We Stand Corrected

Our post last Friday generated this response from Claremont Police Chief Paul Cooper (photo, right):

Date: Mon, March 21, 2011 7:11:16 AM
Subject: [ No Subject ]
From: Paul Cooper
To: claremontbuzz@yahoo.com

Hi Claremont Buzz,

A friend sent me the link to your most recent story on March 18, 2011. I thought I would share with you that the proposed communications tower project was presented at City Council, Police Commission and Community Services Commission meetings. We have discussed the project with Cable Airport management and they have no issues with the project. We have also submitted the project to the FAA and received a “No Hazard” certification. Following the council presentation, the tower project was also in the Courier and the Daily Bulletin The most recent agenda report is to simply update the new council on the project and its status. There’s been no attempt to “slip this one in.” If you have any questions about the project, I am always available.

Sincerely,


Paul


Paul Cooper
Chief of Police
Claremont Police Department
909-399-5401
pcooper@ci.claremont.ca.us

We noticed that Chief Cooper's concerns about clarifying the record must have extended to the City's public relations arm. Over the weekend there was a change in the City's online materials for the tower. When we originally looked on the City's website last Friday, this is what we saw:


This is what you see now:


So the City's information on the tower is much more helpful now than it was last week. However, we'd still like to see a link to the so-called "Initial Study". Among other things, apparently, this contains the deadline for public comment. Presumably it also contains a discussion of the height and how the initially-proposed 200-ft tower in Upland transformed into a 174-ft tower in Claremont.

We checked the City's records, and we were able to find the references Chief Cooper mentioned. Cooper made presentations regarding the tower to the City Council, the Police Commission, and the Community Services Commission. Searching the City's document archives when we were composing our original post didn't turn up the documents the Chief was able to point us to, so we took another look.

We were glad the Chief wrote us because, when we looked for the meetings he referred to, we were struck by how much all of it seemed to serve seemed to underscore our original concern about the City "slipping one in." For instance, the tower was originally slated to be located in the northeast corner of the City Yard on Monte Vista Ave. That placement, however, put the 174-foot tower in Upland and under the aegis of Upland's planning process, which didn't give the Chief and City Hall to opportunities to maneuver that having the tower on the Claremont side of the property did.

(It also reminded us that when Claremont originally built the building, at the end of the Glenn Southard regime, they built out past the city and county limits without getting the permission of Upland, which cause a minor row at the the time.)

Click to Enlarge

Chief Cooper mentioned the change in the tower's placement in his 2/10/11 report to the Community Services Commission:

The location of the tower was originally proposed in the far northeast corner of the city yards which is actually in the City of Upland. As staff worked with Upland staff, it became apparent that this project could not move through Upland's process in the timeline needed to meet the needs of the project and the grant. The tower was moved approximately 20' from its originally proposed site so that it is now located within Claremont while still being constructed in the far northeast corner of the facility. This will allow the management of the project to be handled within Claremont's process and staff has the ability to manage the timeline better.

The communications tower is on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting, by the way. The Chief's report for the council lays out a timeline for the the tower's installation. Note the implied inevitability:

March 22 Report to council for FYI on project.
Agenda Published March 17. Report due March 14.

March 25 - April 19 Publish CEQA (21 days).

April 4 Bid Specs Completed.

April 19 Planning Commission Meeting. C U P approval. CEQA hearing and approval.
Agenda Published April 14. Report due April 11. Notice April 7. Appeal until May 2.
April 27 Architectural Commission Design Review.
Building design needed.
Agenda Published April 21. Report due April 18. Notice April 14.

April 4 Bid Specs Completed.

May 10 City Council approval to go to bid
Agenda Published May 5. Report due May 2.

May 24 Approval for bid if CEQA Appealed.
Agenda Published May 19. Report due May 16.

June 27 Open Bids.

July 12 Award Bid.
Agenda Published July 7. Report due July 5.

July/Auqust/Sept Build Project.

