Foothills Sentry June 2021

Foothills Sentry Page 4 June 2021 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 31 Years of Specializing in the Service and Repair of Mercedes-Benz Gary Johnson 714-997-2567 982 N. Batavia # B13, Orange, CA 92867 gary@johnsonmotorcars.com Voter's choice Dear Editor: There is a stench at Orange City Hall, and it is emanating from the chairs of Kim Nichols, Chip Mo- naco and Mark Murphy. The three are drunk with power, and are representing themselves, rather than the city. Nichols and Monaco had the audacity to claim that the council and the city attorney don’t decide the eligibility of the candi- dates. The city attorney is respon- sible for enforcing city policies. It is a fact that he approved the il- legal candidacy of Mike Alvarez. The city attorney should be fired, based on the judge’s decision. The three council members were happy because an Alvarez win meant the voting block of four would remain. The council and city attorney knowingly ap- proved an illegal candidate for their self-interests. Nichols, Mo- naco and Murphy played politics and appointed an ally rather than the logical choice of runner-up John Russo. John’s honesty and integrity are qualities that frighten the three little people. This appointment looked to be a premeditated move, just in case Alvarez got booted. A serious re- call effort for Nichols, Monaco, Murphy and the city attorney should begin immediately. They obviously, and painfully, are not qualified to govern the city. Steve Palmer Orange Dear Editor: I was upset about the way Mark Murphy appointed the new coun- cil member. I was glad to see I wasn’t the only one. There were some great letters to the editor. Glad to see some people are pay- ing attention. Thanks for bringing awareness. And the article written by Arianna Barrios and Ana Guti- errez was great. They are brave to speak out. Really brave. They said it right out in print. Love that. Shari Carter Orange Habitat not houses Dear Editor: I understand the need for af- fordable housing and am well aware of the challenging require- ments for updating city General Plan Housing Elements. How- ever, I was dismayed by the Villa Park City Council’s 3-2 vote to consider rezoning 17.96 acres of open space on Santiago Creek (Smith pit) owned by the Orange County Water District, to multi- family mixed-use development to accommodate up to 360 housing units. The state guidelines provided to cities for completing Housing Element Updates discourage the use of areas zoned open space for housing purposes. The residents living just east of the Smith pit know far too well the harm that filling this area would cause in the near term: truck traffic, noise, dust, and the removal of essen- tially all wildlife. Residents and developers had a vision for this area over 50 years ago and identified it as one need- ing protection for the health and well-being of the community. It is part of the Santiago Greenbelt Plan that prior Villa Park city councils have supported. As we deal with urban sprawl and our need and want to maintain a small town rural feeling, this open space is necessary for the health of resi- dents, the respite our eyes and bodies all require, the protection of the watershed to decrease the chance of flooding, preservation of our drinking water, the protec- tion of endangered and threatened species that inhabit the area, and for connectivity to other areas of the creek corridor to retain biodi- versity and to act as a carbon sink to lesson climate change. It is possible to meet the update requirements with two of the other options presented at the council’s May 11 meeting: implementing incentives for building ADUs and expanding the rezoning of the Villa Park Town Center to accom- modate mixed-use beyond the 28 units already approved. Future Town Center residents would be able to walk rather than drive to the wide variety of services and shopping available. The result would be an addition to a thriv- ing, vital community, rather than subtraction of valuable open space. I urge the Villa Park City Council to take development of Santiago Creek open space off the table and promote a vision of a protected Santiago Creek corri- dor that our generation and those that follow can enjoy. Bonnie Robinson Orange Bottom line? Dear Editor: Regarding the landscape as- sessment fees for Santiago Hills: I would ask the city council and city staff for more clarity before the public hearing at the June meeting. The existing staff report only references the amount for one of our two assessment fees (LMD 86-2). It confusingly states that only LMD 15-1 (the other one of our two assessment fees) will in- crease by 1.5% according to the CPI, but it doesn’t say how much this actually equates to. I pulled my own property tax bill (condo) and my parents’ (single-family home) and found the values listed below: --Condo property tax (2020-21) lndscp main dist. $173.58 lndscp & ltg #1: $221.66 --Single-family home property tax (2020-21) lndscp maint dist.: $244.48 Lndscp & ltg #1: $369.44 I called the property tax phone line, but no one answered, so I have no idea which of these taxes are due to go up because the staff report does not include that level of detail. Which line item above refers to LMD 15-1 and which is LMD 86-2? I’m guessing the second one is LMD 86-2 because the preliminary engineer report says the maximum assessment rate for LMD 86-2 is $369.44 for a sin- gle-family home. I am assuming it is the top line for each that they want to in- crease by 1.5%. Is it accurate to say it will be an additional $2.60 for condos and $3.67 for single- family homes? I will reserve my comments about the city’s negligence in its handling of our landscape district for the June public hearing. Jess