Sunday Council Meet-and-Greet

A reader reminds us that this Sunday the Claremont City Council will be at the Farmers Market on 2nd St. between Yale Ave. and Indian Hill Blvd. in the Claremont Village. The councilmembers will be working in shifts at the city booth. So if you feel like chatting them up, about trash or anything else, check out the Farmers Market Sunday:

DATE: Thursday, October 2, 2008 1:22 PM
SUBJECT: Trashing the city
TO: Claremont Buzz

Thanks for posting the bait and switch (which is exactly what the city is doing) about the trash fees. I have talked to more than a few people who have said they read that letter from the city several times and finally threw it away because they thought it did not apply to them (residential rates). Your posting clearly shows that the city is trying to pull a fast one on the residents (what’s new?) but this time they have no leg to stand on. I often wonder if Council Members actually see these letters that are sent out in their names before they are sent out. If so, then they are all responsible and should take the proper corrective measures.

Residents have a chance to see them in person this Sunday at the Farmer’s Market in Claremont from 8am-1pm. It will be interesting to see how many of the Council Members show up and what excuses they have to justify this egregious error. I hope your readers confront them and post the Council Member’s responses on your blog. Once again, the INSIDER is doing the job that we should expect from our elected officials. BRAVO!

Bait-and-Switch, Garbage-Style

Yesterday's Claremont Courier had an article (not available online) about the city's proposed hike in trash fees.

Back on July 22nd, the Claremont City Council received a staff report on the city's Sanitation Fund. The report stated that unless prices were raised, the fund, which receives money from trash collection fees and pays for the garbage collection operating costs, would run out of money within three years and the city would have to begin spending General Fund money to help pay for the refuse operations.

The July 22nd staff report included a set of tables projecting what the income stream would be in Fiscal Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 under the present rate structure:

Click to Enlarge

As you can see from the two tables, the deficits come from three areas of trash collection: multi-family (apartment buildings) refuse, commercial refuse, and temporary bin rentals (dumpsters of different sizes).

According to the two tables, residential refuse collection rates would continue to run surpluses. Moreover, the staff report included a table showing that Claremont residents pay the highest rates of any of the local cities surveyed for the report (see table at right, click to enlarge).

The staff report gave the City Council two options to choose from. The first, Option A, included a lower rate increase for temporary dumpsters and no increase for multi-family units. Option B included a larger rate increase for the temporary bins and added a multi-family rate increase.

The report include rate tables showing Sanitation Fund revenue projections for FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 under the two different options. In both sets of tables for Options A & B, the projections for revenue for residential garbage collection stayed the same, so presumably there were no rate increases built into the assumptions. Also, as seen in table 8 of the report (the projection for FY 2009-10 of Option B), there is a small disclaimer at the bottom that says: "*Assumes a 2.5% CPI [consumer price index] increase on all funds except residential." [Emphasis added.]

Sanitation Fund Projections Under Option B
FY 2009-10

The City Council approved Option B, of which the above table would lead residents to believe that residential fees not only were NOT increasing but also were not subject to a yearly consumer price index hike. However, buried in the staff report was one sentence on page four that stated: "Both options outlined below assume all fees will be increased by the Consumer Price Index CPI in July of each year." The issue, then, turns on what the meaning of "all" is. But, as we've shown, the tables showing the projections for the two options explicitly exclude residential fees from the rate increase discussion. So that should settle the discussion.

Further, in the council's discussion of the issue on July 22nd, Councilmember Linda Elderkin asked more than once if the rate increases included residences. The staff answer each time was "NO." So, the staff on July 22nd was clearly interpreting their report to say that there was no intention to increase residential rates, which by the staff's own data were projected to run surpluses without any CPI increase.

After the discussion, the Council approved the staff's Option B by a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Sam Pedroza voting against the measure. Pedroza indicated he preferred the staff's Option A.

On July 23rd, a city-wide mailing to all property owners mentioned the rate increases approved by the City Council. However, the letter, according to the Courier, also said: "....the proposed rate adjustments are only for service areas where the current rates do not cover the cost to provide the service." Again, this would exclude residential rates, since those rates, by the city's own data, are running surpluses and cover their own costs.

