Happy New Year

 

As we've left 2011, we now have 2012 to look forward to. This should be an interesting year in our fair city. 

Hopefully the city will move forward on a general plan and the specific plans for the various corridors. How will the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency affect this?

Moving into the new year the Friends of the Pomona Fox has a slate of programs through about May which will be announced as soon as dates are confirmed. The Opera Company has a season set, and the Fox and Glass House are continuing to book quality programs into our thriving downtown.

As always, Pomona Heritage will have its Home Tour in October, and other events as the year progresses and we've always got the downtown 2nd and 4th Saturday events to look forward to.

By May, we should be seeing a flurry of activity leaning toward our civic elections on November 6. Three council districts will be holding elections (the 1st --currently with Danielle Soto representing the area from Garey West to the city line and from the 10 Freeway south to 2nd Street; the 4th--currently with Paula Lantz representing the area from Garey East to the county line and from the 10 freeway south to 2nd Street; and the 6th--currently with Stephen Atcheley representing all of the city north of the 10 freeway; Mayor--currently Elliott Rothman, representing the entire city). Over half of the voting members of the council will be up for election. Sounds like a good time to let our voices be heard regarding what we expect for the next four years.

In addition, there will be at least 2 city items on the ballot with the initiative to restructure how council members are elected in the future, going away from voting limited to districts and expanded to elections for district council members being held on a city-wide basis; and the proposed charter amendments from the Charter Review Commission which completed its work last May. I'm sure there will be a number of posts on both of these issues of vital importance to the city's future.

So with visions of Trash Transfer stations in our past and civic elections in our future, let's hope that we have a good and productive year in Pomona.

Happy New Year!

Council Meeting Tonight

Well, it looks like a very full agenda tonight. Unfortunately, I have a previous commitment which takes me out of town this evening. However, there are a few items of interest that everyone should be aware of:

First off, there is a special meeting at 4:00 pm when the council will get a presentation on the fight by most cities to save their redevelopment agencies. My personal take on this issue is that the city is cutting funding right and left and yet there is still funding, because of redevelopment money, to give money to developers. Right now Pomona is actually at a disadvantage in the RDA situation. Our RDA, because we haven't had any major developments to increase our tax increments, doesn't have the funding that a city like Ontario has. So, right now Ontario can offer developers  a lot more in funding and "concessions." Perhaps, deleting RDAs from every city might re-level the playing field? Note that item 6 on the regular agenda has the city writing off 3/4 of a million dollars owed to the RDA.

One of the things that I'd be all over if I were to attend the meeting is item 12 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A `CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES' POLICY. This is how the city has decided it's going to operate, to outsource everything and let private industries take our tax money to provide services. Will we see savings in all cases? I find it hard to believe that "profit motivated" private industry can provide a service, in most cases, for a cost lower than we can ourselves. In the reports section of the meeting documents online, there is a report on our current outsourcing and evaluation. I'd certainly love to know if the citizens agree with some of the report's conclusions. (Click Here for Report) I'll probably write more on this later.

Item 16 is a review of Angelo's Pizza's Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Aboud has refused to sign a certificate that he will abide by the current CUP. While I feel that Angelo's has in the past year not had the kind of issues that lead up to previous modification of the CUP, he has not lived up to the CUP either. While his current modified CUP (MCUP) only allows beer and wine sales, I've heard that he is selling hard liquor. However, it appears that it may be a little different. According to a police report as part of the council report (Click Here) starting on page 24, undercover officers ordered a whiskey and coke, which they were given. When they went back in uniform and retrieved the bottle of "whiskey" they found that it was actually an orange-based wine drink (12% alcohol). So while they may be following the "letter of the law," they're dishonest with their customers. There were also bottles labeled Gin which were likewise wine beverages. In addition, they are sometimes operating the facility as a nightclub and not serving food which is another violation of the MCUP. How can we continue to allow someone to skirt the laws and treat the city and its citizens with such disrespect?

Finally, it looks like staff is still studying the issue of the proposed business park at Fairplex which would convert 20 of the stables to offices and a self-storage facility. Another eating away of the fairgrounds to commercial development as we've seen with the hotel and convention center. At what point will we actually have a fairgrounds? Are fairgrounds important to the city? What of the historic nature of the stables? A lot of questions to consider.

And the Survey Says . . .

Last night we got a call at the Clifford home from someone asking our opinions. Yes, we were surveyed. So what were the important issues? Was it what movies we like? What laundry detergent we use? While we've had those in the past, this one was about things going on in the city of Pomona. The interviewer didn't identify who had commissioned the survey, but they had our information, who we were, where we lived, etc. (Is it time to get paranoid?)

The main issue that they wanted to know about was what we thought of saving $5 million by bringing in the LA County Sheriff's Department. They asked the same question in four different ways (a common technique when you're trying to influence the outcome of the survey). So now the idea is floated that the Sheriffs will save us $5 million, a full month before the "study" is done. WOW, that was fast!! This was obviously a campaigning effort on someone's part to try and get backing for the "proposal" of the Sheriff's.

So what other questions did they ask. Hmmm. With three council seats up for re-election (and none in the district where we live) they asked what we thought of councilmember Carrizosa, and how we through Mayor Rothman was doing (and he's NOT up for re-election until 2012). They also asked which proposal for the waste transfer station that we preferred. As well as some generic questions such as "What do you think is Pomona's biggest problem?"

