Legal Defense for Field Station

Recently, council actions were taken approving new lot adjustments adjacent to (& part of?) the field station. Although the colleges claim no current plans for development, obviously some are concerned about just such actions. A legal defense group has begun, and the website is active at: http://bfslegaldefensefund.bbnow.org/index.php. The group has found fault in the approval of the lots' subdivisions.

Yao's Departure Announced

Tuesday's meeting will include: New Building Codes, Restaurant Fat & Grease Sewer Release Rules, Smoking in Public Plazas, Housing Rehab & Energy Retrofit Program.

The Courier this morning had a piece announcing Council member's Yao's inclusion on the new Ca. Redistricting Commission. Both he and Mayor Elderkin will not be seeking re-election, so it looks like there will definitely be new leadership. Some will be relieved for a change, although it's difficult to tell in what direction that might be.

The Courier also put forward names for the new election including Mr. Nasiali & Keenan, who are regulars at council meetings. Ed Leavell & Robin Haulman were also mentioned. Sam Pedroza will also be seeking re-election.

24 hour construction project set for Indian Hill

Looks like North Claremont is getting some major construction in the form of a well development at 3039 Indian Hill, where a reservoir tank now sits.  It's hard to tell from the technical language, but it looks like some major additions will be undertaken because other sites are not functional, including an underground well & pump.  Construction is set to take up to 120 days & sometimes around the clock.  Apparently a neighborhood meeting was conducted this summer inviting 120 people, with 9 showing up.  The city only has to notify residents within 300 ft, which is only about .05 of a mile.  The Golden State company is seeking a noise variance, to temporarily increase past legal limits during construction.

If you have questions, you may want to attend the Planning meeting Tuesday night.  

Sports Team Fees, Dumping Competition, Cell Tower Invasion

If you remember awhile back, the city was hoping to raise it's residence rates for teams who could use its fields, & then charge the teams.  I suppose all the sports teams protesting may have had something to do with the new decision to go ahead and increase residency ratios for any new sports teams (to 65%), except the Foothill Storm & Starts soccer team with 23 teams total, & allow them to utilize the old rate (51%).

Also, to update the sanitation issue, it looks like our current landfill in Orange has come in with a match to the Mid Valley price.  The two contracts will be presented at the next Community Services meeting.

And the cell towers are back, for new locations at Alexander Hughes and Wheeler Park, which is right next to Vista School.  The community disagrees about whether these towers are harmful, despite scientific studies demonstrating effects, and telecom's desire to distort information.  But more than that, because of their recent introduction, we are not sure what the effect will be on children in the long run.  People in the community claim they are not dangerous unless one is close to them.  Well, some children spend a lot of time in the actual park, not to mention the ones who will be in school.  Furthermore, the issue that disturbs me is the city utilizes these for revenue.  This seems like a careless way to raise income.  Awhile back they approved a company to recruit these towers for us.  With even the slightest evidence that these could harm us, not to mention their visually unappealing nature, this is questionable policy.  Lastly, our current code is very loose and un-protective.  It allows the company to make the proof of necessity, they can manipulate the data to do.  What we need is an independent engineer to verify the finding, so we are not placing these in un-necessary locations.  Not only that, but we ought to have better evaluations of the actual emissions;  including cummulative measurements and more frequent updates.

I also have to wonder whether the city would put a tower at a school like Condit.  Is there any bias here, to put the tower at a lower-income school?  Would the parents reactions be any different?  I certainly hope the parents and the school are officially and publicly notified.

This weekend I was watching a talk on a new book:  Disconnect the truth about cell phone radiation.  The author presents evidence about cell phone radiation's ability to damage DNA, break down the brain's defenses, and reduce sperm count, while increasing memory loss, the risk of Alzheimer's disease, and even cancer.  The growing brains of children make them especially vulnerable.  She describes the trillion-dollar industry, an how health experts are not allowed in the policy-making decisions, and regulatory standards are set by the cell phone industry.  "Cell phone manufacturers have borrowed the playbook of the tobacco industry".

