19 February 2024
Congressman Pete Aguilar, 33rd District
108 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Aguilar,

We need your help.
For nearly a decade, our organization’s members have worked alongside Inland Empire residents and tens of thousands of other Californians to right a nearly century-long wrong: the annual removal of tens of millions of gallons of the American people’s water from the San Bernardino National Forest for bottling by a series of private water companies, including bottling giants Nestle Waters and, now, its successor BlueTriton Brands.
This water is piped downhill from springs nestled in the San Bernardino mountains at the headwaters of Strawberry Creek and then bottled in plastic and marketed as Arrowhead Brand 100% Mountain Spring Water.
As you may know, Nestle’s controversial removal of this water first burst into public view in the mid-2010s during our state’s profound drought, as federally-managed public lands burned across the west. As Californians were collectively reducing our water use by a dramatic 40%, Nestle kept up its removal of water from these parched public lands, pledging publicly to remove as much as it could despite the fact that its Forest Service permit to do so had been expired for nearly 30 years and serious questions had been raised about whether the company had a valid right to the water. Continue reading →

Ontario officials are slowly coming to terms with the paradox within their now-seven plus years-long reassumption of ownership and management of their eponymous international airport.
Though they now have autonomy over the aerodrome that bears their city’s name, those officials have resigned themselves to not seeing ridership at the airport eclipsing what was its highest level historically achieved while it was under the management of the City of Los Angeles more than a decade-and-a-half ago for what is likely to be another five years.
In short, while the City of Ontario in a real sense took control of its destiny, at least as far as the airport is concerned, with the 2016 retaking of Ontario International, that independence has come at a significantly higher cost than the $270 million the city paid in the reacquision, most particularly in terms of the loss of leverage it once had, albeit indirectly, with commercial airlines.
Today, Ontario Airport’s claim to fame rests on its status as the ninth-largest airport in the county in terms of transporting cargo. That contrasts with its ranking among U.S. airports in terms of the numbers of passengers embarking there, where it stands in 56th place.
In pursuing its renewed and now achieved control of the airport, Ontario city officials pressed the claim that Los Angeles was mismanaging the asset and purposefully doing so to limit the number of airline passengers traveling through Ontario. The said that once the airport was freed from the confining clutches of Los Angeles and again under local ownership, they envisioned passenger traffic climbing exponentially, such that by 2025 – next year – Ontario International would take its rightful place as one of the top twenty air route points of departure/destination in the country and that by 2035 it would fall within the top ten. Such goals, at this point, seem ludicrous, and there is little prospect, short of some unanticipated disaster that would provide for the utter destruction of Los Angeles International Airport, that the first would be achieved within the next generation or that the second will see fruition this century.
In 1967, when Ontario Airport yet had a sand-flea-infested gravel parking lot and fewer than 200,000 passengers passing through its gates annually, the Ontario City Council ratified a joint operating agreement with the City of Los Angeles to permit the larger city to use its stronger negotiating position with the airlines serving Southern California to induce them to utilize the Ontario facility. Using its leverage, Los Angeles persuaded a whole host of airlines to begin flying into and out of Ontario.
By 1969, flights out of Ontario dramatically increased. In short order, Continental Airlines, PSA, United, American Airlines, Hughes Air West, and Delta established routes from Ontario. In the early 1970s, Ontario was in competition with John Wayne Airport in Orange County, which at that time was expanding dramatically. Though a benchmark of 10 million passengers at the airport by 1975 was not achieved, Los Angeles World Airports, the corporate entity running the Los Angeles Municipal Department of Airports, still assiduously promoted Ontario International.
In 1981, a modern, second east-to-west runway was built, necessitating the removal of the old northeast-to-southwest runway.
By the early 1980s Los Angeles had met all the criteria laid out in the 1967 joint powers agreement. The City of Ontario was at that time led by Mayor Robert Ellingwood, who was resistant to the concept of Ontario complying with the terms of the joint powers authority agreement and turning ownership of the airport over to Los Angeles. In 1985, during Ellingwood’s brief absence from the city, four members of the Ontario City Council as it was then composed voted to deed Ontario Airport to the City of Los Angeles for no consideration. That transaction was considered a public benefit transfer. With a few notable exceptions, such as Ellingwood, most Ontario officials at that time believed granting Los Angeles possession of the airport to be beneficial.
Indeed, over the four decades from 1967 until 2007, the relationship between Ontario and Los Angeles vis-à-vis the airport could not have been more positive or cordial.
In the fall of 2007, however, there was a massive financial lull when not just Ontario and Los Angeles but all of Southern California, California and the entire nation was first gripped by what would turn out to be a six-year-running economic downturn and lingering recession. Airlines, in an effort to shield themselves from the continuing economic decline, began cutting back on flights, particularly to locations outside heavy population centers. Beginning in 2008 and until early 2014, passenger traffic at Ontario International declined steadily.
In 2010, Ontario officials, led by Councilman Alan Wapner, initiated a campaign aimed at wresting control and ownership of Ontario International Airport back from Los Angeles. Los Angeles officials, including most prominently Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey, at first ignored and then began to resist that effort, which grew increasingly strident and uncivil.
Cooler heads, meanwhile, were seeking to restrain Wapner, asserting that he was needlessly antagonizing Los Angeles officials, who in any event did not have the antipathy toward Ontario he was alleging, reminding him that Los Angeles was in a much better position to negotiate with airlines domestically and worldwide than was Ontario. Moreover, it was pointed out, Ontario Mayor Paul Leon and then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had grown up in the same neighborhood and were childhood friends. Leon’s connection to Villaraigosa could be used with far greater effect to negotiate an outcome favorable to Ontario, it was suggested, than Wapner’s more antagonistic approach. Wapner, however, was having none of that. With Wapner in the lead, Ontario stepped up its rhetoric, openly charging that Lindsey had evinced hostility toward the City of Ontario and its airport, and was deliberately manipulating the situation to raise costs at Ontario International and thereby minimize both ridership and revenues there as part of a plot to increase revenue and gate numbers at Los Angeles International Airport. Lindsey and her staff denied those accusations, pointing out that the airlines were being pushed by their own economic imperatives.
In 2013, in the waning days of Anthony Villaraigosa’s tenure as Los Angeles mayor, the City of Ontario, through the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, sued Los Angeles in the neutral forum of Riverside Superior Court, charging Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports with willful mismanagement of Ontario Airport, and seeking the return of the aerodrome to the city in which it is located.
Having already raised the campaign of attack against Los Angeles to a fever pitch, Wapner personalized it even further after the lawsuit was underway. The Wapner-directed attacks occurred against a backdrop of jockeying between the two cities over the “value” of the airport, i.e., the amount of money that was to change hands if the airport title were to be handed back to Ontario. Wapner insisted that the airport was a “public benefit asset” and had no “value” as such. He called for Los Angeles to simply deed the airport back at no consideration. Los Angeles, on the other hand, pointed out that over $500 million dollars had been expended on improvements at the facility and that major portions of the funds for those improvements originated from revenue generated at Los Angeles International Airport or at Ontario International Airport while it was in the possession of Los Angeles, as well as from federal grants Los Angeles secured or from bonds issued under the authority of Los Angeles as a public agency and debt serviced by taxpayers in Los Angeles.
Ontario privately tendered a $250 million offer to Los Angeles World Airports for transfer of the airport’s title and operational control. That offer included Ontario assuming $75 million of the outstanding bond debt obligations for past improvements to the airport, $125 million in future passenger facility charges to be realized at the airport and $50 million cash.
Los Angeles officials scoffed at that offer, giving indication they would accept no less than $450 million for the airport and the property on which it sits, which in any case they considered to be a generously charitable counterproposal reflecting a roughly $100 million discount of the cost of the improvements made to the airport during Los Angeles’s 47-year managerial run there.