Have any of you out there gotten this call? What did you think of the survey?

Love, Barack

In looking over the agenda for tomorrow's (Feb. 1) city council meeting, I noted that one of the items was the approval for the city to enter into a business assistance agreement with CMS productions for filming in the city of the feature Love, Barack. So what is this film that we're offering to spend $13,225 in assistance to entice here?

A quick search in IMdB gives this synopsis of the film: "Politics makes strange bedfellows, but never stranger than when a month before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, a beautiful, idealistic local Obama volunteer coordinator reluctantly falls for her Republican counterpart: a sexy, savvy, African American conservative. Sparks fly, tempers flares, heads turn, and romance blossoms for this mismatched pair of campaigners in the frantic and intoxicating days leading up to Election Day. Can the politics of love conquer all? Written by Nuclear Mango", Directed by Doug McHenry (New Jack City)

Further looking into the production company, it looks like they're mostly into TV with shows like Love Accidentally, CSI, The Good Wife, back to a 1955 production of CBS Television Workshop. Sounds like good credentials.

Love, Barack is set to star Bollywood “Bombshell” Mallika Sherawat (their description, for more information see the article at The Urban Network -- http://www.urbannetwork.com/cms/index.php?news=1928.

Looking over the agreement document, it looks like they will be filming mostly downtown.

IN OTHER CITY COUNCIL NEWS
Also on the agenda is an appeal by the city's redevelopment agency of the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of a demolition permit for an early 1880s house owned by the city. The house is older than the city which was founded in 1888.

DPOA Gets Extended / Council Update

DPOA
Last night's city council meeting saw a huge turnout of support for the PBID (Property Based Improvement District) which is the ability of the downtown area to tax itself, which also meant that there would be a continuation of the DPOA (Downtown Pomona Owners' Association--the spending arm of the self-imposed tax).

Because it is a self imposed tax, the property owners need to vote (by amount of property owned) on whether to continue the tax. The results were over 77% in favor. [correction: Metro Pomona reports that it was 72% to 28%--sorry for the inaccuracy] This included the votes by the city who are also a major property owner downtown. Congratulations to the DPOA on their extension.

OTHER COUNCIL NEWS

UPDATE ON METRO LINK STATION
There was a presentation on plans by Metrolink to upgrade the North Pomona Station. The plans call for extending the platform from 14ft. wide to 22 ft. wide and extending the length from 500 ft. to 700 ft (enough to accommodate 8-car trains). In addition they will more than double the parking and improve the gating and safety at the main entrace to the station's parking lot.

Metrolink is also planning on building a new Control Center across Garey, as well as a storage and maintenance facility in an available warehouse next to the new Control Center.

As a regular train rider, I'm pleased that we will be getting needed upgrades to the North Pomona Station.

FIRE UPDATE
During Public Participation, the Van Allens and Larry Henry gave very impressive talks concerning the destruction of their homes. They were generous in their thanks of everyone who has shown them support and all of the assistance they've received from a wide range of individuals, organizations, businesses, and city government. Larry Henry was particularly eloquent in his praise of Pomona PD. However, he was less than generous with the LA County Fire Department's handling of the situation. He criticized them for not staging in the 1st Baptist parking lot adjacent to the rear of their property where he felt they could have gotten a handle on the fire. He also reported that fire officials would not enter the house to save his animals, nor would they go back down the side of the house (not yet engulfed) to release a dog from a kennel (a Pomona PD Officer was also asked and did it).

At the end of public comment, Councilmember Rodriguez (disclaimer, councilmember Rodriguez is an Emergency Medical Technician for LA County Fire) [Mea Culpa: Anon set me straight that councilmember Rodriguez does not work for LA County Fire. He works for AMR which works closely with LA County Fire in many communities throughout So Cal.] after extolling the work of the LA County Fire Departnment, asked the Fire Chief to answer these concerns. Evidently there was a 50 page report which was presented to the council, although the families had not seen it. It is a public document so I expect that we will have a chance to see it as well.

Basically, there was a recap of how the fire progressed, from a shed fire on Park, to a tree, to an apartment on Gordon, to a grass fire on Gordon on property adjoining the Henrys' to the Garden and Henrys' properties. The Chief explained that in the high wind conditions that they felt that it would be unsafe to drive equipment down the driveways to get to the rears of the property and that they decided that with the high winds and intensity of the fire that they would create a "line" at Garey. He expressed sadness at the lose of the homes and felt that everything that could be done was done to both stop the fire and ensure the safety of the firefighters and public.

TORRES APPOINTMENT
The Appointment of Robert Torres to the downtown Vehicle Parking district was item 9 on the consent agenda. I decided to put in a speakers card, but to speak ONLY if the item was pulled by either a coucilperson or other member of the public for discussion. My thinking was that if no councilmember pulled the item, then they were all in favor and I was not going to be the only one who would speak (a sign of ultimate cowardice?). I then noted that assemblywoman Torres was in the audience. Since the didn't address any other issues, I assume that she was there to support her son.

While I didn't know if the item would be pulled, I was rehearsing in my head what my comments would be. I had decided that my opening would be: "I'm not here tonight to dash the hopes of a mother for her son, nor to discourage a young person who wishes to enter public service, but I have some questions concerning this appointment." However, since it would have been me against the world, I didn't have to make my address.

