Foothills Sentry September 2023

Page 5 Foothills Sentry September 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 "Study finds" continued from page 1 "School Board" continued from page 1 Maybe, maybe not. The staff member who collected the data for both maps is gone. So is her boss. So is the city manager that was in charge when the discrep- ancy appeared. So is the city at- torney and the mayor that were in office at the time. During the fiscal year 2023- 24 Annual Action Plan hearing, the city reported an error was made on the maps that removed a part of El Modena. It returned the missing part back to the qualifying map. A subsequent review, however, revealed that the map adopted in 2019 for the 2020-24 Consolidated Plan was cited as having been generated from the most current census data. But current staff discovered it had used old census data and was incorrectly cited. How and why the error was made remained a question. Third party review The city hired a consulting firm to look into the history of census Tract Map 219.14, in which El Modena resides, to determine how and why that map had changed. “We hired a third party who were experts in this field,” Orange Senior Administrative Analyst Jessica Herrera explains. "We wanted the community to trust the outcome. We wanted an independent review.” The answer came down to the data and the unforgiving bound- aries of the census tract map. When the Consolidated Plan was written, the qualifying map used data from the 2010 census and from the HUD-produced Com- prehensive Housing Affordabil- ity Strategy. That data set, called CHAS, was derived from the American Community Survey (ACS), which HUD conducts to determine an area’s specific hous- ing, social, demographic and eco- nomic characteristics. So the data used was twice removed from the raw income data from the census bureau. When the city prepared its An- nual Action Plan for 2019, the 2020 census data had not been released. It appears that the map generated from that plan used 2015 CHAS data. “That data isn’t used for the creation of CDBG eligibility maps anymore,” Com- munity Development Director Russell Bunim explains. “Best practice is to use the census bu- reau data.” Census tractmaps, delineatedby the census bureau, were spawned in the 1940s and finalized in 1970. They tend to follow topographic features with no regard for neighborhoods or community. When tract 219.14 was outlined, it was sparsely populated and largely undeveloped. Yet those boundaries are used today to determine where CDBG funds may be applied. Eligibility for CDBG funding is based on the average income of all residents who reside there. That average must be below 60% of the median income of the county. While El Modena is generally low- to moderate-income, it shares tract 219.14 with much wealthier neighbors. The average income for that tract in 2020 was $133,750. The county median was $102,450. Tract 219.14 did not qualify for CDBG funding. Tract falls off the track What surprised everyone was the consultant’s determination that, based on the numbers, the El Modena tract had not qualified since 2000. “It’s alarming to me,” Ana Gutierrez reacted. “None of El Modena qualifies? I have more questions than answers. It needs a deeper dive. I do not ac- cept this report.” “Wow,” Sammy Rodriquez responded. “I’m in shock. The city admitted its error removing part of El Modena from the map. So you hire a consultant who finds that the barrio doesn’t count.” personnel) into the family dynamic. “A child’s gender issues should be between the parent and child, not between the parent, teacher and child.” She stressed that it’s something families have to deal with in their own time, not in three days. “It’s better for the parent to hear it from the child, not from the government throwing a wrench into the family system,” she said. Who’s to say? While the Bill of Rights and American flag display were not, on their face, controversial, this proposed policy is. The public weighed in. The board heard from several transgender students and adults, OUSD graduates, psychologists, therapists, social workers and parents who objected to the “outing,” based on personal experience, research studies and data. Their comments ranged from, “It is inhumane to out children without their consent;” “You’re turning teachers into agents of culture wars;” “Gender dysphoria is not a pathology or mental ill- ness;” to “Not every parent will offer a safe environment. School should be safe.” Those in favor of the policy were largely parents, many from outside the district. They told the board that, “You are on the right track;” “Only pedophiles and perverts ask children to keep se- crets.” “It will help protect chil- dren and include parents in the situation.” “They are not the gov- ernment’s children, parents have rights over them.” Inciting rights Madison Miner defended the policy, noting that parents had the right to knowwhat was happening with their kids at school, and that the intent is to protect students’ mental health. “Trans kids with an accepting home environment are less likely to commit suicide,” she explained. “And if the teacher suspects the home is an unsafe environment, that has always had to be reported.” Miner, two public speakers reported, had posted on social media that trans kids “were delu- sional and acting out.” Andrea Yamasaki pointed out, as she had when Ledesma’s and Miner’s previous policies had been discussed, that it was un- usual for board members to be writing policy. “Policies are gen- erally written by staff, following a board discussion and direction,” she said. “My problem, that Min- er and Ledesma brought this for- ward. It looks political. Who au- thorized this policy?” she asked Ledesma. “I’mnot here to debate anything you say,” he responded. “You can question away, but I choose not to answer. I don’t answer to you.” Teachers in the middle Yamasaki suggested that when writing policy, it is important to consider individual circumstanc- es. “Forcing teachers to out stu- dents before they are ready could have unintended consequences.” Ana Page agreed. “This is marginalizing students who may be the most vulnerable. It’s shameful to put teachers in that position. Students should choose how they want to come out when they are ready, it shouldn’t be dictated by policy.” John Ortega said that the issue had to be viewed in