The Chief doesn't foresee any problems arising in the public process that might change his timeline, and there's real no need for him to worry. His certainty is guaranteed by the fact that he can shepherd the project through Claremont's rubber stamping commissions. We assume the commissioners, especially the Architectural Commissioners, are in line on this matter and no one will raise the objection, well, that the tower is buck-ugly as proposed, looking like a cross between a rocket gantry and a 1920s Signal Hill oil well tower, except taller than either.

As to the FAA, we note that there wasn't much public comment on this matter. For example, we didn't see the City or Chief Cooper circulate the materials they presented to the FAA. Incidentally, though the owners of Cable probably didn't realize when Chief Cooper apprised them of the tower plans, in the long term building the tower might be good not only for police communications, but for the anyone who might want the for airport's land for some other use like commercial development or even future expansion for the Claremont Colleges. Somewhere far down the road, the tower's existence will make it easier to argue that development has so crowded around airport that safety will become a concern.

And this is how Official Claremont uses the process to batter the uninitiated. In Claremont, there's never one meeting you can point to and say, "You must be there." If you showed up for, say, the Police Commission meeting last November 4th, you could have heard Chief Cooper talking to the commissioners about the proposed tower. If you raised an objection, however, you would have been told that this was really just an informational agenda item to address your concerns and that you would have your chance to air your concerns at a future meeting.

So you then you would have gone to the Community Services meeting on February 10th. You again raised your concerns, but would have been told there was no need to worry and that your concerns would be addressed at the City Council on March 22nd, or at a future Architectural Commission meeting. By the end of it, when you've had more than your fill of meetings, you'll be told that you should have had your concerns addressed earlier on when you had the opportunity and that the project had already been vetted by the city's commissions and by the City Council.

The unstated fact of the matter is that none of the meetings really mattered. It was all just window dressing. The idea for a trolley gets floated at someplace like a dinner party at former Mayor's Judy Wright's home, and the next thing you know, the project is a fait accompli.

Only after you've experienced the vaunted Claremont public process will you come to appreciate the machinery at work in our town. Only then can you truly call yourself a Claremonter.

City Council Meeting Tonight

The Claremont City Council meets tonight at 6:30pm in the council chambers at 225 W. Second St. You can review the meeting agenda here.

You can also watch tonight's council meeting here.

Among the consent calendar items is the resignation of Community Services Commissioner Antonia Castro, who is moving out of the area. Also, the Claremont Chamber of Commerce is asking the council to approve June 30 as the date for the State of the City luncheon. The council participates by making a slide presentation to the chamber, so staff will need to get their PowerPoint juices flowing.

City Manager Jeff Parker has the City's mid-year budget report ready to go, and the good news is that revenues seem to be matching projections. So the budget will remain in the black for Fiscal Year 2010-11. For FY 2009-10, the City showed a budget surplus in excess of the expected $611,616, so the belt-tightening and staff reductions have paid off. Parker's report also says there's a great deal of uncertainty from on the state level because no one knows how Governor Jerry Brown's proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies will play out.

According to the report,a portion of the lost redevelopment funds would be offset by higher property tax revenues for the General Fund:

The impacts to the City of such an action by the State would be significant, with $728,696 in salary and benefit and administrative costs that would have to be funded through another revenue source or eliminated altogether. Similarly, the City's economic development activities, at a cost of $451,987, would also require an alternate funding source or face elimination. It should be noted that the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency would result in increased General Fund property tax revenue currently estimated at between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.

Here's the Parker's report:




City Manager Parker is also presenting the council with a 74-page report for the council on the final findings of the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Economic Sustainability:




Unlike the 2010-11 mid-year budget report, the committee's findings were rather grim. According to the report, even under the rosiest of revenue assumptions, Claremont's budget will be back in the red by FY 2011-12 and faces a $1.17 million budget deficit by FY 2015-16. Under the most pessimistic revenue projections, the report indicates the City's deficit will be as high as $3.98 million by FY 2015-16 (see the chart below):

Click on Image to Enlarge

The report calls the severe fiscal forecasts "the new normal" and counsels us to accept this reality. It also acknowledges the fact that any tax or fee increases need to balanced by spending cuts:

The Committee became convinced that to recommend only increased taxes and other burdens on the populace without recommending concomitant structural (reoccurring) reductions in City expenditures would be neither politically nor economically viable.

