Q & A

A reader wrote in with a number of questions and observations regarding ongoing issues and events in Claremont:

Hi Buzz -

Can Buzz be a nickname for ombudsman (ombuzzman)?

1) What's behind the frequent 'chlorine' smell in our tap water the past few days? Is it just at our house? We haven't had any recent plumbing changes. What's the water company up to?

2) At the City's tree lighting ceremony, why was the host so intent on catering to and recognizing the out-of-towners? "Who's visiting from out of town?!?!?!? Raise your hands!!!!" I didn't hear much appreciation for those who live here in Claremont. The whole evening, however, was a fun one - both at the tree lighting and throughout the Village. I know the city hopes that the Village expansion brings in visitors (and their sales taxes), but tout Claremont and its citizens first and foremost at public events, and then give a brief welcome to any visitors.

3) Regarding the trolley news, wasn't the original route supposed to include the Old School House, with north/south runs up Indian Hill and down College? Why not include that Foothill/Indian Hill corner if so much development is going on there. The smaller route through the Village, the Expansion and the Metrolink parking lot is far too limited and short-sighted.

4) Regardless of the parking spots, what exactly is the store (or stores) going in right on the corner at the Sprouts Center on Mountain and Foothill?

5) Is that a temporary test road closure on the west end of Santa Barbara where it joins Mountain (across from the future store spot mentioned above)? Unlike the roundabout, I think this is a good idea. Santa Barbara is too close to Foothill, and there is too high a chance for accidents.

Our responses:

1. We don't know what the chlorine smell is from. If anyone has any information on this, please pass it on. The Golden State Water Company's Region 3 office phone number is (909) 394-3600. Give them a call with any questions.
   
   
2. We suspect the focus on out-of-town visitors at the tree-lighting ceremony probably has some connection with the city and the Chamber of Commerce's ongoing print and cable TV ad campaign.
   
   
3. Yes, when the trolley idea was first floated, there was some talk of a longer route incorporating the colleges and the Old School House. However, the Traffic and Transportation Commission's Citizen's Committee for Off Track Trolley System Subcommittee studied the matter and issued a report on December 10th that found it would be best to start small and focus on two groups: visitors and people using the parking structures on First St. because they are supposed to be more likely to spend in Claremont (this takes us back to question #1).
   
   Incidentally, the Citizen's Committee included the ubiquitous former Mayor Judy Wright, who is listed a "citizen."
   
   
4. The retail developmont at the northwest corner of Mountain Ave. and Foothill Blvd. is a 9,900 square-foot, single-story retail space proposed by James Harris and Foohill Mountain LLC. You can read more about it in the 10/24/07 Architectural Commission agenda report on the matter.
   
   The site, at 805 W. Foothill, used to have a Chevron gas station.
   
   Here is a description of the project taken from the staff report for the Architectural Commission:
   
   
   
   (Click on Image to Enlarge)


5. Yes, the city had received requests from a majority of residents on Santa Barbara Dr. to have the street closed off at Mountain Ave. in order to discourage through traffic from people trying to get past traffic at Mountain and Foothill Blvd.
   
   According to the 10/25/07 Traffic and Transportation Commission agenda report for the matter, city staff, under City Engineer Craig Bradshaw, had originally recommended the closure be placed at Colby Circle rather than Mountain. Staff later opted to keep the temporary closure at Mountain. The 10/25/07 staff recommendation was to keep the temporary closure in place and to study the effects with a possible permanent closure in the future.
   
   The resident complaints didn't seem to include the proposed development at Mountain and Foothill.
   
   This contrasts a similar matter that came before the Traffic and Transportation Commission several years ago when some residents, notably then-City Economic Development Director Scott Miller, had requested a permanent closure at Kemper Ave. and Padua. No formal traffic study was done and the permanent closure was put in place - a typical waiving of rules by the Claremont 400 for one of their friends.

Here's a map of the Mountain-Foothill area showing the Santa Barbara Dr. closure and the proposed retail development at the old Chevron station site:

(Click to Enlarge)

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

We missed another eminent domain story yesterday, but thanks to a regular reader who passed it on to us.