In August 2015, just as the matter was headed to trial before Riverside Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask, Ontario and Los Angeles forged a tentative settlement, announcing that ownership and management of Ontario International Airport would be returned to the city whose name the aerodrome bears. Mayors Eric Garcetti and Paul Leon disclosed that Ontario was to lay out $150 million for the airport and provide another $60 million to purchase assets technically belonging to Los Angeles World Airports that were in place at Ontario Airport and which were crucial or indispensable to its operations. In addition, Ontario had agreed to assume the debt service on roughly $60 million in bonded indebtedness Los Angeles had taken on over the years to make improvements at the facility.
In December 2015, Los Angeles and Ontario signed an agreement finalizing the transfer as of November 1, 2016, with Ontario paying Los Angeles $60 million out of its various operating funds and another $30 million taken out of its reserves, and committing to make payments of $50 million over five years and $70 million in the final five years of the ten-year ownership transition. In addition, Ontario absorbed $60 million of the airport’s bond debt.
There was considerable self-congratulating among Ontario officials over Ontario’s reclaiming of the airport. Only vaguely acknowledged was that in the previous two years, even as Ontario was badmouthing Los Angeles and suing it, ridership at the airport, which at one point had dwindled to less than 4 million annually, was again beginning to inch up under Los Angeles World Airports’ direction as the economy was making a turnaround.
What Ontario had surrendered in ending its relationship with Los Angeles was the entree the megalopolis, by virtue of its ownership of an airport that serves as one of the major international gateways into the United States from across the Pacific Ocean, enjoys with airlines. With a flick of their wrists, Los Angeles World Airports officials, by threatening to withhold desirable gate positions at Los Angeles International Airport or promising to provide the same, could induce airline executives of both national and international airlines to consider landing at or flying out of Ontario. Ontario officials had no such leverage.
By 2017, the events that had set off the so-called “Great Recession” were ten years in the past and the economy had fully recovered, indeed had come roaring back. Ontario was now fully in control of the airport, through the Ontario International Airport Authority it had created, the board of which Wapner was the president. Accordingly, Ontario Airport should have been at near its 7.2 million ridership level of 2007. Yet, the contretemps that Wapner had created between Ontario and Los Angeles during the last four years of the larger city’s ownership of the airport and its control over those operations and the loss of influence that Ontario had experienced with the airlines made that impossible.
In 2015, while Los Angeles had full control of the airport, it had a total ridership of 4,209,311, that is, a passenger count of those who both flew into and flew out of Ontario Airport. In 2016, the first ten months of which the airport was yet being managed by Los Angeles, the passenger count was 4,251,903. In 2017 it reached 4,552,225; followed by 5,115,894 in 2018 and 5,583,732 in 2019. In 2020, Ontario officials would experience firsthand a ridership slump that occurs as a consequence of factors beyond their immediate control, just as Los Angeles officials had seen in the years following the 2007 economic downturn, when the COVID pandemic cut across most sectors of the U.S., indeed world, economy, including airlines. In 2020, the number of passengers into and out of Ontario dipped to 2,538,482. In the face of that decline, Wapner, who was yet the Ontario International Airport Authority’s board president, was unable to lay responsibility for that at the feet of Los Angeles. In 2021, with the lifting of both national and state restrictions relating to the pandemic, ridership at Ontario International increased to 4,496,592. That was followed by 5,740,593 in 2022 and 6,430,033 in 2023.
Historically at Ontario International Airport, growth in passengers and cargo had grown on a roughly even pace. The economic downturn of 2007 shows that external factors often drove the airport’s performance. In 2007, for example, when the things were moving along well at the airport, 7,207,150 passengers and 532,865 tons of freight moved through it. The following year, with the recession in full gear, the number of passengers dropped to 6,232,975 and freight tonnage to 481,284. The next year, 2009, the trend continued to 4,861,110 passengers and 391,060 tons. When Wapner began assailing Los Angeles city officials and Los Angeles World Airports employees over the drop off in ridership at Ontario International, he made no mention of the same diminution in air shipping that was taking place. At that point, the narrative Ontario officials were propounding was that Los Angeles was responsible for the airport’s poor performance, which matched the city’s overarching political goal of reasserting itself as the airport’s rightful owner.
The post-November 1, 2016 era of Ontario’s ownership and management of Ontario International Airport has corresponded with an expansion of the local, state and national economy, with, of course, the exception of the 18-to20 month paralysis accompanying the COVID shutdowns from early 2020 until mid-2021. In that timeframe, the performance numbers at the airport have shown steady improvement, again reflecting the advancement of the economy.
Of note, however, regarding Ontario International Airport, the growth on the cargo side of its operations has seriously outpaced that on its passenger side. The aerodrome boasts a robust roster of freight carriers, which includes Amazon Prime Air, Federal Express and United Parcel Service. In June 2023, the airport board approved entering into exclusive negotiations with a company identified in October 2023 as DHL for the development of a project dubbed the South Airport Cargo Center. Infrastructure put in place by both Los Angeles and Ontario has given the airport the capacity to increase its cargo volumes.
The airport has In 2016, the year that Ontario took back control of the airport, freight tonnage stood at 567,295, which was up from 509,809 in 2015. The freight handled at the airport jumped to 654,378 tons, 751,529 tons and 781,993, respectively, in 2017, 2018 and 2019. In 2020, with the onset of the pandemic and the need for consumers and businesses to take advantage of e-commerce sources for household goods, materials and supplies, and Ontario International saw phenomenal growth in its operations, moving toward but not quite eclipsing the million ton threshold, as 924,160 tons of merchandise was transported through the airport that year. With the passage of the critical phase of the pandemic and the advent of vaccines that resulted in the withdrawal of government restrictions, the level of e-commerce declined in 2021, and the tonnage through the airport dropped as well, to a yet impressive 890,383 tons. In 2022, the number again declined, to 853,165 tons. In 2023, Ontario International had returned to its pre-pandemic level of cargo transport, at 752,199.
The comparison between Ontario International’s performance as a venue for cargo carriers as opposed to being a launching and landing site for passenger aircraft is stark. As a cargo airport, Ontario International ranks behind just eight others – Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Memphis International Airport, Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport, Los Angelese International Airport, Miami International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport International Airport and Indianapolis International Airport.
As a passenger departure spot or destination, however, it stands behind 55 others.
While the reasons Ontario cannot attract passengers in the numbers like more than four dozen other airports across the country are myriad, some of those extend to its management and ownership and the bridges that management and ownership burned in gaining control over the management and title to the airport.
As politics in San Bernardino County goes, Ontario has been relatively stable, with less turnover on its city council over the last three decades in all but three other of the county’s 24 cities. At the time of Ontario’s reassumption of the airport’s ownership in November 2016, four of the five members of the city council now in office were in office then. The other, Ruben Valencia, was elected to the council later that month. Of those four, Councilman Alan Wapner has been in office since 1994, Mayor Paul Leon has been on the council since 1998, Councilman Jim Bowman, who was previously on the council, has been a member of the council continuously since 2006. Councilwoman Debra Dorst-Porada has been on the council since 2008. Thus, Leon, Bowman and Dorst-Porada were participants in and, to one degree or another, supporters of the strategy Wapner applied in stripping the City of Los Angeles of its ownership of Ontario Airport. In proceeding with Wapner’s game plan, the city forewent using an alternative approach, one that would have involved Leon, as Ontario mayor, using his childhood connection with then-Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa to work out some order of an amicable agreement to transfer legal possession of the airport back to the city in which it is located. A decision to make use of Wapners more aggressive – indeed hostile – approach was made, and the opportunity of a Villaraigosa/Leon accommodation being forged, a favorable circumstance that was not likely to along more than once-in-a-lifetime or even once-in-a-century-or-more, was lost. Villaraigosa left office in 2013.
While in 2015, Los Angeles officials consented to graciously divesting their city of the airport in exchange for far less money than they might have otherwise insisted upon, freeing Ontario Airport from the management of Los Angeles World Airports involved depriving the City of Ontario of certain advantages, not the least of which is the favorable relationship Los Angeles World Airports officers have with the airlines.