To cut to the chase, here are the committee's findings and recommendations:


So expect continued cutbacks in employee benefits, as well an increase in the city's Utility Users Tax (UUT). The committee is recommending a temporary, five-year increase. But, if you know Claremont's history (cue town historian Judy Wright), you know that any promises of having a sunset provision for the increase will turn into a permanent UUT hike.

Local Attorney Loses License

CLAREMONT COMMISSIONER DISBARRED

The California Bar Journal reports that Claremont Community Services Commissioner Stacey Matranga (photo, right) was disbarred on October 28. According to the Bar Journal's December edition:

Matranga committed 17 acts of misconduct in seven matters. Among other things, Matranga misappropriated $21,000 of client funds without any explanation for five months. She also “flagrantly breached her fiduciary duties in seven client matters,” State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn found, and she abandoned clients, did not comply with a court order, and failed to perform legal services competently, return client files, communicate with clients, promptly return client funds and account for or maintain client funds. She also she commingled funds in her trust account and committed acts of moral turpitude.

Matranga had her office in Ontario, but is a Claremont resident.

It's our understanding that the State Bar Court takes client trust account issues very seriously, and any sort of irregularity can be grounds for disciplinary action. Generally, however, the Bar is not quick to pull an attorney's license, so any first offense that results in disbarment must be a serious matter, at least to the Bar.

It appears from the State Bar's records that the combination of client fund issues, together with Matranga's failure to return client documents and files, her lack of communication with clients, and her failure to cooperate fully with the Bar's investigation led to her disbarment. As Judge Honn explained in his decision in this matter:

It is settled that an attorney-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character and always requires utmost fidelity and fair dealing on the part of the attorney. (Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) In this matter, respondent had flagrantly breached her fiduciary duties in seven client matters, including failure to return unearned fees of almost $5,000 to two clients and misappropriation of more than $21,000 in five months. Such misconduct reflects a blatant disregard of professional responsibilities.

Moreover, the misappropriation of client funds is a grievous breach of an attorney’s ethical responsibilities, violates basic notions of honesty and endangers public confidence in the legal profession. In all but the most exceptional cases, it requires the imposition of the harshest discipline – disbarment. (See Grim v. State Bar, supra, 53 Cal.3d 21.)

Commission Roster; Click to Enlarge

It's always painful when something like this happens, for Matranga and her clients, and for the community as well. Matranga seems to be generally well-liked, and she hasn't really been involved in a lot of the political maneuvering that goes on in and around our City Hall.

The State Bar's website has the Bar Court's decision online or you can find it here:

Outsourced!

We've talked before about how the issue of outsourcing services is a sore point in Claremont. People in town are particularly attached to the Claremont Police Department, but they're nearly as protective of the City's trash service.

In its February 27 issue, the Claremont Courier carried a letter from resident Gregory Toliver, who wrote in to say:

The city of Claremont's sanitation department has served us well in all the time I've lived here [over 20 years, according to Toliver], and so I was surprised to learn that there was actually a proposal under discussion to contract this service out to private companies. This is apparently part of somebody's plan to address the city's budget problems.

Toliver pointed out that the sanitation department takes in $1.7 million in much-needed municipal revenue and that a trash contractor would provide "lower quality service" at a higher price. Toliver questioned the need to make a change and concluded, "As my dad used to say: 'If it ain't broke, nobody needs to fix it...'"

Apparently, the communitarians at the Claremont Unified School District didn't get Toliver's memo. A reader pointed out to us that if you visit any CUSD school and try to find the familiar green Claremont city dumpsters, you'll search in vain. CUSD, whose board is supported by the same trash fanatics who insist that the City continue to provide its own waste hauling service, has contracted out to Orange County-based Ware Disposal for its own trash service.

Click Image to Enlarge

If you go to Condit Elementary on Mountain Ave. (the site of the repeated wiring hazards), and you will see two gray Ware Disposal bins. One of them is in the photo to the left.