Having said that. I still question this appointment. I see no qualifications stated on his application which make this a good choice. AND, because he is the son of an assemblyperson and former mayor/councilperson, he should have come under even more scrutiny than anyone else, it comes with the territory. I don't feel qualified for such a position even though I have more education, more life experience, and spend a lot of time downtown. So is it unreasonable to ask what this person's qualifications are? If he is truly qualified and can add something to the commission, I'd be the first to be all for him. But we're not given even a glimpse. Councilman Rodriquez did not pull the item to espouse the man's credentials (something that might have pleased his mother in the audience) so we, the public, don't know anything about him except what he put on his application, that he has knowledge of how city government works and a desire to "provide a safe environment for the citizenry of Pomona." (I'm not sure how you do that on a parking commission, but good luck.)

If you have any questions on other items discussed at the council meeting, please leave comments and I'll try to answer. Now it's off to try and make a living.

DPOA Update

DPOA

UPDATE: The City Council voted unanimously (Paula Lantz attended via teleconference) to submit petitions for all of the city's properties in favor of recertifying the DPOA. That gave the DPOA 54.xx% of the property owners submitting petitions. The process will move to a public hearing and vote on July 20.

Downtown councilmember Freddie Rodriguez was unable to make the meeting. He is an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) working in an ambulance and had been called to an emergency. According to Mayor Rothman, the councilman had requested that the item be rescheduled to a special meeting when he could atttend, on Thursday at 6:00 pm. Councilmember Paula Lantz noted that she was scheduled to be out of town at another meeting on that date and could not make it. While I've (echoing the Mayor) called councilmember Rodriguez the downtown councilmember, actually downtown is shared by three councilmembers, Rodriguez (the bulk of downtown south of 2nd street except between White and Palomares where it's south of 3rd Street), Lantz (most of the Antique Row area and north of 2nd Street east of Garey), and Soto (north of 2nd and west of Garey as well as north of 3rd between White and Garey). A district map can be seen on the city's web site at: http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/city_departments/city_council/district_map.pdf.

Interestingly, there was a dueling message from councilmember Rodriquez. Mayor Rothman stated that the councilman had asked for the delay. Councilmember Lantz answered that she had spoken to the councilman and that he was OK with it moving forward since there would not be a final vote, but only the acceptance of the petition for recertification. The mayor then countered that he had spoken to Rodriguez AFTER Lantz had and that he had reversed his opinion and DID request the delay.

To some observers, it appeared that the "fix" was in and that this issue had been maneuvered to marginalize Lantz, a supporter of the DPOA. I have no evidence of such, but it was certainly interesting that one councilmember's wishes to be part of the process (a duly noticed meeting, by the way) was deemed more important than another councilperson's and that there appeared to be no consideration of the time and inconvenience that this action caused for those citizens who felt strongly enough to come out for this issue. This kind of action doesn't appear to pass the "smell" test. Council members miss meetings all the time. Do we stop the actions of the city? While I appreciate the nature of the councilman's job, this is something that he knew when he ran for the council. He was surely aware that his job might have to force him to make some important decisions on which service to the community was more important to to have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The actions of the council will be really stretching the timeline for recertification of the DPOA. In order for the assessment to be collected by the county, all the information MUST be turned in by July 10. This delay will significantly reduce the time for the process.

So, once again, we call on anyone who wishes to speak on this important issue to show up at the council chambers on Thursday, June 4 at 6:00 pm.

REMINDER: The council has, over the past month of so, instituted a new policy on speakers. Speaker cards must be turned in prior to the beginning of discussion at the beginning of the meeting. No late speaker cards are accepted. So it is imperative that if you wish to speak that you be at the meeting ON TIME and that you turn in your speaker card as soon as possible after arriving.

Monday's Council Meeting Report

Hmmm, Where to start?

The council chambers were completely full with standing room only in the outer lobby. About 100 folks were there to discuss the DPOA issue and others for the various issues such as the closing of Monroe St. and the city's budget cut and outsourcing proposals. Here's a a recap of what happened:

DPOA
This is so complex I've decided to shorten this post and add it as the next post so this is not too long.

MONROE STREET CLOSURE
With over 30 speaker cards, this became the largest issue of the evening to be heard. Residents of Monroe spoke to the burgeoning problems with "cut through" traffic on Monroe, which juts out from Orange Grove and Garey and curves up to meet McKinley. Monroe has been a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get caught in the traffic trying to get on the freeway when they want to head east on McKinley. Tales of cars ending up in front yards and accidents as well as fear for the safety of the growing number of families with children in the area made an impression on councilmembers.

In opposition were Frantz Cleaners and the Dentist office at Monroe and Orange Grove, both of whom felt that the closure would have negative impacts on their businesses. Other speakers opposing included residents of surrounding streets who feared that the closure of Monroe would move the problem to their streets.

However, councilmember Lantz gave a very well thought out history of the intersection and the problems that have occurred during the past 20 years or so. She noted that when the street was originally laid out, that there was no freeway and that the changes in traffic patterns necessitate such action.

For myself, a resident of Monroe, I spoke to the historic nature of our district, which was more urban and does not have cul-de-sacs and questioned making such a drastic change while acknowledging the very real problems that exist. I'm afraid that I probably was not as clear as I could have been in my 3-minutes. I was not actually against the closure, but felt that there might be an alternative mitigation.

