The new gym was designed by NTD Architecture and constructed by Balfour Beatty Construction. The project cost approximately $13 million and was funded through the Measure L campus modernization program.
For more information, call Foothill High at (714) 730-7464 or the TUSD Communications Office at (714) 730-7339.

FOOTHILL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION

MAY 1, 2012

 The Airport Committee of FCA has been relatively inactive during the past 6 months. We have been awaiting responses by the airlines to suggestions the Committee made in October, 2011, regarding voluntary noise abatement practices for aircraft arrivals during visual flight conditions.  These suggestions were based on practices implemented by one airline, Frontier, and observation of current flight tracks.

On March 26, we received a letter from Alan Murphy, Director, John Wayne Airport (JWA), stating that no substantive responses were received from the air carriers with regard to these suggestions.  According to Mr. Murphy, they continue to take the position that: (1) safety and regulatory compliance are their highest priority, (2) the newest and quietest fleets are operated at JWA, (3) they make every effort to minimize impact to the surrounding communities and the environment, and (4) they know of no additional practical measures to reduce approach noise.  These points are consistent with what the air carriers have been saying for the past few years.

On what may be a more positive note, the Federal Aviation Administration has developed a new RNAV procedure for SNA arrivals from the south and east, based on satellite technology.  This procedure provides for more precise flight tracks and transitions to the existing ILS path.  The good news is that there should be less scatter of the flights, i.e. fewer homes in the foothills may be affected; but the bad news is that it may be noisier for homes directly under the ILS path. However, the procedure incorporates an Optimized Profile Descent path, which may reduce noise somewhat. This procedure is expected to be used by the airlines within a couple of months. We solicit comments from residents, based on observations of any apparent change in frequency of flights and/or noise levels due to arrivals into JWA.

JWA is the most heavily regulated airport in the country, with limits on number of passengers annually, number of daily departures and departure noise levels.  These limits expire in 2015 and the night time curfew expires in 2020.  In January 2012, the County  initiated negotiations with the City of Newport Beach, the Airport Working Group of Orange County and Stop Polluting Our Newport to extend the Agreement that specifies these limits.  The goal for these citizens groups is to maintain the current limits for an extended period of time.  The negotiations are progressing with no road blocks known as yet. The industry is developing improved aircraft engines with reduced fuel consumption and noise, which will provide noise abatement when installed in the airline fleet in the next few years.

The newly formed Foothill Communities Association (FCA) Firesafe Council invites you to a Vendor Fare where you can learn about products and procedures to reduce the risk to your home and family from fires. The event will happen at the Headquarters of the Orange County Fire authority (intersection of Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Road) on June 16, 2012.  The initial agenda is

10:00 – 11:00 Summary and Q&A for home hardening, creating defensible space, community evacuation plans, and how to prepare to survive a fire.

11:00 – 1:00 Visit tables on information by vendors of products to help survive a fire.

For the people in the highest risk areas of Cowan Heights and Lemon Heights, you will be able to see the OCFA understanding of the risk to your home in a customizable computer model. This map shows the highest risk areas in red (highest), orange, and yellow (lowest high risk).  People in these high risk areas, who have returned a risk survey, will participate in 2 drawings for up to $5,000 in hardening products and services. You can also enter for the drawing by providing your name and address here.

With the assistance of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), a group of volunteers has formed the FCA Fire Safe Council to prepare for and protect our community in the event of fire. If you would like to join this group, send an email to info@FCAhome.org. The main goals of this council are to inform and educate homeowners and residents about the risk factors for the spread of fire on their personal and to help prepare for surviving a fire. In May, we will begin canvassing our streets offering exterior home inspections and providing information on “home hardening” and “defensible space”.

The OCFA (Orange County Fire Authority) has created the Ready Set Go website with lots of useful information.

We hope to see you on June 16 at OCFA HQ.

Published: March 13, 2012 Updated: 5:33 p.m.

Judge rules illegal spot zoning in North Tustin case

The Foothill Communities Association sued the county after the Board of Supervisors voted to approve a new zoning designation and a senior living community in North Tustin.

By ELYSSE JAMES / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

A judge has decided the Orange County Board of Supervisors used illegal spot zoning practices for a proposed senior living community in North Tustin that has been the subject of debate for three years.

Judge Gail Andler ruled that the zone change from single family residential to senior residential housing is illegal spot zoning, and that the county will have to cancel its approval of the Springs at Bethsaida development.

