Foothills Sentry November 2020

Foothills Sentry Page 4 November 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 Now hear this Dear Editor: I am always grateful to get the Foothills Sentry every month. The Sentry staff does an excellent job covering local issues in Or- ange. In every article you read, the city council is at odds with the residents, whether it be over the Design Review Committee, ignoring term limits, allowing the illegal operation on Sully-Miller, repressing public comments at the city council meetings or ignoring flood, traffic, fire and evacuation risks on the Santiago Creek de- velopment. This city council is not listen- ing to the public. I am encouraged to see new faces stepping up to run. We need to vote out mediocre career poli- ticians who ignore us and elect new leadership that will welcome community participation. Arlene Finke Orange Dear Editor: The recent LEA hearings put a lot of egg on the face of our city. All these years, they kept saying there was nothing they could do about the dumping going on at the Sully-Miller site and that ev- erything was legal. Oops! It turns out that the concrete waste dump- ing is not only illegal for the zon- ing of the property, but there are no records of the contents being dumped. It turns out that they had the power to shut it down, but chose not to. Trucks have dumped whatever they brought in without inspec- tion and logging it in. And, there was no engineered leveling after dumping going on. How do we even know there isn’t something radioactive lying beneath the rubble? Radioactive materials are used in a lot of industries, and I understand they are hard to dis- pose of. I think our city has a lot of ex- plaining to do. And it is time they stopped doing backbends for the owner of this property and started taking care of its residents. But I think the only way that is going to happen is to clean up city hall first, all of it from the council to the staff that was complicit. Ron Thompson Orange Dear Editor: I just learned some interest- ing news. Apparently both Mark Murphy and Mike Alvarez, who are both running for re-election, sat on the 2003 council that over- turned the planning commission’s decision to shut down the opera- tions at Sully-Miller. Why? How did that serve the best interests of the residents surrounding that noise-polluting, dusty, air-pollut- ing eyesore? Why do residents keep voting these two back into office? They are “the founders” of the mess we are dealing with today. Mark Murphy seems to put his friendship with Milan’s consul- tant over the 80 percent of citi- zens who spoke at the city council meetings protesting the rezone. They ignored the evidence pre- sented about the dangers of de- veloper-driven meddling with city plans, the safety issues of building on land that serves as a safety valve for dam overflow, and its location next to a meth- ane-producing old dumpsite (re- quiring houses to have methane bladders). They ignored the traf- fic issues and the absurdity of the developer’s band-aid proposal to remedy a significant problem and the fire dangers of entrapment. They ignored former planning commissioners that spoke up and said it was a bad idea. We need leadership that cares about the residents, knows how to maintain city plans, and will bring developers to heel who would inflict potential harm upon our community. We need, as for- mer planning commissioners, Adrienne Gladson as mayor and Dan Correa as councilman for District 2. John Russo (running against Mike Alvarez), Adrianna Barrios, and Ana Gutierrez are also supporters of NO on AA. It is important that we send our lo- cal government a message, its job is supposed to be representing its constituents! Cindy Couisine Orange Dear Editor: I appreciated the review by Laura Thomas, “Orange City Council’s mistakes," particularly the council’s 2003 reversal in of the planning commission’s deci- sion to shut down the dumping on the Sully-Miller site. It was an eye-opener to learn that Mark Murphy and Mike Alvarez voted to allow the operation to continue. Residents have suffered for years because of their poor decision. To make matters worse, these two guys have been the cheer- leaders for Milan Capital and their flawed Santiago Creek de- velopment. They are blinded by arrogance and the developer’s rhetoric. The recent LEA hearing made it abundantly clear that the facili- ty is unpermitted, the 40-ft. stock- piles are deemed illegal disposal and need to be removed from the property. There are no records of what has been dumped there. Are the materials contaminated? Contaminated materials cannot be used to grade the site, as the landowner had planned. Finally, after weeks of ignoring the cease and desist order, the gates are closed. Good riddance to bad rub- bish (pun intended). After so many years of watch- ing something very wrong go un- checked and the city act like there was nothing they could do about the problem they created, it is sat- isfying to see wrongs can eventu- ally be righted. It is also reassur- ing to know that there are people out there in the county actually doing their jobs for the taxpayers. I say the city does something for the taxpayers and take all the in- competent (or complicit) players off the payroll. We deserve better. Bob Kirkeby Orange DRC defended Dear Editor: Design review is a key tool used by local governments to evaluate a proposed development. The Orange City Council needs the Design Review Committee (DRC) to retain its full powers. Assigning it to staff means pub- lic oversight and notification are gone. I want it to retain its au- thority because DRC members are consummate professionals, independent, and have the in- sights on how to call foul when the project stinks. The DRC is our city’s quality of life watchdog and keeps proponents honest. The value of the DRC: 1. To ensure that a proposed project takes into consideration its surroundings. Design review can ensure that, as a project is de- signed, it takes into consideration relationships to existing develop- ment patterns, as well as those anticipated by applicable policies and codes. 