The council voted unanimously to support the closure of Monroe. At least it should have a positive impact on my personal property value as being on the only "quiet cul-de-sac" in the city's National Historic District.

BUDGET
It was pointed out at the start of discussion that this was not a public hearing, but mearly an exploratory meeting so that staff could better understand the council's direction on preparing the budget. There were several speakers from the city's employees' union decrying the use of outsourcing and the probable reductions in service as jobs are taken over by individuals who don't know the city and have no long-term committment to serving our citizens.

There was a lot of discussion about the impacts of cuts. Councilmember Soto was concerned that if we moved to outsource a service such as street sweeping that we'd have a hard time bringing it back in-house if we wanted to, especially since the plan would be to sell off all of the city's equipment. It was also noted that at one point that we had outsourced the street sweeping of Holt Avenue and that it was so bad that we had to take it back.

Councilmember Lantz spoke at length about the fact that they were not given "apples to apples" comparisons as to where the savings were coming from. In some cases the solution to elimianting a city position was that the duties would fall to others in the department, but how would that affect service? Would there be additional delays in getting jobs done. As for the outsourcing, the proposals note that there would also be a reduction in service, but there was no indication what the costs would be of a similar reduction using current city staff.

Probably most intersting was City Manager Lowry's analogy to the budget process as potentially being a yo-yo diet with the budget getting fat and skinny as conditions change, but what she felt we needed was liposuction. I can only guess that she means getting rid of anything that is fat and then going on a starvation diet. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the patient might be thin, but dead in a very short period.

The next meeting on the budget will be on June 15. Mayor Rothman asked that the meeting be dedicated to the budget and that other items be postponed to later meetings so that they can concentrate on the budgetary matters.

WATER CONSERVATION
Also on the agenda was an ordinance mandating water conservation throughout the city. This was a requirement by the Metropolitan Water District if the city wanted to be eligible for grant funding for water related projects in the future. Basically MWD was telling the city what it had to do, even though Pomona gets over 75% of its water from local sources and only relies on MWD for a maximum of 25% of its water.

The ordinance includes restrictions on when residents can water their yards, with automatic irrigation limited to three days a week and a maximum run time of 15 minutes. For myself, in my back yard I have a system with three zones that each run for 10 minutes, three times a week. The sytem is a moderate drip system, unlike lawn sprinklers which run full tilt. So will I be out of compliance with this new ordinance? Do my plants have to die?

Speaking on the subject was Dawn Van Allen, owner of The Garden who expressed concerns about her business which relies on irrigation system watering. Ms. Van Allen was assured that her business would be protected under the new ordinance.

With an amount of conern, the council passed the ordinance. Councilmember Lantz noted that with cutbacks and an already overburdened code enforcement division, that we probably have little to worry about from the "water police." However, she did hope that all residents would conserve water as much as possible, especially in this period of drought. Staff noted that they are planning on having "friendly reminder" cards created to give to residents when violations of the new ordinance are noted.

Monday Council Meeting

Monday's council meeting will be very critical on a series of issues that will dramatically affect the future of our city.

DPOA
First up will be the re-certification of the Downtown Pomona Owner's Association (DPOA). The DPOA is a special assessment district that funds, through assessment of property owners, increased services for the downtown area beyond those that the city normally provides. Other such assessment districts in the city include the landscaping district in Phillips Ranch, as an example, which provides extra landscaping for the hillsides and streetscapes of the Phillips Ranch area that are paid for by the property owners in that area.

For the DPOA, the mission is a little different. They are tasked with providing a clean, safe downtown AND to promote our downtown as a destination for our citizens and for those in our surrounding communities. DPOA also goes by the name "Metro Pomona." It is the DPOA that coordinates such activities as the 2nd & 4th Saturday Art Walks, the farmers' market at the art walks and the farmers' market on Wednesdays in the Antique Row area. They also sponsor and support many other activities that focus attention on the businesses and opportunities in our downtown. They also pay for two police officers dedicated to patrolling downtown to keep us safe when we visit there, and cleaning of the streets and sidewalks so our experiences are pleasant when we visit.

It has been suggested that the city can't afford its participation in such an enterprise at this time. Because the city is a major property owner within the assessement district, they are assessed the same as any other property owner. It has been suggested that pressure be put on the council to vote against renewal of the district as a cost-saving function. However, the reality of the situation is that most of the city-owned property is either redevelopment agency and vehicle parking district. Funds from these two entities cannot, by law, be transferred to the general fund and must be used solely for activities related to the properties that they own, such as the DPOA. In addition, the DPOA takes part of the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks and adds two police officers that the city does not have to pay for from general funds. So the city definitely gains value from any money paid toward DPOA activities.

If you believe that we need to have a DPOA and actively support our downtown, please show your support with a letter to your councilperson or by coming to Monday's meeting and speaking in support of the DPOA. Let's not let short-sightedness rule

---

CITY BUDGET
Also on the Agenda for Monday is the city's budget. This is particularly difficult as the city is looking to make significant cuts to city staff, police, and services to children and seniors.