______________________

Former City Manager Glenn Southard, as we've written in the past, is indeed an ongoing gift. You almost have to wonder if Southard took some sort of perverse pleasure in leaving behind landmines to explode years later.

There was the $17.5 million settlement for the October, 2003, fire that destroyed homes in Palmer Canyon, Padua Hills, and Claraboya. The fire burned through the City of Claremont's Wilderness Park, which homeowners claimed had not been properly cleared of brush. The city had a Vegetation Management Plan for the park to address the areas bordering homes, but failed to implement the plan fully, according to the plaintiffs in the suit.

Then, there was the $675,000 paid out this year to the developer of the Village West expansion project, The Tolkin Group, because Southard and his staff had put the utility connections in place long before anyone decided on the actual details and locations of the buildings going in. So the developer had to pay to have the hookups moved around.

And let's not forget that instant $10 million pension deficit Southard created by pushing a city employee pension upgrade in the year before he left. (The pension increase, based on years of service, was retroactive back to each employee's date of hire.)

There are other problems that have come up since Southard left. Just yesterday Will Bigham had an article about Harry Wu, the developer of the DoubleTree Hotel and the Old Schoolhouse project on Foothill Blvd.

According to the Bigham article, Wu is unhappy because he would rather own the DoubleTree property than lease it. He has not been able to negotiate a purchase, and in the article yesterday he complained that in early 2005, before leaving Claremont for Indio, Southard had given Wu private assurances that the city would use eminent domain if needed to help Wu obtain the property.

Wu told Bigham that he would not have sunk $10 million into the DoubleTree without Southard's assurances.

Sound familiar? At the same time Wu says Southard was promising the use of eminent domain, Southard's staff also worked with Roger Hogan, the owner of Claremont Toyota, to assist Hogan in obtaining the old Chili's site in South Claremont. The threat of eminent domain against the property owner was raised during those negotiations because of the tax advantages to the seller if eminent domain was threatened. Southard left, and the eminent domain talk died down.

And last year the Johnson's Pasture owners complained that they, too, had been promised a threat of eminent domain by the city during early 2005 to give them a tax advantage.

Southard, naturally, denied making any eminent domain promises to Harry Wu. Bigham quoted Southard's response:

"I couldn't do that as city manager anyway," said Southard, who is now the city manager of Indio. "The only people who can issue a notice of condemnation are the City Council at a public meeting and with public notice."

Notice Southard didn't said, "I didn't do that." There is no flat denial. He only says, "I couldn't do that...." Yet, there does seem to be a pattern of eminent domain talk floating around in early 2005 as Southard was exiting Claremont.

Back in March this year, we received an email from Mike Vasilove, one of the Johnson's Pasture owners. Vasilove said in his note:

We have in our possession, a letter from the City signed by the City Manager dated April, 2005 telling the owners of JP the City is interested in purchasing the Pasture and will recommend to the City Council the
use of eminent domain against us if we don't agree to sell the Pasture under the price and terms set forth by the first appraisal and agreement. We agreed to sell under those terms and price. The City backed out of the contract due to the adjustment made by the State regarding the appraisal.

We asked Vasilove for a copy of that note, but he never provided it to us. However, it seems odd that both Wu and Vasilove would complain of the same promises from Southard in different transactions.

Bigham also interviewed former city employee Scott Miller for yesterday's piece. Miller, unlike Southard, did acknowledge the fact that eminent domain had come up during the discussions with Wu in 2005, but Miller claimed that though the subject did get mentioned, it was not promised. Miller was the city's assistant executive director (to Southard) of the Claremont Redevelopment Agency.

In the Bigham article, the city acknowledged having sent a letter to the owners of the DoubleTree property saying that Wu had promised to pay the costs of any eminent domain proceeding--so it had indeed come up, and in the form of a letter, just as the Johnson's Pasture owner had claimed.

Of course, the city, and Southard and Miller, would argue that a mention is not a promise.

Watery Vision

You may have caught our notices of charitable events going on around town and seen that a good many Claremont 400 people are members and leaders of these organizations--the League of Women Voters, the Claremont Community Foundation, Friends of the Library, the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis, the Claremont Educational Foundation, etc....

