San Bernardino County will loan an additional $275,000 toward an effort to renovate existing residential stock in Rialto to create affordable housing in that largely blue collar city of 99,191.
Upon the recommendation of Dena Fuentes, the director of the San Bernardino County Department of Community Development and Housing, the board of supervisors this week increased funding for the Park Place Apartment Community Project from $1,000,000 to $1,275,000 for additional repairs to the property.
On November 6, 2012 the board of supervisors entered into an agreement with Rialto Family Housing Partners II, L.P, a company chosen by the city of Rialto to participate in its city improvement efforts, to provide a loan in the amount of $1,000,000 in Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding for the rehabilitation of an affordable family 8-unit development within an existing target area currently under renovation by the city of Rialto. “Over the past five years the city of Rialto has acquired and completed major rehabilitation of twelve buildings within this target neighborhood, converting these severely dilapidated units into quality affordable housing,” Fuentes told the board of supervisors. “The city of Rialto completed the acquisition of the remaining two foreclosed buildings in December of 2012 and commenced rehabilitation with city of Rialto and county of San Bernardino Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding. Given the age and location of this development, project management  staff recommends additional contingency funds for concrete and fencing work to ensure the development has adequate funds to provide security for the residents. It is recommended the board approve this amendment to increase the loan from $1 million to $1,275,000 for the additional rehabilitation and security costs. The county will reconvey the original deed of trust for $1,000,000 and record a new deed of trust against the property for $1,275,000 to provide security for its investment.”
In return for the assistance provided it by the county and the city of Rialto, Rialto Family Housing Partners II has agreed to charge low and moderate rents to those tenants who qualify for the rental rate assistance.

(March 1) BARSTOW—The Barstow Unified School District will shut down Hinkley School and Thomson Elementary at the end of the current school year.
In the face of budget shortfalls and declining enrollment, the district opted to make the closures, which will entail eliminating the principal positions at both schools and the layoffs of 20 teachers and 35 support personnel.
District superintendent Jeff Malan said the austerity moves were an unavoidable element of a district reorganization that is both unfortunate and necessary.
The district, like nearly every other one in California, has seen its funding cut by the state. In Barstow Unified, that circumstance is exacerbated by the departure of large numbers of residents from Hinkley, one of the more remote areas within the district.
The exodus from Hinkley has been brought on by spreading hexavalent chromium contamination in the water table.
Pacific Gas & Electric, which used hexavalent chromium as an anti-corrosive in the cooling towers for its pressurization systems for a natural gas line spanning that area, disposed of the very toxic substance into unlined ponds near Hinkley in the 1950s and 1960s. The advancing state of contamination has resulted in the transformation of Hinkley into what is anticipated to be a ghost town by the end of the current decade. Pacific Gas & Electric, which had earlier sought to use water decontamination strategies in the area, now seems intent on simply purchasing the entire township and encouraging remaining residents to leave. The closure of Hinkley School will quite likely hasten those departures. Students from Hinkley will need to commute to other schools in the district with the onset of the 2013-14 school year.
Tuesday night’s meeting was heavily attended by more than three dozen of the parents of school children yet remaining in Hinkley.  Their entreaties that the school be preserved ultimately proved futile.
Malan told those in attendance at the February 26 school board meeting that he had made repeated requests of Pacific Gas & Electric corporate officers for their assistance in formulating a plan to stem the mass departures of residents or provide direct funding to keep Hinkley School open, but that the company’s officials were unwilling to help.
The vote to close Thomson was unanimous. The vote to close Hinkley School passed 4-1, with board member Barbara Rose dissenting.

With the Adelanto Detention Center Expansion Project having already exceeded its construction contingency allowance of $9,095,194, the board of supervisors this week ratified increasing the project’s total construction budget to $102,157,109, surpassing the original $90,951,937 construction budget by $11,205,172, in so doing upping the total project budget from $120 million to $126 million.
On December 14, 2010, the county board of supervisors awarded a construction contract to Lydig Construction of Bellevue, Washington for the construction of the Adelanto Detention Center at 9438 Commerce Way in Adelanto.
The original construction contract amount with Lydig was for $90,951,937. Previous to this week, there had been eight change orders and contract amendments that had increased the construction  contract to $99,316,987. On Tuesday, February 26, the board of supervisors signed off on a change order and contract amendment combination that boosted the total construction contract amount by $2,840,122 to $102,157,109.
