Foothills Sentry December 2020

Page 5 Foothills Sentry 7 1 4 - 2 8 9 - 1 0 3 1 7 4 4 6 E . C h a p m a n A v e . • O r a n g e , C A 9 2 8 6 9 Now Open 7 days a week 7 AM -2 PM Zone • Behind Pacific Ranch Market • Stay Connected: Wi-Fi & Cappuccino • Breakfast, Lunch, Acai Bowls • Soft Serve Ice Cream & Milkshakes • Restaurant Seating Inside & Out Your neighborhood cafe in Orange has an extensive breakfast and lunch menu, full coffee and tea bar, açaí bowls and pastries. Come in and enjoy our homemade pastries, sauces and our specialty - our salsa! Serving food 7 days a week, 7:00am - 2:00pm Located next to Da Bianca Trattoria behind the Pacific Ranch Market. BRING IN THIS AD & RECEIVE 10% OFF A LUNCH ENTRÉE IN DECEMBER December 2020 Circulation … 45,000 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 © Foothills Sentry 2020 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Aimee Armstrong graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry. com who had wavered between a ban and regulation, asked if the cur- rent city code prohibited STRs, and, if the ordinance was not ap- proved, would they be considered illegal in Orange. The answer from City Attorney Gary Sheatz was “yes, they would be illegal because they are not an estab- lished use allowed in the city code. They are considered lodg- ing and are prohibited in residen- tial areas.” Mayor Mark Murphy con- firmed the current legal status of STRs later in the meeting, ask- ing Sheatz one more time, “So they are already banned? We’ve just been looking the other way?” The city attorney said yes. Pros and cons Alvarez said that he lived near an STR and “experienced every- thing these people talked about. They become party houses and event centers.” He was, he said, prepared to make a motion to ban them. “Why would we ad- dress something with so many restrictions and put it in a resi- dential neighborhood,” he asked. “We’re going to change our city if we don’t get business out of our neighborhoods. We put all of this on code enforcement and the po- lice department. I don’t want to put them through it.” Kim Nichols, who acknowl- edges she owns an STR in New- port Beach, agreed that it was not up to the police department to be the enforcers of STRs, but said that it was appropriate to allow them with restrictions. She not- ed that the city would gain rev- enue from taxes and that income would pay for resources needed to oversee them. While she was not opposed to STRs, she noted, she was opposed to “bad actors.” “This is an area that’s growing, not shrinking,” she added. “We have close to 350 of them, and we don’t even allow them. It will be a continual problem if we ban them.” While agreeing that it is the ”bad actors” who spoil it for ev- eryone, Monaco stressed that it is against the code today and if someone bought property and checked it out, they’d see that it was illegal. “It’s not a property rights issue,” he asserted. “It’s a commercial business in a residen- tial neighborhood. We shouldn’t just start allowing them. We don’t want to knowingly introduce something that’s going to grow. We can control this nuisance by not allowing it.” Closing the barn door Mayor Mark Murphy recog- nized that “this business exists already, whether allowed by code or not, and will continue to ex- ist even without an ordinance.” He expressed concern that they would continue to operate “un- derground.” It was up to the city, he suggested, to manage them and make them safer. “Assuming we don’t pass this ordinance to al- low them and regulate them,” he mused, “then what?” Alvarez restated his desire to ban them, with a wind down period for those that already ex- ist. Nichols interjected that, “We need to be cognizant that this will hurt responsible STR owners.” With Alvarez and Monaco clearly favoring a ban, the mayor motioned that city staff look into initiating a ban, with specifics like wind-down time to come later. “It has been banned,” he admitted, “we’ve just taken a hands-off atti- tude. It’s the bad actors who ruin it for responsible owners.” The vote to abide by existing code prohibitions was unani- mous. City staff will report back at the January council meeting. See "Short-term" continued from page 1 OPA general meeting slated The Orange Park Association general membership meeting will be held Sat., Jan. 30 at Salem Lu- theran Church, 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road. Coffee and donuts will be served beginning at 8 a.m.; the meeting commences at 9 a.m., with nominations and election of three director positions at 10 a.m. OPA is beginning its 93rd year. Membership, volunteerism and donations are the lifeblood that sustains this community. All resi- dents are encouraged to join the association. Annual membership $100 dues support trail mainte- nance, communication and pro- tect and preserve the community. compliance with applicable regu- lations.” He further noted, “If LEA could not issue a cease and desist order without first issuing a notice of intent, it would render the statutes and regulations au- thorizing the use of CDOs mean- ingless.” Blum did not rule on whether the facility is used for inert de- bris disposal or engineered fill, because, he wrote, his ability to determine whether a valid IDEFO (Inert Debris Engineered Fill Op- eration) exists at the site had been “compromised.” That compro- mise was based on LEA docu- ments -- indicating that the site was once an IDEFO that closed in 2013 -- that had not been pro- vided to Chandler/Milan’s attor- ney prior to the hearing. There’s the rub “This is not to say that the petitioners are correct in assert- ing that they are operating an IDEFO,” he clarified. Blum noted that while Chandler/Milan might have considered reopening the fa- cility as an IDEFO, they did noth- ing between 2013 and 2020. “It is not the LEA’s legal obligation to clear a path so that they can oper- ate as an IDEFO.” In an August letter, LEA had offered Chandler/Milan a year to gain the necessary county approv- al – a listing on the county siting element for landfills – needed to legally continue accepting con- struction debris on the site. Fail- ing that, the agency told them, they would have to come up with a completion plan and remove the waste from the site by September 2022. In closing arguments written by county counsel, the hearing offi- cer was asked to amend the CDO to include removal of the multi- story mounds of debris on the site. Blum would not amend the order, ruling that, “The LEA will be compelled to issue another en- See "Disposal" continued from page 1 OPA director John Reina reports requests from Orange businesses and residents for signs support- ing Orange Police have been overwhelming. There are still some signs available. Each sign is $20, and delivery is free. Pro- ceeds fund OPA’s community events throughout the year. To get your sign, email John Reina at cobra4me08@aol.com . Orange’s first time by-district voting introduced two new faces to the dias and reinstated three familiar ones. Arianna Barrios bested three competitors in District 1; Ana Gutierrez prevailed in District 5. Mike Alvarez, running in District 3, was reelected to what is now his fifth term on the council; Jon Dumitru, representing District 2, returns to the council after an eight-year absence. Mayor Mark Murphy was reelected. Jon Dumitru Mike Alvarez Ana Gutierrez Mark Murphy Arianna Barrios forcement order to seek removal of the current stockpiles and go through another hearing. If LEA determines that it needs to issue a new or modified order, it has the authority to do so.” Moving mountains During the October hearing, LEA made it clear that the stock- piled debris could not be used as fill because it likely contained hazardous material. LEA agents reported seeing contaminated pool tiles added to the mix, with no attempt to separate them. Chandler denied that, but with no records indicating the content of the debris collected over the years, there was no way to con- clude that the material is clean or is not. The cease and desist order was upheld a day after Orange voters rejected Measure AA, a General Plan amendment that would have enabled a housing development to be built on the site.