It's not just Condit. Every single CUSD facility has the same trash service. The same bins are present at Sycamore Elementary, for example (photo, right).

All of which makes us marvel at the hypocrisy of the Claremont 400, who force you to pay a premium for your trash service while allowing the Claremont Unified School District to shop around for the best deal. (Presumably the cash-strapped district wouldn't be using Ware if it weren't cheaper than the city service.)

In case you are curious about price comparisons, here's a contact number for Ware, courtesy of CUSD:

Friday in Claremont

Now that the pro forma approval of the bond measure resolution by CUSD's board is done, we can get back to little city news:

DRIVEN TO DRINK

The Claremont Police Department is having another DUI checkpoint tonight at an undisclosed city location from 6pm tonight to 1am Saturday morning. The checkpoint is funded by grant money from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

So, even if watching the Claremont 400 run the City's and the school district's finances into the ground has you reaching for another Manhattan, take it easy in and around Claremont.


COMMUNITY (DIS)SERVICES

The Claremont Courier reported in Wednesday's edition that City Hall is having to reorganize as part of its cost-cutting measures. The Courier article noted that the City's staff is down 20% from its peak numbers.

Community Services, which has been without a permanent director since Scott Carroll left, has been rechristened the Community/Public Works Department and will be under City Engineer Craig Bradshaw. Community Services currently runs Claremont's trash service, and that may end up being outsourced (more on that subject in a moment).

If trash service is contracted out to a private company, one wonders what will happen to that Community Services building at 1616 Monte Vista Ave.. The City dedicated the building with much fanfare in 2005. When you think about it, it has turned into boondoggle of the highest order. The construction was beset by cost overruns that were only vaguely explained by then-City Facilities Manager and champion blowhard Mark Hodnick, and the structure ended up costing well over $10 million. The building also leaked when it first opened because the City failed to account for groundwater movement around the building.

It also turned out that the City, with its usual competence, figured the property lines incorrectly, so that a corner of the building jutted into Upland. Additionally, the entire second floor of office space has never been used. That's right. A whole floor has essentially sat empty for the building's short life. So, now the City may use the building as a police station, or it may lease out the space.

Good use of that ten-plus million, eh?


LOSING MY RELIGION

Raise the subject of outsourcing our town's police or garbage services, and you'll be greeted by plaintive howls and a chorus of boos. Claremont city services hold roughly the same devotional status as the the Virgin of Guadalupe does in Mexico, and the threat of the loss of those services inevitably elicits keening and self-flagellation from Claremont's true believers.

When folks here talked tentatively about maybe looking into contracting for trash service, we heard endless variations on the same story: "So-and-so's great-aunt Tilde lives in Laguna, and they outsource there. Anytime someone goes on vacation, they get robbed because those lowdown contract waste haulers tell their criminal drug-fiend friends about the empty houses."

Well, to rebut some of those more outlandish claims, we point to a New York Times article about the city of Maywood outsourcing most of its municipal services. The article appeared in the NYT earlier this week and was titled "A City Outsources Everthing, Sky Does Not Fall."

Keep in mind, though, that this experiment is only a few weeks old, and Maywood outsourced its police services to Bell, which has been on the front page of the Los Angeles Times for its scandalously huge municipal salaries - $787,000 a year to City Manager Robert Rizzo (more than twice what US President Barack Obama earns), $457,000 to Police Chief Randy Adams (about half again as much as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck), and around $100,000 to all but one city council member.

Bell now replaces Pomona as the community Claremonsters will point to whenever someone wants to try to change anything here - as in "Do you want us to be like (fill in the blank)?"


A READER WRITES

Finally, one of our more astute readers saw a Claremont-centric post on a blog called Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis. The post had a note from a Mish reader who is from Claremont. The reader, Gregory Levine, gave his analysis of the sidewalk renovation in the Claremont Village.

The sidewalk work was pushed by city staff, who got some federal stimulus money for the project. It was not popular with a lot of the Village merchants, whose businesses suffered from the construction. Levine concluded:

My second point regards the cost of the project. I conducted informal interviews of eight business. All but one suffered major revenue losses. Most reported being closed for 2-4 days with some suffering losses for five or more days.