Subsequent to the original $90,951,937 contract, on August 23, 2011, a first $448,516  amendment to the contract to install approximately 3,000 lineal feet of 5” conduit, pull boxes and electrical vaults as required by Southern California Edison was approved by the board of supervisors; On December 13, 2011 a second $303,773 amendment to the contract for the demolition and installation of concrete and asphalt associated with rerouting of utilities and the modification to 124 handicap combo units together with the rerouting of electrical duct banks was approved by the board of supervisors; On April 24, 2012, a third $834,076 amendment to lengthen holding cell benches and make state fire marshal-mandated design modifications to the construction was approved by the board; on September 11, 2012 a $557,668 amendment to the contract to provide handicap desks in the dayrooms, incorporate a stainless steel well casing for the new well and provide state fire marshal-required additional seismic upgrades to the fire protection lines was approved by the board of supervisors; on February 26, 2013 a fifth $2,472,388 amendment to make state fire marshal-mandated changes to the smoke control evacuation and automatic fire sprinkler systems, increase the number and size of heating and air conditioning structural roof supports as well as additional modifications mandated by the fire marshal and various other regulatory agencies was approved.
Additionally, on August 23, 2011, a first $2,101,536 change order to upgrade the security electronics in the existing facility and the expansion to provide touch screens, digital intercoms, an IP camera system and increased HD video storage capabilities, install frosted security glazing in lieu of the standard clear glazing specified in the sleeping rooms, and install an anti-MRSA and prime coat finish on the floors and walls at the support building was approved by the board of supervisors; on December 12, 2011, a second $2,392,443 change order entailing the installation of a card reader system in the housing units to be utilized by sheriff personnel, the purchase of scheduling licenses for video visitation kiosks and the upgrading of the roofing system to a single ply system was approved by the board of supervisors; on April 24, 2012 a third $824,237 change order to install anti-MRSA coating to the interior handrails in the dayrooms of the housing units and make various security electronics, electrical and plumbing modifications and enhancements was approved by the board; on September 11, 2012 a fourth $902,801 change order for the addition of detention ceilings at the 32-bed dorms, modifications to center core casework, guardrails and exhaust systems, credit the contractor for the modification of the roof system and make various utility modifications and enhancements; on February 26 a fifth $367,734 change order to provide electrical power and venting for dryers, and make various structural, utility and mechanical modifications to the new expansion and existing facility was approved.
In addition to the boosting of the contract with Lydig, the board also approved a recommendation from Carl Alban, the county’s director of architecture and engineering, to increase the existing contract with  C.H.J. Incorporated by $346,000, bringing the not-to-exceed total contract amount with that company from $1,559,293 to $1,905,293 for additional inspection and testing services required during the course of the expansion of the detention facility.
Given that a construction contingency allowance of $9,095,194 was built into the original contract, Alban said most of the more than $12 million in construction increases had already been defrayed. He asked the board to “approve a $6,000,000 increase in the project budget, increasing the total project budget from $120,000,000 to $126,000,000 for the Adelanto Detention Center Expansion Project.” The board did so.
Alban told the Sentinel “Initially the project overall was to cost $120 million. We are now asking to increase the budget to $126 million. Our increases in cost are largely related to construction. This gives us a little larger contingency.”
The change orders and contract amendments, Alban said, apply to costs that are “typically unforeseen at the time of the bid, where the bidder had no knowledge of them. Many of these are requirements imposed on the county by a third party such as the state fire agency or utility companies. These involve factors over which we had no control.”
Alban said that one such unforeseen circumstance was the need for the removal and replacement of an existing freezer found to have a significant amount of mold. “There were no obvious signs of mold that occurred in the freezer box until they partially dismantled it and discovered mold internally. It was not apparent on the external or internal surfaces.”
Alban said the project is rapidly moving forward. “We are looking to be substantially completed toward the end of the year.” He said the facility will be ready for occupancy “in a similar time frame. I cannot speak for the sheriff’s office and they may have internal issues between the time we finish it and the time they will be ready to occupy that facility.”
The expansion will add 1,392 new beds to the jail’s existing 706 inmate capacity.

FONTANA—The Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees on February 27 voted 5-0 in favor of the district school police force having assault rifles at its disposal.