Attendees at the county Planning Commission meeting in January 2011 hold up signs in opposition to the proposed senior living facility in North Tustin. A judge ruled on March 8 that the county’s application of senior residential housing to the land on Newport Avenue is illegal spot zoning. (VIA TUSTIN NEWS)

By the numbers3 neighborhood groups combined to file lawsuit7.25-acre vacant lot in North Tustin19 bungalows planned at The Springs at Bethsaida55 assisted living units planned79 independent living units planned 153 total living units planned

MIGUEL VASCONCELLOS, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER MORE PHOTOS »

The Foothill Communities Association and the Catholic Diocese of Orange have been battling over the project since 2009.

“There are a lot of happy people in North Tustin,” said Richard Nelson, president of the Foothill Communities Association. “The majority of the people here were opposed to that facility and are delighted with the judge’s decision.”

County spokesman Howard Sutter said the county is assessing the impact of the decision. Staff members are waiting for a full copy of the judge’s decision before presenting the information to the Board of Supervisors. The board will consider the county’s legal options, Sutter said.

One option the county has is to appeal the ruling.

“The important thing is that we disagree with the findings and we’ll be evaluating all of our legal options, including the appeal,” said diocese representative Carol McDermott of Government Solutions Inc. “It’s extremely disappointing.”

The Foothill Communities Coalition, made up of three neighborhood groups, filed the suit against the diocese and the Board of Supervisors in April, after the board voted in March to approve the Springs at Bethsaida Senior Living Community.

The board also approved a zone change from single family residential to senior residential housing for the 7.25-acre vacant lot off Newport Avenue.

The two-story senior living home at 11901 Newport Ave. would have had 153 units with 79 independent living, 55 assisted living and 19 bungalows.

In her ruling, Andler encourages the Foothill Communities Association and the Board of Supervisors to pursue settlement discussions. Nelson said the two groups have exchanged emails but no discussions are happening at the moment.

The ruling states, “…the concern is not with the passing of the new zone by itself. The problem is in the application to one property. The amendment of the NTSP (North Tustin Specific Plan) creating a new zoning category for senior residential housing may have been proper, but its application to one property was illegal spot zoning.”

Spot zoning is when one area’s use differs from its surroundings; in this case, the surrounding area is designated as single family residential. It can be deemed illegal when it is not compatible with the existing zoning designations or with a community zoning plan.

Attorneys for the county argued in January that Springs at Bethsaida was consistent with the county general plan, which allows for senior housing.

John McClendon, an attorney representing the coalition, told the court that a majority of residents living within 300 feet of the project oppose it, and that the use would be clearly commercial, not residential.

“My email inbox is overflowing with email from people who are ecstatic about the results,” Nelson said.

The complaint states that the environmental impact report for the project uses the term “senior residential housing” specifically for this project, and that the public was not given a chance to comment on its definition.

The public was able to comment on a draft and final environmental impact report during the 45-day review periods.

The three groups that organized to file the lawsuit are the Foothill Communities Association, the Citizens for Unincorporated Orange County, and Neighbors United, a group that formed in the late ’90s to fight a planned retail center.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or ejames@ocregister.com

SLIDE SHOW: Judge rules illegal spot zoning in North Tustin case 18 Photos »

GRAPHIC: Map: Proposed senior living center

• No decision yet on N. Tustin senior home
• Group sues diocese over senior center plan
• Board approves senior living home in North Tustin
• Senior living center approved by commission
• Vote expected on controversial senior home
• Proposed seniors’ residential complex draws opposition
• North Tustin group opposing zone change
• Diocese rejects N. Tustin land exchange
• Senior living center planned for Newport Avenue

• Our Town Tustin Blog
• OC Register
• Foothills Sentry

Please understand that the following is a non-lawyer’s interpretation of the new court documents. If any lawyers want to offer some insight email rnelson@FCAhome.org.

Judge Gail Andler, in her ruling, directed our lawyer, John McClendon, to prepare a proposed final writ requiring that the changes to the North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) be undone and all permits for the project be cancelled. John McClendon did submit the document as directed. If she signs it, the case would be over and clearly in our favor. The usual practice is for the losing side to have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed writ. A reasonable procedure.

Rather than comment on the draft, the County has submitted objections to the proposed writ and an alternative proposed writ in an obvious attempt to minimize the damage and find a way around the judge’s decision. For example, the Judge said she did not need to rule on the environmental (CEQA) issues because the project fails on illegal spot zoning (civil law). The alternative writ and judgment documents say that since the Judge did not rule on the environmental issues, our objections to the environmental errors of the County are set aside (i.e., we lose on the environmental grounds because the ruling was unnecessary). Additionally, the alternative documents say that the changes to the NTSP are to be undone, the project approvals cancelled, and the environmental errors corrected. These actions would close the case. We won, right? Maybe not for long. There may be a path for the County to reopen the project with the environmental errors corrected, do the rezoningwith a different approach, and approve a new project.

