutierrez. We have a second from Councilmember Barrios. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

Mr. Mayor? If I might, I just wanted to thank staff. I really enjoyed reading this report. I know it sounds dumb, but I just wanted to thank you for all the hard work on this.

Good comments. Thank you. Motion is approved unanimously. The next regular city council meeting will be held on Tuesday. September 8th, 2026 at 6 p.m. in the council chamber. Closed session beginning at 5 p.m. If necessary, we're adjourned.