May 10, 2022
City Council Meeting
Public Comments
General Public
Comment
Jennifer Connally
From: Mark Moore Fine Art
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 12:01 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Please Help The Residents of East Orange
Dear Orange City Council,
The City, County, and State owe it to the taxpayers in East Orange to do something to end the nightmare that has been the Sully Miller Gravel Pit that exists in the center of our residential community. Despite numerous efforts by the various landowners in the past, the site remains a dangerous and unsightly eyesore right in the middle of our community - spewing toxic dust and creating a public nuisance of noise and traffic in the process. After all these years, unless someone breaks the endless cycle of politicking and indifference, this site can never be anything more than the dump and gravel crushing operation it has been for decades.
The fact is that the gravel pit on that land has been in operation since 1918 for a reason - it is very profitable! Hanson Aggregate which ran the Sully Miller Operation for years was reported to make as much as a half million a month before the recent sand and gravel shortages. The truth is that is this plan is somehow not approved, that land will remain zoned SAND & GRAVEL (S-G) and the rock crushing and cement processing operation will once again return to East Orange at full capacity. Recent articles show that there is a shortage of sand and gravel for new construction at this time and the market for this material is at an all-time high - so much so that aggregate material is being imported by barge from Canada at this time. Please read the following article on this issue from the LA Times: https://lat.ms/2J068aC If the sand and gravel operation returns, the fact is that - in addition to the health and noise issues associated with these sites - traffic will also get much worse than it is now. People seem to have forgotten what is was like when the sand and gravel operation was fully operational as it was the last two decades prior to 2018. The truth is that hundreds of daily trips in and out of the gravel pit by large dump trucks will have a huge impact on this community in terms of traffic and air quality.
Santiago Greenways and Open Space Alliance, my neighbors, and I have been pleading with all the governmental agencies for decades to do something to transform this land into safe and beautiful open space and provide or secure funding for trails, funding for traffic improvements and the closure of this eyesore.
Nobody can fully appreciate the major impact this operation has had on the quality of life for residents and families in this area. I attach for you one article that detailed some of these issues that appeared in the OC WEEKLY nearly 20 years ago - and nothing has changed:
From the OC WEEKLY in 2003 for your reference:
HANSONS DISEASE
OC WEEKLY - STAFF | POSTED ON JANUARY 9, 2003
From their spacious Orange Park Acres home, Mark and Hilarie Moore have an unparalleled view of a giant pile of rock dust and gravel. Just a few dozen yards from their home, that pile is the business end of the Hanson Aggregates rock-crushing operation, located on the old Sully-Miller gravel mining site.
Hanson, which bought out Sully-Miller in 1992, hauls in thousands of tons of concrete and asphalt saturated with oil, tar and who knows what else to the site every year for recycling into usable gravel. The Moores say the operation's "continuous stream of fine dust" has caused numerous health problems for them and their two children since they moved to Orange six years ago.
1 "We have been treating [the children] for respiratory problems nearly nonstop," said Mark Moore, whose complaints have been on file with the city of Orange since October. "My son missed an entire month of school last year due to the problem. My daughter is currently on a daily program of steroids, bronchial expanders and respirators to combat the ongoing problem." Moore says both he and his wife have experienced pneumonia several times in the past six years, though they never experienced respiratory problems before moving to Orange. Moore says the recycling has cost his family thousands of dollars in medical bills, clogged air-conditioning filters, caused them to lose sleep, and provided a steady soundtrack of harsh quarry noise and truck traffic that begins at dawn nearly every day.
Moore and his family have battled Hanson for years without success because the city never acted on his complaints. Now, at last, the Moores and their neighbors may finally breathe easier: after approximately 15 years of recycling, city officials have suddenly—finally-determined the operation is illegal. The city council will vote on shutting down the operation on Jan. 14.
The city's zoning code for surface sand and gravel mining makes clear that recycling processed materials such as concrete is permissible only when sand and gravel mining is also taking place onsite. Since there is no mining on the Sully-Miller site-and there hasn't been for years-Hanson can't crush imported rock. "Staff has determined that the concrete-recycling operation is an illegal land use because it involves the processing of materials not extracted from the site, " wrote senior Orange planner Christopher Carnes-in a Feb. 20, 2002, memo to community development director Alice Angus. Carnes added that a personal visit to the Sully-Miller site by him and a code-enforcement officer determined that there was also "illegal dumping" of green waste-grass clippings and other lawn waste-despite company assurances back in 2000 to shut that down as well.