In 2007, no fewer than 14 airlines flew into and out of Ontario International Airport. With the downturn of the economy, within three years, six of those airlines discontinued flights to Ontario, decisions made because it was no longer economical for them to remain. Another of those airlines went out of business. It was the dwindling of airlines at the airport to seven, which fueled much of Alan Wapner’s anger toward Los Angeles and Los Angeles International Airport and formed part of the basis of his attacks on Los Angeles officials and Los Angles World Airports. At his point, Ontario International Airport has managed to pick up five more airlines, two of which agreed to come back to Ontario while Los Angeles was yet managing the airport. Today, Ontario Airport features 12 airlines, two fewer than it did in 2007.
Meanwhile, at Los Angeles International Airport, with its 79 airlines, officials overseeing that airport – meaning the executives with Los Angeles World Airports – like bureaucrats everywhere, have long memories. The memory of how they were treated by Ontario officials and the accusations made against them, including ones suggesting that they were purposefully mismanaging the Ontario Airport after its operations had been entrusted to them, remains. Accordingly, they have no incentive, indeed are disinclined, to request of any of the airline executives they deal with to consider making use of the runway, concourse and terminal in Ontario, at the airfield 57 miles to east of Los Angeles International Airport.
Few would suggest that the effort to liberate Ontario International Airport from the City of Los Angeles and deliver it back to Ontario, giving that city domain over an important element of its own destiny, was not a worthwhile endeavor, one that will ultimately redound to its benefit as a governmental jurisdiction and that of the current and future residents who live there. Realists recognize for that to have been accomplished, it required someone with the drive and determination that Alan Wapner evinced in that effort. Still, even as people admire him for what he did, virtually everyone who knows anything about what occurred and now its aftermath, have tremendous reservations about how he did it. As he comes up on his 30th year in office, many of his constituents and those he is associated with at Ontario City Hall and Ontario International Airport are awaiting the time when he will no longer be in office as a councilman and as the president of the airport board and his often bellicose approach to governance has departed with him, so Ontario officials can once again approach Los Angeles officials and talk productively about sharing responsibilities and opportunities for providing regional airline travel accommodations to a major portion of Southern California’s population.
-Mark Gutglueck

“Norma Torres Never Forgets Her Commitment To Her District”

Or so her flyer stated.
She bragged about the following:
Inflation Reduction Act Most people don’t realize its primary purpose is to shackle our economy to turn it into a green mismanaged state by throwing out our strong energy sector.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Democrats boasted it was the largest package in history.  Exactly! That is what Democrats do, they blindly and needlessly spend taxpayers’ money—only to see no return on investment.  Do most 35th District Constituents understand that this program is fundamentally intended to throw money away on so-called hydrogen technology and the hydrogen economy?
In summary, her flyer introduces the centralized planning that Norma and her colleagues are very fond of.
Norma might brag about her so-called accomplishments – but until we see real changes that flow from free market solutions our district will pretty much remain the same – just more expensive to live in.  In 2024, make sure you vote with your brain and not from emotional impetuousness like Norma or Greta Thunberg.
Lory Mason
Ontario

In the wake of the devastation wrought by the oriental fruit fly, city officials this week took the first steps toward a retrenchment of its land use policy in San Timoteo And Live Oak Canyons in what a cross section of the community hopes will not come too late to preserve Redlands’ position as the last city in San Bernardino County with a substantial agricultural component.
The game plan for doing that calls for allowing farmers to augment their fruit and vegetable growing operations with what the city is calling “ancillary and supportive activities” in order “to enhance and diversify revenue sources from existing agricultural land uses.”
This week the planning commission reviewed new ordinance language intended to achieve those goals, followed by public input, including that from several of the city’s farmers, before making a recommendation that the city council adopt the ordinance in the near term.
In practical terms, what is to come about is the owners of the city’s groves, vineyards, farms and rancheros will be permitted to engage in commercial activity expanded beyond the limited roadside fruit stands they heretofore were allowed to operate in order to sell their produce, open or reopen as the case may be wineries on their property, conduct tours of their operations to groups so interested and convert a portion of their property to, or otherwise utilize existing, gardens for ceremonial venues such as weddings. Moreover, the city is to adjust its agricultural zoning, which currently disallows the raising of poultry or composting, to permit those activities.
In the parlance of municipal planners, the farms, to a limited extent intended to complement their primary operations of producing fruit and vegetables are to be allowed to engage in “agritourism.”
According to a staff report that accompanied the agenda item relating to the action that came before the Redlands Planning Commission on Tuesday, “The proposed ordinance includes a definition for ‘agritourism’ as well as a statement of intent. The proposed definition states agritourism “is the act of visiting a working farm/ranch or agricultural operation for the purpose of enjoyment, education, or active involvement in the activities of the farm/ranch or agricultural operation that adds to the economic viability of the agricultural operation. Agritourism activities are secondary and supplemental to the agricultural uses of the land, and do not create conflicts with agricultural activities on said lands and/or adjacent lands.” The purpose is to allow for enhanced economic viability of working farms while maintaining the rural character of agricultural districts for the continued operation and preservation of farming and ranching land uses.
The issue was brought forward by the Two Canyons Farmers Guild, for which Anna Knight is the spokeswoman.
Nakamura Knight explained the challenges faced by farmers, not the least of which is the limited profitability of farming as a profession.
“100 years ago, when groves were big and the model of business basically was to pick your grove or have a packing house pick your grove, pack it and ship it globally, Nakamura Knight said. “Redlands of 100 years ago looks a lot different from Redlands today. Not a single one of these groves can survive with just produce sales. We can’t reap economies of scale. The last remaining packing houses in this area are severely diminished. We know that Redlands Foothill Packing House is going to become a part of Redlands Unified [School District]. Corona College Heights out in Riverside doesn’t even have tangerines or pick tangerines any more, even though we’re in prime citrus season. We’re not going to be able to keep farming and make money if the mode of business is just sell a couple fruits. 80 percent of farmers in San Bernardino county make less than $50,000 a year in sales. That does not include labor, equipment, seed materials, and you all know how high the living costs are in So Cal.”
For many, Nakamura Knight said, the coup de grace has been the oriental fruit fly infestation and the precautions being taken by the California Department of Farming and Agriculture, which is preventing the farming community from harvesting their fruit and requiring that it be trashed at once, with no potential for selling it.
“Since October of last year, Redlands and its farmers have been under the oriental fruit fly quarantine,” Nakamura Knight said. “The quarantine imposed for the oriental fruit fly is the strictest that the California Department of Farming and Agriculture has. It outlaws the sales and transportation of any kind of affected crop off the farm of origin. It’s not just citrus that this affects. It affects 300 different kinds of fruits and vegetables. What that has meant for me is I’ve lost 100 percent of my Mandarin crop, 100 percent of my navels, and that’s true for every farmer in Redlands, Rialto, Moreno Valley Riverside. In this season alone we are going to lose some of the last 350 acres of citrus grove right here in Redlands.”
It is a misconception that commercial growers are being reimbursed by the state for the loss of their crops as consequence of the quarantine.
“No commercial growers are getting even a dollar,” she said.
Continuing, Nakamura Knight said, “It is so important that farmers have a way of diversifying their income. If we are not going to be able to survive just on produce sales alone, we need to be able to do things like farm field trips, or you-picks or have some of our school district partners come onto our farms. If I were to fill a vintage and classic orange field crate with 50 pounds of oranges and sell that to a commercial packing house, you guys as consumers would pay $70. As a farmer, I’d get one dollar. We’ve managed to survive because we’ve been nimble. We sell our fruits and vegetables exclusively to public schools in this area, and those kids have had the opportunity, as part of a pilot program, to come visit our farm and do an experiential farm field trip. This is the value that farms can provide.”
The city’s agricultural ordinance contains a counterproductive ban on composting that greatly complicates farming in Redlands, Nakamura Knight said.
“With regard to non-permitted uses, compost is what a farmer needs to be able to farm organically,” Nakamura Knight said. “It’s something that’s championed by the state and by our county but is illegal in the City of Redlands without a conditional use permit. You might think conditional uses are okay, but as a farmer making less than $50,000 in sales, paying $3,000, $10,000, $20,000 in for every single permitted use is untenable. We can’t do it and can’t afford it.