Here is the city's letter to property owners:

Click on Images to Enlarge

Now, however, the City's staff is saying that a CPI increase really was intended, and they claim it was spelled out in their July 22nd staff report and in the July 23rd letter. The Courier also reported that "the letter was drafted with the oversight of City Attorney Sonia Carvalho and any confusion was 'unintentional.'" Yeah, right. Why are we not surprised to see the invisible hand of the City Attorney behind all of this.

Yesterday's Courier article quoted resident John Serpa, who suspected some skulduggery on the city's part:

Resident John Serpa threw out his letter after reading it, feeling that it did not apply to him. But after attending an Active Claremont meeting where the rates were discussed and learning about the proposed rate increase, he complained that the language in the letter was either too vague or purposefully deceptive.

"If they wanted to hide something, they did a very good job, Mr. Serpa said. "I would expect more from the people at city hall.

As the Courier reported, under California's Proposition 218, property owners can protest the rate increases by sending a written protest to the City Clerk by prior to the October 14th City Council meeting. If more than 50% of the property owners respond, the rate increase cannot be levied.

To ensure that the city does not discard a valid property owner rate protest, residents protesting the increase should include the owner's name, the property address, parcel number, and the specific increase they are protesting: residential, multi-family, commercial or temporary bin. They should also make sure to sign and date the protest.

The city is reporting having received only six protests so far, but that is not surprising considering the way they concealed and misrepresented rate hike. John Serpa also had a letter in yesterday's Courier outlining what residents should do if they do not agree with the increase:

At a recent Active Claremont meeting, Scott Carroll, the Director of Human Services [Carroll is actually Director of Community Service - ed.] casually mentioned the CPI proposal and said that the City has only received a very small number of letters protesting the City's action. No wonder there was a limited response!

Friends and neighbors with whom I spoke to regarding this matter said that they completely disregarded the City's letter because it seemed to only apply to commercial and multi-family accounts. Not true!

If there are few written protests regarding the CPI use for yearly rate increases, it will be in place in December 2008 and there on forever.

Anyone against this proposal needs to take action before the next City Council meeting on Oct. 14, 2008 by:

1. Submitting a letter of protest to the City Clerk at City Hall.

2. Include your parcel number from your property tax bill.

3. Try to attend the City Council meeting Oct. 14, at 7 p.m.

If you're interested in filing a protest, you can send it to:

City of Claremont
City Clerk
P.O. Box 880
Claremont, CA 91711-0880

Stinkin' Laws

After seven years, sports groups are celebrating the decision by the Claremont City Council to go forward with Phases 1 and 1A of the Padua Ave. Sports Park. The sports groups and Human Services Commissioner Valerie Martinez have long pushed for the park. The sports groups are happy because they say there is a severe shortage of lighted fields, and Martinez cheers because she sees the sports groups as a power block to support her own plans for rehabilitating her tarnished post-Preserve Claremont image. (You have to hand it to Martinez, the original Transparent Woman; she has no shame and certainly isn't lacking for chutzpah.)

Tuesday night, the Claremont City Council approved going forward with the first two phases of the park at a total cost of about $3.6 million. The council had already approved approximately spending $2.4 million for Phase 1, which consists of one unlit soccer field and 52 parking spaces. On Monday, however, the city received an additional $850,000 from the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC), and that allowed the city to go forward with Phase 1A, which includes the lit soccer field and 58 more parking spots.

One thing the council didn't really discuss is how their approval of the two park phases will mean raiding the city's General Fund Reserve and taking nearly $1 million to build Phase 1A. In addition to needing to burn an extra $527,000 of General Fund Reserve funds, they are "borrowing" another $450,000 in reserve money and promise to repay that from city Park Development Impact Fees. The problem with that is that those fees are paid by developers when they build new projects in town. As you may have noticed, there's not a whole lot of building going on right now, and there's no guarantee when developers will move forward with new projects. So that repayment money may be a long time in coming.

Another thing they didn't talk much about Tuesday night was that because the RMC money comes from a conservancy that is supposed to be preserving the 8.9 acres of sage habitat that the sports park would otherwise destroy, the city sold the project to the RMC as a project that meets the city's draft Sustainability Plan, and the city made representations (false?) that it would use part of the grant to preserve a chunk of the sage habitat. The city dangled a promise to the RMC that the city might set up a 6 acre habitat area with walking trails.

