Foothills Sentry August 2023

Page 5 Foothills Sentry August 2023 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 2023 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 pounded unsafe food, equipment and utensils from illegal vendors, but Lopez notes they just restock and reappear somewhere else in the city. These are not mom-and-pop vendors, Lopez explains, but are apparently part of a larger organized network. Vendors share information. “Spotters” park near the city hall lot and observe city vehicles coming and going; when city vehicles return, street vending activity increases. Conversely, when the spotter sees a city vehicle exit the parking lot, street sellers disappear. To combat that, code enforcement is working after hours, and parking their cars in undisclosed locations. One code enforcement officer was reportedly “aggressively followed” by a person identified as an illegal network vendor. Toughen up The urgency ordinance makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, to obstruct, threaten or interfere with a code compliance officer, police officer, firefighter or other city official when they are performing their duties. It also gives Code Enforcement (as well as police and fire) the ability to impound carts, food, equipment and merchandise if the vendor is in violation of specified city codes. Violations include: no business license or county health permit; vendor refuses to move when told to do so; obstructs a street or sidewalk; or refuses to provide identification or endangers public safety. Impounded items may be retrieved with proof of a business license and payment of a fee. Mobile vendors, too In a related action, the council approved an ordinance establishing regulations for mobile vending vehicles on public and private property. To date, the city has not regulated the activities of ice cream, catering or lunch trucks, other than to require a business license. County code requires a health permit. The new ordinance will prohibit vending on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or more; restrict activity in child safety zones (schools, day care, parks) to further than 500 feet, with special events excluded; maintain safe paths of travel on sidewalks; require vendors to submit information on their operations and maintain a seller’s permit or additional licenses required by state and local law. In addition, the city may pro- hibit mobile vending vehicles op- erating within the vicinity of the Orange Home Grown Farmer’s & Artisans Market, and areas desig- nated by special permit for film- ing, parade, outdoor concerts or the International Street Fair. The city may impose administrative fines starting at $100 and increasing up to $500 for repeated violations. "Street vending" continued from page 1 And to think that this negative change took place after a difference of only a little over 200 votes. Sadly, OUSD lost one of its most professional and successful board members, Kathy Moffat, of the last fifty years. My experience with health in- surance comes from being the teacher representative on the dis- trict Health Benefits Committee for a number of years, before and after the first recall; as a member of the OUEA bargaining team; as a CTA representative on the OUEA Board, researching school districts’ health plans through- out the county, visiting district schools to discuss benefits with the teachers, and presenting such information at OUEA meetings and at school board meetings be- fore my retirement. Lynn Lorenz 37-Year OUSD Teacher Wrong place Dear Editor: A developer and his lobbyists are promoting housing units they want to build behind Chapman Hospital on the banks of Santiago Creek. What they don’t tell you is: The property in question is located on Santiago Creek. The property has been zoned open space for 22 years. The property is a former gravel pit (mined by Consolidated Rock) and was used as a construction materials dump site. The pro- posed three- and six-story build- ings are located only 60 feet from a single-family residential neigh- borhood. The City of Orange is presently under the state’s recommended minimum park acreage of three acres/1,000 population. Orange is at 1.7 acres/1,000 population; rezoning this site for housing puts Orange further behind in park space. The developer has requested to use a portion of adjacent Grijalva Park in perpetuity for emergency access – forever removing the use of that portion of the park for pub- lic recreation. This project will adversely af- fect the property values of nearby residents and will definitely be a visual blight on Santiago Creek. Shirley Grindle Orange Elbow room Dear Editor: Throughout Orange County, commercial and residential prop- erties are being converted to high- density housing, as recent legisla- tion from California’s politicians have turned every lot into a gold mine for developers and sellers alike. Left far behind this new Cali- fornia gold rush is the infrastruc- ture to support the centralization and expansion of the population as rational, long-term, sustainable growth plans for roads, highways, schools, hospitals and other pub- lic services are crumpled up and thrown away in exchange for More: More people, more traffic, more pollution, more parking is- sues, more students in cramped schools, more high-density hous- ing, and more wait times in emer- gency rooms. Slowly, then all of a sudden, has become the new normal we’ve seen starting with the fight to save the Tustin Hills Racquet Club from conversion into high- density condos, followed by a string of properties falling like dominoes to the developers and their earth movers. A group of dedicated residents in North Tustin are working hard to stem this rising tide of high-density, multi-story hous- ing before your neighbor sells his property for the development of a three-story apartment building that casts its prodigious shadow over your backyard. In this struggle against more, our statewide neighbors have succeeded in submitting a ballot initiative to the California attor- ney general. The initiative seeks to amend the state constitution to enshrine local control over land-use planning and zoning. The attorney general has 60 days to prepare the title and summary language. This language is the de- scription of the initiative that will appear in the voter pamphlet for 2024 and will be printed on every petition used for signature gather- ing. By late August, petitions could be printed and signature gather- ing begin. However, no initiative has made it on the ballot since the late 1960s without the use of professional signature gathering