On the chopping block will be:

• 20 Police officers / positions, including 5 police investigators
  
• 5 Police report takers, whose work will go to patrol officers
• 2 Police crime prevention officers (I guess we don't prevent crime, we just respond to it)
• Reduced patrol overtime to the tune of $100,000 (so fewer officers working fewer hours)
• Reduced homicide weekend standby to the tune of $7,000
• Reduction of funding for unexpected repairs to police facilities, $25,000
• Outsourcing of Park Security

Fire

• Elimination of one engine company for 7 months, $819,000

Housing and Planning

• Outsource Building and Safety Department
• Eliminate 1 Planner and 1 Planning Assistant
• Outsource street sweeping including a reduction in the number of days/streets

Public Works

• Outsource Parks Division, eliminate 19 positions
• Eliminate downtown and weekend graffiti removal position
• Eliminate 3 Engineering/Construction positions
• Eliminate 3 Equipment Division positions
• Eliminate tree trimming positions resulting in fewer street trees being trimmed, planted, removed
• Reduce median maintenance resulting in mowing, trimming, watering, fertilizing, weed control, etc.

Community Services

• Eliminate 5 Parks coordinators and recreation coordinators/supervisors
  
• Eliminate Admin. Assistant in Youth and Family Services program
• Eliminate Veteran's Park Rentals Coordinator
• Eliminate Concessions program at Veterans Park
• Eliminate 4 Parks/facilities custodians
• Eliminate Senior Trips and Tours Program
  
• Eliminate funding for Cultural Arts Commission
• Eliminate funding for Pomona Concert Band
• Reduce facilities maintenance by $15,000
• Eliminate funding for Youth Advisory Committee

Library

• Close Library on Mondays
• Eliminate 2 Library Assistants
• Reduce Operations budget by $14,000
• Reduce library book and materials and related personnel, $32,600

Total reductions by category:

• Planning & Housing $130,670
• Public Works $636,030
• Library $83,055
• Community Service: Level 1 $341,855 | Level 2 $751,505
• Police: Level 1 $341,225 | Level 2 $448,740 | Level 3 468,770

All of this information comes from the Staff Report, which is part of the information online. Read the full report to see other areas of cuts and staff's assessment of the impacts of the cuts. I admittedly didn't include everything as this post is already too long.

This is another of those areas where if you disagree with the cuts, please write your councilperson or address the council at Monday's meeting. The council has some tough choices and they need to know what we citizens are willing to let go and what we feel we truly need.

Fencing Ordinance Update

Well, those of us in historic districts no longer have to worry about a $500 charge for a major COA to replace or install a fence, as long as city staff determines that it is appropriate for the style of the home.

While the new fence ordinance was item 32 on the agenda, the earlier items went pretty quickly (for a large agenda meeting) and we took up the issue at about 9:00 pm. I had submitted my speaker's card and as soon as the item was announced by the city clerk I was asked to make my statement. I was a little confused as a public hearing is usually proceeded by a staff report on the item, then the public is asked to comment, then the council, then the vote. But it appears that because this item had been to two commissions and a study session that staff didn't feel that a presentation was necessary.

Fortunately, after the comments generated by Ed's original posting on this issue, I took the opportunity to familiarize myself with the report and we were on our way.

I made the arguments that a $500 fee for a major COA might create situations where, as in my own case which I highlighted, a fencing project might only cost $125 to construct, but the COA would boost that cost by over 4 times the amount. I argued that, while wanting to preserve the integrity of our historic neighborhoods, that such fees would actually cause individuals to not upgrade fences or to do them without permits and hope they don't get caught.

Public Participation: I, and Arturo Jimenez, who is on the planning commission and had similar conerns to ming, were the only speakers on the issue (where were you Gilman and Ed?). No reference was made to any written comments, so I don't know if the council had received any or not. I was somewhat surprised as the various comments on the previous posting, particularly by Gilman, warned us about being vigilant and participating.

In the end, the council decided to delete the requirement for a major COA in historic districts, and reduce it to a minor COA which can be done over the counter. Councilwoman Lantz asked that guidelines be created which clearly delineated the appropriate materials and styles for each housing style within the historic districts.

Chain Link: The new ordinance restricts the use of chain link to back yards. It not be permitted in front yards or in back or side yards that face a street. The ordinance states that you can't put in new chain link fencing, nor can you replace/repair chain link fencing of more than 50%. So a damaged chain link fence which requires less than 50% replacement can be repaired, but if a car runs down a chain link fence and it is more than 50% damaged, then it has to be either removed or replaced with appropriate fencing.

Councilwoman Soto asked that chain link be allowed in front yards for the next two to three years due to the problems with the economy, for families who want a place where their children can safely play. She was concerned that other fencing materials might be a financial burden in these troubled times. The rest of the council was not inclined to go along with that approach. Unfortunately, no one explained to Councilwoman Soto that Pomona has a "white picket fence" program which reimburses residents for front yard fencing (vinyl white picket fences), and those in need can get assistance. Councilwoman Carrizosa made a passing reference to it later in the meeting just before the vote.

Now to see what we can do about the major COA costs on tree removal.

Rothman fils named to Commission

The rumor has been around for over a week, but I now have confirmation that 21 year-old Jason Rothman, son of Mayor Elliott Rothman has been named as a Planning Commissioner. I haven't been able to acertain who appointed him, but I'm sure that it was either the Mayor or the 5th District.

While I don't know Jason's qualifications, I would hope that he's at least an urban planning major in college. Without such bona fides, it appears to be either nepotism or quid pro quo. Either way it really doesn't pass the "smell test." I can't believe that, if it's the district 5 appointment, that there isn't anyone in Phillips Ranch with better qualifications than the 21-year-old mayor of the city to make planning decisions. And if it's the mayor's appointment, it's the entire city we're looking at.