Without prior authorization, school district police chief Billy Green ordered and purchased 14 semi-automatic Colt AR 6940 rifles with magazines capable of firing armor piercing bullets. When that $19,286 acquisition, which included targeting lights for the guns, armor piercing ammunition, cases, and a vault to secure them, was revealed, board members Leticia Garcia and Sophia Green (no relation to Billy Green) sought a public hearing on the matter.
Billy Green on Wednesday night answered critics of the purchase who had complained that the guns represented more firepower and destructive capability than is in the possession of several local municipal police departments.
He cited 32 shootings in schools nationally, resulting in 60 deaths and 38 injuries since 2010 in justifying the purchase. Green said the rifles, which are to remain under lock and key until needed, would give school officers an advantage over someone intent on mayhem who is wielding a handgun.
A parent, Oskar Zambrano, said providing the officers with such overwhelming firepower would “send a message” to students that was inappropriate. “Violence begets more violence,” he said. “That is what you have with these rifles.”
Garcia, who had previously criticized the purchase, said that she did “not want to deny our officers the tools to do the job but I do have concerns about the militarizing of our campuses.”
Gus Hawthorn, the board president, called upon his board colleagues to support Billy Green and  to “protect students, parents and employees.” The full board, including Garcia and Sophia Green, voted to keep the rifles.

The county has entered into a $3 million contract with Norco-based D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc. to provide mechanical services throughout the county at its governmental facilities for the one year period running from March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014.  According to Carl Alban, the county’s director of architecture and engineering, the company will carry out the work on the basis of job orders provided to it by the county. Alban recommended that the county board of supervisors “award a $3,000,000 job order contract to D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc., to perform mechanical systems related services throughout the county.” The contract, Alban said, “will include a $25,000 guaranteed minimum value of work to be ordered. The county will provide the contractor with a scope of work to perform specific tasks, and the contractor will provide a lump sum cost for the work based upon the unit prices bid by the contractor.”
Only two companies bid on the contract, Alban said. “On November 27, 2012, the board authorized the architecture and engineering department to advertise for competitive bids. Architecture & engineering advertised for bids in a local newspaper on November 30, 2012, and on the county website. On December 13, 2012, thirteen contractors attended a mandatory pre-bid meeting; of the thirteen attendees, only one contractor had the appropriate mechanical license specified in the bid documents. In an attempt to solicit a broader range of qualified bidders, addendum no. 1 was issued on December 26, 2012, extending the bid date and providing for a second mandatory pre-bid meeting for prospective mechanical contractors who had not attended the December 13, 2012 pre-bid meeting. On December 28, 2012, a second advertisement was published in a local newspaper and on the county website, as well as sent via fax to five companies currently licensed by the state contractors board with the appropriate license. On January 10, 2013, two additional contractors attended the second pre-bid meeting.”
Alban said two bids were submitted to the county by the January 17, 2013 deadline, one from D. Burke Mechanical and another from La Verne-based Los Angeles Air Conditioning, Inc. Alban said D. Burke had a bid factor of 0.7585 and Los Angeles Air Conditioning had a bid factor of 0.7997 and that “staff recommends that the board award this mechanical job order contract to D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $3,000,000.”

The Department of the Navy has approved the expansion of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center into Johnson Valley and Wonder Valley.
As delineated in the Marine Corps’ record of decision, the expansion footprint will extend the existing Combat Center 146,667 acres to the west and 21,304 acres to the south, entailing the acquisition of 167,971 acres of civilian- and government-owned property, much of which was considered by off-road enthusiasts to be prime dune-buggy and dirt bike terrain.
For its operational purposes, the Marine Corps had preferred a somewhat larger 201,657 acre expansion option that would have extended the combat center 180,353 acres to the west and 21,304 acres to the south. By declining this option, 42,803 acres in the Johnson Valley off highway vehicle area remain available to the public year round.
According to the Department of the Navy, of the 146,667 acres to be occupied by the expansion, 4,912 acres will be converted to what is referred to as a “shared use area” used by the military only two months out of the year and available for public recreation the ten remaining months. This will boost the shared use area of the entire combat center to a total of 43,049 acres.
The six expansion alternatives featured varying and conflicting environmental and operational advantages. The Marine Corps deemed the chosen option, referred to as Alternative 6, to be optimal when considering operational factors and environmental impacts combined.
The next stage of the process will entail Congress considering the application in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Upon approval by Congress, the Navy will be consigned to acquire the property, much of which is federal property to be vacated by the Bureau of Land Management. The Navy and Marines will also need to coordinate with the Federal Aviation Administration to establish military exclusivity in the airspace over the property in question.