Business owners estimated revenue losses from $2,000 to $3,700. The average loss was $2,850. Total revenue losses to businesses comes to $2,850 X 96 = $273,600.

How much did the project cost? $1,497,232.

And guess what? The contract was awarded to an out of town construction company. So in the short run, Claremont businesses suffered $273,600 in losses for prettier sidewalks. Most say it was not worth it, especially in this economy.

City Hall strikes again.

Bulldozing Reality

The January 19 Claremont Courier had a Tony Krickl article about Claremont Community Services Director Scott Carroll leaving Claremont to take a job as general manager for the Costa Mesa Sanitation District.

(Sorry, no link to the actual article, which is archived behind the Courier's paywall.)

December 31 was Carroll's last working day. The article detailed some of Carroll's more notable accomplishments, such as his negotiating a deal to have Claremont's trash taken to an Orange County landfill, a move that saved the city $200,000.

The article also also touched on the 2008 bulldozing of the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park that was one of the low points in Carroll's Community Service tenure. You might recall some of the damage done by the contractor the city hired to clear brush mechanically, rather than hiring crews to do the work by hand as Claremont had promised to do under its own Vegetation Management Plan for the park. Here's what the park looked like in the summer of 2008 shortly after the brush clearance:

(Click on images to enlarge)

After the damage occurred, the city faced scrutiny from county, state, and federal agencies. As part of the City's penance, Claremont was supposed to monitor the area to see what grew back and then was supposed to come up with a plan to replant the area with native plants to restore the area to its former state.

The City made a lot of representations to the public and to the various government agencies it was dealing with. But did they follow through?

You have to remember that, this being Claremont, once the spotlights go off, then the real work of holding City Hall to its word begins. In the Courier's article on Carroll's departure, Carroll addressed the Wilderness Park damage:

"That was really unfortunate," Mr. Carroll said. "But I took full responsibility for what happened and was determined to resolve the issue. We got the approval of different interested parties involved and fixed the problem before the rainy season began. Now if you go up there, it looks the same as before the damage was done."

Really?

We didn't recall any of the promised revegetation happening, so we went up to the park a few weeks ago and snapped this photo:

The photo was taken facing north from the S-curve at Via Padova. All you have to do is compare the right side of the photo (the damaged east side of the canyon) to the left or west side. The creek runs down the center of the canyon, and that is marked by the trees. Although the damaged areas are now green, what has grown back are non-native grasses that will have be cut back each year. Those golf course fairways on the right side of the photo should actually look like the hills on the left side.

None of the revegetation has occurred. Not that it matters. The California Department of Fish & Game and the Army Corps of Engineers have gone away without any apparent follow-up enforcement. Ditto for the press. Hence the Scott Carroll farewell quote.

And that, dear readers, is how public perception is shaped. One thing hasn't changed a bit, as was demonstrated by the inadvertent felling of the elm tree at Tenth St. & Indian Hill Blvd. in December, Claremont's trees and city-hired construction machinery don't mix.

City Water Ordinance Ready for Review

The City of Claremont's draft water conservation ordinance will been unveiled at tonight's Community Services Commission meeting. The commission meets in the city council chambers at 225 W. 2nd St. at 7pm.

After review by the commission, the matter will go to the Claremont City Council at the July 9 meeting. (The materials for tonight's meeting say June 9, but that appears to be a typo.) If approved, the ordinance should go into effect by the end of July.

The ordinance is based on the a model provided by Metropolitan Water District. Claremont Community Services Director Scott Carroll's staff report gives the reasons for the proposed ordinance:

ANALYSIS

Background

California is experiencing its third consecutive year of drought. The governor has proclaimed a water emergency and is calling for water conservation efforts statewide. In addition, aquatic habitat issues in Northern California, increasing population growth, decreasing supplies from the Colorado River, and climate change are all combining to magnify our current situation and create on going concerns over the long term dependability of our water supply.