But the rock crushing goes on.
Clearly, city officials have been completely asleep where Hanson Aggregates is concerned, allowing the company to carry out illegal gravel recycling for well more than a decade. "As far as code enforcement is concerned, we only act on a complaint basis," explains Angus.
And even then, action occurs at a glacial pace.
Orange resident and former county planning commissioner Shirley Grindle filed a complaint in January 2002. She had discovered the illegal operation while researching a proposed housing development for the Sully-Miller site.
Code Enforcement then sent a "notice of violation" letter to Hanson on March 4, 2002. The company appealed. Then Angus sent the company a letter on July 15, ordering them to shut down. Once again, they appealed. On Oct. 7, the Orange Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one abstention to shut down the Hanson operation, but the company once again appealed. Finally, on Dec. 10, the City Council took up the issue. We think. Maybe.
In fact, Hanson attorney Barry Ross has used the city's own inaction against it. He argued at numerous city hearings and in correspondence that mining ended at the site in 1985 and that the city had not made a peep for 17 years. Tom Davis, Hanson's environmental consultant, has said that "extraction has not taken place since approximately 1975" and Orange did nothing. The city's reply? An Orange Planning Commission staff report states mining stopped in 1996, meaning the city isn't arguing whether it did nothing to stop an illegal operation-just how long it didn't do it.
Actually, no one at the city really knows when mining at Sully-Miller ended and recycling continued as the sole use of the site.
"The most definitive date we have from the company says extraction stopped in 1985," Angus said, chuckling. "But that's different from other dates they've provided. We're still trying to pin that down." That won't be easy.
Throughout the affair, the only clear statement Hanson has made is that they want to continue crushing other people's concrete. They say they've recycled rock for years. They say the effects of mining and recycling are identical. They say an order to halt would be a "taking"-an oppressive condemnation by the city requiring compensation. They say their operation "provides an important service to the city and the surrounding area."
The Orange city attorney's office found all of those excuses either irrelevant or baseless. But near the end of the Dec. 10 meeting, Hanson attorney Ross came up with a new excuse: the recycling started before the Sully-Miller site was annexed by the city and is still grandfathered under county zoning.
Because Orange City Attorney David De Berry couldn't say when the city annexed the Sully-Miller site or whether Ross' case was legit, the council delayed the matter until Jan. 14. But Angus subsequently destroyed that argument, too, by saying annexation took place long before the city's mining zoning code took effect.
"It's a shame so many years have gone by," said Grindle during the Dec. 10 hearing. "It hasn't been out of sight, but apparently, it's been out of mind for the city. The city needs to be more proactive in enforcing the zoning code. Either shut it down or change the zoning code. But don't allow an illegal use to continue." Problems with Sully-Miller aren't limited to illegal rock crushing. Fieldstone Homes is planning to build 180 or so homes on the site. Not only would these homes sit in the inundation zones for two nearby earthen dams, but they also sit in the natural path of Santiago Creek. It's also now clear, thanks again to Grindle's research, that Sully-Miller never cleaned up its mining site, despite a state law requiring reclamation plans for all surface-mining operations. State officials say they are currently investigating why Orange never requested a reclamation plan for Sully-Miller.
6 ESTATE LOTS
Sully Miller Site
110 acres
Privately Owned
Zoned Resource
3 Please do not continue to turn your back on the residents of East Orange. We desperately need a viable solution to this issue.
Thank you for anything you can do to make a difference.
Sincerely,
Mark Moore
Orange, CA 92869
Jennifer Connally
From: Janice Brownfield
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:23 PM
To: City Council Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Non-Agenda Item
Not only are we experiencing a water supply shortage due to extreme and expanding drought conditions caused by climate change, but the water we do have was found in 2020 to be contaminated with PFAS chemicals and is the subject of pending litigation. The City of Orange is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the Orange County Water District against PFAS manufacturers, including 3M and DuPont, and Decra Roofing Systems alleging their responsibility for PFAS contamination found in our local drinking water sources, with possible damages of more than $1 billion in cleanup costs.