Again, this is not an attack on Jason Rothman, just a questioning of how things are done in the city.

Jason's first Planning Commission meeting is tonight (Wednesday) in the council chambers at 7:00 pm. I'll be there as they're considering a CUP and variance for an MRI center to go in to the former PAL market/98 Cent store on Orange Grove at Monroe.

I'm sure that Ed will have one of his posts with the map of items on the Planning agenda (put you on the spot Ed).

Watt, Me Worry?--UPDATED

photo by Richard E. Nunez

It's coming up again, maybe? The Pomona Planning Commission is now down to 3 members (according to the agenda--although I know that Paula Lantz's commissioner was just appointed, so why is he off if Paula's new term hasn't even started?) Tim Saunders (who has expressed a desire to be appointed councilperson from the 5th District), Arturo Jimenez, and Andrew Santa Cruz. UPDATE: Evidently, Paula Lantz's commissioner needs to be sworn in again and couldn't be until Paula was sworn in. I spoke with her this evening and she was sworn in this afternoon and Ed Starr (her Planning Commissioner), should be sworn in prior to the meeting and will be able to participate. I'm not sure how quorums work with only three members on a panel that should have 7 members). In the past, the quorum was based either on the number of current members OR the number of members that are supposed to be on the panel. I'm not really sure where that was left off. At one point you could have a quorum with three, but you needed four votes to pass anything. I'm sure that the city attorneys will be busy working on that one.

And all this just in time to take on the issue of the extension of the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for the Watt Project on West Second St. You can read the agenda on the city's web site. I know I'll be there (if the meeting actually takes place) to let them know that something needs to be done about the vacant lots (and hole in the ground) and that we need to not allow changes to occur to the originally approved plan without scrutiny by the commission and the community (as was done with the Mission Promenade project). NO "VALUE ENGINEERING!!!"

Also on the agenda is the approval of a CUP for a major expansion of Cocoa Palms restaurant (the one on the hill on Fairplex Drive), and a meeting hall on Park Ave (next to the Pomona Fish Market) for the Black Knightz Motorcycle Club, among others.

So, if you're going to be downtown for the Chamber of Commerce Mixer for the new mayor, new council, and new assemblywoman, (hosted by the Pomona Chamber of Commerce, Cal Poly Downtown Center, Pomona Fairplex, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona Valley Hospital, and Arteco Partners--5:00-7:00 pm at the Cal-Poly Downtown Center) why not stop by the council chambers for what could be an interesting Planning Commission meeting. And if you're at the Mixer, be sure to make suggestions as to future commissioners to the corresponding councilmembers.

Pomona's Own First Responder

On Thursdays I take the metrolink to and from my teaching assignment in downtown LA. Today I was heading back to Pomona's North Metrolink station on the 12:20 pm train. When we got to Cal State LA (the first stop after leaving Union Station), we were delayed. An announcement came on that there was a bus accident on the freeway ahead and they'd have another announcement in about 20 minutes. 20 MINUTES? Then the rumors started down the train that there would be a 4 HOUR delay.

As it turned out, the delay getting out of Cal State was about 45 minutes, but then we got about a mile down the line and were stopped again. Metrolink decided that they needed to inspect the tracks at the site of the accident. About 15 minutes later we were finally on our way. But not very fast.

As we got to where the train (and the busway out of El Monte's bus station) separate from the Freeway, we came upon the accident. An LA County Sheriff's prisoner transport bus had had an accident. There were sheriff's cars and ambulances as far as the eye could see (at least 1-1/2 miles and way too many to count). As we came upon the site, moving very slowly, I was able to see the debris and what was going on.

And then, looking out the train window, i spied, walking from one of the many ambulances parked along the busway, our own Pomona City Councilman Freddie Rodriguez. The councilman is a 23 year EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)/Paramedic. I must say that my chest swelled with pride knowing that it was a dedicated Pomonan who was early on the scene of a major incident.

Just couldn't let this go by without acknowledging him. Nice to have some good news for a change.

Candidates Answer Preservation Questions

Pomona Heritage has just posted the responses to the candidate questionnaires regarding issues of importance to the historic preservation community on their web site (www.pomonaheritage.org). The 5 questions were sent to all 8 candidates for Mayor, and the council candidates for District 1 (which includes Wilton Heights Historic District), District 4 (which includes Lincoln Park National Register Historic District), and District 6 (which includes Hacienda Park Historic District).

UPDATE (10/22 -- 7:45 am): We now have responses from: councilman Stephen Atcheley, running for reelection in District 6, Virgilio (JoJo) Pico Doniza, running for District 1 council seat vacated by George Hunter, Primo Castro running for District 4, Carol Schlaepfer running for District 6, councilperson Paula Lantz running for re-election in District 4, and George Hunter running for Mayor. As others are received, they will be added in the order in which they were received.

While we don't expect that you should make your decisions in these important races based on a single issue, it's always good to understand where the candidates stand on the issues that directly affect you.

It is our hope that the discourse about specific issues will help to create an informed electorate. Be sure to vote on November 4!