In response, the MWD has allocated approximately 10% less imported water to each of its 26 member agencies in Southern California beginning on July 1, 2009. They plan to raise their water rates by 20% to make up for the revenue shortfall anticipated by the lower water sales. Water agencies that do not meet MWD s water conservation targets will also pay penalty rates of up to 500% of current rates for water exceeding their target reduction.

Both the Claremont General Plan and Claremont Sustainable City Plan include goals policies and recommended actions to increase water conservation. These actions call for working with our local water providers to provide education, incentives, and enforcement.

Here are the restrictions that would be in place permanently, regardless of drought levels:

Permanent Water Conservation Restrictions

• No watering between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
• Watering duration limited to (15) minutes watering per day per station
• No excessive water flow or runoff from outdoor watering
• No washing down hard or paved surfaces with water
• Obligation to fix leaks breaks or malfunctions within five business days of notice
• Re-circulating water required for water fountains and decorative water features
• Wash vehicles only with a bucket or hose with shut off nozzle
• Restaurants only serve water upon request
• Hotels must provide guests option to decline daily linen laundering
• No installation of single pass cooling systems
• No installation of non recirculating commercial carwash and laundry systems
• Restaurants required to use water conserving dish washing spray valves

And here is a table of the various alert levels with the additional measures that would be imposed, depending on drought severity:

Click to Enlarge

Lastly, if you're really interested, you can read the staff report and proposed water ordinance below (click on the little block in the upper right corner to enlarge to full screen):

City Seeks Applicants, Opinions

CITY LOOKS TO FILL OPEN COMMISSION SPOT

Is a run at a City Council seat in your future? Then you may want to apply for a seat on Claremont's Community Services Commission. That particular commission seems to be the fast track to the City Council. Current Councilmembers Sam Pedroza and Larry Schroeder both served on Community Services when they were elected to the council.

The City seeks applicants for the Community Services seat vacated by Schroeder after he won election to the council on March 3rd. The City website has more information and a link to an application:

Applicants Sought for Claremont Community Services Commission

Applications are currently being sought to fill a vacancy on the City of Claremont Community Services Commission. Persons interested in being considered for appointment are encouraged to file an application with the City Clerk's office by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 27, 2009. Click on the link below to download an application. For more information call (909) 399-5460.

Commissioners are appointed by the City Council based on the results of application reviews and personal interviews. It is the Council's goal to appoint members who reflect the diversity of the community.

• Download Application (Adobe Acrobat, 25KB)

CITY SEEKS COMMUNITY INPUT

Yours may have been one of the 4,000 or so households in Claremont that received a Human Services Dept. survey in the mail. The survey asks about the respondent's usage of city parks and services and also asks what you think are the City's future needs in those areas.

If you didn't receive a survey but would like to participate, it's available online:

City of Claremont Community Needs Survey

The City of Claremont Human Services Department is conducting a Community Needs Survey of randomly selected residents to determine the current usage of parks, facilities, recreation programs/activities, and social services in the City and to find out the future needs of residents in terms of these facilities, programs, and services. Input from the completed surveys will be utilized to determine how the Human Services Department aligns its facilities, programs, activities, and services.

Surveys were mailed to 4,000 randomly selected Claremont households in mid-March 2009. Residents who did not receive a survey through the random sample, but would like their input considered, are invited to complete the survey online. Please click here to take the City of Claremont Community Needs Survey. The survey will be available online through March 31, 2009.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this project and/or the services available through the City of Claremont Human Services Department, please call Kristin Turner at (909) 399-5490.

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

City of Trees Strikes Again

The news about the damage done to the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park by a bulldozer hired by the city's Community Services Department has been percolating through town ever since Tuesday's City Council meeting. The bulldozer apparently scraped a swath 100 feet or more wide along the Thompson Creek, from the lower end of Via Padova up to the Padua Hills Theatre.

Wednesday's Claremont Courier carried a letter from a reader who was outraged about the city's carelessness:

Plants, rocks and topsoil have been shoved into the creek bed, virtually destroying the fragile riparian habitat. Native oak trees have been partially buried by mounds of dirt and rocks and, in places the streambed itself has been buried under dirt, rocks and debris. The slope uphill from the streambed is now vulnerable to severe erosion. Before native plants can re-establish themselves, mustard and other non-native invasive species will turn the once pristine hillside into yet another ecological disaster.