firms, in addition to volunteers. It is simply not possible, with over one million signatures needed, to collect themwithin the six months allowed, without full-time assis- tance from professionals. Professionals are not free, and they require a deposit to begin signature gathering. The race is now on to raise enough funding by the end of August so the sig- nature gathering firm can begin as soon as the initiative language is available for the petitions. Before More moves in next door to you, please visit restorelocalcontrol.com or fcahome.org to contribute much- needed funding, learn more about this effort, or sign up to join us for signature collection. Scott Logue North Tustin Rental rebuttal Dear Editor: This letter is in rebuttal to the guest commentary "Short-Term Rentals - The Ugly Truth" pub- lished in the July issue. Respect- ing the author's right to express his opinion, his commentary presents a one-sided and unfairly negative view of short-term rent- als (STRs) and lacks consider- ation of the benefits and progress Orange has made on this issue. The commentary asserts that STRs drive up rental prices and contribute to a housing shortage, but he provides no data to support this. Here is the ‘real truth:’ The City of Orange has allowed 125 STR permits. With a total of 45,308 housing units in Orange (source: 2022 American Community Survey), the allowed STRs are less than 3/10 of 1% (0.0027). How can this tiny percentage of homes measurably impact rental prices? Blaming STRs alone oversimplifies the problem and diverts attention from more significant underlying issues such as inadequate housing supply and rising property prices across all of California, not just in Orange. The author also attributes noise and nuisance issues to STRs but has no data to support this either. To be sure, legally-operating STR hosts manage their businesses well and are proactive in setting clear house rules and maintain- ing open lines of communication with their guests. The truth is that the 125 permitted STRs provide valuable economic benefit to our community. According to the city staff report submitted at the May 9 council meeting, in 2022, the 125 STR operating permits generated approximately $500,000 in transient occupancy tax (TOT), allowing the city to add more code officers to monitor STRs at no additional burden to the general budget. Moreover, STR hosts attract – even refer – family and business travelers to our restaurants and shops, supporting local businesses and keeping Orange ‘on the map’ as a destination in Orange County. Without them, tourism money and associated local tax revenue would be redirected to the Anaheim Resort area or other local cities with STRs. The author also asserts there is a ‘requirement to report an STR in the neighborhood to potential buyers.’ This is also not true. California Real Estate Code has no requirement to report STRs in the vicinity at the time of a home sale. On the contrary, STRs tend to be very well-maintained and oftentimes drive higher value when they are included in Automated Valuations Models (AVMs). This, in turn, creates higher comps and higher property values for neighbors. For perspective, across the last three years, the City of Orange has moved from a ‘Wild West’ approach (i.e. no regulation), to potential ban, to a reasonable ordinance providing only a limited number of permits to operate in our city. To me, it looks like Orange is doing something right. Shouldn’t we give this approach a chance before we complain? As with any industry, there may be points to discuss and refine, but demonizing STRs as a whole is unfair to the responsible, permitted small business operators who care and contribute positively to our community. Let’s keep a fact- based approach regarding the pros and cons and continue to work together, supporting the current ordinance to preserve harmony in our neighborhoods. Susan Tillou President, Orange STR Alliance Dear Editor: Regarding the Ugly Truth Guest Commentary: While the writer is experi- enced and well versed on local real estate, his bias may have clouded his opinion on what im- pacts home values. STRs, I have observed -- I've even visited one in my neighborhood -- tend to be among the nicest houses on the street. They have to be because online reviews drive a guest's decision to book or not. The doomsday message about STRs destroying home values comes across as a scare tactic. My take is that the city wisely knew it would be better to regu- late rather than ban them all to- gether. The ordinance allows more control of STRs and pro- vides code and an enforcement mechanism to better monitor them. As I understand it, it is paid for through TOT taxes from the business licenses and permits on the 125 STRs allowed in our city. The writer indicated that there are bans in Anaheim (not true) as well as Fountain Valley and La- guna Hills. But a quick search on www.airdna.com shows 112 list- ings in Laguna Hills alone and 233 STRs in Fountain Valley. Which begs the question: do bans really work, or do they just drive bad actor operators underground? Laguna contracts with the OC Sheriff for police services so that’s an expensive enforcement option with zero additional revenue to cover it. How is Fountain Valley covering costs to enforce its (apparently ineffective) ban? The bottom line is bans don’t work well and police departments are already underfunded and overtasked. I agree with the City of Orange's decision to regulate, permitting responsible operators and using funds from them to go after the bad ones that create noise, nuisances and/or other issues in our neighborhoods. If they are paying their taxes and have complied with the city’s ordinance, including its good- neighbor policy, there will be more transparency and the city will have more oversight and stronger legal leverage. The ordinance does not say that the only avenue for a neighbor is to contact the owner directly. Just go to the city’s webpage and there’s a button for reporting a nuisance STR. There's also a hotline and a link in the Orange 24/7 app. Marae Robinson Orange Clean up of portions of Santiago Creek begins The City of Orange has ex- tended its landscape maintenance contract with Nieves Landscape to include Santiago Creek, from Grijlava Park to the 22 Freeway. The city currently has a contract with Nieves for landscape mainte- nance of city facilities and rights of way. It asked the contractor for a proposal to remove trash and debris along Santiago Creek. The city subsequently included the additional $60,000 cost in the 2024 fiscal year budget. Services will be performed monthly.