No Eminent Domain

Having read that Coates is saying that they were informed that there will be no movement on the Lewis Homes project at Foothill and Towne (which had been noticed in the Daily Bulletin as being up for discussion of the redevelopment agency's intention to use eminent domain for the June 2 council meeting), I sought to get confirmation. I called the office of Raymond Fong, but he was not in today and wouldn't be back until Monday. So I emailed a couple of council people who got back to me letting me know that the item was not moving forward because there was no support for using eminent domain on the council.

I've not gotten further confirmation as the Agenda for Monday's meeting has been posted on the city clerk's web site (click Agenda to view). The item is on the agenda as a public hearing, but the staff recommendation next to it in the right hand column says "Table Indefinitely."

From what I hear, that pretty much kills the proposal in its current form. There is some speculation that there might be another plan proposed sometime next year. We'll be keeping an eye out for any developments.

As to other issues on the agenda . . . There is an "Old Business" item for discussion of the traffic checkpoints, which was last week's hot button item. There is also another demonstration against checkpoints planned for outside the council chambers. Should make for an interesting meeting (I think I'll watch it on cable--cowardly, aren't I).

The other important item on the agenda is the approval of the budget.

Foothill Towne Project Update

Today's Daily Bulletin (abbreviated version--what's with that--NO COMICS!!) has the legal ad for a change in the date of the public hearing on the environmental documents for the Lewis Homes Foothill/Towne project. The date of the hearing has been moved from May 19 to June 2. Public review of the environmental documents deadline is May 6.

Among the approvals being asked for are:

• Acquisition of the Property
• Site and elevation plans for the project
• Tentative parcel map
• Construction plans, and
• EMINENT DOMAIN

You can respond to the environmental documents to the city in writing by the May 6 date. If there is a legal challenge to the environmental issues, only those which have been brought up in the arguments during public comment will be allowed. If you're concerned about noise, traffic, or any other environmental issue, now is the time to respond.

This is all discretionary, so it will be heard by the city council on June 2. You can make arguments during that point to try and convince the council, who will vote on this important issue at that time.

This is the COATES issue!!!!

Mills Act is NOT a Tax on Historic Districts

I guess we live too far on the edge of Lincoln Park. I received a couple of emails about a flyer that was being passed out in the district (but not on my street) warning residents of a new TAX that was going to be discussed at next Monday's city council meeting. The flyer is attributed to John Mendoza, who has run a series of petition drives for various subjects and was a candidate for School Board in the last election.

His scare flyer is wrong on many of the details, although to his credit he did include the notice for the issue.

Monday's meeting actually does include two items of importance to the residents of Lincoln Park as well as the other two districts, but it's NOT a new tax. The Mills Act was created as the main tool by the state to encourage owners of historic properties to renovate and maintain their property in a historically accurate manner. The Act allows property owners to enter into contracts with the city whereby the property will be taxed, not by the value of the property, but as if it were a rental business. This can result in tax savings of up to 60% depending on the assessed value of the property and the rental rates within the area.

In exchange for the property tax savings, the property owner agrees to use those savings to do an approved (within the contract) number of renovation projects. The idea is that this is a win-win as the property owner can use tax savings to improve the property and the city ensures that their historic properties are maintained in a historically accurate manner.

Pomona has had the Mills Act in place for some time. However, the original city version of the act was so restrictive that we only have three current contracts in the city. Pomona's Mills Act requirements were much more difficult than any of the surrounding cities. Pomona Heritage worked hard with city staff to review and revisit the act and to see how it could be improved to make it a better tool for historic Pomona.

The version of the Act that passed the Historic Preservation Commission will greatly enhance the way that Mills Act contracts are done in Pomona. Monday's meeting does have a twist that had not previously been discussed. Under the current Pomona version of the Act there is no fee. However state law allows cities to charge an application fee to recoup the costs of processing Mills contracts. The City Clerk has determined that cost to be around $2,400. Pomona Heritage is concerned that this upfront cost would be onerous, and hope to argue at Monday's meeting that the fee be more in line with other cities in the area whose fees range from nothing to under $500.

The other issue on Monday's agenda will be the use of alternative materials in the historic districts. This is an issue that was supposed to be discussed in the study sessions that were postponed and then canceled. So this will be the first opportunity that the council will have to hear this issue, and they're planning on voting on a policy.

If you're interested in either of these issues, we hope that you will be at the council meeting on Monday, April 21. Council meetings start at 7:00 pm in the council chambers at city hall.

Visual Clarification Of Foothill Towne

Some more visual clarification (you can click on the images to get a better view) on what’s going on at the corner of Foothill and Towne.

Here is the corner we’re talking about from Google Maps Streetview:

Note that Walgreens is on the Northwest corner, with 7-11 on the Southwest corner. Next to 7-11 is Giovanni’s and just beyond that is Coates. The plan calls for the purchase and demolition of 7-11, Giovanni’s, and Coates, with the added property just beyond Coates which is currently a vacant lot.

Here’s what the site looks like in the MND documentation:

The plan that is presented in the MND shows Walgreens moving to where 7-11 and the nini-car wash are now: (the mini car wash is just to the north on Towne) with only three new stores and lots of parking (this image is also from the MND report):

Does this look like a project we want at that intersection. There are no commitments for the three retail spaces shown at this time. So we’d be replacing three going businesses with three unknowns and moving Walgreens. And for this we need to use eminent domain?