Yes, protection from wild fires is important. Yes, the Vegetation Management Plan provides for brush removal. Yes, the Plan is sensitive to the preservation of hillside growth. The Vegetation Management Plan prohibits the use of bulldozers to clear brush and other vegetation.

In the past, Claremont has shown its disregard for protecting our endangered hillsides. By failing to follow the Vegetation Management Plan in prior years, the City added to the destruction of the fire that destroyed many homes adjacent to the Wilderness Park; that negligence cost the City $17,500,000 when it lost the suit brought against it for its failure to abide by the Plan.

Today's Daily Bulletin also had an article by reporter Wes Wood II, who noted that the city is acknowledging the error, which may end up costing $200,000 or more to fix:

"We made a mistake," said City Manager Jeff Parker on Thursday.

Community Services Director Scott Carroll apologized at Tuesday's City Council meeting for what happened at the park in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The Los Angeles County Fire Department required the city to clear brush in the park, Parker said. The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Vegetation Management Plan from 2003 states that only manual clearing can be used.

Carroll said Thursday in a separate interview the city was trying to get the brush cleared in a cost-effective manner and didn't want to "eat up the budget" with the use of manual clearing.

Parker said he plans to have a walk through the damaged area on Monday, get bids to put the area back into shape and then hold a community meeting to discuss everything as soon as Sept. 22.

"My intention with the community meeting is to get those with interests in the issue to get all on the same page," Parker said.

He said the city would have to look at all the information with experts before determining the final cost of the repair but would pay the more than $200,000 in damages if the amount is found to be accurate.

Padua Hills Community Association board member Gary Mizumoto described Parker's words as a good first step if the city does not "do it on the cheap."

Well, that's always the danger, isn't it? The city spares no expense on things like a $1,290,000 trackless trolley or the $10 million Village Expansion parking structure, but will try to cut every corner possible when it comes to its pledges to maintain its property.

Photos of the damage have been circulating town this past week, and we finally received some copies we can post. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words:

(Click on images to enlarge)
City of Trees I


City of Trees II


City of Trees III


City of Trees IV

Council Report

Several items of interest from last night's city council meeting:

WILDERNESS PARK DAMAGE

Speaking of broken promises, the council last night heard a report from Claremont City Manager Jeff Parker during public comment that the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park had been damaged accidentally during the city's brush clearance last month. Parker had Claremont Community Services Director Scott Carroll step up to explain what had happened.

Apparently, according to Carroll, Claremont, which owns the Wilderness Park, was ordered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to clear brush in the Wilderness park. (The city failed to do this before the 2003 fires, and that cost the city's insurer over $17 million to settle a lawsuit by homeowners whose houses burned down.)

Carroll said that the costs of clearing the amount of Wilderness Park land LACFD was requiring was going to be much more than the city had budgeted for. So someone (Carroll?) decided to use a bulldozer to save money. The city has a Vegetation Management Plan that specifies that only manual clearance, biological clearance (by grazing animals), and controlled burns can be used. Carroll admitted the bulldozer use was wrong, and he apologized to Parker and the City Council for the error. Parker indicated the city was taking steps to repair the damage, which sounded considerable.

The bulldozer apparently ran along Thompson Creek parallel to the homes on Via Padova in Padua Hills. The Padua Hills homeowners association took notice and City Manager Parker said that he and the council received a complaint from the HOA. Padua Hills resident Ludd Trozpek spoke after Carroll finished and stated that he had tried to speak to Carroll and to Claremont Maintenance Superintendent Larry Wheaton in July when they were standing on Via Padova apparently planning the brush clearance. Trozpek said Carroll and Wheaton would not talk to him and "blew me off."

Trozpek stated that he had been around when the VMP was being created and that if Carroll and Wheaton had talked to him, everyone could have been saved the embarrassment and the cost of fixing the problem, which apparently can run into the hundreds of thousand of dollars. Besides the problems of dirt pushed into the streambed and acres of habitat being uprooted, the ground was apparently scraped clean and oaks were knocked over or damaged. Also, there is now a severe threat of erosion because there is nothing to hold the soil together at the base of the hill that Via Padova runs along.

