Foothills Sentry August 2024

Foothills Sentry Page 4 AUGUST 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 Too much to ask Dear Editor: Four years ago, the Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCCD) put the $496 million Measure L on the ballot. The bond lost by almost four percentage points. Now the RSCCD wants to try again, but will ask for even more money from taxpayers. On November 5, taxpayers will be asked to approve a $720 million bond. If passed, this bond would be RSCCD’s third tax assessment in 22 years. Currently, taxpayers in Anaheim Hills, Orange, Santa Ana, Villa Park and portions of four other Orange County cities are still paying on the $337 million 2002 Measure E bond, with some also paying on the $198 million RSCCD 2012 Measure Q bond. If passed, Anaheim Hills, Orange and Villa Park taxpayers could see three bond assessments on their tax bills, including the already-passed Orange Unified bond. A major purpose of the new RSCCD bond is to upgrade and construct new classrooms at the two district colleges, Santiago Canyon College and Santa Ana College. Students today are taking classes online or in hybrid format in far greater numbers. This past spring semester at Santiago Canyon College over half the credit students were enrolled exclusively online. Overall, the total number of students enrolled in the entire district is lower than prior to the pandemic. As a retired RSCCD faculty member and resident of Orange, I fully support improving the infrastructure of our community’s colleges, but how much is enough? After failing to convince taxpayers to subsidize a half- billion-dollar bond, a second try at $720 million just doesn’t make sense. Barry Resnick Orange AWOL and off base Dear Editor: I am writing to express my concern and frustration regarding the performance of Councilmember John Gyllenhammer in representing the residents of District 6 in the City of Orange. His consistent lack of attendance at city meetings is a glaring issue that must be addressed. How can he adequately represent his constituents when he is frequently absent from the very forums where critical decisions are made? Moreover, Gyllenhammer's recent support for downsizing police and fire services is deeply troubling. Public safety should be a top priority for any city official, yet his actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the well- being of those he is supposed to serve. Reducing the number of police officers and firefighters will only compromise the safety and security of residents. It is unacceptable for an elected official to prioritize cost- cutting measures over the safety of his constituents. I urge my fellow residents to join me in demanding accountability from Councilmember Gyllenhammer. We deserve a representative who is present, engaged and committed to the safety and prosperity of our community. Jane Kurtz Orange Not-so-good neighbors Dear Editor: Eight months ago, when we drove down our current street, I thought, “Wow, what a beautiful neighborhood.” I saw people walking their dogs and waving hello. I couldn’t wait to move into our home, where I saw myself raising my family for the next 20- plus years. That has all gone away now. Instead, I secretly devise exit plans to get away from a sober living home trying to open up right next door. I couldn’t believe someone would want to destroy a neighborhood so they can fill their pockets with money. I saw the sign go up that read “6 Adult Males” would be residing next door. I take comfort in knowing that two other group homes opened and closed fairly quick in Villa Park, and hope that happens here. Dina Talebi Villa Park Dear Editor: As a student attending Villa Park schools, I am heavily concerned about the residential sober living home near Villa Park Elementary. Many families allow their children to walk to school safely. Now, parents must have to give that a second thought. While I understand that there is a need for such facilities, this sober living home cannot legally offer the full services that licensed sober living homes typically offer. This is due to the sober living home’s “residential status” as its patient limit is at, or below, six. Meaning, this facility’s rehabilitation efforts are in vain and the owner’s intentions, avaricious. Just as concerning is the financial impact that these facilities have on property values. One academic study found that homes adjacent to residential treatment centers such as this sell for roughly 8% less than homes further away, and almost 16% less if that facility treats drug addicts. The city council’s efforts germane to these sober living homes should not be to regulate, but rather to reduce them out of city premises in full. People from all over Orange County eye the “Hidden Jewel” as the ideal place to raise a family. The presence of these facilities risk blundering that portrayal. Alexander Tran Orange Dear Editor: As a former Villa Park Bobcat and current Villa Park High School ASB President, I am opposed to having a sober living home close to my former school campus. Villa Park Elementary is one of the greatest schools in Orange Unified, with kind and humble roots and traditions. Many current and former students such as myself would walk home from school most days. Young students could be in harm's way if they were to walk past a home with unknown people living there. A sober living home should not be brought into a good community, particularly this close to an elementary school. People who are for this sober living home should consult community residents. Having a non-SoCal resident purchase a home she has never been to, in a neighborhood she’s never interacted with, is one of the many reasons why this home is not a good idea. Installing a sober living home in