Foothills Sentry Page 4 SEPTEMBER 2025 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 34 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 @ramblingroseoc Circulation … 39,000 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. Printing by Advantage, Inc. 714-532-4406 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 ©Foothills Sentry 2025 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Jef Maddock graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager officemanager@foothillssentry.com Guest Commentary Call to action “Reining in the scope of the DRC was one of Grant Thornton’s recommendations,” Slater explained. “It takes too long to process development applications. We are in the process of creating a heritage commission and a new preservation ordinance, but in the meantime, we need to make bold steps.” Community Development Director Russell Bunim proposed a new ordinance that would reduce the DRC’s purview to historic preservation. He suggested that all new development be handled administratively, with the exception of historic districts, properties listed on the historic inventory and any that are 50 years old. New signage proposed for areas beyond those exceptions would be handled by staff; structures in historic districts that are noncontributors could be demolished or renovated with staff approval. While councilmembers Jon Dumitru and Kathy Tavoularis applauded the short-circuit approach, Arianna Barrios did not. “I’m confused,” she said. “We entered into an agreement with an organization willing to do this work. They’ve been at it for six months. It’s bizarre that we would go around that process. Why, all of a sudden, are we rushing?” “We have no intention to submarine the work of the committee,” Slater advised. “This is an interim solution to help our financial situation.” Fast-tracked “fix” Barrios pointed out that council “had nothing in writing” to properly access the interim ordinance. "I thought we were having a discussion, but you have a plan. You want to make a decision on the f ly.” Ana Gutierrez questioned the role of the DRC in perceived delays. “How fast are we getting projects to the DRC or Planning Commission?” she asked. “The "DRC" continued from page 1 DRC review has to find that projects meet city standards. We can’t say it’s because of the DRC that we are not business friendly. Why does it take six months to get to the DRC? We need to look at that, too.” Barrios motioned to set a moratorium on DRC review of nonhistoric projects instead of writing an ordinance that may well be overridden. “It’s easier to reverse a moratorium than an ordinance,” she explained. Her colleagues disagreed, and voted 5-2 to direct staff to proceed with Bunim’s suggested ordinance and bring that back to council as soon as possible. Barrios and Gutierrez dissented. GGuuees st tCCoom m eennt taar ri ey s Is it good for all concerned? By Adrienne Gladson During its first meeting since the release of the Grant Thornton Report in July, the Orange City Council began addressing our city’s serious economic challenges. Councilmembers emphasized the importance of making decisions based on sound data. Yet, in the same meeting, Aug. 12, a vote was taken to prepare an ordinance stripping the Design Review Committee (DRC) of its citywide oversight for commercial projects. This decision rests on a repeated narrative—that the DRC is the chief barrier to economic development in Orange. We have been told that “the city is too tough of a place to do business” and that the DRC holds projects hostage “for years.” These claims are not supported by the record. Abandoning that message would be wise. The DRC, originally created in 1974, has played an important role in ensuring quality design citywide. We wanted a high bar with subject manner experts looking at it with no ties to the applicant. In the 1980s and 1990s, its role expanded to include historic properties, reflecting the community’s demand for historic preservation and keeping every treasured building. The DRC’s purpose is not to obstruct development, but to ensure that projects enhance the charm, beauty and livability of our city—for residents, business owners, and visitors alike. Of course, refining the DRC’s work is appropriate. But constructive improvements must involve consultation with past and present DRC members who carry decades of “lessons learned.” Scapegoating the DRC for every delay in the entitlement process is misleading. Many factors outside the committee’s control slow down projects: incomplete submittals, missing basic requirements, General Plan and zoning noncompliance, legal challenges, shifting business plans, applicant delays, market conditions and staff shortages. Consider the four examples cited during council’s discussion: • A fast-food restaurant on South Main Street: This application was filed in 2017. The DRC first heard it in 2019, approved it in December, and it cleared the Planning Commission and Council by February 2020. Three years. The real delay stemmed from General Plan and zoning conflicts and applicant modifications—not the DRC. • A regional shipping terminal on West Struck Avenue submitted in 2020: This project took about three years from start to approval. Nearly a year was spent in Staff Review Committee (SRC) before the DRC ever saw it. The DRC reviewed it once in late 2021, offered a continuance to address a 75% shortfall in landscaping, then approved it in early 2022. Planning Commission and Council approvals came later in 2023. (The Staff Review Committee consists of representatives from various city