Foothills Sentry May 2024

Foothills Sentry Page 4 MAY 2024 Circulation … 40,000 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. Printing by Advantage, Inc. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 © Foothills Sentry 2024 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Jef Maddock graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry. com Guest Commentary Orange faces a moment of truth By Arianna Barrios Last year, I called upon my fel- low council members to support a request for a comprehensive fo- rensic audit of city finances and accounting systems. While my reason for requesting this type of deep dive audit was based on a simple hunch that neither the Council nor our residents had been getting a complete picture, little did any of us know how so- bering the truth would be. Within weeks of that initial request, the carefully curated fa- çade of fiscal health would be laid bare. When we began preparing the 2023-2024 budget, we grappled with a $6 million deficit. While we found short-term solutions to cover the immediate gap, our budget discussions continued throughout the year and, the more we investigated, the worse it got. Orange’s new finance director has uncovered the gravity of our structural deficiencies, currently estimated at $19 million, and pre- sented truly alarming five-, ten-, and 20-year financial forecasts. These discoveries tell us two things. First, that the city’s past fiscal practices have left us woe- fully underfunded. And second, that if we do not quickly imple- ment wholesale change in our operations and find new revenue streams, within a decade Orange will be facing a gaping economic chasm for which there will be little remedy outside of mass lay- offs, loss of critical services and possible municipal bankruptcy. The entire city council is deter- mined to prevent such a scenario and motivated to protect all that we love most about our beloved city. Getting to this point didn’t hap- pen overnight. The dire economic straits Orange currently finds it- self in is the product of years of inadequate fiscal management. The painful truth of these failures is compounded by past practices that kicked the can of accountabil- ity down the road to maintain the appearance that all was well. Sad- ly, we cannot fix the past and the simple fact of the matter is, this problem is now ours to navigate. We are taking extraordinary steps to ensure new operating procedures are put into place and organizational accountability is restored. It is also essential that we be completely honest with Or- ange residents and responsible to our taxpayers. I give a lot of credit to our new City Manager Tom Kisela, and the administration he has built at city hall. While not a traditional candi- date for the position, as Orange’s former chief of police, Kisela is a leader with a willingness to ques- tion past practices and fearlessly assess our strengths and weak- nesses. Furthermore, he does not shy away from sharing harsh realities with his team, the council, or our residents so we can make sound decisions. In addition, new de- partmental leaders from outside Orange have brought with them new energy, ideas, and best prac- tices from other agencies. The transformed executive team is assessing our departments for efficiency, standard practice adherence, fiscal controls, and ac- countability. But it will take time that sadly our city does not have to right the ship entirely. For our residents and business owners, much of this news will come as a complete surprise and shock. We are moving quickly to remedy this with the launch of a comprehensive education pro- gram to draw back the curtain and, with full transparency, share how we got here and clearly ex- plain what our options are going forward. Our residents need to know and voice their opinions in an honest dialogue with city lead- ers. Visit protectorange.com to learn more or request a presenta- tion for your group or neighbor- hood. This is a critical moment for Orange. These problems will not be resolved quickly, nor will any of the potential solutions be easy. We must be intentional about the changes we adopt and completely open with our residents and busi- nesses about the consequences of each possibility. Most impor- tantly, we need the input from our community as we do the hard work to get the city on a strong fiscal footing. We are in this together, and to- gether is how we will find solu- tions to protect Orange for gen- erations to come. Arianna Barrios is Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Orange and represents District 1. What's the plan? Dear Editor: The owners of the 11.1-acre property across the street from Arroyo School in North Tustin has requested cancellation of an agricultural use contract, known as the Williamson Act Contract, by the OC Board of Supervisors. This contract results in lower property taxes and prohibits de- velopment of the property. Why would the owners request cancel- lation of the contract and incur an increase in property taxes? The obvious answer is that they plan to sell to a developer. Under county law, the contractor could then build residential housing like the surrounding homes. But, recent state laws override local laws and permit a wider range of developments, all of which are higher density. To receive the cancellation of the agricultural contact, the own- er must state what the plan for the property will be. The owner has not stated what the plan is. The ruse may be to have the cancel- lation approved with the condi- tion that the use will be provided at a later date. What happens at a later date, when the public is not watching? Every city and county is re- quired by the state to have a hous- ing element plan to meet new mandated housing quotas. If the county or city plan is found unac- ceptable, builders can come and build literally anything supported by the land. Orange County does not have an accepted plan. Could the developer’s goal be to acquire the property and wait to see if the county's plan will be found un- acceptable? This would be very lucrative. If this does not happen, they could try for higher density like the Racquet Club project. The Foothill Communities Association believes the county should not cancel the agricultur- al contract until the plans of the owner and developer are known. Richard