Villa Park is not a bad thing, as long as it is not close to our schools. Jimmy Falk Orange Eye of the beholder Dear Editor: I was one of the Orange residents who spoke in favor of this handsome and well-designed project [Intracorp homes at Katella and Cambridge] by a local (to Orange County) and respected developer. It is not my intention to re-litigate the project here, but to observe, as did Carrie Graham in her well-balanced reporting on the project in the July edition, there were proponents for the project in addition to those who did not wish to see it approved. Granted, I don't live adjacent to the proposed community, where it is evident the townhomes will have an impact on the nearest neighbors, but I believe the developer showed considerable care in amending the townhomes along the northern edge to mitigate both the shadows cast on, and interior visibility to, the one- story neighbors to the north. There was a lot of disappointment and frustration expressed from the neighbors in the volley of letters printed. To that thread, I would like to add the following sad observation and question: what does it mean for our city, our ability to flex somewhat to embrace necessary changes within the fabric of our "urban realm" to accommodate future families, and our ability to engage graciously with those with whom we may disagree when the project developer requires a police escort to safely exit the council chambers? Many negative thoughts were expressed toward the developer; it should be noted that producing housing of any quality in California is an expensive process that is fraught with risk. I commend IntraCorp Housing for sticking with it to the end of the approval process because of their intention to deliver homes for Californians in many contexts, often in spite of bitter opposition. Kudos also to the council for seeing the benefits of this project and having the courage to approve it. Daniel Gehman Orange Assailed by foxtails Dear Editor: I hope this letter gets some kind of reaction from the mayor and the city council on addressing public safety concerns, even for animals. I’m not sure if the City of Orange has recently implemented anything to eradicate foxtails around public areas, especially the bike trail extension from Collins to Santiago Creek. I’ve trying for about 15 years to get the city to be proactive on weed abatement on the Santiago Creek bike trail extension. All the city has been doing is “cultivating” weeds by just mowing them (after seed heads reach maturity) and reseeding the next crop of weeds. The last time I walked my dog on the extension, the foxtails were calf- high and right on the edge of the asphalt paving. I had to keep my dog on a short leash to keep him on the pathway. Recently, my dog got a foxtail stuck in his mouth. It got infected and cost me $350 to get it removed. With a little extra effort, the city can do a lot to improve the extension. Dave Casselman Orange Orange Design Review Committee: misunderstood, but an asset to the city By Rob Boice Many residents of Orange may not be familiar with the Design Review Committee (DRC). Those who are aware, typically fall into two categories: 1. Residents across various parts of town who have encoun- tered proposed construction proj- ects nearby that were unpopular among neighbors. 2. Individuals interested in pre- serving historic integrity, whether in Eichler neighborhoods or Old Towne. DRC meetings provide the pub- lic with an opportunity to voice concerns about the design of new developments and suggest im- provements. Established in the 1970s, the City of Orange formed the DRC to promote well-designed projects. The committee's role is to assess whether each project complies with local regulations concern- ing design and landscaping. If a project meets these standards, the DRC can approve it. Alternatively, if adjustments are needed to meet regulations, the DRC can suggest modifications before granting ap- proval. Should a project be denied, applicants have the option to ap- peal to the Planning Commission and/or city council. For example, our zoning code mandates that new developments must not compromise the privacy of neighboring residential proper- ties. As a result, the DRC often requires modifications, such as window adjustments, to safeguard neighbors' privacy or ensure com- pliance with historic preservation guidelines at the local and national levels. Up to code Misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about the DRC's spe- cific mandate can understandably cause unease, particularly among downtown residents. Without fa- miliarity with local regulations, many are unaware of privacy pro- tections in our zoning code or the guidelines for maintaining historic buildings. Consequently, modifi- cations to windows or landscaping may appear arbitrary or unneces- sary. Protecting historic resources is a priority for the majority of Or- ange residents and most folks at city hall. As the city strives to en- hance its operations, there is an op- portunity to rethink our approach. Consolidating these efforts under a dedicated Historic Resources Commission could better serve our mission to protect our shared heritage. Does our city require an ad- ditional commission? The an- swer is no. And can we afford it? Again, the answer is no. By re- placing the DRC with a Historic Resources Commission, Orange could achieve better outcomes in historic preservation, while also saving costs. Design reviews for other projects, such as car washes or drive-through restaurants, could be integrated into the existing re- view processes handled by the Planning Commission. Achieving superior results at a lower cost is a proposition that should appeal to all. Rob Boice is president of the Old Towne Preservation Associa- tion.