I've heard a councilmember say if we shouldn't worry about the towers because they are no more dangerous than using a cell phone.  Given the possible side effects of the devices, his argument would be rendered null.

A number of other communities have protested the towers in their neighborhoods.  I like Burbank's site on it.  Apparently there is also a documentary on this issue, Full Signal.

Masters of PR

Came across this quote from Tony Ramos, after being asked about the correlation of landfills being located in low-income neighborhoods [like our new dump the MidValley Landfill}:  

“If I lived in Rialto I’d tell you it’s a great community,” he said. “We all love our communities.”

Ramos also pointed to the economic benefits of landfills, which bring money and jobs to a community.

Forget about the noise, pollution, smells, & contaminated water!  His quote appeared in This Student Life article about the city's recent sanitation actions.   Maybe he was unaware of the site's local opposition to expansion: Stop the MidValley Landfill- http://www.midvalleylandfill.com/.

The journalist only interviewed city staff/council, however;  but shows you what the pr position is.  It even claims the city never discussed privatization, but only solicited RFP's.  L. Elderkin is also quoted.  The difference in tipping fees is apparently from Alpha Olinda to new site is $28.06 (current) to $26.75 per ton.  

Elderkin says the trash by rail system is planned for the desert.  It might be more expensive, but at least it would be removed from people's neighborhoods & lower contamination.  What about the emissions differences from trucks compared to rail, and the higher carrying capacity of a train?

Apparently the Mid Valley site, built before the neighborhoods, did not put down appropriate liners, & this has complicated the problems there.

7-11 Settlement/ Park Updates

Saw this interesting item on the expense report:  $10,000 to Kiran Se corporation;  the company that had applied for the 7-11 permit, & filed a claim against the city about a month ago.  Don't know the details or if there is access to information as to the reason for the settlement.

Another attention worthy item:  the Rivers & Mountain Conservency paid the city $440,190 in grant reimbursements.  Now where do you think this money ends up going?  Since part of Padua Park was paid for out of the general fund, will it go back to that account?

The update also said that new work will begin with the other $360,000 of the grant.  I don't remember the specifics of the grant right now, but either way, if you look at the cost spent on the park, you know that the city has already spent upwards of 4 million.  I can't figure out the accounting on this project [& I think the public should be informed], & am wondering why the grant money can't all go towards reimbursement?

Landfill Issues Create Confusion, Criticism

I found out more about the landfill contract. The most important piece of the puzzle is this: the reason that we had to sign a new contract, & quickly, is because the leaders decided to keep the disposal 'in-house'. You may think that if we had privatized, the city would still be concerned about dumping fees. But the private contract would have included the entire operation- pick-up, transportation & dumping- so any issues relating to disposal sites would no longer be a city concern.

At the same time the city was beginning their cost-benefit analysis, they were also negotiating this contract [in case the privatization didn't pan out]. Supposedly it will save the city $30,000 a year over the Orange site, & the over-all miles traveled should decrease 4,500. The timing is a 5 yr. plan with 3 5 yr. options; at the end of each period, the landfill can, obviously, increase their rates.

The Mid-Valley landfill does appear to have some social issues. In 08, reportedly, the county started expanding the site, by digging up old waste & transporting it to a new site. The head of the county's solid waste management, Peter Wulfman, was fired last March. The site has historical problems, & there is ample net articles about associated water contamination. I wish there was more time or research into these issues, so we could be confident the site is environmentally upstanding, but I don't think enough citizens or council members are concerned about these concerns to really investigate.

So, if the staff had been working on the new landfill agreement for four months, why did has it come up so suddenly? Is it, because, at least on some level, the city manager took the privatization agreement as a given? [Look at the other facts, the re-shuffling of Community Services division, & desire to utilize the city yard for other operations]. I initially did not assume that the privatization could be stopped. Most definitely, the public involvement criticizing the process had some impact.