Barber Orange Dirt devils Dear Editor: I know Orange residents care about Santiago Creek and its future. When I read the article in the last Sentry, ”City and fill operator out of touch with state and resident reality,” I am frus- trated with our city leaders and city staff. Chandler claims it has the right to fill in this beautifully restored canyon because it once was a gravel pit. The city attor- ney, city manager, and even the mayor have taken the easy stance by agreeing with Chandler. This same threesome gave Milan and Chandler carte blanche on Sully- Miller and now the public is liv- ing with the illegal mountains of construction waste and rubble next to Santiago Creek. Thank- fully the county and the state intervened to stop the fiasco on Sully-Miller. The city was ready to allow Chandler to fill in the adjacent wetland but was stopped by the Regional Water Board as it is a water of the state. Santiago Creek is an amazing jewel that runs the length of our city. Why would our elected leaders and city staff continue to enable these companies to destroy our trea- sured Santiago Creek? Paul Andrews Orange Brain drain Dear Editor: Recently I queried the County of Orange about why it was re- leasing water behind the Villa Park dam, which would destroy the waterfowl habitat in the middle of nesting season. This defied logic, as these wetlands provide critical habitats for birds and other wildlife. After making Putting Orange to the Rotary’s Four-Way Test By Dan Slater Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? The four pillars of Rotary In- ternational’s Four-Way Test were developed as a moral and ethical foundation for business and per- sonal relationships, and is used worldwide. We need to apply this Four-Way Test to our municipal leadership in Orange and assess if city hall passes. Under its current leader- ship, Orange has been fumbling through a fog of translucence - from one avoidable situation to another. Residents have been kept at arm’s-length as city leadership favors insider interests over what is best for the residents. In most cities, the city council represents its community. In Or- ange – as was made evident by the council appointment in Dis- trict 3 – our council majority rep- resents special interests and par- tisan insiders instead of the true community. Something needs to change, or we are in serious jeop- ardy of losing what we hold most dear about our beloved city. None of this should be surpris- ing to those who have followed the council’s efforts to stifle pub- lic participation. While nearly ev- ery city council in Orange County meets at least twice a month, the Orange City Council meets only 12 times annually and schedules second meetings grudgingly. In- novation and technology have made it a simple matter to bring the public inside the process, but that, too, has been ignored. Or- ange has been on autopilot for too long, and is not serving its resi- dents well. From Sully-Miller to code en- forcement, to councilmember term limits and short-term rentals, residents are constantly forced to battle our own city to protect the quality of life we expect, enforce our own ordinances, and ensure city leadership will follow the laws that its own residents voted in. As a former city council mem- ber, I find it deeply sad that we have come to this stark reality. Residents must step in When the council ignored its own General Plan, as well as hun- dreds of residents, by approving a housing development on land set aside for open space, citizens were forced to get signatures to allow the voters to decide whether such a rezoning was a good idea or not – not just once, but TWICE (remember the Fieldstone pro- posal in 2003?). Not only is the property not zoned for housing, but the site is also located in a flood inundation zone, a high-risk fire area and adjacent to a heavily congested intersection. Why do the same tired ideas and tactics keep being recycled? Most councils listen to their residents, but not in Orange. The fervid dedication of our mayor and council majority to deep- pocket developers and party in- siders is both disappointing and reckless. Homelessness continues to be a big problem in Orange. WHY? Our council should demand that our city staff fiercely defend neighborhoods, parks and busi- nesses for the enjoyment of our residents. We need a greater in- vestment in our Homeless Assis- tance Resource Team (HART) to provide help for those who want it but make it clear for those who don’t that Orange is not a city open for those who want to live a “home-free lifestyle.” New opportunities, and chal- lenges, are on the horizon for Orange: the North Tustin Street Specific Plan, the proposed ex- pansion of Chapman University, the proposed extension of the Pla- za Paseo. These are critical issues that will affect Orange for gen- erations, and must be approached with transparency and inclusion. If past is prologue, all these is- sues will likely be rushed through with minimal public input, or even council discussion, followed by a quick vote -- and then the city will brace itself for the resi- dents to rise up once again and propose a referendum. There is no evidence to show that our elected and appointed leaders will listen to the commu- nity. How often can this city coun- cil vote against the best interests of its residents before the resi- dents finally say, “ENOUGH!”? Perhaps by following the Ro- tary’s Four-Way Test, our city can rebuild the ethical foundation that harkens back to Orange’s storied history. We are a city built on truth, goodwill and friendships, and if residents demand it, we can once again be a city that is fair and beneficial to ALL concerned. Dan Slater is a former Orange councilmember and mayor pro tem. Guest Commentary