Nakamura Knight said that what the city’s farmers needed was for the city to expand what they are “permitted to do by right. Things like having chickens are not allowed right now under this [i.e., the current] ordinance. I am an in an A-1 [agriculturally zoned] property and can’t have a single chicken. But someone in residential rural is allowed to, and I’m the farmer. It is so important to me to be able to produce compost in reasonable amounts without coming into the city and asking permission. That’s what I need to do in order to farm and keep my business.”
Nakamura Knight made the point that the city’s restrictions were such that farmers, in order to be able to perform elements of a farming operation that are crucial to its success had to apply for permission from the city through a conditional use process, which in addition to creating delays is costly. She advocated for the city to liberalize its regulations in such a way that those activities now deemed conditional or “non-permitted” be allowable, subject to reasonable regulations.
“All farmers in Redlands are small farmers,” she said. “As a small farmer, this whole non-permitted piece is really essential and useful for us to do the basic actions and activities required with farming.”
Richard Corneille told the commission that over the last four decades in Redlands there has been “a lot of growing of houses and not oranges.” He said there was a need for a “local sustainable food supply.”
Linda Hamilton, the president of the Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action coalition said that it was “obvious to those studying climate change a new localized food system is going to be critical.” She said the “bottom line is we need our local farmers. We need to support them in any way that we can. Help our farmers to be viable in a much more difficult time.”
Bert Block said, “A lot of our farms have disappeared but those that are left are diligently maintained by people who don’t make a lot of money, but it is just their thing to do, to improve or make agriculture a part of our city. I think as a city all of us should get behind these farmers and do as much as we can. I think we owe our farmers a great amount of appreciation for what they do.
Lilyanna Montenegro, a nutritionist from the Yuciapa -Calimesa School District, said, “We have a proud history of supporting our local Redlands farmers,” who, she said, allowed the the school district “to serve our 8,500 students the freshest and most nutritious produce available with every meal. We want to support continuing supporting our local farmers for generations to come and continuing having access to organic produce that our students can consume. It is known that Redlands is the greatest in the history of organic groves. Unfortunately, throughout the years, I see substantially less and would hate to see our farmers lose their farming operations Therefore, it is imperative for our farmers to have the ability to diversify their income and see other avenues such as agritourism like on-farm experiences that will allow them to survive situations such as these current future quarantines to come. We believe our farmers are vital for a magnitude of roles, such as our overall environment, aiding the local food economy, providing local jobs, access to local food and providing a resilient supply chain that, as we’ve seen in the past few years especially, is vital to our daily operation.”
Beth Sanders, who was employed in the banking industry, has simultaneously with her husband maintained a grove on their property, by which she qualifies as a “commercial grower with 750 naval orange trees.” She said the preservation of the area’s agricultural uses is a “quality of life” issue.
She referenced her 14 year old grandson, who, loves the trees to a degree that he will not allow his grandparents to take out some century old trees that are only producing small fruit. She said said, “It is our plan that he will inherit that farm. I hope that he can,” she said, but said that was by no means assured since there are forces at play that threaten the viability of local agriculture remaining in place.,
“There are so many other options for the farmers to do with their land,” Sanders said. “I implore you to realize why we are here: It is the quality of life. We need to preserve it.”
Tony Hicks, who has a 43-acre farm on Live Oak Canyon and leases an additional 37 acres for his operation, provided the commission a tutorial on those economic forces that are militating to drive farmers out of the region.
Hicks, as a member of the Yucaipa Planning Commission, is keenly aware of the land use trends locally. He said that adjacent to his property just over the Yucaipa/Redlands border, a developer is purchasing 300 acres to construct two 1-million square foot warehouse buildings, even though at present, the proponents of the project “have no tenants. The farmers in Redlands and almost all areas, because of the size of the properties and locations of them, have a tremendous amount of pressure from developers who are either speculating, as some of the San Timoteo groves have been sold and are currently held by larger companies that are looking long term, whether it’s ten or twenty years down the road, for potentially having potentially an industrial use for those. San Timoteo Canyon in particular – because of the location and the train tracks – if you are just looking at it purely from a planning standpoint, is a great location for warehousing. Not what I personally want to see happen or would like to see happen. We have groves down there that have been there for many generations of farmers. The current value in this area for industrial property is in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 per square foot. It is just a matter of time if we are not able to shore up the farmers and allow them other uses that the land will be picked up. The pressure will be on to the planning commissions and city councils to develop that land.”
Bob Knight, a fourth generation farmer in Redlands and the former general manger of Redlands Foothill Groves Packing House currently farms in Redlands on a 67-acre citrus grove.
“He said he wanted to make a “note of urgency. We are literally at a turning point. Our past ordinance has been based on the old days when every farmer in Redlands was an orange grower and everybody sold to Sunkist. Now we’re at the point where that model doesn’t work anymore. If you are a commercial grower, the infrastructure that used to help you to sell to Sunkist and into the global network is disappearing before our eyes. Redlands Foothill Groves has closed. There are three more packing houses in Riverside that hollowed out. Most of their business is related to transshipment of food that comes from Central California. The infrastructure from commercial growing relies on so much is on its last legs. We’re in a new era in terms of invasive species. Before, one would come every once in a while. We’d deal with it. Twelve years ago the Asian Citrus psyllid. Then HLP, Huanglongbing [citrus greening disease or yellow dragon disease, a plant malady aused by a vector-transmitted pathogen, the causative agents of which are motile bacteria] came. Now it’s the oriental fruit fly. This is not going to stop. This is going to continue every six years. Now we have globalized agriculture and these pests are spreading everywhere. We are really operating in a new farming world. We used to be able to count on farm income from selling our oranges and now we have these new unpredictable threats to our basic business model. We need flexibility to deal with that.”
Knight said that in Redlands switching to growing avocados is not a viable alternative to growing citrus because “San Timoteo Canyon is the coldest place in Redlands. You cannot grow avocados there.”
In addition to the natural hazards farmers face, Knight said, there are man-made restrictions that are undoing farmers locally.
“The zoning, these land use [designations] are so narrow that they don’t give us any alternative either,” he said. “You farm or you sell out to a developer or to a speculator. So many of these groves that seem so healthy, we call them ghost groves. They aren’t owned by people who can really farm. They are just people biding their time, waiting for you to enable a different zoning.”
Susan Evans said the city should change its regulations on the uses in the city’s agricultural zone to allow children “to see where their food comes from.”
Doug Reynoldson, a business partner with Santee Farms who was also speaking on behalf of Thermal Farms and Ed Haddad, encouraged the city to allow owners of property in the agricultural zone to restore historical properties and convert them to wedding venues and the like. He said with the agricultural district’s “historical places, there’s an opportunity here to create some kind of event center.”
Evan Sanford, representing the Redlands Chamber of Commerce, said “It’s time we protect our past and embrace our future” and “officially establish Redlands as not only a place for agritourism, but to also give our local farmers more opportunities to continue their legacy of growing citrus. Both can be done.”
Josie Perez, the nutrition specialist for Redlands Unified School District nutrition services, referenced “incredible benefits our school nutrition program derives from partnering with local farms. By decreasing the travel time we are bringing in vegetables that are at the peak of freshness, where kids will want to eat, where the fruit is like candy. If we can sell nature’s candy, we can make a difference in providing healthy food to our students We all know school food gets a bad rap all the time. By supporting local farms we are investing in the sustainability of our local environment.”
Zack Kiss of Santee Farms said, “The fruit fly almost put us under. Agritourism will definitely help bring in extra money.
John Beall said that a century ago there was tremendous agritourism in Redlands. “Agritourism built many of” the city’s iconic landmarks, he pointed out, referencing “tourists that came to see the beauty of the East Valley.” He said the city should embark on a new generation of agritourism.
“The fact is this is a model that has been tested, has been true and is associated with the golden years of Redlands’ initial development, a model that has worked with the community well and suits its beauty.”