the context of parents. He noted that parents were “called about bullying, drinking and drugs, but not about this. Look at this for what it is, supporting parental rights 100%. I’ll fight to the death to protect those kids,” he asserted. Angie Rumsey, usually in lockstep with colleagues Ortega, Ledesma and Miner, advised that she had concerns about the policy. Among them: What would be the repercussions for a teacher who didn’t report? Would they be fired? Three days seemed to be too short for life-changing notifications. The policy reduced a complicated issue to black and white, in writing. “My concern is for the teach- er,” she said. “I’m more comfort- able with the teacher informing the principal or counselor. Coun- selors have training in this area. There should be a process to bring parents into this.” Ledesma jumped in to assure Rumsey that staff are working on the implementation and that there could be a communication chain that included the principal or counselor. “I don’t see a teacher having to notify parents in three days,” he said. “This is just the first reading of the policy. We’ll have a second reading in September.” It is scheduled to be voted on then. NTSPG presents STR whitepaper to the City of Orange By Doug Hamilton The North Tustin Street Preservation group (NTSPG), formed last year to present a united front regarding the future of the Village of Orange Mall, has turned its attention to short- term rentals (STRs) in Orange, conducted its own research and presented its findings to the city. The city has proposed expanding the maximum number of STR permits from 125 to 200. However, NTSPG believes that there are more STR units operating in Orange than the current maximum of 125. The proposal to increase the number has raised concerns and opposition from the community who, for the most part, never supported the STR program in the first place. The city has failed to inspect STRs prior to issuing a permit, creating the potential for owners to operate multiple STR units with only one permit. The lack of enforcement has allowed more STRs than what residents understood was being approved in the city's May 2021 STR Resolution. The program allowed homes, bedrooms, ADUs, converted garages, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and apartments to operate as STRs. The city’s claims that there are few STR complaints cannot be relied upon. A recent Public Re- cords Request proves the oppo- site. Resident complaints include: traffic, parking, trash, transients, parties, excessive noise, drugs, alcohol and occupancy limits exceeded - in many cases, a to- tal disregard for the City’s STR ordinance. There are, however, STR owners who operate legally and do not create a neighborhood nuisance. A 2019 city staff report to the city manager stated the following: ”If one views STRs as a business, then they should either be prohibited or regulated. Cities have reported that regulating STRs is challenging, in that it only partially addresses impacts to single-family neighborhoods. Unfortunately, this means that the easiest path is to prohibit them going forward. That said, this policy option (prohibition) will financially impact those who currently operate STRs, but may be the best option to protect our single-family neighborhoods.” A STR could affect the value and desirability of a neighboring home. California real estate disclosure laws require a home seller to disclose “neighborhood nuisances.” Sellers have an affirmative duty to disclose defects and/or issues known to them that might impact the value or desirability of their property. Failing to do so could lead to a lawsuit. The city’s STR ordinance cre- ated a perfect system to avoid trackability and any sort of real accountability. A reasonable so- lution would be to allow com- plaints to be reported through both the Orange 24/7 app and the city’s website. The complaint should go directly to both Orange PD and the city’s Code Enforce- ment department, not, as it cur- rently does, to an outside vendor (Host Compliance). This way, there will be a permanent record, and the city can then take prompt action to enforce the ordinance and/or revoke the permit of the non-compliant STR operator. NTSPG recommends that the city does not increase the maximum number of Short- Term Rental permits. It should implement and enforce all ordinance requirements and stop issuing new STR permits. If an STR permit is not renewed or revoked, it should not be reissued to anyone else. It also recommends that a financial audit of the STR program be completed, to determine if revenue received by the city is worth the costs of properly managing the program. Also, sunset the STR program no later than the end of 2025. Doing so will give STR owners time to make other arrangements for their property. To request a copy of the full report to the city, email northtustinstreetgroup@gmail. com; there is also a petition circulating that asks the Orange City Council to end the STR program. If you live in Orange, you can join the conversation with other neighbors on Nextdoor by searching for the North Tustin Street Preservation Group. Doug Hamilton leads the North Tustin Street Preservation Group and is a real estate broker. “Data is the data,” Bunim says. “But that doesn’t mean it’s fair. The city is not ignoring El Mode- na.” He indicated there are other funding sources available, and CDBG allows for projects with “area benefits.” He notes the restroom improvements at the El Modena Library to make them ADA accessible used CDBG funding and has a qualifying population benefit. The city also allocated $300,000 of its 2024 CDBG entitlement to install a restroom at the El Modena Basin. That project qualified for CDBG funding because it provides an area benefit and serves a presumed qualifying population. A presumed qualifying low-moderate income population includes disabled adults, homeless individuals, and elderly persons, among others. Most of the CDBG projects the city has completed to date are considered an area benefit. But Herrera wants to go a step further to support El Modena. “I’m working with HUD on funding alternatives,” she says. “I don’t know if we’ll be able to split tract 219.14 in half or carve out the part that is El Modena. But I’m asking the questions. I’m getting guidance from our consul- tants. It’s going to take time, but I’m doing it the right way.”