Further information about the expansion can be gleaned at the following webpages:  www.29palms.marines.mil/staff/G4InstallationsandLogistics/LandAcquisition.aspx and http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Portals/56/Docs/G4/LAS/V8%20ROD%20FAQs%20Final%20130213.pdf.

Activists in Chino Hills opposed to the operation of Chinese maternity hotels there have expressed doubt that a court-ordered settlement with regard to one of the birthing centers obtained by the city short of a trial earlier this month will effectively close down the facility.
Hai Yong Wu and Yi Wang had been operating an illegal birthing hotel out of what was originally a seven-bedroom home located at 5250 Woodglen Drive in Chino Hills throughout much of 2012. After it became known that Wu and Wang were housing pregnant women from China in the final stages of their pregnancy at the home in the upscale neighborhood so that their children could be credited with U.S. Citizenship, a wave of protest brought scrutiny and confirmation the house was being advertised as “Los Angeles Hermas Hotel,” touted as pre-birth and post-birth resting quarters for Chinese women.
The city of Chino sent code enforcement personnel to the premises, who found that the home, originally built in 1974 with seven bedrooms and six bathrooms, had been altered to feature 17 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms, many of which were not built to code. The inspectors documented no fewer than 18 code violations and then used citations generated on the basis of those to force operations there to cease, at least temporarily.
It was subsequently revealed that at least two other similar establishments had set up operation in Chino Hills. Those two were also temporarily forced to cease operations.
As part of a follow-up effort to prevent the Woodglen Drive home from reopening as a maternity hotel, the city had city attorney Mark Hensley seek an injunction barring Wu and Wang from operating the facility. A pre-injunction hearing was scheduled for February 19. Before that hearing took place however, Hensley succeeded in obtaining a stipulated agreement whereby nine of the building code violations were acknowledged and a correction plan was put into place. Under the terms of that agreement, which was confirmed as a court-ordered settlement issued by West Valley Superior Court Judge Keith Davis on February 11, Wang was dismissed as a party and Wu is required to remedy sewer line discharge violations, cover exposed electrical wires on the premises, outfit the single entrance bedrooms with emergency exits, provide ventilation, correct illegal construction of add-on rooms in the house, install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and alarms, and ensure clearance of flammable materials.
Hensley also reported the stipulated agreement contained a provision that the property cannot be used for commercial purposes, effectively shuttering the house as a birthing facility.
The city hailed the judgment as a victory in the battle to rid the city of maternity hotels.
Several Chino Hills residents, including members of the Not In Chino Hills organization that hastily formed late last year to oppose the maternity hospitals, expressed skepticism at the city’s confident pronouncement.
The Not In Chino Hills website states “[The] city of Chino Hills enter[ed] into an agreement with Mr. Wu, but there are no restrictions. Mr Wu can keep his 17 rooms and 17 bathrooms! [The] city filed a ex parte motion [and] vacated the February 19th hearing to enter [into] this agreement. Because Mr. Wu’s 17 rooms are within the building code, as long as they meet the sewage capacity, he does not need to put the house back to its original form – 7 bedrooms and 6 baths.”
Several Chino Hills residents have said they are concerned Wu will get around the ban on birthing activity by bringing the home up to code and operating as a subsidized or charity guest or vacation home.

Six months after a firestorm of protest induced the Upland City Council to shelve a proposal to amend the city code to give the city manager and the city’s development services director the authority to impose on residents and businesses administrative fines of up to $31,000 per month, Mayor Ray Musser has revived the effort to pass the controversial ordinance.
A crucial issue in the failure of the ordinance to achieve passage last summer was the widespread perception that community development director Jeff Zwack had made misrepresentations about the ordinance’s intent. During his presentation of the ordinance on July 30, Zwack publicly stated the ordinance was not intended as a revenue generating ploy. That evening, the four members of the council present voted unanimously to give the ordinance what is called a first reading, i.e. tentative approval. A second reading of the ordinance was scheduled for two weeks later to give the law final ratification.
The ordinance itself and its language were not made available to the public prior to nor during the July 30 meeting. Only after direct appeals by the public and the press did City Hall relent and release the text of the ordinance six days before the council was scheduled to approve it on August 13.