Claremont resident and botonist Susan Schenk, who is active in the Friends of the Bernard Field Station, also spoke and said that some of the damage to the structure of the disturbed soil cannot be repaired, even with reseeding and putting in new plants. Schenk called for the city to put processes into place to ensure that such a thing does not happen again.

Mayor Ellen Taylor, doing her best Marie Antoinette impression, told Trozpek after he spoke that Director Carroll said he was sorry and implied, "What MORE do you want?" As is her wont and arrogant as ever, Taylor ignored the key point: In saying he was sorry, Community Services Director Carroll apologized only to City Manager Parker and to the City Council. He did not apologize to the residents who live above the damaged area nor did he apologize to the citizens of Claremont whose resources have been irreparably damaged and whose tax dollars will have to pay for fixing a thing that could have easily been avoided.

So, score one point for the city for taking the high road and acknowledging its error, and deduct two points for not extending the apology to the real damaged parties and for not being open to input that would have avoided the problem in the first place.


HONOREES

The City Council acknowledged its three new commissioners: Angela Bekzadian-Avila (Human Services), Rosemary Fisher-Anaya (Police Commission), and Sayeed Shaikh (Police Commission).

After they greeted the incoming commission members, the Council bade farewell to Jenetta Harris, Southern California Edison's Local Public Affairs Manager, who has worked with the city and city staff as Edison's public face. Harris later mentioned an upgrade to Edison's infrastructure that would require tearing up the south side of Base Line Rd. between Towne Ave. and Mountain Ave., and the north side between the Indian Hill Blvd. and Grand Ave.

From what City Manager Parker said, the latter sounded as if it required ripping up the bike lane in the newly resurfaced section of Base Line Rd. So there may have been a mixup in coordinating the projects. Parker said that Edison would match the rubberized asphalt that has been installed on Base Line Rd.

The Council also recognized CHS junior Kori Carter for her achievements as a hurdler this past year and the Claremont Kiwanis Club for its support of the city's Summer Concert Series and the Children's Concert Series.


RESOLUTIONS

The City Council also approved resolutions against the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Administration's Measure R this November. The measure would increase the county sales tax by a half cent and use the money to fund transportation projects. The resolution said the city was supporting the Gold Line Foothill Extension.

The Council also expressed its frustration with the state budget process (or non-process) by issuing a "Resolution Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible State Budget Decisions that Would 'Borrow' Local Government, Redevelopment and Transportation Funds." (That's a mouthful!)

And, the Council came out with a resolution opposing Proposition 7 on the November ballot. The proposition, which would require utilities in California to get 50% of their energy from renewable sources by 2025, is opposed by an odd coalition:

• PG&E
• Edison
• Sempra Energy
  
• The California Democratic Party
• The California Republican Party
• The California Labor Federation
• The California Taxpayers' Association
• The League of California Cities
• The California Solar Energy Industries Association
• A coalition of environmental organizations that includes the California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies

PARKING PERMITS

The Council also approved the parking permit process recommended by staff allowing neighborhoods to set up the permits. The council made the following modifications to the proposed ordinance:

• Permitting must be approved by 50% of the responding property owners in a neighborhood seeking permits.
• The City Council will have some additional purview over the permits.
• There will be a six-month trial period for permits once they are approved for a neighborhood.
• The permits will sunset after two years.
  

MANSIONIZATION

The council also approved the staff recommendations for guidelines for a proposed mansionization ordinance.

Chaparral Park Input Sought

The City of Claremont is looking for the public's input into a proposed playground design for Chaparral Park. The designs were approved by the Community Services Commission and will be on the City Council's agenda for February 12th.

The City's website says:

The deadline to submit public comment is February 6, 2008. Comments can be mailed to the Community Services Department at 1616 Monte Vista Avenue or emailed to scarroll@ci.claremont.ca.us.

Here's the proposed design (are primary colors a design requirement?):