Foothills Sentry October 2020

Foothills Sentry Page 10 October 2020 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 Court Case Dear Editor: There has been a lot of talk about rezoning the Tustin Hills Racquet Club into multi- and single-family dwellings. I person- ally oppose this idea for several reasons. The tennis club acts as a recreational place for the com- munity. Also, if rezoned and turned into housing, there would be safety issues for those in the surrounding area; finally, there would be lasting negative effects on the environment. It is said that adults should get 150 minutes of activity a week in order to stay healthy, and kids should get an hour of activity a day. The tennis club provides a place to be physically active, an important part of living a healthy life. If the tennis club is taken away, it would take away an out- let for the community to swim, play tennis and enjoy physical activities. Now, during a global pandemic, being physically fit as well as the benefits of mental health that comes with physical exercise, is crucial. Adding more homes means more cars and traffic, which would not benefit the safety of the community. The hills around the tennis club are a popular walk- ing and running path for many, including myself. If the tennis club was rezoned and turned into family homes, it would mean that there would be more traffic around those hills, increasing the chances of someone getting hit. Lastly, putting in more homes would negatively affect the en- vironment. More homes means more pollution. The most notice- able would be noise pollution. Overall, the Tustin Hills Rac- quet Club should not be rezoned because it would damage the community’s physical health, in- surance of safety, and the envi- ronment around it. Hayden Bullard North Tustin Name Dropping Dear Editor: Following is a letter sent to Mayor Mark Murphy and the Or- ange City Council: We are appalled that, during your Aug. 25 city council meet- ing, you allowed Milan Capital consultant Frank Elfend to go on record with a calculated false statement. Elfend stated, “… Stephanie Lesinski and Michelle Duman support homes north of the creek …” This is an absolute, bold-faced lie. All of you are fully aware that during several council meetings, we made it clear we do not support any of the proposals Frank Elfend is promoting for the former Sully- Miller site. In fact, at the Oct. 22, 2019 council meeting, Stephanie Lesinski stated that the Envi- ronmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Santiago Creek Development cannot be certified due to multiple errors, including the fact that the acreage zoned for homes north of the creek is inac- curate and inconsistent through- out the document. Frank Elfend is attempting to use the same decep- tive EIR to justify building homes north of the creek. We will clearly state, once again, that not only do we not support homes to be built north of the creek, we do not support homes to be built anywhere on the Milan-owned toxic dump site whatsoever. Please incorporate this letter into the official record. Stephanie Lesinski Michelle Duman Mabury Ranch It Ain't Broke Dear Editor: As a long-time homeowner in Orange, I am alarmed at the pro- posed changes to the Design Re- view Committee. The proposed changes weaken the existing pro- tections of historical buildings and landscaping, and provide oppor- tunities for developers to destroy architectural integrity not only in historic districts, but throughout the city. There has been no oppor- tunity for the public to voice its concerns over these changes that could impact the look of our city for years. The idea that a member doesn’t even need to live or work in Orange to be on the Design Re- view Committee that impacts our town is ludicrous. I strongly urge the council to invite the public to voice its con- cerns regarding the proposed gut- ting of the DRC before it votes in the future. Passing these changes now seems a little sneaky. Jeannette McClain Orange Dear Editor: We strongly urge residents and business owners to pay attention to the changes being considered to the city’s Design Review Com- mittee if they cherish their city’s historic environment. As a nonprofit member or- ganization whose mission is to promote conservation of our county’s architectural and cul- tural heritage, Preserve Orange County (POC) carefully scruti- nizes historic preservation policy in Orange County. POC believes that the action to change the roles and responsibilities of the DRC significantly undermines a num- ber of existing protections for historic resources in Orange, both within the historic districts and throughout the city. The DRC has long served the city to ensure Orange retains its unique character by integrating new construction in a sympa- thetic way. This important public review step will change if city council approves the proposed ordinance: •Greater authority will be transferred from the DRC to city staff, dramatically limiting both the public’s awareness and ability to participate in a public forum; • The DRC will be restricted to projects involving historic build- ings and structures in historic dis- tricts and those listed in the city’s partial and outdated 2005 survey, thus leaving potentially hundreds of historic resources in limbo out- side a public review process; and,