Of course, you know all about Claremont's history of promise keeping. Once they received the RMC's $850,000 for Phase 1 on Monday, the city council on Tuesday night turned around and were then able to use Claremont money that would have otherwise been used on Phase 1 and plugged it into Phase 1A. In effect, the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy is underwriting the destruction of the habitat in Phase 1A and the introduction of sports park lights into a foothill area that has very strict lighting restrictions. This is a bait-and-switch of extraordinary proportions. Well executed, Claremont!

Judging from Tuesday night's discussions, Claremont's arguments for being able to break the lighting rules for Northeast Claremont, courtesy of City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, are that the city's own rules don't apply to the city itself. No surprise there, since we know that Carvalho seemed to believe last year that the First Amendment and quaint notions about prior restraint had no place in Claremont.

The city is apparently foregoing Phase 2 for the present. Phase 2 would have included a lit softball field and unlit tennis courts. It originally included a lit roller hockey rink in place of the tennis courts.

(We've received a little more information on the RMC grant, complete with some spiffy images, and we'll be serving that up in the coming days.)

The Daily Bulletin had a story on the park decision. Because the 100-foot sports lights in Phase 1A were an issue for Councilmember Corey Calaycay, the council bifurcated the vote. The council unanimously approved going forward with Phase 1 and voted 4-1 for adding in Phase 1A, with Calaycay dissenting. According to the Bulletin:

The council voted for the project in two phases. Council members voted unanimously in the first phase for one soccer field without lights, among other items. In the second phase, Corey Calaycay cast the dissenting vote because he opposed a soccer field with lights.

``I have no objection to the park,'' Calaycay said. ``My objection is to the lights.'' Calaycay said that while he supported the park, the property needed to have its designated zoning changed from rural, and he didn't like ``bending rules.''

``They've always had lighting standards there,'' Calaycay said Wednesday.

``A big criticism of government is when they make rules apply to others and not themselves,'' Calaycay said. ``It brings government into question.''

The RMC might want to know (if they cared) that the council was already talking about replacing that 6 acres of sage habitat they said they were going to preserve with another sports field. Councilmember Peter Yao said he did not want to accept $50,000 from the RMC for a habitat feasibility study because he wanted a third sports field on the Padua site. Yao said he knew how what a conservancy's study would say, and he wanted no part of it.

Yao's support for the Padua project was quite a change from September, 2002, when then-candidate Yao sent a letter to the Claremont Courier that laid out all the reasons why he was against not only Padua Sport Park but Village West as well:

I initially agreed with the City's decisions to build more homes in the Village West expansion and to construct a sports facility in Padua Park. However, the comments from the public have caused me to rethink my position. Four public statements voiced in various city council meetings have prompted my re-evaluation:

1. Who would want to live in the new upscale Village West homes built next to an active railroad track?

2. Padua Park will generate a heavy volume of traffic on Padua Ave., a narrow two-lane rural road.

3. Lit up, the Padua Park, with tens of thousands of megawatts of lighting, will ruin the character of the quiet North Claremont.

4. It makes no sense to locate the largest Claremont sports facility in the extreme northern corner of the city.

The problem is that both the Village West and Padua Park capital projects do not adhere to Claremont's zoning philosophy. The zoning laws caution us not to put houses in a noisy zone and not to put large sports facilities in a quiet zone.

Click to Enlarge

It's easy to see why Yao has changed back to supporting the park. As he has learned by now with the able tutoring of one Sonia Carvalho, in Claremont, we don't need no stinkin' laws!

Forked Tongues

Jack Crabbe: ...we come to a place knowed as the Indian Nations. It was a tract of land by the Washita River that had been give forever to the Indians by the Congress and the President of the United States. We was safe there. This was Indian land as long as grass growed and wind blowed and the sky is blue.
.....
I reckon right then I come close to turning pure Indian, and I probably would have spent the rest of my days with Sunshine and her sisters. But sometimes grass don't grow, wind don't blow and the sky ain't blue.