He called upon the planning commission to consider “what this does for farmers. When someone comes before this commission and they own some ag[ricultural] land and they are arguing with you about their property right to build whatever they like upon it, how much more affirming could that possibly be than to affirm the property rights of a farmer who owns a piece of farm land who simply wishes to do what they are already doing and be able to ensure the same for their family in future generations?” he asked.
Tammy White, a Redlands resident and the director of nutrition services for San Jacinto Unified School District, called upon the city to allow agritourism in the farming district.
She said 2,000 students from San Jacinto Unified School District visited old orange groves in Redlands and that the degree to which many were impressed by “the calmness of the creek” next to the grove was remarkable.
She said just as young students had to be taught about how food is produced, adults have to be offered an opportunity to learn about the presence of the agricultural zone in Redlands. “Educate them,” White said. “We need to market our selves. We need signs. It is time we update our bylaws and policies to support these farmers. I want to ensure my great grandchildren and your grandchildren have the opportunity to enjoy the farms that are around Redlands.”
Phil Courtney in addressing the planning commission and encouraging it to revamp its agricultural ordinance said “Past decisions were made [which were wrongheaded]. Zoning ordinances were changed. Some are very shortsighted. A shortsighted decision is to have taken one of the richest agricultural areas in the world, this valley, and cover it with warehouses and suburban sprawl.”
Theresa Matura, an agriculture educator who has worked, she said, “on different farms all over the country.” She said, “One major trend that I’ve notices is that the farms that have now transitioned into doing more agriculture tourism and education are thriving. They are able to grow their business, support their workers and engage in their community. The farms that aren’t doing that, and this is unfortunate because they work so hard to grow food for their community, but they’re lucky if they break even that year.”
Kaito Knight told the commissioners that “having working farms around the city makes Redlands a unique community to live in.”
Knight decried “tight ag zoning rules” which he said were working against the city. The proposed amendments to our ordinance will give farmers the opportunity to use their farmland to their fullest potential.”
Rosario Cardenas said, “It is rare when you can connect to nature and to your community.” She called upon city officials “to support our farmers during these trying times.”
Andy Hoder said he was in support of preserving the city’s agricultural uses but said he wanted there to be greater definitude with regard to the enlargement of and traffic control at roadside fruit stands, as well as the items to be sold.
Kathleen Beall pointed out that “less than one percent of available” agricultural land is suitable for growing navel oranges. “We have a very special community here in that we can grow something that others cannot.” The city should act to preserve the opportunity for farmers to operate in Redlands and not allow industrial uses to crowd agriculture out. “There can be a warehouse anywhere,” she said.
The entirety of the planning commission appeared to be in agreement that the city should act to prevent the destruction of the agricultural uses and most were in favor of modifying the overregulation that was referenced in some of the farmers’ comments.
Commissioner Conrad Guzkowski indicated he was supportive of such deregulation insofar as agricultural activity goes, but that he wanted to maintain permitting processes with regard to the non-agricultural aspects of the farmers’ operations within the city’s agricultural zone.
Guzkowski said he understood the message that “farming of the past will not work for the next five generations [and] this is where we introduce agritourism.”
Referencing the litany of activities that farmers will be, under the proposed changes to the city’s agricultural ordinance, be able to engage in, Guzkowski said, “We’ve now come to learn that these things fit under the rubric of agritourism. These are extensions beyond what agriculture used to be. Now we’re trying to fit it into a newer contemporary mold and I absolutely applaud the idea of being able to add value to the property so they have a greater prospect for sustainability. But what I’m sensing from all of the presentations that we had, as valuable indeed they were, is that maybe we have three items in a sense before us. The first one that didn’t get a lot of discussion is that there are problems with our agricultural zone that do not respond to what most of the rest of the world thinks of as agriculture. So, let’s have the item before and fix that and deal with the ag zone from an ag point of view.”
Continuing, Guzkowski said, “Then it strikes me there are two levels of agritourism, one of which is the innocuous – innocuous might be the wrong word – the simpler things, the entertainment trains, the educational part of it, the come touch, feel, pick that don’t really involve a whole lot and to me those are the ones that would fall under an administrative [permitting]. If there are some things that are going in, there is some review over which ag land is being taken out for that, what are the hours of operation, how is parking being handled, is fire protection suitable so that catalytic converters aren’t lighting brush. Those are the normal kind of things that staff would be looking at and it’s a simple process.”
Guzkowski said anything more complicated should and would remain subject to more intensive regulation, which entails applications for approval that would need to come before the planning commission or the city council.
“The third one is what I think is covered quite well and that is the conditional uses,” Guzkowski said.
There followed an inquiry with city staff about the ins and outs of the heavier levels of regulation, what they entail and their costs. At issue was whether the planning commission should recommend to the city council that it adjust the agriculture ordinance to allow farmers to engage in a host of activities both agriculturally related and more oriented toward interaction with the public commercially on a host of levels as a matter of right rather than through a process by which they would need to get clearance from the city to do so ahead of time.
One route to municipal permission would be an administrative process, which, the commission was told, would entail a “couple months” wait while neighboring property owners were noticed and the proponent submitted a site plan to be evaluated by city staff, after which an administrative hearing on the application before the city’s development services director would take place, with the director empowered to make a decision as to whether to grant the permit. That process would cost the applicant $1,625.
A second means of obtaining license from the city to proceed would entail what farmers are already faced with, which is obtaining a conditional use permit. That process would take several months, entailing the submission of plans, an evaluation by staff, getting the matter before the planning commission, which would then make a recommendation to the city council, which would ultimately vote up or down to approve the issuance of the conditional use permit. That process would require the applicant to pay fees exceeding $10,000.
Commission Chairwoman Karah Shaw inquired if whether the city were to make the differentations that Guzkowski was suggesting a reduction or waiving of the administrative or conditional use fees could be made. That brought a response that such a decision would rest, most likely, with the city council.
Commissioner Matt Endsley took issue with Guzkowski’s suggestions, stating that the point was that farmers are being priced out of existence by overregulation.
“We don’t want to create any undue burdens on applicants for permitted uses,” Endsley said. “I am comfortable in reading through what would now be permitted uses [under the redrafted ordinance, which contains requirements that a conditional use permit be sought for elaborate changes to the agricultural properties in question] in that they don’t seem to be too cumbersome of a change for existing operations.”
Saying he did not want to create impediments for farm operators, Endsley said the issue could be revisited if any of those operations end up attracting more than the 150 patrons per day set as a threshold in the new ordinance. At that point, Endsley said, “We can look at a conditional use permit.”
Thereafter, the commission voted unanimously to approve the newly drafted ordinance.
Under the new ordinance, permitted, supplemental and ancillary land uses to primarily agricultural uses in the A-1, Agricultural, zone are expanded. So, too, were expanded uses that might conditionally be approved.
The original request by the Two Canyons Farmers Guild included a provision to allow farmworker housing, however, that component was removed from the application that went before the planning commission Tuesday.
New permitted uses to be allowed by-right with no discretionary review required are roadside stands of up to 1,200 square-feet in size, an increase over the current limit of 500 square-feet, along with compost production and processing, not to exceed a total of 900 tons per year for on-site use. This would also include incidental sale of compost for off-site use, not to exceed 25 percent of the total cubic yards produced, and no piling or storage of compost higher than 15 feet above ground level.
Related ancillary activities including agritourism activities that are secondary and supplemental, not to exceed 25 percent of the land area in active agriculture/ranching, to the primary agricultural uses of the land, including preparation of farm-to-table meals for on-site or off-site consumption; retail sale of ancillary farm grown products, prepackaged food items, gardening tools, and other small food- or farm-related sundry items to individual consumers; retail self-pick or you-pick by customers of produce grown on-site, not to exceed 150 persons daily; temporary holiday sales facilities, subject to other applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code; and walking tours, day classes, farm experience excursions, living history farms, processing demonstrations, not to exceed 150 persons daily.