Additionally, the County has requested an additional hearing to argue for the alternative writ and judgment.

Judge Andler can proceed in one of several different paths:
1. Sign the proposed writ prepared by our lawyer. Case closed and we win.
2. Convene the requested additional court hearing and order a new proposed writ.
3. Sign the proposed alternative draft writ. Case closed and we might lose in the long run.

What happens when this court case is over? If the writ and judgment as proposed by our lawyer are signed by Judge Andler, I expect the County will appeal. The Dioceses and our Supervisor are committed to the project. Even though they will be in a very weak position, they may request the Board of Supervisors to file an appeal. The County can spend tax payers money to proceed.

If the alternative writ is signed by Judge Andler, the County may not file an appeal but work to close the case as quickly as possible and open a new project on the same site. We likely find ourselves in a new lawsuit down stream.

The respondents objections, the proposed writ, alternative proposed writ, and alternative judgement are added to the list of court documents in the previous posting on trial status so that there is one place with a complete list.

If you want to oppose the proposed increase, you can sign a petition. Both postal and email petitions are available.

Email Version
Enter you name and address in the form below and a email will be sent to the CPUC and the Administrative Judge overseeing the approval process. Click here to see what will be sent using the form (with your contact info replacing that of John Q Customer).

[contact-form-7]
Postal Version
You can print this version and have it collected by Denise (714-714-734-0616, DenisePDurham@gmail.com) who will have it mailed along with others. Allowing Denise to mail the petition ensures that we know how many have been sent.

MS Work Version (doc file)

Rich Text Format (rtf file)

Why is GSW More Expensive?
This is a question that we are trying to answer. If there is someone with accounting experience who would like to help contact rnelson@FCAhome.org. Data supplied by GSW shows that the largest factors contributing to the proposed increase are
1. Reduces Sales (35%),
2. Admin & General (27%), and
3. Capital Financing (21%).

The reduced water usage by customers as a result of the increased cost and introduction of tiered rates requires the rates be increased to maintain the same profits for the company. In most companies
if there is a reduction in sales, the company cuts costs to maintain profit margin. GSW has taken the opposite approach and increased prices. This can only be done because they have a monopoly. There is no evidence that GSW is trying to cut costs. One could ask whether this should be encouraged by the CPUC. The problem with this reasonable question is that the CPUC is not concerned with whether the company is cost competitive with other local companies. They are asking whether GSW can justify their costs not whether they are cost competitive. In fact, GSW has no incentive to reduce costs; they are guaranteed an approximately 10% profit rate. A guaranteed profit rate encourages GSW to spend as much money as possible. This may explain why GSW is the high cost provider in all 80 communities they serve in California. 1 in 36 Californians receive their water from GSW.

Administrative and General Costs are presumed to be overhead and the salaries of general management. Overhead includes costs such as office furniture, office supplies, and employee benefits. Are the salaries competitive with other corporations and municipal companies (e.g., Tustin Water Company, Orange Water Company, or East Orange County Water District)? Since GSW is a private company we don’t know. The salary structure of the municipal companies should be public information. Are they being prudent in expenses for office? We do not know. As a monopoly, there is little incentive to be economical.

Capital financing would pay for new pipelines and new processing and storage facilities. Does the pipeline replacement rate (miles per year) follow industry norms? We don’t know but will try to find out. How do they manage capital projects? After a project is justified and approved are they free to move money around like a checker board to fund pet projects or projects harder to defend? This would not be tolerated in other companies. We will try yo find out.

What is FCA Doing?

1. Providing objections to the proposed increase.
2. Acquiring legislator support.
3. Understanding the orgin of the problem.

Between 500 to 1,000 petitions have been supplied to the CPUC objecting to the proposed increase. This si the minimum that can be done. If there are no objection “No one cares about the increase and it can be rubber stampted”. If you have not sent a petition use one of the forms at the top of this page.

We and many residents provided testimony at the local public hearings at Claremont and Stanton (picture1  picture2  picture3  picture4).

We are informing our legislative representatives and politicians about the severity of the problem. We have met with Don Wagner, Todd Spitzer, anmd Bill Campbell. All have sent letters objecting to the proposed increase. Meeting are planned with John Campbell and Mimi Walters.

We strongly suspect that GSW is abusing their monopoly position and are working to understand this.

Get Ready

Set

Go

OCFA Ready Set Go Program