Foothills Sentry - June 2022

Foothills Sentry Page 4 June 2022 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 Guest Commentary Reform and scrutiny needed for citizen appeal process By Adrienne Gladson Residents of the City of Orange may appeal decisions made by the planning commission by fil- ing a form, paying a fee and then appearing at a hearing before the city council to make their case. Citizens who want to exercise their right to appeal may, how- ever, be discouraged by the city’s response. Reform is needed for the City of Orange appeal process. In May 2021, I appealed a decision made by the Orange Planning Com- mission for Nexx Burger, a fast- food operation, located at 2940 East Chapman. The appeal cen- tered around two points: failure of council to first adopt a lower parking space requirement before it was applied to this project; in- adequate on-site vehicle circula- tion and entry into, and exit out of, a small site. The appeal was heard on Aug. 10, 2021, at 10:30 p.m. and was quickly denied. The council stated, on the re- cord, that a critical mistake had been made. The city had intended to reduce the number of parking spaces required for new business construction, but had not formal- ly done so. The planning com- mission, however, allowed Nexx Burger to go with the lower, not yet legal, number. The council ad- mitted the process was “backass- ward,” and agreed that my filing fee ($1,000) should be refunded. Council never directed staff to require a gag order as a condition of the refund, but that’s exactly what I was asked to sign. I never expected our city officials to act in bad faith or fail to keep their word. This craziness went on for several months, until I finally realized the refund was being stalled, in hopes that I would sign. I said no several times. On Dec. 20, 2021, I received a $2,580.50 bill from the city for the August hearing. Why with- hold that information for that long? The bill was for 23 hours charged for the time of six staff members (fees ranging from $67 to $173 per hour) attending/pre- paring for the late-night hearing. Speech isn't always free The full waiver agree ment it- self is not worth repeating here. It wasn’t something I would ever expect after the council admitted an error. I chose to pay the bill instead of giving up my consti- tutional right to free speech and obligation to help neighbors. I continue to hold steadfast in my differing view of the council’s de- cision. Getting the details correct and delivering proper planning is core to what I, and I believe the community, values. As to the reform, I recommend the city move to a flat rate of $1,000 or less for non-applicant appeals, so no one else is finan- cially overburdened. I am glad I had savings to use. But why be so punitive and not forthright? Ana- heim has a flat rate of $450 for a non-applicant appellant; Yorba Linda is $500; and Garden Grove is $480. One OC city charges only $50 for a non-applicant ap- peal. Either way, if there’s a clear error made by staff in process- ing an application that’s respect- fully pointed out by a commu- nity member, all the appeal fees should be waived. It’s fair. It’s right to admit a mistake and com- mit to never doing it again. Second, I suggest all appeals first be thoroughly reviewed by the city manager and that an hon- est, good faith discussion with the appellant ensue. The matter could be resolved and withdrawn. It should be staff’s goal to openly educate why and how decisions are made. They should never get pulled into stonewalling, fear los- ing their job, or bullying a citizen. Residents seeking answers on land-use matters should never be denied; it’s part of healthy, trans- parent policy discussions and good decision-making. The com- munity isn’t the enemy. As to the second part of the appeal, it remains my view that only 18 parking spaces for a 3,070-square-foot fast-food restaurant (with a constrained drive-thru and alcohol service) will not be enough. Whether the limited access to and from the site will work safely, will soon be answered. It’s presently under construction. Adrienne Gladson is a land-use consultant, former member of the Orange Planning Commission and a candidate for city council, District 6. Supervisor Don Wagner responds to Sully-Miller dumpsite story Last month, the Foothills Sen- try published another factually inaccurate article regarding the Sully-Miller site, with unfounded accusations towards the County of Orange and my office. Unbe- lievably, the article ran on the front page without a byline and has created confusion in the com- munity. I write to present the facts to the public as the Sentry failed to identify the author or assume accountability for its content. Most importantly, the Sully- Miller site is not county property. The site is currently owned by Milan Capital Management and has been zoned by the City of Orange for the last 40-plus years. The County of Orange has no jurisdiction over the property’s zoning. The county is only responsible for this property to the extent it enforces solid waste laws and regulations throughout Orange County. The Foothills Sentry “report- ing” opens by referencing false claims from a Facebook page, as- serting an illegal dumping agree- ment with the county. The source, not held to journalist ethical stan- dards, leveled charges without the Sentry verifying the accusation with me or anyone at the county. The county, as the local en- forcement agency (LEA), regu- lated the site’s solid waste and in 2020, became aware that the site was accepting construction debris for disposal without a permit. The LEA has continued to regulate. The LEA has conducted numerous inspections since 2020. Currently, we have not observed any hazardous materials/waste at the site. Inspectors have observed only solid waste material stockpiles: sand, gravel, and