New conditional uses, those allowable subject to discretionary review and a conditional use permit include wedding venues, indoors or outdoors, on non-prime agricultural land; related ancillary activities to agricultural or ranching operations, including agritourism activities, that are secondary and supplemental to the primary agricultural uses of the land, not to exceed 25 percent of the land area in active agriculture/ranching), extending to bed and breakfast, farm-stay, general camping facilities, glamping facilities, or resort hotel, food processing operations, wholesale or retail (including canning, food packaging, with or without ancillary on-site retail food sales); compost production and processing that exceeds a total of 900 tons per year for on-site use, with or without incidental sale of compost for off-site use; educational farm camp, day camp and/or overnight camp; harvest festivals, seasonal or special events, or other periodic assembly uses; retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site, with more than 150 persons daily; tours, day classes, and farm experience excursions, with more than 150 persons daily; sales of other food or beverage products, with a portion of the ingredients sourced on-site; wineries, including ancillary wine tasting rooms, retail sale of vintner products, which must include some products that are produced on-site, along with hospitality activities limited to the education of growing vineyards or the production of wine, provided that not more than forty percent of the interior floor area is utilized for such activity.
The ordinance contains development standards for agritourism uses. The standards encourage clustering of structures, improvements, and activities so as to minimize the impact on agricultural operations.
On parcels with a minimum of 10 contiguous acres or more in size, all agritourism elements should be clustered and shall consume no more than one gross acre in aggregate per every ten contiguous acres of site area, excluding hayrides or trains with rubberized wheels. Parking is excluded from the acreage calculation.
On parcels less than 10 contiguous acres in size, all agritourism elements should be clustered and shall consume no more than ten percent in aggregate of the gross site acreage, excluding hayrides or trains with rubberized wheels. Parking is excluded from the acreage calculation.
If non-agricultural development is to occur, it shall minimize its impacts on natural areas and on nearby farming and agricultural operations. Natural land forms shall be preserved as much as practicable, and any grading or cut/fill activity shall be minimized for roads, driveways, and site grading.
The development standards also include separation requirements from any surrounding residential or other sensitive uses on abutting properties, design requirements for any agritourism structures, lighting regulations, noise control regulations, Americans With Disabilities Act accessibility requirements, and on-site parking regulations, with a provision that allows waiving the typical requirement for installation of paving.
Sign regulations for agritourism uses allow limited commercial signs for approved nonresidential uses, consistent with the existing sign regulations that apply in the city’s administrative & professional office zoning district, temporary signs or banners (consistent with existing sign regulations for temporary signs), plus one A-frame sign that may be placed adjacent to public right-of-way (subject to standards similar to those provided elsewhere in the city code.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2400385,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner John Edgar Hernandez filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: John Edgar Hernandez to Juan Edgar Hernandez, THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 03/13/2024, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: 533The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 01/17/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on 02/09/2024, 02/16/2024, 02/23/2024, 03/01/2024

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER 2400847,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Dureau Mckay Duelas filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Dureau Mckay Duelas to Dureau Mckay Tagatauli, THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 03/18/2024, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: CivilThe address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 02/01/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS ? Rancho Cucamonga on 02/09/2024, 02/16/2024, 02/23/2024, 03/01/2024Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on 02/09/2024, 02/16/2024, 02/23/2024, 03/01/2024

Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
The California Attorney General’s Office has opened up an investigation into whether Governor Gavin Newsom made special arrangements to accommodate one of his major campaign donors during negotiations relating to California’s controversial AB 1228 passed in September 2023, which raised the minimum for most fast-food workers to $20.
Prior to that bill being refined into its final form and voted upon by the full Assembly and then the California Senate, an exception was cut out for a limited set of fast food businesses, virtually all of which are ones that are part of a chain owned by billionaire Greg Flynn, who has invested $178,800 in Newsom’s career as a state politician since 2010, including $100,000 that went toward the 2021 effort to fight off Newsom being recalled from office and $64,800 provided to him during his 2022 reelection campaign.
On April 1, AB 1228 will go into effect, raising California’s minimum wage at fast-food operations to $20 an hour from $16. Unaffected by the pay hike will be all 188 Panera Bread locations throughout California, of which Flynn owns 24.
According to those knowledgeable with regard to the issues now being examined by the state attorney general, Flynn and lobbyists working on his behalf succeeded in shaping the form of that law, and were able to do so as a consequence of the intercession of the governor. The governor’s office acknowledges taking part in the negotiations relating to deriving the final language of the bill, but has not responded to requests for comment on suggestions that Newsom did so at the request of Flynn.
AB 1228 drew a distinction between workers in the fast-food industry and those employed in other capacities in the Golden State. The has been pressure toward increasing minimum wage in California generally for some time. Within the last three-and-a-half years, a movement toward placing fast food workers into a unique category emerged. That momentum encountered pushback along multiple fronts, not the least being among some labor groups, which saw in the concept the potential that workers in other industries would be given short shrift in their efforts to negotiate a higher minimum wage across the board if the state’s half of a million fast food workers were to be granted separate status and and an additional 25 percent wage concession. Corporate and entrepreneurial interests, already staggering under the state’s existing minimum wage law which had escalated the cost of their doing business radically over the last several years, were virtually universally opposed to the separate numbers that were emerging in the discussions within the Democrat-controlled legislature that ultimately led to the drafting of what turned out to be Assembly Bill 1228.
Over the years, the minimum wage has escalated in California.
On March 1, 1997, the minimum was $5.00. As of September 1, 1997 it grew to $5.15. As of March 1, 1998 it rose to $5.75. As of January 1, 2001 it became $6.25. On January 1, 2002 it reached $6.75. Upon January 1, 2007 it climbed to $7.50. On January 1, 2008, the minimum wage stood at $8.00. On July 1, 2014, workers could be paid no less than $9.00 per hour. That minimum was raised to $10,00 on January 1, 2016. As of January 1, 2017, it became $10.50. A slight bump to $11.00 came on January 1, 2018. On January 1, 2023, the state minimum wage leapt to $15.50. A relatively minor increase to $16 per hour went into effect on January 1 of this year.
In 2021, discussion about taking restaurant workers to a starting pay grade beyond that of other workers first began, under the auspices of the Fast-Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, dubbed the FAST Act, legislation that was sponsored by four Democrats – Assemblyman Chris Holden, Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo, Assemblyman Evan Low and Assemblywoman Luz Rivas.
There was solid, indeed virulent, opposition raised to the FAST Act. One of the things that proponents of the higher minimum for fast food workers were missing, it was said, was that many of the jobs at places like McDonalds or Burger King were entry level, not just entry level at the particular location where the worker was employed but entry level into the workforce all the way around. These were jobs that were very simple ones requiring only minimal skills and training. No college degree was required. No high school diploma was needed. Indeed, there were virtually no prerequisites beyond being able to fog up a mirror and, perhaps, speak English, and in some cases even that was not required. Traditionally, many fast-food workers were high school students working part time at what would be for most his or her first job.
Gregory Flynn, who through his San Francisco-based company, Flynn Restaurant Group, is believed to be the world’s most prolific owner of restaurant franchises, emerged as a leader among a group of more than 400 fast food franchise holders throughout the state seeking to stop not only the separate and higher minimum wage law for fast food employees but a number of other policies and laws they considered inimical to their business.
Flynn, through Flynn Restaurant Group, counts among his possessions franchises for 1,245 eateries, including full service sit-down restaurants that are not cataloged as fast-food establishments, which include 458 Applebee’s, along with even more fast-food restaurants, including 283 Taco Bells, 367 Arby’s and 194 Wendy’s. Into that mix, Flynn Restaurant Group owns some estaminets which do not neatly fit in the category of either fast food restaurants or formal restaurants, including 937 Pizza Huts and 135 Panera Breads.
Accounts differ as to the degree to which his fellow and sister franchisees willingly entrusted to Flynn the lead role in doing so, but there is no dispute that he undertook a dynamic and multi-pronged effort to untrack the FAST Act as well as the legislative initiatives mirroring it and augmenting it that followed.
