Foothills Sentry March 2022

Page 7 Foothills Sentry March 2022 Santiago Creek-side development project under fire from residents By Tina Richards The 8.2 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to Santiago Creek behind Yorba St., Malena Dr., and Wheeler St. in Orange is desig- nated open space/recreation in the city’s General Plan. It has been mined for sand and gravel, used as a dumpsite and an impromptu sports field for residents. It has been largely ignored for the past 20 years. But now, a developer wants to build housing and stor- age units on it. For residents who live next to the site, it’s déjà vu all over again. In 2002, another developer wanted to build a storage facility there. Neighbors objected, noting the land’s open space/recreation zoning. At that time, the county solid waste local enforcement agency reported that because the property was a dumpsite and no one knew the type, depth and amount of waste deposited, potential health hazards could not be determined. It suggested the site be assessed for methane emissions before anything is built there. Residents delivered five hours of public comments opposing the facility at the city council meeting the night the storage facility was slated to be approved. The council approved it anyway, with then- councilmen Mike Alvarez and Dan Slater voting "no." A third councilman refused to approve it when it came back for a second reading, and the project died. Holding pattern At that time, the council passed a resolution stating that the property’s open space/recreation designationwas simply a “holding zone" until another development came along. The General Plan did not change, however, and the developer that has come along now must still ask the city to change the zoning. Bill Bouska has lived on the cul-de-sac next to the property since 1990. He fought the 2002 development, worked on the cre- ation of Grijalva Park (the site’s northern neighbor) and has been lobbying the city to make good on the decades of planning to cre- ate a greenbelt along the length of Santiago Creek and turn the eight acres into a park. “I’ve worked to protect my neighborhood and open space all these years,” Bouska says. “I’ve spent time and money because I can’t depend on the city to look out for its residents.” Today’s Stonefield Develop- ment consists of 158 three-story senior apartments and a single- story storage facility built along the boundaries of the existing neighborhood. Access would be via Yorba Street. Say what? The project took most of the neighbors by surprise. A notice was sent to residents within 300 feet of the project site last March. But Bouska, who lives at ground zero, didn’t get it. Neither did the majority of homeowners who reside outside of the 300-ft. notice area. When Bouska got wind of it, he knocked on doors and passed out flyers to every house in the area. A scoping meeting held in December was, likewise, insufficiently noticed. “Nobody went to that meeting,” neighbor John Moore says, “because nobody knew about it.” Scoping meetings are held ahead of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that must be done prior to development. The meeting gives residents the opportunity to raise specific concerns. The EIR is now underway. The initial Stonefield study harkens back to the “holding zone” identified in the city’s 2002 resolution. “The project site is private property and was not envisioned that it would be public open space,” it reports. “The intent of the open space designation was that the zoning would act as a holding designation pending a future development.” Wishful thinking The language in that 2002 reso- lution is not binding. To approve the project, the city will have to amend the General Plan. Any such amendment is discretionary; the city council does not have to change it simply because it is asked to. To date, the project hasn’t been approved by anyone. That will come after the EIR is submitted, reviewed and revised. The city, however, is being proactive. The newly appointed Parks Commission just agreed at its Jan. 26 meeting to give the developer a small strip of Grijalva Park to serve as an emergency access road to McPherson Road. In exchange for approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of the southern edge of Grijalva Park, Stonefield De- velopment will install a 1,400-ft. multipurpose public trail along the site’s northern perimeter. The developer is also offering to put in a trail connection to Grijalva Park at McPherson. That same trail was originally offered as a public benefit when the project was introduced. “They were going to put in the trail at their cost,” Bouska recalls. “It was supposed to be a benefit. Now it’s a tradeoff for public open space.” Best of both worlds The City of Orange is currently finalizing a Housing Element plan required by the state. The state has dictated that Orange identify available sites for 3,000 units of low- to medium-cost housing. Nothing has to be built on those sites at this time; they are simply candidate properties to accommodate the numbers. The Stonefield senior apartments are slated to be rented at market rate, and will not qualify as low- or medium-income housing. The project will not help the city meet its state-mandated housing goal. Housing is a current hot button in California, but it does not over- ride open space. The state does not expect cities to insert housing opportunities in designated open space. In fact, the state recom- mends an average three acres of open space per 1,000 residents. With a population of nearly 140,000, Orange should have about 420 open space acres. It doesn’t. Speaking to the city council about the housing element at its Feb. 8 meeting, John Moore noted that the state has housing requirements, but also open space requirements. “Any evaluation of housing,” he said, “should include the benefits open space brings to the city.” Bill Bouska, center, has more than 20 years' worth of documents chronicling the eight acres of open space behind his home. John Moore, left, lives near Bill and Georgeann Bouska (right). Residents who live near the designated open space behind Yorba St., Wheeler St. and Malena Dr. oppose residential/commercial development on the property. Photos by Tony Richards