The ordinance as drafted substantially intensifies City Hall’s bureaucratic power and increases the amounts of the fines that can be levied. Moreover, the ordinance also sets up a policy similar to that utilized in other municipalities that empowers the city to not only issue citations but adjudicate them and set the penalty, precluding, at least in the first three phases of the administrative process, the individual who is cited from having the matter heard and the fine set by an independent arbiter, such as the municipal or superior court. Only upon being adjudged guilty and assessed with the fine, can a resident or business entity that is cited appeal the matter to an actual court, and then only upon posting the amount of the fine as a bond.
The ordinance was drafted by interim city attorney Jimmy Gutierrez and development services director Jeff Zwack. Zwack said the ordinance was based upon similar administrative citation provisions contained in nearby cities’ municipal codes.
On August 13, the council chambers were filled with residents and local business owners who came to weigh in against the ordinance. Also present were Musser and city manager Steve Dunn, both of whom were not present at the July 30 meeting. Several residents and business owners questioned Zwack’s veracity, openly suggesting that the ordinance was intended to generate revenue for the cash-strapped municipality. Zwack and the council also found themselves under attack for withholding the text of the ordinance from the public. Pointedly, no members of the council were willing to stand behind Zwack’s statement that the ordinance, which authorized fines of between $250 per day and $1,000 per day entirely at Zwack’s discretion, was not intended to generate revenue.  At that point, Dunn was wrestling with a $2 million annual budget deficit. The council did not give the ordinance second reading, instead calling for the item to be reconsidered at a later date.
In January, at Musser’s urging, the city council advisory committee took up consideration of the administrative citation ordinance. According to that committee’s chairman, Tom Mitchell, Musser requested that the committee consider the matter and return with a recommendation that the ordinance be approved so that the council can deflect any criticism leveled at the ordinance by the public.
Zwack remains the leading advocate for infusing in city staff the enhanced citation and fining authority. He said that the “intent is to streamline the process and facilitate a resolution and accomplish in 60 days what in our current process could take six months.”
The ordinance establishes fines of between $250 and $1,000, depending on the nature of the citation. Zwack asserted that the city’s current code enforcement process “is not efficient. Our intent is to incentivize compliance with the threat of fines. The ordinance gives us the ability to use a higher fine to get compliance. That is a decision of departmental policy made by the city manager and development services director [i.e., Zwack].”
Zwack was dismissive of the objections raised by those residents and business representatives to the abridgment of what those critics characterized as the due process rights of those cited. Under the terms of the ordinance, a notification of a code violation is to be provided to the allegedly offending resident, property owner or business operator, who will be given a specified period of time to bring the property or business into compliance. If the property is brought into compliance to the satisfaction of the development services director, no fine will be assessed. If compliance is not achieved by the specified date, a second notification is then issued, at which point fines, to be set by the development services director, are to be assessed. Those cited will not be afforded the opportunity to dispute the citation, which is to be issued, processed, determined as applicable and adjudicated upon the “administrative authority” conferred upon the development services director by the ordinance.
Those objecting to the proposed ordinance have said that this is tantamount to the city’s code enforcement division serving as the arresting officer, prosecutor, jury and judge, all without providing the accused with a trial.
Zwack denied the ordinance would grant the city license to conduct a “kangaroo court.” He said the city simply could not afford to observe the legal niceties afforded citizens under the U.S. and California constitutions, asserting taking residents to court “wastes a lot of staff time. No fine is attached until after the second letter [notifying the alleged offender of the ongoing violation]. This doesn’t make us judge and jury,” Zwack said. “We do not presently have adequate tools. If we issue a citation and there is no response after a second citation we have go to the city prosecutor and go into state or county court. That is a 60-day delay just to start the process and it can take up to a year or more before there is any action taken. A hearing can take up to half a day and that becomes very expensive. The administrative citations will save time and general fund money.”
Zwack said that a panel to hear such cases would be appointed by the city manager and him. He said the panel would likely consist of “community residents knowledgeable in building codes and other relevant issues. The outcome is appealable to a county judge.”
Residents and business owners objecting to the proposed ordinance seized upon Zwack’s acknowledgment that “We have a 95 percent compliance rate with our code enforcement citations. What this is aimed at is the five percent who do not comply.” They said the city’s assumption of draconian measures applicable against all of the city’s residents was far too heavy handed.
Jason Frater, a city resident, said he was “offended” by the city’s effort “to criminalize every aspect of our behavior. This country is built on individual freedom, not on mandates.”