A central provision of the FAST Act called for the creation of the California Fast-Food Industry Council, one which, despite its name that might be construed to indicate it was intended to fight on behalf of restaurant owners and entrepreneurs, was actually intended to serve as an advocate on behalf of workers in such establishments, dictating the minimal hourly wages they were entitled to on a continuous basis. The California Fast Food Industry Council was to be a 10-member panel empowered to to set wage and labor standards across the fast-food industry. It was to be composed of two state officials, along with union representatives, worker representatives and employer representatives. Given that California’s state government is dominated by the Democratic Party, with the positions of the govern, lieutenant governor, state attorney general, secretary of state, state controller, superintendent of public schools and insurance commissioner all held by Democrats and both houses of the legislature – the Assembly and State Senate – controlled by a supermajority of Democrats, fast food entrepreneurs uniformly believed that a supermajority of the California Fast-Food Industry Council – that being either seven or eight of its ten members – would be sympathetic to fast food employees and hostile to fast food franchise owners/operators. Under its charter, the California Fast-Food Industry Council was to hold discretion over raising minimum wages for fast food workers, initially to no higher than $22 an hour, subject to annual cost of living increases of either 3.5 percent or each successive year’s consumer price index.
In 2022, Flynn authored an op-ed which ran in the California political newspaper Capitol Weekly in which he prognosticated that the FAST Act would doom restaurant franchises in the state.
Despite the fast-food restaurant industry’s opposition, the FAST Act, contained in the language of Assembly Bill 257, passed in 2022.
Springing off of the FAST Act, Assemblyman Christopher Holden angled toward passage of yet another bill he authored, Assembly Bill 1228, which was intended to actuate the concept of raising the minimum wage for fast food workers beyond the state’s basic minimum wage.
In his framing of Assembly Bill 1228, Holden pushed past objections by those who pressed the contention that fast food jobs were entry level ones that served as workplace training for those who had yet to reach the age of majority. He noted that while typical workers manning the counter or drive-thru window at fast food establishments in the past were teenagers looking to fill their pockets with some change, that was increasingly no longer the case. Employees in such positions more and more tended to be adults and not just young adults or older ones beyond retirement age, but those who had families to support, mortgages or rent to pay, ones who were struggling to hold not just their own body and soul together but raise children. He drafted legislation that would provide such workers more than what someone working at the car wash or working in a factory might make.
Already reeling from the passage of Assembly Bill 257 and the FAST Act, the fast-food industry and Flynn fought back. A first sally against the Democrat-dominated state political structure they contemplated was placing on the 2024 Ballot a proposition ballot that would have abolished the California Fast Food Industry Council and another that would have prevented the legislature and/or governor from setting more than a single minimum wage.
This caught the Democrat Establishment’s attention. Quietly, while Assembly Bill 1228
was yet moving through committee hearings in 2023, communications began between the governor’s office, reportedly involving Governor Newsome directly, representatives of the fast food industry, reportedly including Flynn, and at various times in consultation with the Service Employees International Union and its national president, Mary Kay Henry, and its California president, David Huerta, aimed at allowing legislation growing out of the FAST Act, such as Assembly Bill 1228, to proceed. While those talks were privately, indeed informally, held without any minutes, word has emerged as to what issues were dealt with and what compromises emerged.
One such compromise is said to have been that Newsom persuaded members of the legislature to forsake not yet fully gestated legislation separate from Assembly Bill 1228 that was to accompany Assembly Bill 1228 in 2023 or otherwise be taken up in 2024 which would tie together a franchisee’s legal liability with regard to labor violations such as wage theft or failure to pay overtime with the franchiser corporations, something that would inhibit the relations between franchisees and franchisers and require franchisees to obtain expensive liability insurance that would have cut into their profitability margins.
It is another part of that dialogue which led to another compromise that, sources say, is at the center of the investigation by the California Attorney General. Newsom, who was said to be militating on behalf of Flynn specifically, was at one point pressing those in the legislature to make an alteration to the Assembly Bill 1228 that would allow for a very narrow definition of what a fast-food operation consists of.
Already established was that full-service restaurants, ones at which diners are seated by a host or maître d’ and waited upon by waiters or waitresses did not qualify as fast food establishments, and therefore its employees were not subject to the higher minimum wage or potentially higher minimum wage than common workers. What Newsom was pressing for was that businesses such as Pizza Hut and Panera Bread, which claimed a certain cachet beyond that of a fast-food restaurant but which legislators and the Service Employees International Union defined as fast food operations, be defined as full-service restaurants, such that they would not be subject to the higher minimum wage. The strategy was, according to those with knowledge of what went on during the discussions, to press the rationale that restaurants such as Panera Bread and Pizza Hut do not actually fit within the category of fast food but are what is referred to as fast casual operations. Ultimately, the Service Employees International Union proved unwilling to allow for the creation/use of the term “fast casual” in the language of Assembly Bill 1228. Nevertheless, Newsom successfully obtained from the union and legislators involved in the negotiation an agreement to fold into the language of Assembly Bill 1228 an exception for any operation which bakes its own bread and sells it as a standalone item.
Those familiar with the negotiations say Governor Newsom became the prime mover in pushing for that exception, which is definitely applicable to Panera Bread and potentially applicable to Pizza Hut. The highly specialized exception threw many of those who were in a position to know about it as Assembly Bill 1228 was progressing toward passage or considered the bill closely after its passage.
Governor Newsom refused to dwell or expound on the provision when he was queried with regard to it, alluding only to “sausage-making,” a reference to a statement by Otto von Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany who observed, “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.”
A compromise among legislators, the governor, the Service Employees International Union and the representatives of the fast-food industry having been reached, Assembly Bill 1228 was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 28, 2023.
In making his public pronouncement upon the signing, Newsom emphasized the victory Assembly Bill 1228 represented, while minimizing any compromising that took place and which he had engaged in as a broker between the state legislature and the fast-food industry, which counts Flynn among its most prominent elements.
“California is home to more than 500,000 fast-food workers who – for decades – have been fighting for higher wages and better working conditions,” Newsom said. “Today, we take one step closer to fairer wages, safer and healthier working conditions, and better training by giving hardworking fast-food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table.”
In the more than four months since he signed Assembly Bill 1228, despite recurrent questions as to how and why the changes to allow a very narrowly defined set of businesses that were initially to be subject to the higher minimum wage standard to slide out from underneath it, the only concession that Newsom’s office has made is to acknowledge that prior to the passage of the law, intensive negotiations involving both labor and management, the union, legislative representatives and the governor took place “to the satisfaction of all stakeholders” without further elaboration.
Statements by Assemblyman Holden suggest that he hand no hand in altering Assembly Bill 1228 to include the cave out for operations involving baking bread.
It appears that one side or the other, or perhaps even both, were dismayed with the compromising in the framing of Assembly Bill 1228, and that “all stakeholders” are not satisfied with what occurred.
Entrepreneurs with fast food franchises were once intent on seeking a referendum from voters up and down the state to see if they were willing to overturn the FAST Act. A deal, apparently pushed through by Newsom at the behest of Flynn, has headed that off. Some of them are not pleased.
Employees with fast food operations that have ovens which potentially or actually can be used for baking bread are now in the position of receiving $4 dollars less per hour than operations without bread ovens. They question the fairness of what has happened to them.
At issue in the California Attorney General’s probe is whether the substantial amount of money Flynn provided to Newsom’s various campaigns influenced his action in altering Assembly Bill 1228 in favor of his campaign donor.
Under California Law, it is legal for an elected official to take official action, or vote on a matter impacting, a campaign donor as long as the money was not provided to the politician conditional upon the action being taken or a favorable vote being cast. If, however, there is any interaction between the elected official and the donor by which entails a quid pro quo, that is, an exchange of money for an official act, such a circumstance can be construed as an act of bribery.
Moreover, under Government Code Section 1090, an elected government official or appointed government official is guilty of a felony if he or she takes action in an official capacity in which he or she has a financial interest. Taking official action which financially impacts a current or former business partner and/or individual or company with which one had a financial relationship can, under certain circumstances, be construed as a violation of Government Code Section 1090.
