1 / 20 Next Page
Show Menu
1 / 20 Next Page
Page Background


East Orange • Central Orange • Orange Park Acres • Villa Park • Anaheim Hills • Silverado/Modjeska Canyon Areas • North Tustin

A Monthly Community Newspaper Est. 1969



Residential Customer

Letters To The Editor

Page 7

Canyon Beat

Page 8


Page 12

Prof. Directory

Page 12

Service Directory

Pages 12-14

Soup's On

Page 17


Page 17

Real Estate

Page 18


Page 19


"Villa Park"

continued on page 8







"Orange resolution"

continued on page 4

The Best News In Town

Property rights

and wrongs

Sully-Miller neighbors

are willing to negoti-

ate with developer but

won’t sacrifice commu-

nity standards. See OPA

residents, page 2

Just like it was


He worked in Tower 2

on Sept. 11, 2001, and

shared his story with a

rapt Orange audience.

See September, page 4

Talkin’ turkey

A brother’s tom and his

sister’s hen, both cham-

pions, battle it out for

Grand Champion status

at the OC Fair. See Sib-

lings, page 5

You can go

home again

Instead of moving out,

Villa Park couple moves

their new home in. See

House, page 6

The heat is on

Evacuating large ani-

mals during a fire emer-

gency often takes a vil-

lage. See Canyon Beat,

page 8

John Ganahl served as Grand Marshal for the annual Orange Park Acres 4th of July parade. He is joined

on his self-designed parade float by Olivia Kail, wife Cindi Ganahl, and Owen Kail. This year’s parade

celebrated OPA’s 90th anniversary. See photos, page 16.



called out


By Tina Richards

The City of Orange is quietly

backing away from its resolution

to defy California’s Senate Bill

54, known as the sanctuary state

law, in response to a letter from

the American Civil Liberties

Union (ACLU) suggesting that

the decision was not legal and

should be reversed.

The ACLU letter noted that

municipalities must follow the

law, and that cities can’t resolve

to do otherwise.

“The City of Orange has never

failed to comply with any state

law,” City Attorney Wayne Win-

thers wrote in a letter replying to

the ACLU. “Resolution 21074

expresses the Orange City Coun-

cil’s opposition to SB54 based on

its apparent conflict with federal

law. However, this resolution is

just that -- a resolution -- not in-

tended to have the legal effect of

an ordinance.”

The law of which land?

California passed SB54 in re-

sponse to federal legislation re-

quiring all law enforcement of-

ficers and government agency

personnel to act as defacto im-

migration agents, asking people

about their immigration status

and sharing that information

with Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE). The state

answered with a law (govern-

ment code 7282.4) giving law

enforcement personnel discretion

to cooperate with ICE in cases of

violent crime, but prohibits them

from investigating, questioning,

detaining or arresting persons for

immigration enforcement pur-


The federal government sub-

sequently sued California over

some parts of its counter legisla-

tion. The issue will ultimately be

decided in court.

Orange and several other lo-

cal bodies (Orange County, Los

Alamitos, Aliso Viejo, Newport

Beach, Westminster) jumped

ahead of the court case and

passed resolutions opposing the

state’s action.

Orange’s resolution stated that,

“The City of Orange will, re-

spectfully, stay [stop] compliance

with SB54 until the United States

of America v. State of California

case is fully and finally decided

by the judiciary.”

Following a volatile public

hearing, April 10, the city council

voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution.

The decision followed more than

five hours of public comment,

with speakers from other juris-

dictions who came to support the

resolution periodically disrupting

By Tina Richards

The Villa Park City Council

affirmed its commitment to ban

short-term rentals (STRs), July

25, following a closed-door ses-

sion, wherein city attorney Todd

Litfin advised members that,

if passed, the ordinance might

evoke lawsuits.

The council had approved the

ordinance banning short-term

rentals -- anything less than 30

consecutive days -- with a three-

two vote during its June meeting.

As is customary, the ordinance

reappeared on the July council

meeting agenda for a “second

reading.” Before the hearing be-

gan, Litfin told the council that

the city had received correspon-

dence suggesting that the STR

ban might expose it to litigation.

He recommended that the coun-

cil adjourn to a closed session to

enable discussion of the possible


After 20 minutes behind closed

doors, the council emerged with

no change of heart on the viabil-

ity of the ordinance. Last month’s

three "yes" votes, Mayor Bob

Collacott, Vince Rossini and Rob-

bie Pitts, remained in favor; the

"nos," Diana Fascenelli and Bill

Nelson, stood fast in opposition.

Out of character

Several residents expressed

their support of the ordinance,

with one noting that STRs were

“counter to what the city rep-

resents.” That is, a community

of single-family homes that is

safe, friendly and a good place to

raise kids. One speaker said that

Villa Park affirms ban on short-term rentals

he lives across the street from a

rental property, admitted that

there were no problems, but that

it “changed the character of the


Another resident reported that

she is an Airbnb home, that she

lives in the property, screens

tenants, rents to a maximum six

people at one time, and regulates

on-site activities. She suggested

the council consider compromis-

es rather than an all-out ban.

Fascenelli reiterated her con-

cern that the city was “making a

mountain out of a molehill.”

“We received one complaint

that wasn’t really a complaint,”

she said. “We’re looking up prop-

erty records to see who owns

By Tina Richards

A scaled-down version of a se-

nior living facility, slated to be

built on Newport Avenue in North

Tustin, was approved by the Or-

ange County Planning Commis-

sion, July 25.

Clearwater at North Tustin,

a 100-unit assisted living facil-

ity, is the result of a compromise

reached between property owner

the Catholic Diocese of Orange,

the Foothill Communities As-

sociation (FCA) and the county,

following a contentious battle

over a larger, three-story senior

residence that raged on for years.

North Tustin residents, repre-

sented by the FCA, opposed the

original project, primarily be-

cause it violated the community’s

specific plan, which precluded

commercial enterprises and des-

ignated the acreage as single-fam-

ily residential. Residents claimed

the facility would pave the way

for additional commercial devel-

opment in the neighborhood, en-

courage other property owners to

seek inappropriate zone changes

and add noise and congestion.

Meet in the middle

The seven-acre parcel just east

of 17th Street was donated to

the Catholic diocese for use as a

religious or educational facility

more than 60 years ago. When

the North Tustin Specific Plan

(NTSP) was created in 1982, it

respected the historic plan for

the site, but added single-family

homes as an acceptable alterna-


The 250-ft.-long, 153-unit

OC Planning Commission approves

compromise plan for senior housing

Springs at Bethsaida proposed in

2010 was neither. The board of

supervisors, however, agreed to

amend the NTSP to overlay a “se-

nior residential housing” designa-

tion on that specific property, and

approved the project. The FCA

sued and won in the lower court

in 2011, but lost on appeal. Af-

ter being elected as third district

supervisor in 2012, Todd Spitzer

promised constituents he would

ask his board colleagues to re-

verse the amendment, which they

did in 2015. That reversal nulli-

fied the project approval, and the

Catholic Diocese sued the county.

While that court case was pend-

ing, Spitzer negotiated a smaller


"Planning commission"

continued on page 9

Photo by Tony Richards