In 2010, Minnesota brought the first PFAS pollution claim against 3M for negligently discharging PFAS used in the manufacture of Scotchgard into sources of drinking water. The lawsuit resolved in 2018 for $850 million, which the state used to fund drinking water and water sustainability projects in the areas affected by contamination.
Although no PFAS standard in our water has yet been set, old treatment facilities are being replaced, including a well here in Orange. PFAS entered the Orange County Groundwater Basin primarily via the Santa Ana River which received treated wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from upstream areas in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
PFAS are human-made chemicals used since the 1950s to make products including non-stick cookware such as Teflon, carpets, fabrics, clothing, and some cosmetics. Known as "forever chemicals," PFAS are linked to increased risks of cancer and weakened immune systems. Some studies show high levels of certain PFAS may lead to changes in liver enzymes and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer. Studies are continuing to learn how drinking water contaminated with PFAS, or per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, may affect our health.
Even though our water is contaminated, we still need to limit our water usage to help with the state-wide water shortage. Since the drought, wildfires and global warming are caused or accelerated by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, we also need to switch to renewable energy. Hundreds of city councils throughout the state are already doing so by offering residents and businesses renewable energy through such programs as Community Choice Energy.
The profits from the program would go to the City of Orange instead of So Cal Edison and therefore could be used for community programs to greatly ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions.
Item 7.2
Request for Permit
Parking on a portion
of Collins Avenue,
and on sections of
Palm Avenue and
Park Lane
Jennifer Connally
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Pamela Coleman; Jennifer Connally
Subject: New eComment for City Council
New eComment for City Council
Gabriel Farrand submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: City Council
Item: 7.2. Request for permit parking on a portion of Collins Avenue, and on sections of Palm Avenue and Park Lane. Resolution No. 11385.
eComment: My name is Gabriel Farrand, and I own the property at North Highland Street, near the proposed permit parking areas on Palm Avenue and Park Lane. We are happy Orange homeowners and have resided at our house since we purchased it just over seven years ago. I voted in favor of requiring permits in our entire neighborhood, North Wayfield to North Highland, when polled by the city earlier this year. I'm disappointed to see that the permit area has been reduced only to the small elbow of Palm Avenue and Park Lane, on the way into our neighborhood, but prior to turning onto our street. I am opposed to the reduced permit area because it will force people who currently park there, out towards the rest of the neighborhood, including our street, North Highland. We are on a quiet and safe cul de sac with limited street parking used by residents and not currently abused by people from other areas. If permits are enforced along the entrance to our neighborhood, but not on our street, people will travel the short extra distance to park in the unpermitted areas, adding congestion and decreasing safety on our street. I am in favor of permit parking, but only if it is enforced consistently and throughout the entire neighborhood. The proposed Palm Avenue and Park Lane permit area is a flawed and reckless idea benefitting a few homeowners at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. I notice that a traffic commission study was done and reported for the small permit area on Collins Avenue, but no such study or report appears in the council agenda for the proposed area on Palm Avenue and Park Lane. Was that study done? If not, why? And if it was, why is a similar report to the Collins Avenue study not included in the council agenda for us to review and have a better idea of the necessity of permitting and the possible impacts on adjacent streets? Is the absence of a study and report on the Palm Avenue and Park Lane area negligent? Or has it been intentionally withheld because it might undercut the argument for permitting that small stretch of road? Is it fair for the council to approve this measure without that study and report being provided to the public? Is it right? I urge you to send the Palm Avenue and Park Lane permit proposal back to the traffic commission for further study, and the drafting of a formal report for public review. It is also necessary for another poll of the neighborhood once we can be better informed of the implications - it needs to be made clear to residents in writing when they vote, that it's possible their street could be excluded from the permit area if it doesn't meet the prescribed approval threshold, but that permits could be required in some areas of the 1 neighborhood, with additional traffic and cars parking in the unpermitted areas as a result. The original map and voting letter made the proposal seem that the permit area would be all or nothing, and did not mention that individual streets might be included or excluded depending on how those residents voted. If people understand that permits might be required on a street next to them, but not their own, that will influence more homeowners to vote in favor of permits so that the entire neighborhood operates under the same rules. Please keep access to our streets for homeowners fair and equitable, our neighborhood and individual streets safe, and reject the special Palm Avenue and Park Lane permit area. It creates more problems than it solves.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com
Unsubscribe from future mailings