Nelson, president Foothill Communities Assn. North Tustin Dear Editor: The owners of an 11.1-acre open space agricultural property has applied to the Orange County Board of Supervisors to change the property zoning from agricultural to residential. The property is at 11091 Coronel Road, North Tustin. It is across the street fromArroyo Elementary School and surrounded by single family homes. The property is undeveloped and has thousands of trees and wildlife. If the Board of Supervisors allows the change to residential, it will likely be a prelude to the land being sold to a developer who intends to construct high-density multiple residential units. Homeowners in the area are gathering information to resist development that is inconsistent with North Tustin’s Specific Plan. We are appealing to other residents to be involved. If development of the property is left unchecked, it could lead to the destruction of our beautiful community, removal of the trees and the total displacement of abundant wildlife. Further, the small streets around Arroyo Elementary School, which are already congested, will be overburdened with cars and people, creating an unsafe and hectic environment. Joanne Schwartz North Tustin Ed. note: The Board of Supervi- sors declined to vote on a status change for this property on April 23. The Williamson Act expires in five years and will remain in ef- fect until then. Site unseen Dear Editor: A letter from the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians was de- livered to the members of the Or- ange City Council regarding the proposed Orange Heights devel- opment. The letter asks the coun- cil to request a new and updated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that recognizes changes that have taken place both legally and culturally since 2005 (when the original EIR was done), as well as a Traditional Cultural Property study, from The Irvine Company before proceeding with the ap- proval of plans and permits. The Orange Heights develop- ment area comprises almost 400 acres between Irvine Regional Park and Peters Canyon Regional Park, considered a crucial wildlife corridor as well as a culturally sensitive area for both pre-contact and post-European arrival -- cul- tural resources important to the Gabrieleno/Tongva. As a part of the cultural resourc- es study completed for the 2005 EIR, testing confirmed the site was potentially eligible for list- ing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, the proposed development site is considered a unique archaeologi- cal resource for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act. In its letter, the Tribe stated its disagreement with the mitigation measures put forth in the original EIR because it did not mitigate for impacts to Native American values. In 2005, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians advised the City of Orange of the cul- tural sensitivity of this area. At that time, AB52, which provides guidelines for government-to- government consultation between interested Native American indi- viduals and groups, had not yet been enacted. The Tribe does not consider that a consultation between the Tribe and the City of Orange for this project has been completed in good faith. As the City of Orange has grown, it has impacted the tra- ditional lands of the Gabrieleno/ Tongva and there is a high like- lihood that unrecorded resources have been destroyed. Both The Irvine Company and the Orange City Council are silent on the sub- ject of protecting tribal resources in our area. Mayor Dan Slater and City Council members, when will you choose to do right by our lo- cal indigenous groups? Heather Westenhofer Orange No appointment necessary Dear Editor: Understanding that political factors may be an attribute to the OUSD board’s decision on how to replace the vacancies in trustee area seats four and seven, it is imperative that this board majority puts the community first. For nearly a year, the OUSD community has been plagued with political polarization through the divisive recall of Trustees Rick Ledesma and Madison Miner. By placing provisional appointments, such polarization would only continue. Considering the current board composition, appointments of provisional trustees would guarantee an unelected supermajority for a certain faction on the board of education. To be delegated such powers without the approval of voters serves contrary to the ideals in which this nation was founded upon. Moreover, the appointment of politically selected provisional trustees would allow them to claim incumbency in a November special election. This would extend the political longevity of a union-backed board majority through the advantage of incumbency, despite voters having little to no say in the first place. It would certainly be judicious to question whether placing provisional trustees would be within the best interests of this community. It would be wise for the board to leave these seats vacant, while maintaining deference to the need for stability within the OUSD community. Alexander Tran OUSD student board member A student Bills of Rights was adopted by the Orange Unified Board of Education in a unanimous vote, April 11. The Bill of Rights, put together by student board members Nancy Albeno, Orange High School; Emma Hoffman, El Modena; Jiya Patel, Canyon; Davehna Ramirez, Richland; and Alex Tran, Villa Park, supersedes a previous rights document generated in 1988. Student board members surveyed their classmates to determine their current wants and needs, received over 1,500 responses and, advised by Trustees Ana Page and Angie Rumsey, created the final Bill of Rights, as follows. The right to state standard curriculum and to learn at a level and pace appropriate to each student’s ability. The right to excel with the support of the school community. The right to gain skills that will enable students to be college- and career-ready. The right to retain individuality within the limitations and boundaries of the school policies. The right to be treated with dignity. The right to embrace one's ethnic, cultural and social background. The right to a safe environment. The right to participate in additional educational opportunities and the right to provide feedback through student voice platforms. OUSD adopts student Bill of Rights