As we've pointed out in the past, these people and these organizations do many good works. The problem is when the prejudices of the 400's social networks collide with the challenges of managing a city and a school district where the constituents may have different ideas about how they'd like things run. The problems arise when the Claremonsters assume that they have every solution and are incapable of making a mistake.

Looking back at Claremont's proposed purchase of the water company ($100 million and counting), one of the complaints the city and Claremonters have is the fact that our current water provider, Golden State Water (GSW), has lumped Claremont's rates together with high desert towns like Apple Valley and Barstow, where GSW has to pay to install the water infrastructure for a rapidly growing area--a cost we in Claremont help underwrite. This combining of different towns into one rate schedule is called regionalization.

But if we examine the roots of regionalization, we see that Claremont, under then-City Manager Glenn Southard and a City Council wholly owned and controlled by Claremont 400ers like Diann Ring, Al Leiga, Paul Held, Suzan Smith, and Karen Rosenthal, contributed to the problem.

In 1998, Claremont was also in negotiations with the other agency members of the Six Basins Watermaster, which resulted in Claremont receiving 535 acre-feet in water rights annually. Claremont's water company at the time was Southern California Water Co. (SCWC), which later changed its name to Golden State Water after being bought out by American States Water.

On 5/26/98, the Claremont City Council received a staff report by Scott Miller (now working for the City of Beverly Hills), who at the time was the Assistant to the City Manager. Miller's report outlines a proposed water deal the city wanted to make with SCWC. The deal would lease Claremont's 535 acre-feet of water rights to SCWC (now Golden State Water) for 30 years. In exchange, the city would receive annual payments amounting to $123,000 based on 1998 rates. In addition, SCWC would give the the City of Claremont a 50% rate reduction, amounting to $177,000 in annual savings at that time.

Miller's report recommended making the deal because Claremont stood to benefit by $300,000 a year. What the report didn't mention was that Claremont also agreed not to oppose regionalization when SCWC applied for its next rate increases in 1999. The City of Claremont, in effect, signed off on regionalization and in return got a nice yearly water rights payment and now only pays half of what the citizenry has to pay for water.

Oh, and the city also benefited when the water company was allowed to raise its rates and instituted regionalization. You see, higher rates means higher utility tax revenue for Claremont. It was a win-win for the city, and a lose-lose for the citizens.

How did the debate go before the city council? See Item 17 of the Council Minutes. Here are some excerpts:

Councilmember Ring thought the proposal was historic and that many such agreements take twenty years to final[ize]. Mayor Smith agreed and thought it set a good tone for the future.

Moved by Ring, seconded by Leiga, and carried 4-0 to approve the agreement for execution by the mayor.
(Absent: Rosenthal).

Incidentally, the only person on record questioning the agreement was Jackie McHenry, who "asked how citizens would save money. It costs the city less, may cost citizens more." (Who's the one with vision?)

Like so many problems in Claremont, the city council and staff long ago sowed the seeds for water rate woes by going along with SCWC and by not mounting a coordinated effort to lobby the state Public Utility Commission to oppose regionalizing our water rates.

Ironically, at the same 5/26/98 meeting, the matter of the Claremont Wilderness Park came up (Item 14). Mayor Smith inquired about the fire and vegetation management plan. The city's failure to implement that plan fully became a central argument for the plaintiffs in the Palmer Canyon fire lawsuit (settled in March, 2007, for $17.5 million). Smith was assured by staff that fire safety in the park was under control. We know what happened in October, 2003, when the Grand Prix fire swept through the area.

All of this really argues against any notion of competence under Southard, Ring, Held, et. al. It really argues for the need to avoid at all costs going back to that sort of mismanagement and to hold those people accountable for the bad their incompetence has inflicted on our community. It's simply folly to fail to see how all the good the Claremont 400 has accomplished is counterbalanced by a large body of incredibly boneheaded decisions for which they refuse to accept responsibility.

When you turn on your tap, when you pay your water bill, or if your house burned down in 2003, think of Diann Ring; in fact, call her up and thank her personally for her "vision."