2. To ensure that every proposal positively enhances the adjacent public realm. Design review asks new development to contribute to the collective good of a com- munity and help build places, not just buildings. on individual sites. No one else on the city staff has this responsibility. 3. To allow the public to com- ment on a proposed development. Design review allows the public to get involved, both at the time standards or guidelines are being written, as well as during design review meetings. Without the DRC, citizens will no longer be able to have a voice concerning their neighborhood projects from the architectural standpoint. 4. The DRC also encourages creative architectural expres- sions. Design review provides a pathway to achieving both public and private objectives. Gener- ally, the intent is “getting to yes” through collaboration, respectful discussion, and an end goal of trying to make better communi- ties. Without the DRC, there will no longer be any collaboration between neighborhoods and de- velopers. The City of Orange Design Re- view Committee has been crafted with care and thoughtfulness. The design review process can be an effective way to direct the quality and character of development in our communities. The functions and oversight of the DRC must stay as they are in Orange, or our neighborhoods will no longer matter. Joyce Hays Orange Dear Editor: As a longtime resident and stakeholder in the community, as well as a longtime board member of Old Towne Preservation Asso- ciation,
I am opposed to the DRC ordinance amendment. I was disappointed that the city had not reached out to OTPA and other stakeholders before bring- ing this consequential action for- ward. This proposal is an obvious giveaway to developers and con- tractors. I have continually heard developers and contractors com- plain that they are required to go through this process. It appears that this city council is respond- ing to those complaints.
 If there is no DRC review of a project, then who will make sure the project is appropriate and consistent with its surrounding environment? 
The community development director (not sure who that will be) may not be qualified to review these projects. In addition, this type of review is not within the planning commis- sion’s purview. The residents of Orange de- serve quality development.
 How will the public be aware that these projects are coming forward if they are not agendized in a public hearing? There will be no oppor- tunity for comment if the project is not posted. Public awareness and input is crucial to the review process. This is not streamlining the process, as some have stated, and the DRC is not by any means overwhelmed. If the council is serious about concentrating the focus on his- toric resources, why not become a Certified Local Government (CLG)? OTPA has been pushing this for years. This is one of the recommendations in our General Plan along with a preservation or- dinance, which was never written or implemented. The CLG des- ignation would open the door to funding (grant money) that would offset city costs for historic pres- ervation. The DRC would evolve into a Historic Preservation or Heritage Commission.
 This proposal limits the DRC to inventoried historic resources in historic districts. What about the historic resources that have been missed? The city’s last inventory was in 2005, and is outdated. Why not update the inventory before amending the ordinance? Why this big rush?
 I have been involved in pres- ervation efforts in Orange for the past 21 years, proudly participat- ing in the development of a strong historic preservation program. It is disheartening to watch as this council attempts to weaken our DRC, not only stripping it of its range of review, but also weaken- ing its historic preservation over- sight. We have to remember that the historic resource is the “His- toric District” and not individual structures, so the review process must include everything within the district. It must also include landscape/hardscape, trees and signage in the Plaza District and spoke streets. The California En- vironmental Quality Act (CEQA) also plays a major role in the im- pact and treatment of all listed and eligible historic resources. I did not see any discussion regard- ing CEQA. Finally, it appears there may be conflicts with the Historic Pres- ervation Standards (ordinance), which includes the Secretary of Interior Standards, associated with this proposed action. I have not seen any discussion regard- ing these possible conflicts. This amendment revision seems not well-thought-out.
 I strongly en- courage the city council to recon- sider this action and scrap this ill- advised proposal.
 Jeff Frankel Old Towne Orange Keep off the grass Dear Editor: A letter to the City of Orange: It's disappointing that you just sprayed the entire Santiago Hills area with Speedzone, and nowyou will be spraying again. Why not test out an area with organic land- scape maintenance? Why were organic pesticides not included in the landscaping bid project as a result of our community meet- ing over a year ago? Where is a transparent summary of feedback from residents, because I believe a high percentage were in favor of organic maintenance. I don't recall a single attendee who was in favor of poisons like Speed- zone and RoundUp/Ranger being sprayed in our area. What more do we have to do, as a group of concerned taxpay- ing residents, to get you to stop spraying our neighborhood? I just received my landscaping district property tax bill for $400. To re- iterate, we do not want our neigh- borhood sprayed with carcino- genic pesticides. Not in our parks, not in our planters, and not on our turf. I truly feel like our concerns are brushed aside by city staff time and time again. I certainly hope, with a fresh city council about to be elected, that we will finally get some gen- uine support from City of Orange staff. Jessica Barber Orange