 •Landscape considerations will no longer be an essential compo- nent of DRC review. This poten- tially excludes significant charac- ter-defining features of historic properties and districts, such as in the Plaza Park. City Council is taking up the issue at the Oct. 13 meeting. Please make your voice heard at ccpubliccomment@ cityoforange.org . Krista Nicholds, president Preserve Orange County Dear Editor: As an architect, resident and business owner in the City of Or- ange, I urge the city council to vote "no" on Ordinance 13-20. Adopting this ordinance would be a serious mistake that, I be- lieve, will cause lasting harm to the community and take decades to repair. Since my initial encoun- ter with the DRC nearly 34 years ago, I have found the committee members to be highly qualified and conscientious professionals. They take their mandate to up- hold community aesthetics very seriously; they care about all facets of this wonderful city—its downtown, its neighborhoods and business districts—not just cer- tain parts of it. As such, their ex- pert viewpoint on a wide array of complex design and planning is- sues presented by applicants is an enormous benefit to the commu- nity in its entirety. The suggestion by some disgruntled applicants that the committee’s expertise is somehow an impediment to development is ludicrous. The suggestion that the committee is unqualified to review numerous and complex applications—and this lack of expertise causes un- necessary delays in the project approval process—is laughable. Reducing or eliminating the professional qualifications of prospective committee members will haunt this community for a very long time, because it threat- ens to reduce the committee to a rabble of unqualified hacks and politically connected “insiders” as happens in so many other juris- dictions. Orange is unique among Southern California cites, in that design review in this town is pro- fessional, independent and cred- ible. This makes me proud to be a practicing professional in this community. If you adopt Ordinance 13-20, Strategic Plan Goal #5 will be eviscerated—not strengthened as the Planning Commission claims. This ordinance is nothing less than an attempt to silence inde- pendent professional voices who seek to preserve the integrity of our community. Just to be clear, adopting this ordinance favors “speedy” appli- cations over thoughtful growth; favors pushy developers over long-term livability; and sacri- fices community aesthetics on the altar of expediency. If the genuine motivation is to increase the ‘ef- fectiveness’ of the entire project approval process, adopting Ordi- nance 13-20 is NOT the best way to do it. Rick Fox Orange Fix This Dear Editor: The City of Orange doesn’t get to operate in secret thanks to the California Public Records Act of 1968. The Act is very clear that “access to information concern- ing the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” The government must be ac- countable for its actions, and as such, the public has a right to re- quest and receive copies of gov- ernment records. That’s what transparency is all about. For whatever reason, our city doesn’t take these laws seriously, as I have made several requests that have not been fulfilled in a timely manner. The staff doesn’t get to decide what to provide and what to withhold. In addition, permits have been applied for on land designated as open space, with no environmen- tal impact reports or public no- tice being required. Where is the transparency that the city’s web- site proclaims is a core principle? Bonnie Robinson Orange We the People Dear Editor: Many people in the Milan camp are asking, “Who are those people opposing the re-zone?” The people of Orange are a community. We are a major uni- versity, praiseworthy in its di- versity. We are homeowners and renters in downtown Orange who live in quiet neighborhoods, on shady tree-lined streets, reminis- cent of a bygone era in America. We post signs in our yards, pro- claiming “A Hero Lives Here” and “Orange Strong.” We are the residents who are proud of the best police and fire departments in California. We are the merchants and small businesses that are the pillars of support in our city. We are the Elks, the Knights of Columbus, the Women’s League, and many other organizations that make Or- ange the great city that it is. We are the residents of the west side, the people who work for the Gas Company, Edison, AT&T, and hundreds of other businesses, and we are proud of our neighbor- hoods. We are the residents of Orange Park Acres, who provide over 25 miles of trails for equestrian, mountain biking, and hiking ... all at no cost to our citizens. What we definitely are not, is a “pack of elitists, idiots, NIMBY’s” and a myriad of other offensive names that Milan, and its chief spokesman on social media, have called us. Who we are, is a group of concerned citi- zens who do not want an outside big-money investment company trying to uproot and destroy our community for their profit. We all know that Milan has been con- ducting an illegal and unregulat- ed dumping ground on the former Sully-Miller site. This company, in violation of legal cease and de- sist orders from the county and state, continues to dump daily. That is who Milan is ... and that is not who I believe the citizens of Orange will support in Novem- ber’s election. Please, vote “no” on measure AA. Help us “Keep Orange Safe.” John Reina Orange Dear Editor: As current and former Presi- dents of the OPA Board of Di- rectors, we can attest to Milan’s property dealings in Orange Park Acres for decades and their negative impacts on our city. As readers are probably aware, Mi- lan’s most recent tactics were met by Orange citizens with an- other referendum appearing on the November ballot as Measure AA. Additionally, OPA has filed a lawsuit against Milan for vio- lation of the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with Milan’s flawed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Trails at Santiago Creek project. Briefing in the CEQA lawsuit is complete and the trial, which was set for Octo- ber, has been recently postponed until after the election. OPA’s briefs pointed out the numerous deficiencies, inconsistencies, and outright misstatements in Milan’s EIR. Milan’s brief recycled its tired claims about supposed traf- fic relief and housing shortages. Milan’s untrustworthiness is further demonstrated by its con- tinuation of rock crushing and stockpiling activities without proper permitting. Orange resi- Letters continued on page 11