Charter Review Commission OVER

The Pomona Charter Review Commission completed its work on May 23 and submitted their final report to the city clerk on May 26. The commission has now been disbanded per the current charter. I've done a complete rundown on the proposed charter amendments on the Eye On Pomona blog. Unfortunately, they don't allow commenting, but I'll certainly read any comments posted here or on the Eye On Pomona Facebook page.

I promised myself that I'd try to keep my posts on this blog social or at least short so as not to move this blog too much into a political diatribe. So I'd like to use this space (thanks Meg) to acknowledge the work of my fellow commissioners.

Co-Chairs Eunice Russell and Lucille Lyons (and Victor Caseres who was replaced after the District 5 election) who, somehow, managed to keep a semblance or order when everyone had an opinion and wanted desperately to express it. And to Celia Gomez, Frank Delgado, Carlos Goytia, Arturo Jimenez, Debra Martin, Veronica Michalowski, John Nolte, Jerry Perez, Julie-Roberts-Fronk, Bernardo Rosa, Luis Rosales, De'Andre Valencia, and Ed Simian (also replaced after the District 5 election). They all contributed greatly to the final document. While we didn't always see eye-to-eye on every issue, we were all respectful of each others opinions and in the end we did a job that I wasn't sure could be done by a 15-member commission.

And lastly I'd like to thank the city staffers who help guide us through the process, Assistant City Manager Mark Gluba, City Clerk Marie Macias (along with her assistants), and Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jared.

The next step is to convince the voters to approve our hard work in November 2012. I look forward to working with many of my colleagues to see that it happens.

Thank you all for the wonderful experience.

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.

Ethics and Pensions

With the scandals that rocked the city of Bell, it's been suggested that we need to look in our own back yard. Anonymous asked if someone wouldn't bring forth the evidence of wrongdoing in our city. I'm not personally privy to anything that would rise to that level where a prosecutor would be interested, but I'm very aware of some things going on that are of very questionable ethics.

The most recent case-in-point was the "gaming" of the system by Councilmember Cristina Carrizosa to significantly increase her retirement once she leaves the city council. While it appears that she did nothing illegal, the ethics of this situation is certainly in question.

But even more importantly to me, is that the problems in Bell have been linked to citizens' not being aware of what was going wrong with their city. Here in Pomona, we have several blogs and some decent reporting that has stanched many of the grevious problems. A few years ago a few members of the city council decided that they should also get paid (separately) for being the redevelopment agency. Citizens found out about it and rose up and stopped it. I'm currently on the city's Charter Review Commission and we are looking at the possibility of creating an ethics oversight commission within the city and strengthening the ethics for the council, commissions, city management, police, candidates for office, and others under the perview of the charter, all to enhance citizen oversight to avoid the problems that Bell ran into.

However, I have an even more basic question. SHOULD PART-TIME COUNCILMEMBERS BE GETTING A PENSION AT ALL? Those in the private sector who work part-time usually don't get any benefits. This is the way that banks, grocery stores, and WalMart have been keeping their costs down for years. By hiring people and limiting their work hours to under 30 per week, they don't pay retirement, medical, and other benefits. Why are we so generous to our city council members?

Public service is not supposed to enrich those who are serving. To suggest that council members are doing such an extraordinary job as part-time employees negates the work of all of the others who work part time at little or no personal benefit (do you hear me unpaid commissioners?). Councilwoman Carrizosa stated that she "earned" the additional pension money. So that means that she worked harder than councilmembers Lantz, Atcheley, Saunders, Rodriquez, Soto, and Mayor Rothman? I undestand that their pension will be based on a $9600/year salary (the mayor twice that) and not what they got from their full-time jobs.

Again, this is not about what is legal, but about what is ETHICAL and FAIR.

I look forward to the comments on this item.

_________________________

Remember, August 2nd the council will decide whether or not to put replacing Pomona's Police Department on the ballot. I will be out of town and can't attend. I'm fairly sure that the council knows where I stand on this issues as I've spoken on it in the past. If you haven't spoken out, do so!!!

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?

Applicants Sought For the City's Charter Review Commission

The following is from the Pomona Chamber of Commerce blog.

Pomona City Council seeks individuals interested in serving on a Charter Review Commission. Commissioners will have an opportunity to make a difference in the community by providing recommendations to the City Council to update the City Charter. Commissioners serve on a volunteer basis and are appointed by the City Council. The City of Pomona is seeking individuals with a strong interest in the community to be considered for the commission.

A link to the Charter Review Commission Application Form can be found on the City's website at www.ci.pomona.ca.us. Applications are also available at Pomona City Hall, Office of the city Clerk, 505 S. Garey Ave. The deadline for filing an application has been extended to Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 5:00pm. Applications should be filed in the City Clerk Development.

For further information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 909-620-23411.

Me again: This will be an important commission. The original deadline was Jan. 27 but it was extended due to a lack of applicants.  If you're concerned about how the city is run and want to have a say in city government, this is your opportunity. There will be 15 people appointed to this commission, two by each councilperson and three by the mayor.

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.

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.

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).

Chief Joe Romero FIRED!!!