Zwack said he had the backing of Dunn, the city manager, in seeking to provide his office with the enhanced code enforcement authority. Though he continued to assert the intent of the ordinance was not to raise revenue, Zwack said the municipal code change, if made, would save the city money by its streamlining of the process and the ability to unilaterally impose the fines.
Dunn previously told the Sentinel, “The thing driving this was the expense of pursuing some code enforcement cases. [The] ordinance creates a mechanism to ensure less costly compliance. Could it be abused? Without a doubt, it could. It isn’t our intent to go after small cases with this. We consider it as something that would be useful against people who give us the finger.  If we had this ordinance before, we would not have needed to go to court and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. We could have done it administratively. But it can be abused. It needs checks and balances put in there. Right now, it lacks checks and balances.”
Despite Dunn’s statement, the resurrected ordinance now under consideration is not substantially different from the version he said “lacks checks and balances.”
Zwack insisted the ordinance as drafted is based on similar processes used in other cities. That the ordinance’s provisions are being applied elsewhere, however, does not alleviate potential costly legal issues, such as those pertaining to selective prosecution or constitutional rights violations. Zwack has not addressed recent court rulings that have held that municipalities’ use of administrative hearing officers employed by those cities creates a conflict in which the fundamental fairness of the hearing process is compromised and the right to due process and other constitutional protections are violated. In one such case out of Hesperia, that city’s administrative imposition of a total of $129,000 in fines against Esther Duran and  her daughter, Janet, for maintaining three too many animals on their agricultural/residential zoned property  was reversed by U.S. District Court Judge John E. McDermott last year. McDermott ruled that the city’s action against the Durans in seizing their animals and imposing the punitive fines was improper, that their animals would have to be returned to them, and the fines, which were recorded against their property as tax liens would have to be expunged. The city, to avoid an even costlier judgment, paid the Durans $200,000 plus attorney fees. The Durans were represented by Upland-based attorney Louis Fazzi.
A calculation many cities make in using the administrative citation process against their citizens is that most do not have the financial wherewithal to fight City Hall. On those occasions where those citizens do have the means or in such cases where a lawyer like Fazzi is willing to represent them pro bono, the outcome can prove quite costly for those cities.
Upland resident and landowner Bill Huff questioned whether the city was being pennywise and pound foolish in seeking to institute the ordinance. “This could lead to lawsuits,” he said.
Ruth Lopez, a one-time city resident who has since moved to Needles where she was on the city council there, returns to Upland on a weekly basis to assist with the caretaking of a family member who yet resides in the City of Gracious Living. In August, she told the council that if the city went forward with administrative citations, “Eventually you will run into someone who will challenge you or who has a lawyer working for him or her pro bono and you will be dragged into federal court. You will lose and it will be expensive.”
Another facet of the ordinance its opponents cite is what they say is the potentially counterproductive recording of the fines assessed as part of the administrative process as liens against the property. The use of this strategy, some have said, will lead to a circumstance where the original owner who is cited may simply walk away from a problem property, which will then remain as a problem property because those who might otherwise choose to pick it up as a consequence of the foreclosure process might not do so because of the expense of satisfying the liens, which could total in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.   “With fines of $1,000 a day and $31,000 a month, that money is going to mount pretty rapidly,” Huff said. “After the property owner walks away, no one is going to want to buy that property, pay to bring it up to code and then pay $50,000 or $100,000 or maybe more in liens against the property. The city is shooting itself in the foot on this one.”
At this point, it is unclear whether the administrative citation ordinance has the requisite support to pass.
Musser had hoped it would garner unanimous support on the city council advisory commission, thus blunting any resistance to the ordinance and giving the city council political cover to approve it. But unanimous support is not in the cards and it might not even get a majority recommendation from the advisory  panel. While the committee chairman, Mitchell, who was appointed by Musser, is favorably inclined toward the ordinance and another member, Anthony Ghosn, appears to be entertaining the notion of supporting it, one of the committee members, Mark Creighton, has indicated he is dead set against it, characterizing it as  an overreaching abuse of municipal authority. Another committee member, Hal Tanner, said he would not support it unless it was altered to provide those cited with the opportunity to contest the accusations against them.