- Screenplay, Little Big Man (1970), Writers: Thomas Berger and Calder Willingham

Broken promises are a Claremont 400 thing, and people who've lived here any length of time could tell you about any number of misrepresentations made by this group, either through the city government they run or through their educational arm, the Claremont Unified School District.

So, the 400 will routinely speak with forked tongues to get whatever it is they want, then eventually go back on their word.

For instance:

Daily Bulletin writer Wes Woods II had an article that also appeared in the Contra Costa Times about the installation of some temporary bleachers at Claremont High School's football field. As Woods explains, the 25-foot high bleachers are a point of contention with people living next to the field, who've complained that people standing atop the bleachers can see into the residents' homes:

"It's not even a nice thing to look at," said Erik Ennerberg, 69, inside his residence Friday. He and some neighbors explained Friday how the temporary bleachers for Claremont High School's athletic field are an eyesore.

"The worst part is, it doesn't have to be here," Ennerberg said of the football bleachers.

Ennerberg and residents like Deedee and Landis MacIntosh are in agreement and showed up Thursday night at a Claremont Unified School District board meeting to voice their complaints.

On Friday, the bleachers near the residences were shrouded by a green cover, because residents had complained that people could stand on the bleachers and look into windows.

The green cover solution hasn't helped, neighbors said.

"If you look out of the window, you used to see sky," an exasperated Ennerberg said Friday.

On Thursday, neighbors told the school board about an agreement in 2000 between the board of education and residents who live near the athletic field.

The agreement, of which Ennerberg has copies, describes how the board would compromise with the neighbors by not building a stadium complex in exchange for their support for a $2.5 million bond to refurbish the athletic field.

There was also a matter of stadium lights, which were once temporary but which are about to become permanent fixtures. Saturday's Claremont Courier had that story:

Spectators who attend Claremont High School home football games will have a better view of the field action this season. In fact, so will the players and coaches.

The installation of 4 new permanent light fixtures at the CHS Stadium brings more light to the field and replaces the rental units used in the past.

“The 4 fixtures are permanent and provide much better lighting,” said Jeff Shoemaker, assistant director of Claremont Unified School District’s Service Center. “Before, we would rent the lights. We used to have 3 fixtures that were all on the south side and there were none on the north. What would happen was that there would be light spillage and plus, we were using a diesel generator for the lights. So this cuts down on pollution.”

The district has worked with Musco Lighting and Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation (MEI) in order to bring the new lighting system to life. Musco Lighting provided the rental lights last year, but the district decided to incorporate a permanent set of lights this year.

Bait-and-switch, again; or game, set, and match to the Claremont 400, who were able to swindle the football field neighbors into not opposing the bond for the CHS athletic field. If history (real history, not the Judy Wright variety) shows us anything, it's that the Claremonsters will promise the moon to get what they want. Keeping their word of honor is another matter. Then again, you have to honor to pledge to in the first place for one's word to mean something.

By the way, Musco Lighting seems to be the Claremonsters' vendor of choice when it comes to outdoor sports lighting. Besides the school district, the city of Claremont looooves Musco to the point that city staff schills for Musco at every opportunity. You'd think they owned stock in the company the way they stand up for their friends at Musco.

In February, we noted that Musco would be providing the new field lighting for College Park. Also, Musco did the quick and dirty "study" during the run-up to the Padua Sports Park EIR. No surprise then that Musco, who will undoubtedly get the contract (they seem to be hard-wired into every contract; other vendors don't even bother to bid) for the Padua Sports Park lights, found that the 100-foot lighting standards for the Padua project would have no adverse impact on the area which has strict limitations on lighting. (There's another bait-and-switch on that count, as we noted last week.)

The 400's operational strategy in all these sorts of things is to avoid a drawn out conflict if possible, and then go ahead with whatever it was they wanted in the first place. They promise all sorts of things, even come up with detailed, official processes in which they promise to take certain steps to mitigate any potential issues. But after 5, 10, 15 years go by, they ignore all those promises and do exactly what the folks opposed to the given project had warned they would.

If you've had a problem with the city making these sorts of pledges and then failing to follow through on them, write us and send photos if you can. We'll post them as an ongoing "Claremont Bait-and-Switch" series.