I have it from very reliable sources that an emergency meeting of the city council was called this morning to discuss a personnel matter. At that meeting Police Chief Joe Romero was fired. Since it takes 4 votes for such an action, and since newly elected councilperson Danielle Soto has not been sworn in yet, it appears that the votes to fire came from Mayor Rothman (who I'm sure is still smarting after being charged, and cleared, of DUI) and the three council persons who have objected to police checkpoints and other issues. As of this point I don't know if councilperson Paula Lantz was even part of that meeting as I earlier noted that she wasn't sworn in until this afternoon.

I personally want to thank Chief Romero for reaching out to the community. I find this to be a terrible loss for our city. We can only guess as to the "reasons" for the firing that created the need for a special meeting just before the holidays.

Council Meeting Monday!

I downloaded the agenda for Monday's council meeting. Not much on it but there are a few juicy items:

• Closed Session discussion of Foothill / Towne project
• Closed Session discussion of project in the parking lots across from city hall between 7th & 8th (and including a pre-1945 property on Thomas Street)
• A resolution supporting Prop 99 and opposing 98 (This as they're looking to use eminent domain at the June 2 meeting--might be a place to let the council know how we feel on that issue--item 11 of the consent agenda)
• Urgent ordinance to expand the anti sexual predator ordinance (gee is someone running for election?)

Something for everyone. And it's one of the shortest agendas I've seen in quite a while.

ALSO: The Historic Preservation Commission meeting for June has been canceled due to a lack of items for the agenda.

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 Passes Council / Alternative Materials Policy Maintained

From last night's city council meeting:

The Alternative materials question was debated with most of the public comment in favor of maintaining standards for historic homes in the districts. The final outcome was a 3-1 vote in favor of the HPC's recommendation that they be allowed to review materials on a case-by-case basis. Councilmembers Rodriquez and Carrizossa voted against. This will allow the HPC to review materials so that if at some time in the future a truly superior material is presented, they can consider its use. Councilmember George Hunter noted that this appeared to be the best alternative as it gave the HPC the flexibility that it needed to make good decisions.

Our own Meg spoke eloquently in favor of historic vs. new, even arguing that one would still want to preserve the old family printed bible even though the new digital version had "advanced features," was more compact, and easier to read. I loved the analogy.

Vice Mayor Stephen Atcheley gave a strong show of support, stating that it is important that a hundred years from now that we can look back and say that we took care of our historic properties and have maintained them in historically accurate manner.

Dan McIntire discussed an article that appeared in the Sunday LA Time by an architect saying that the problems with vinyl windows and siding (giving off fumes for years, creating dioxin when burned, and when they are replaced--usual lifespan of 15 years--they go into landfills where they don't degrade). He also noted that wood and other historic materials are just better, concluding that the only advantage of vinyl building products is that they are cheaper.

The Mills Act, was also debated and most of the council agreed that it would be a good program to encourage people to upgrade and maintain their historic homes. Councilmember Carrizossa, had concerns about the amount of property tax money that might be lost to the city's general fund and how the city would ensure that the city's best interests were maintained. John Mendoza spoke about the need to ensure that those who entered into Mills Act contracts completely undertand all ramification, noting that it's not something for nothing.

The application fee question was clarified, with the explanation that the proposed fee was to be .1% of the value of the property (for a $500,000 home that would be $500) and that the maximum $2,400 would only apply to large commercial projects which would potentially be in that price range. Meg once again spoke as a new member of the community and stated that she would be more than happy with the fee (so if you think it's too much, blame Meg :-))

The Mills Act passed with a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Carrizossa voting against, stating that she had concerns about the program. Mayor Torres wasn't there for the entire meeting and Councilmember Rothman left prior to either of these items being discussed.

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.

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.

City Clerk Updates Web Site

For those of you who might regularly try and navigate the city's web site, I'm sure you're as frustrated as I am at times. As someone whose been writing HTML code since the late 1980s and has been webmaster for over a dozen sites and helped to create oscars.org, I have a pretty good understanding of what it take to do a web site. And Pomona's has been just plain bad.

However, I saw a notice today on the Foothill Cities blog that the city had joined the ranks of those who posted council minutes. I immediately had to check it out for myself. What I found was that the City Clerk page has been completely reworked and will be including a lot of great additions. Among those are: Minutes, Agendas, Legal notices (no longer have to pour over them in the classified section of the DB to find the few regarding Pomona), winners of bids, election information, city codes (which have been there but hidden), public records, campaign statements, statement of economic interest filings, city claims forms, and information on the city's commissions, along with the form for applying for a commission seat.

I immediately contacted Maria Macias, our very professional city clerk (I had wanted to let her know what a great idea I thought it was that she had to have high school students working at the polls on election day) and let her know that I thought the changes to the web site were terrific and hoped that it might have an effect on other departments web offerings. She indicated that in addition to the agendas, that it is her intent to also post complete meeting packets as well (this will be a boon to those of us who try and read them 15 minutes before the meeting in the lobby).

She also apologized that the agenda for tonight's meeting didn't get posted, but it is a victim of the migration to her new page. She then forwarded the agenda to me via email (Thank you!).

This is a great start. I had been asked by Publius of The Foothill Cities blog to write up a critique of Pomona's web site which I'm still planning to do (don't worry Publius, it's coming). Again, kudos to Marie Macias for making communication with our city a little easier.