Musser appears to be its strongest backer. Based upon previous statements, councilman Brendan Brandt would appear to be a second vote in the ordinance’s favor. On July 30, both Gino Filippi and Debbie Stone joined with Brandt and then-councilman Ken Willis in approving it on first reading. At that time, however, the text of the ordinance had been withheld from the public and there was no indication of the groundswell of public sentiment against it. Since July 30, no member of the public has come forth to express support for the proposed change in Upland’s municipal code to allow the director of development services absolute autonomy in imposing fines of up to $1,000 per day on Upland residents. Indeed, there has been a growing tide of opposition to the measure. Willis is no longer on the council, having been supplanted by Glenn Bozar, a self-styled political watchdog and taxpayer advocate who for years prior to his election had inveighed against City Hall’s proclivity for tapping the city’s residents for ever more money. Assuming Musser can count upon Brandt’s support, he will yet need Stone, Filippi or Bozar to join him in imposing on all of the city’s residents a code enforcement regime that could prove decidedly unpopular.
Musser this week told the Sentinel that he indeed supports empowering the city’s development services director and the code enforcement division with administrative citation authority, though not in the precise form provided for in the ordinance as drafted by Zwack and Gutierrez last summer.
“I have not had a chance to read up on what he [Zwack] is proposing now or seen really whether staff has made changes to the ordinance we considered last year,” Musser said. “I am in favor of good code enforcement, but it has to be in a manner that is, how should I say, user friendly. I don’t think we should start off with fines that are a thousand dollars a day. I think the fines should be more graduated than that and it should take longer to get to that amount. I think we should start with continual reminders and smaller fines and penalties, which we can increase until they are compliant,” he said.

Within a fortnight, two of San Bernardino County’s fire departments hired new fire chiefs earlier this month.
In Upland, Rick Mayhew was handed the reins to that city’s fire department on February 3.
Mayhew, a 31-year firefighting veteran, had been a division chief in upscale San Marino prior to his hiring. He was previously a battalion chief for the South Pasadena Fire Department.
Upland had been looking to bring Mayhew in as chief for more than two months, but delayed doing so as city manager Stephen Dunn studied the feasibility of outsourcing the department, potentially to the city of Ontario or the county of San Bernardino, or merging with the city of Montclair for the provision of fire protection.
Dunn, who has been charged with reducing the city’s operational costs, rejected those options after the city’s firefighters’ union agreed to a contract concession that transferred the cost of covering the firefighters’ pension contributions from the city to the firefighters themselves.
The savings from that contract change will allow Upland to keep its firefighting force in house. For more than 18 months, the fire chief’s slot had gone unfilled, and the department was overseen by individuals, including the police chief, serving in the capacity of interim fire chief.
The Chino Valley Fire District, which serves the cities of Chino and Chino Hills, on February 13 hired Paul Segalla to serve as its new  chief.
Segalla had been the fire chief with West Covina since 2008, and previously was fire chief in Lockpart Township, Illinois, fire captain with the Berkeley Fire Department, fire lieutenant in Aurora, Illinois and a firefighter and deputy chief with the Downers Grove Fire Department in Illinois.
In Upland, Mayhew will be paid a base salary and add-ons of $170,698 with benefits of $71,692 for a total annual compensation of $242,390.
In Chino Valley, Segalla will be paid an annual salary of $188,326. The district did not release information with regard to his benefit package.

Debra Hernandez said she believes she is prepared to assume a position on the Chino Hills City Council based upon her past community participation, most conspicuously as a member of the city’s public works commission. Her commission work, she emphasized, is just one expression of her passion for the city.
“I have been very involved consistently over a number of years now in different aspects of the city,” she said. “I think that shows a dedication and commitment to the city. We have a wonderful slate of candidates, but I don’t know that all of them have been as involved as I have. I feel that by my commitment and the service, I have earned [the privilege of advancing to the city council]. I can point to any number of organizations I have been actively involved in. The reason I am running is I want to give back to the city.  I believe I can make a difference and have a positive impact.”
Hernandez said her early and consistent efforts to prevent Southern California Edison from erecting 197-foot high electrical cable-bearing towers across the Chino Hills landscape was an illustration of her dedication to the city.  Those towers were approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in 2009 as part of the Tehachapi Renewable Energy Project, which is to  consist of what is planned as being the world’s largest wind energy farm in Kern County and the means of transporting the electricity generated there to the Los Angeles Basin. “I co-founded C.A.R.E., which has now transitioned into Hope For The Hills, which is carrying on that fight,” she said. “I think the Tehachapi project is the largest and most damaging challenge facing us. Very few people were thinking of it in those terms in 2007. Most people at that time could not envision the impact it was going to have. But those of us involved in C.A.R.E. did see that eventual impact. I believe the folks of Chino Hills want that type of leadership, someone with that vision, to lead our city forward.”
