Foothills Sentry March 2023

Foothills Sentry Page 2 March 2023 714 282 0828 | jadtec.com aco 4202 Protecting your home and business from burglary, fire and medical emergencies. jadtec.co $ 15 95 /mo as low as SECURITY JADTEC "Builders" continued from page 1 open space. The company claims that because its application is “ministerial,” no environmental review is necessary. Going all in Equally bold is Chapman Yorba’s preliminary application for 204 apartment units within two six-story buildings, and one three-story self-storage building. Slated for the 8.2-acre property adjacent to Santiago Creek be- hind Yorba, Malena and Wheeler Streets, the proposed project is larger than what the builder origi- nally applied for last year. At that time, the project was three stories, with 187 senior apartments. Noting that the build- ings would loom over their single- story homes and backyards, and that any creekside development was unacceptable, the neighbors objected. Seniors are no longer the tar- geted tenants; instead, the build- ings will offer 163 market rate units and 41 low-income units. That earlier application is still active, meaning Chapman Yorba has submitted two different pro- posals for the same site. Two of the three owners of the Village At Orange, Integral and TRC, filed a preliminary applica- tion for 372 units to be built on the JC Penney’s site and a portion of the mall. (See Village, page 3). The Penney’s building and a vacant section of the mall will be demolished. Not so fast There is, however, a snag. Or- ange’s lack of a “certified” hous- ing element seems to be a tech- nicality. It appears that the key to satisfying state law is a “sub- stantially compliant” housing element, which was adopted in February 2022. An April 12, 2022 letter from HCD states that “the adopted housing element address- es most statutory requirements, however additional revisions are necessary.” The city made those revisions, which HCD accepted, and again acknowledged that “the revised draft element meets the statu- tory requirements.” The Orange City Council formally adopted its revised housing element Feb. 14. The last step in the process is to submit the adoption resolu- tion to the state for final approval. HCD approval, however, is not required for a housing element to be substantially compliant with state law. A city may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is compliant. If the jurisdiction is, in fact, out of compliance, HCD has the au- thority to retract its “substantially compliant” determination and refer the city to the state attorney general. HCD has done neither. And there’s the rub The builder’s remedy, as stated within state legislation, does not apply when, “The city or county has met or exceeded its Region- al Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The state determined that Orange’s RHNA for the 2021-29 cycle was 3,936 units, including 1,671 very low to low- income housing. Orange’s adopt- ed housing element exceeds those numbers. It identifies 1,121 sites as very low income; 619 sites as low income; 828, moderate in- come; and 1,784, above moderate income, for a total 4,352 units. The use of the builder’s rem- edy is a new phenomenon and has not been tested in court. If litigated, the legislation allows that “the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with zoning and development standards to accom- modate the agency’s share of re- gional housing need for the very low and low-income categories.” Milan Capital submitted an application to build 200 homes on the contested Sully-Miller site in East Orange. his contract. But no one, includ- ing the board, seemed to know what it was or what it was for. “I’ve been an educator for 15 years,” a speaker reported. “I’ve never heard of an academic au- dit. Why do you assume we don’t want what’s best for our kids?” Is it an audit? Afifth grade teacher questioned the necessity of an audit. “We are professionals in our fields,” she said. “We plan lessons and work with the curriculum that we chose as a district. The interim superin- tendent has never taught in our district. You’re making decisions without thought as to who will be impacted.” “You voted for something, and you don’t know what it is,” an OUSD parent asserted. “Your au- dit terrifies me.” Another parent noted the agenda’s “nondescript description” of an academic au- dit. “We’re left guessing,” he said. “You’re looking at mate- rial that a small, but vocal, group objects to. My daughter attends OUSD, and I don’t see her being indoctrinated.” An audit supporter reported her objections to OUSD “sexualizing students and teaching social jus- tice ideology and Marxism and that white people should abandon their born privilege.” She com- mended the board for focusing on academics. Trustee Andrea Yamasaki leapt into the discussion. She pointed out that the agenda did not con- tain a clear description of what an academic audit was, that audits were usually conducted by third parties, that this clearly wasn’t an audit. She said when she asked Velasquez about it, he didn’t know what it meant. She decried the lack of transparency, that call- ing it an “audit” was misleading to the public. Ledesma explained that it was “an information item, the basis for the reasoning behind an audit. This is foundational.” John Orte- ga added that the agenda “says it’s an academic audit compari- son. To me it’s simplistic.” Or isn’t it? Velasquez attempted a clari- fication, saying that it wasn’t a curriculum audit, but a look at other districts and how OUSD compares. “It’s clear the public has no idea what this is,” Erickson point- ed out. Yamasaki added that Assistant Superintendent Cathleen Corella has been placed on administrative leave pending curriculum and ed- ucation audits, “and this isn’t that. What are we doing?” “This is an ongoing process,” Ledesma elaborated. “This leads into all that. It’s a foundation for developing an audit plan.” “This is the beginning of a dia- logue,” Velasquez summarized. “Our teachers have to use this as they discuss what they’re going to do for our ESL and Hispanic populations. We’re below basic in those areas. And statewide, en- rollment is declining. Where are the kids going? How can we get them back to Orange Unified?” Velasquez recommended post- poning the presentation until the next meeting. The board agreed to table it. A power point presentation comparing OUSD test scores with other districts was given, without Velasguez, at a Feb. 23 special meeting. "OUSD" continued from page 1