Mr. Calaycay made a defense of the city manager, claiming Parker was open throughout this process. But I think this issue has left some citizens to question that assertation, & take a slightly harder look at the city's bureucracy (or so I've heard).

Sanitation Privatization Taken Off Table

Tuesday's Council Meeting, Update on Sanitation Issue:

As some know, Tuesday was supposed to be the day for public discussion of the process of the cost-benefit analysis of the waste privatization.

But, actually, there was no need for comment on this, because the problem disappeared.  In the closed session meeting, the council decided (3-2, no Calaycay, Yao), to contract with our sanitation department for another 5 years.  Surprise! [The department will pay 8% PERS contribution, & a 2 tier retirement].

But, decisions will still be made about other important questions the citizens have brought up, like where we will dispose of our waste in the long term.  And guess what, citizens will not be in on this process now!

Yes, even though the public participation process would have included analyzing our long term waste solution, that decision is reported to be up on the next Council agenda for a 20 year contract!  Apparently, we now have a contract with the County of San Bernardino to dispose of our solid waste in the Mid-Valley Landfill for 20 years.

How the question turned from sanitation privatization to a 20 year solid waste contract disposal is a slight of hand, smooth move Mr. City Manager.  Divert attention by the privatization;  if you can't find your cost savings there, do something quick & make a move somewhere else.

Am I being cynical?  Residents can decide on their own.  But how do we move from a discussion about public participation in waste issues to the announcement that a contract will be approved in the next meeting.  And because it needs to be done quickly, not even the Community Services Commission will be able to analyze it. 

A quick search of the Mid Valley Landfill turns up a wealth of information.  In 2008, the county introduced plans for the site's expansion, despite local opposition.  Serious environmental concerns have plagued the area, including contaminated drinking water.  

The site is expected to close by 2025 anyways, so this idea of a 20 year contract is not realistic.

Why shouldn't the city have a serious analysis of the various waste disposal options?  Why rush this through in one meeting.  Is this a case of, we gave you your sanitation workers, now turn your head the other way?

Besides being concerned about environmental issues at Mid Valley, we deserve to look at a range of options, especially if this includes a 20 year deal.  Yes, it is nice to gain that savings now; & yes government looks for short term solutions.  But if we have this savings temporarily & later down the line this cost explodes, & we have no room in the budget to economize in other places, we will have trouble for the next generation.

Maybe this is the great deal that everyone says it is.  But the way this issue all of a sudden changed is confusing to me.  

For an interesting site about Mid Valley, you may want to read this blog:  midvalleylandfill.com

Sanitation, Land Sale on Agenda

Tomorrow's council meeting has an interesting closed session item;  a conference with property negotiators for land APN 8671-001-016 & 018.  The negotiating party is John Schatz.  The county auditor's map shows this land being somewhere in the Padua, north Baseline area---it's hard to tell from the map.  It is vacant land, valued at around $100,000.  The only item I could find on John Schatz was an article on the Claremonters Against Strip Mining site, mentioning he was an attorney for Pomona Valley Protection Association. 

Also on the Agenda:

A report on the Chamber of Commerce's activity over the year.  One interesting statistic, the center had 8,000 walk in visitors, averaging about 200 a day.  Does this seems inflated to anyone else?

A item granting the city engineer blanket authority on project decisions involving right of ways. This is for the work on the Citrus bike trail.  The project is being executed with a $1.2 million grant, and $300,000 from our capital project budget [which I believe is partially paid out of the general fund].

Designation of a League of California cities voting delegate to a business meeting in December. Will try to post the conference agenda in the future.

Western Christian is attempting to issue $17 million in new bonds, in part to pay off $12 million in bonds issued in 2009.  

And, of course, a hearing to speak about the process for evaluation of the sanitation outsourcing.  Besides just needing public input on this, we really need to examine the scientific and empirical evidence on outsourcing.  This could include a task force, a conference, a sub-committee.  But it needs to go past the simple analysis of the proposals & the ideological community stances.