Foothill / Towne Project

Yesterday, Monday April 7, there was an ad in the legal section of the Daily Bulletin that the city of Pomona had issued a Negative Declaration for the project at Foothill and Towne. This is a project that the Redevelopment Department is working on for the Southwest corner.

First: The project, as proposed is basically a strip center, anchored by Walgreens (currently located across the street in the Staples/CVS center. Walgreens, as a corporate policy, prefers to have their stores located on corner lots and they're somewhat mid-block across the street. The project is to be built by Lewis Homes and the city is in the process of "assembling" the property for this private developer. Please note that this is not a school, a library, a civic building, or a roadway, but a private development.

The reason that I mention that it's a private development, is that the reason that the city has prepared environmental documents, before there are any entitlements, is that this project is planning to use eminent domain to force the sale of the property. The properties that we're talking about are a mini-car wash, 7-11 store, Coates Cyclery, and Giovanni's Men's Suits. All of these appear to be thriving businesses and would not be what I would consider "blight" (one of the requirements for using eminent domain for redevelopment), however there are other properties within the site, the vacant motorhome sales site especially, which could be considered blighted and the argument will be made that the project requires the other properties to be viable and eliminate the blighted area.

While the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108 on June 24, 2005 that this is legal, as the increase in property taxes is a benefit to the community, I have some serious problems with this particular project.

First, the project will move Walgreens from a location across the street. This would not appear to increase taxes but shift them from one parcel to another. In talking with city staff, it appears that they're working with Giovanni's to see if they can't help them with relocation funds to move them back to Covina, so taxes we're now getting, leaving the city. Then there's Coates Cyclery (there was a lively discussion of this issue on the Goddess of Pomona site back in January), who have been doing business in Pomona since 1934 and at its current location since the mid '50s. They are basically being forced out of their business. They have been offered space in the new center (subject to an agreement with the new owners, Lewis Homes) but it would be at a price approximately 3x what they pay now. Here's a business that has been paying Pomona taxes for over 70 years, and now the city wants to potentially put them out of business.

I know that there are those who oppose the work that I do for historic preservation and will say that I'm a hypocrite for wanting to restrict what people can do with their property on one hand and then say the city can't develop on the other. But really, the issues are similar. I'm not suggesting that the site should be able to devolve and become blighted. I appreciate that Lewis Homes wants to do a project such as this (maybe not this exact one, but something such as this) in our city. But taking away thriving businesses (how thriving is a point of discussion, but they've been in business long enough that I'm sure they're not losing money) is something else.

While I'm not against eminent domain for public usage, I'm VERY against using it to give to a private developer. We need businesses like Giovanni's and Coates in our city. Even the 7-11 serves a useful purpose as it's right on the edge of our residential neighborhoods.

This issue will come before the city council once the 30-day environmental review is completed. If you wish to respond to the environmental impacts on traffic, noise, etc. then you can pick up a copy of the report at the Redevelopment Department and you have 30-days from yesterday.

I plan to write to the council and mayor regarding this subject and to be at the council meeting when it comes up for a vote. I'll post any updates as they become available.

Mills Act to be discussed at HPC

I know that this is quite late in being posted, and I apologize for that. I was SURE that Ed would post with his great maps, but I guess it's up to me this month. (just giving you a hard time Ed.)

Tonight at 6:30 pm in the council chambers will be the monthly meeting of the Pomona Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). There are only two public hearings this evening. The first is the issue of the changes to a home on Preciado Street in the Hacienda Park Historic District, which has been agendized several times in the past. The second is yet another case of a homeowner, this time on Wisconsin in the Wilton Heights Historic District who put in 10 vinyl windows without a permit and now wants the city to allow it, when if they had just gotten a permit, they would have been told what they could and couldn't do.

However, there is a third item, under New Business, which is of major importance to those of us in historic districts and single historic homes. The HPC will be presented with a proposed ordinance for approval (They don't approve it, they recommend it to the city council) which will significantly change the qualifications, requirements, and terms of Mills Act contracts in the city.

This was one of the issues what was SUPPOSED to be discussed at the canceled joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting last month. The Mills Act is used to encourage preservation and maintenance of historic properties. Entering into a Mills Act contract can reduce property taxes by up to about 60%, which funds are then used by the homeowner for preservation and renovation of the subject property.

Again, this meeting potentially may have an impact on the historic districts. If you're interested in this, I encourage you to attend this meeting.

Hope to see you all there.

Torres LA Times Puff Piece

There is a story in today's Los Angeles Times about Norma Torres and how important she is as a hero to Guatemalan imigrants. As noted by Edward Barrera, Metro Editor for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune in the Editor's Corner blog, this article reads like a campaign ad. An obvious PR piece in the news business is usually called a "puff" piece and this certainly qualifies. How anyone can spin the mayor's "feud" with chief Romero as a positive, really doesn't understand the outrage of the community.

While noting that she supported the candidacy of Councilman Rodriguez, they failed to mention her support for Xavier Alvarez, which put him on the 3-Valleys Water Board, where he continues to collect and collect and collect for attending meetings, even while facing federal charges for claiming to have a Congressional Medal of Honor when he never even served in the military.

Somehow they made it appear as if her editorials blasting the chief made her a strong leader. Of course the Times also made it appear not to be a campaign piece as they stated that she was "considering" a run for the Assembly, even though she's now a confirmed candidate. I agree with Mr. Barrera in wondering when the Times will include nicestories about the other candidates.