Hernandez exhibited an open perspective on city government’s capacity to both benefit and harm its citizens. On one hand, she pointed out, she had participated in the process of government as a member of a key municipal panel.
“I have been very involved in a lot of community aspects, including as a member of the public works commission,” she said. “I was appointed by [councilman] Bill Kruger.”
It is Kruger, who resigned in September for personal reasons that have not been made clear,  whom Hernandez and the three others in the race – Ray Marquez, Jesse Singh and Rossana Mitchell – are vying to replace.
“It is critical that our quality of life be maintained and that we have a city government open to the needs and wishes of its residents,” Hernandez said. “I believe I have demonstrated that through my commitment and energy on the public works commission.”
Conversely, Hernandez said, the city of Chino Hills has not always lived up to the ideal of serving its residents and has in some instances abused its authority in dealing with certain individuals, she said. If elected to the city council, she promised to be a bulwark against municipal government bullying its constituents.
“I think we also have a challenge with how we are addressing issues that create a conflict between city government and residents,” she said. “I am concerned that we have ended up in litigation with three different families and sent two residents to jail. I believe we need to find a way of resolving these issues without becoming litigious with folks who live in our city.”
Hernandez’ reference in one instance was to Charles and Lisa Price, the proprietors of the no-kill animal shelter Priceless Pets, against whom the city attorney’s office filed misdemeanor charges relating to the couple keeping 27 dogs on their 13-acre dog rescue operation at 2810 English Road in contravention of an ordinance prohibiting more than nine animals from being hosted on a property, no matter its size.
Hernandez pointed out that the city had selectively prosecuted the Prices, who were convicted and fined $269.20 each, while other property owners with animals exceeding the city’s limit have not been cited and have gone unprosecuted.
“The city took a long time to look at the equestrian overly [i.e., that area of Chino Hills where more intensive agricultural uses are to be tolerated],” she said. “Why did we pinpoint one family with dogs, one family with an inappropriate number of animals when there are dozens or maybe even hundreds of others?”
Another of her references was to the circumstance involving the Moe family, against whose property on the east side of Peyton Drive south of Eucalyptus Avenue, the city has waged an on-again, off-again eminent domain condemnation effort to seize their property as right-of-way for the Peyton Drive expansion.
Hernandez noted that the Moes and the city appeared to have come to a settlement only to have “the city hand them documents that they had not agreed to.”
Hernandez’s third reference was to a lawsuit filed against the city of Chino Hills by Michael and Kimberly Denton, residents of a home on Hunters Gate Circle purchased from Gloria Vitagliano in 1999, who were cited by the city’s code enforcement division because the furthest extension of their backyard including a pool and spa was encroaching on city-owned open space.  The city, which was apparently unaware of the encroachment, allowed the intrusion to stand for more than a decade before seeking to have the Denton’s remove their pool and spa.
“Why did we go after a homeowner that encroached on property set on land for public views 12 years after it was built?” Hernandez asked. “Why this one? There are others.  Is it we can’t work out a solution or that we won’t work out a solution?”
Hernandez said the city in many such cases overreaches itself. “I am not pleased with how we react sometimes,” she said. “It seems we have dug in our heels many times when we should not have. We should not go after residents when we have other options. Our city is our residents. We have to honor them.”
She can be distinguished from the other candidates in the same way she can be distinguished from politicians in general, Hernandez said. She said she would not use yard signs in her “grassroots” campaign because she considers them to be “visual blight.” And she said she “certainly believes in term limits. You won’t see Debra Hernandez serving five or six terms. I think eight years on the council is sufficient. There are lots of other avenues to contribute to the city. I believe we need to keep the council fresh, with new and innovative ideas. I could probably live with someone serving 12 years, but I think three terms should be the maximum. That sets me apart from the others. We need to have term limits as part of the city charter. I don’t think you are going to hear any of the other candidates say that.”
Hernandez is employed as the facilities manager at Toyota Motors in Torrance.
“I think Chino Hills is the neatest place on earth,” she said. “I make a 100-mile round trip every day because I want to live here.”
Hernandez graduated from Monrovia High School and attended Pasadena City College, where she studied business law and economics. She has lived in Chino Hills since 1995. She is married with one daughter.