departments.) • A dental office on West Chapman Avenue: After five Staff Review Committee submittals/ resubmittals in 2016, the DRC reviewed the project in 2017. It noted a number of parking, circulation and viability deficiencies. The project came back to the DRC in 2018, with the deficiencies unaddressed. The applicant, at that time, requested a denial so the decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. The denial was given. The Planning Commission subsequently approved it in 2018, but that project never proceeded. • Several Tustin Street restaurants: A councilmember claimed these were unfairly held to historic preservation standards. Yet no such applications exist in city records. These cases show that the DRC’s review time is measured in months, not years, and usually in response to valid zoning or code concerns. To suggest otherwise misrepresents the facts. As our city faces difficult fiscal realities, residents deserve decision-making rooted in truth and facts. If the DRC is to be reformed, let it be through honest evaluation—not by repeating myths that undermine credibility. The question council should ask is simple: Is it good for all concerned? Weakening design oversight may create short-term conveniences for a few applicants, but it risks long-term costs to the character, economy, sustainability and livability of our city. Plus, will it position us to successfully revitalize our commercially zoned sites for “radical economic development,” as recommended by the Grant Thornton study? Remarkably, the same role and high bar established for the DRC in 1974. Now is the time for careful aiming before firing—making decisions guided by facts, not blaming those only doing what we thought you wanted us to do. That is the responsible course for a city that values both its economic health and future. Adrienne Gladson, AICP, is a member of the Design Review Committee, previously serving on the Planning Commission 201118 and DRC 2007-11. RSCCD’s board president fails to discuss vendor conflicts ahead of $22M decision By Barry Resnick If your financial institution withheld money that rightfully belonged to you, would you continue doing business with them? For most people, the answer is a resounding no. And yet, in a bewildering act of capitulation, the Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCCD) appears, once again, to continue its multimillion-dollar relationship with the Alliance for Cooperative Insurance Programs (ASCIP)— an organization that quietly withheld millions in public funds from the district. Not only was this information hidden from the elected trustees, but it was also concealed from RSCCD’s independent auditors who admitted they only found out about the funds by reading it in the newspaper! The consistent non-disclosure of the account forced the auditors to declare that past audits could no longer be deemed accurate. RSCCD began using ASCIP in 2016 to broker its employee health insurance program, steering nearly a quarter of a billion in taxpayer dollars to them over the years in the form of premiums. But a March 2025 forensic audit conducted by Texas-based Weaver uncovered a deeply troubling fact: ASCIP had been retaining excess premiums across multiple insurance policies unbeknownst to the district's governing board. This way of doing business appears to have taken root during the tenure of former Vice Chancellor John Didion, who, shockingly, held dual roles—both in college district leadership and with ASCIP and one of its subsidiaries, a private insurance company. The audit suggests that Didion and then-Vice Chancellor Peter Hardash may have been the only RSCCD officials fully aware of the withheld funds during that period. But the concealment didn’t stop there. Current Chancellor Marvin Martinez became aware of the funds shortly after he was hired in 2019. Yet, the elected board members remained unaware until June 2024 when Trustee Phil Yarbrough learned about the sequestered funds, demanded answers and brought the issue into public view. At that point, the hidden account held a staggering $8 million. Yarbrough rightly called for the immediate return of the funds and the forensic audit, which Weaver presented to the trustees on March 10, 2025. Board President Daisy Tong was quick to state after the Weaver report was presented, “I’m sure we’re going to have discussions on this item again — this is not a one time, and we’re done.” But Tong’s actions since then contradict that statement. With just a few months before the college district is set to pay ASCIP another $22 million in health insurance premiums for 2026, all Tong has done is requested proposals to pay another firm to audit the Weaver audit. Tong’s failure to agendize the district’s review of alternatives to ASCIP is indefensible. Taxpayers have every right to expect transparency and responsible stewardship of public funds. As an elected official, Tong should be acting in the best interests of taxpayers—not complicit with a vendor that withheld millions from a public institution she was elected to serve. Her actions send a chilling message that financial mismanagement and ethical lapses carry no consequences in the RSCCD. Finding another option to ASCIP, including a plan that would keep employees with the same coverage, but simply eliminating ASCIP as a broker, isn’t just good governance, it’s a test of integrity. Regrettably, Tong appears to have failed the test. Dr. Barry Resnick retired as a professor of counseling from the RSCCD in 2022, having served for 42 years.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA1MjUy