other construction-related material. The LEA has not identified any hazardous materials or waste from investigating other documents. Far from engaging in any “back-room deal” or coverup, as implied by Mr. Whitefeather and the article’s anonymous author, my office has met residents about this issue and maintains a consis- tent record of prompt constituent response. The same level of trans- parent engagement is also offered to the Foothills Sentry . In a clear disservice to its readers, the Sen- try failed to consult me about the false charges it levied. The LEA issued a registration permit for the site in June 2020, requiring the site to accept the construc- tion stockpiles. The testimony re- garding the unpermitted site, and removal of the stockpiles, was made in the context of the LEA’s position concerning the site with- out a registration permit. At the October 2020 administrative hearings, the LEA submitted that without a registration permit, stockpiles must be removed when there is no valid permit to accept them. The LEA has since reviewed alternative approaches, such as solid waste laws and regulations, and with the site owner’s plan to close the site, using it by following applicable zoning codes and approved plans. The LEA determined that the site owner may close and imple- ment a post-closure maintenance plan (as necessary) under the state minimum standards per Title 27 of the California Code of Regu- lations. The site owner would be required to do pre-development analytical testing and investigate onsite stockpiles to determine whether any parts contain toxic levels, including hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, asbestos and methane. Should the investigation report reveal any toxic concentrations, the site owner will be required to remediate the premises or stockpile removal in accordance with an LEA-approved plan, and solid waste laws and regulations. The LEA also allows the removal of any parts of the on-site clean stockpile to an appropriate facility or authorized operation in accordance with the law. Kathryn Cross’s statement, “I saw it back in February...it’s now buried probably 20-30 feet below and it’s mixed,” is incomplete and out of context. This state- ment was not connected with on- site toxic materials or waste, but whether the stockpiles contained construction materials, such as shingles and plasters. During the administrative hearing, the LEA challenged the site operator and owner’s position that the stock- piles were accepted as part of site operations. Ms. Cross provided testimony about her observa- tion of such materials during site visits. Contrary to the Foothills Sentry’s article, these statements were not made in connection with on-site toxic materials. As to the alleged coverup, I categorically rejected the outrageous charge. Any agreement reached between the LEA and the site owner will be recorded with the Orange County Clerk Recorder’s Office. All future site owners are also bound to comply with these same obligations for the public to be fully informed of what is happening at the site. I have previously encouraged the Foothills Sentry to contact me regarding county issues. I do en- courage my constituents to con- tact my office with any questions or clarification of facts. I want to assure my constituents, and the wider Sentry readership, that I will continue to remain vigilant of the agreement to ensure that the county continues to monitor the situation. The public can reach my office at Donald.Wagner@ocgov.com or by calling (714) 834-3330. Don Wagner 3rd District Supervisor Editors note: The story, “County may allow toxic waste,” that appeared in the May Sentry was a press release issued by a group called Orange Citizens. The Sentry erred in not identifying the source of the story. Members of Orange Citizens have closely followed the Sully- Miller dump issue for several years, maintained regular contact with LEA and are a trusted and reliable source of information relating to that subject. The reference to a "back room deal" was the opinion of a citizen, based on his experience. Any references to “clean stockpiles” are a misnomer. LEA has previously stated that once contaminated material is introduced, it cannot be separated back out. Orange declares Level 2 water supply shortage In compliance with California State Water Resources Control Board (SCWRB) requirements, the City of Orange is adopting Level 2 water use restrictions, aimed to reduce consumption by 10 to 20%. The restrictions, spelled out in a city notice, include limiting landscape irrigation with potable water to three days per week (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday only), from April 1 to Oct. 31, and two days per week (Tuesday, Saturday) between Nov. 1 and March 31. Landscape watering is prohibited between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and limited to 15 minutes per station. Municipal water customers will be required to repair leaks, breaks and plumbing malfunctions within 48 hours. Washing down pavement is prohibited; vehicles may be washed with a bucket or hose equipped with a self-closing nozzle. City staff is collaborating with neighboring Orange County water agencies to provide consistent and effective water conservation measures to the public. Agencies in other parts of Southern California may have different water restrictions, depending on their water supply. Much of Orange’s water comes from the OC groundwater basin, which is replenished with recycled waste water. The Water Resources Control Board is also prohibiting the use of potable water for the irrigation of non-functional turf at commercial, industrial and institutional sites. The prohibition will be enforced by the SWRCB and has exemptions for turf that is used for recreational purposes or for civic or community events.