Governor Newsom and Gregory Flynn have had a long personal relationship, which included a commingling of their financial affairs.
When Newsom arrived at Redwood High School as a freshman in the small Marin County city of Larkspur on the San Francisco Bay in 1981, Flynn was a big man on campus, indeed, perhaps the biggest man on campus as the high school’s student body president. Both were scions of wealthy and established families, Newsom the son of a state appeals court judge and attorney for Getty Oil, and Flynn the son of the owner of Burger King franchises in San Francisco. Their paths would cross and intermingle while they were young adults.
There has been a business relationship between the two going back at least a decade. While Flynn has told – indeed bragged – to friends, other partners and acquaintances that he can summon Newsom with a text message, both he and Newsom have been coy as to the precise nature of their shared financial interests.
Flynn was supportive of Newsom in his successful campaigns for mayor of San Francisco and in 2003 and 2007.
While Newsom and some of his supporters contemplated him making a run for governor in 2010, he ultimately filed to run for lieutenant governor in that year’s election.
Flynn provided him with $5,600 toward that successful campaign.
In 2018, Flynn provided Newsom with $8,400 for his successful campaign for Governor.
In 2021, he provided $100,000 to the Committe to Stop the Republican Recall of Governor Newsom.
In 2022, he provided Newsom with $64,800 for his gubernatorial reelection campaign.
In 2014, Flynn purchased the Carneros Inn from PlumpJack Management Group LLC, Newsom’s company for what is still an undisclosed price, but reported to be in the neighborhood of $60 million.
The Sentinel is informed that the premise for the “quid” in the investigation by the California Attorney General’s Office’s is Newsom’s effort to remove the “fast casual” restaurants from the applicability of Assembly Bill 1228 and the financial benefit that represents to Flynn but has not been able to learn what the exact focus relating to the “quo” element of the probe is, i.e., whether the potential Government Code Section 1090 conflict of interest pertains to the $178,800 in political donations made to Newsom for his electoral, reelectoral and recall-resisting campaigns or rather to his business dealings and payments from Flynn, or both. Nor is it clear what evidence might exist of an explicit exchange between the governor and Flynn with regard to a nexus between the money provided to Newsom and the advocacy he engaged in with regard to modulating Assembly Bill 1228.
In what may have been a bid ahead of time to ward off any problems for Newsom insofar as being held legally or criminally accountable for using his gubernatorial reach and authority to assist him, Flynn on June 30, 2023 donated $5,000 to California Attorney General Rob Bonta for his 2026 reelection campaign. That ploy may have backfired, as Bonta in the glare of publicity may now find it advisable to make a demonstration of his integrity by undertaking a scrupulous examination of the interaction between the governor and one of his most generous campaign donors and its implication.

By Mark Gutglueck
Reviving longstanding but once dormant suspicions of mob influence at Colton City Hall, a three-member majority of the city council on Tuesday extended the city’s trash franchise for the third time with its controversial trash hauler, locking in a contract that will be prolonged for 40 years without any competitive bid process.
The action comes 27 years after a former prosecutor brought in at the request of the city’s former police chief and city attorney came to the conclusion that the trash hauler’s corporate predecessor had obtained the franchise contract by bribing the city’s then-mayor and two of its councilmen with the collusion of the city’s then-city manager and deputy city manager. The current council majority’s refusal to subject the franchise holder to a comparison of its rates and service levels to those that would be offered by at least three and perhaps as many as five companies currently involved in the trash industry in San Bernardino County or interested in obtaining Colton’s franchise contract is an indication, some have suggested, of the prevalence of graft in the Hub City.
Despite Mayor Frank Navarro’s and Councilman Luis Gonzalez’s emphatic assertions that the city needed to explore what levels of service and rates other refuse handling companies would be willing to offer to obtain the franchise, Councilman David Toro, Councilwoman Kelly Chastain and Councilman John Echevarria elected to roll the city’s current franchise contract with CR&R over, extending that arrangement from its current 2026 expiration date until 2036. Echevarria, Chastain and Toro maintain that CR&R made what has roughly been quantified as 15 concessions with regard to conditions or features contained within the contract since the city took up a consideration of the contract, due to expire in 2026, in August. Those concessions, ranged from freezing rate increases currently and through June 2026 with the expiration of the current contract, providing residential customers with new trash barrels, upping the number of occasions per year that the department will accept large items from each household for disposal, accepting up to four disposed tires from each household per year, offering senior citizen’s a 10 percent discount on their rates, engaging with customers for feedback with regard to the quality of the service, agreeing to defray up to $45,000 per year the city’s hiring of a community services/code enforcement officer and cooperating with the city to meet all new state requirements relating to trash disposal. The company’s willingness to incorporate features into the franchise agreement that had not previously existed demonstrated there to be no need to consider an arrangement with an of CR&R’s competitors. Likewise, Chastain, Toro and Echevarria considered the company’s longstanding relationship with the city to be something that should be sustained rather than be subjected to a potential unraveling by forcing it into a stark side-by-side comparison with other service providers.
Mayor Navarro and Councilman Gonzalez were taken aback by the determination of Echevarria, Toro and Chastain to bypass a competitive bid process. Moreover, a cross section of CR&R’s Colton customers, including some residents and an even larger number of business owners see the city council’s action Tuesday night to be a confirmation of their dark suspicions that were raised when, rather prematurely, a little less than three years before the current contract with CR&R was set to expire, an item designed to have the council extend the contract with as little fanfare as possible was brought before the council last summer.
As mid-year 2023 approached, CR&R officials were purposed to nail down the Colton franchise for another ten years. For years, the company and its corporate predecessors, Taormina Industries and Republic Industries, had been profiting handsomely as a consequence of previous Colton city officials allowing the company to increase its rates in keeping with the consumer price index while neglecting to enforce provisions of the contract that would have required that the company pay fees to it, such as a hosting fee the company was to pay for having its corporate operations based within the city. That provision had been part of the contract from the time Taormina had been granted the franchise and should have been triggered when Republic, with which Taormina had merged, set up operations in the city in 2005. Despite that, the city did not get around to collecting a host fee – equal to $1 for every ton of trash that moved through CR&R’s facility – until 2017. After the city began to collect the host fee it did not, as the contract allowed it to do, raise the fee by the same CPI consumer price index factor that the CR&R was subjecting the city’s ratepayers to. With the CPI for just concluding 2022-23 standing at 8.7 percent, under the contract CR&R was entitled, as of July 1, 2023 to raise its trash rates across the board – for residential customers, commercial customers and industrial customers – by 8.7 percent. It did not do so, however, as it recognized that it was about to enter into a phase of “bargaining” with city officials over the extension of the franchise contract and it wanted to accrue good will with the city’s residents.
Somewhere in the back channels of City Hall, after a request by CR&R corporate officials was made in July, city officials prepared a proposal to have the city council look at extending the trash hauling franchise with CR&R for another decade upon the current contract expiration in 2026. CR&R officials and their representatives went to work lining up the votes needed to do so, concentrating on Toro, Echevarria and Chastain. The pitch was that the city simply roll the franchise contract over once more without considering any other alternatives to CR&R continuing to serve as the city’s refuse handler.
On August 15, 2023, as an agendized item, the council took up a discussion of at least entertaining the extension of CR&R’s contract and perhaps even coming to a consensus on the spot and doing just that. That discussion, with Chastain, Toro and Echevaria leaning in favor of continuing the status quo, solidified momentum toward merely rolling the franchise contract over for another decade, despite the calls by a concerted number of Colton residents and, most especially, those in the business community, that the city draw the line on going without an open bidding process for the city’s trash hauler at three decades. Despite Mayor Navarro’s objection that the discussion with regard to the city’s trash franchise contract was being one-sidedly loaded in favor of a rollover rather than a solicitation of bids and that the discussion was premature, the council was again slated to consider the trash franchise contract at its September 19 meeting.
There were strong indications that the issue had already been decided in CR&R’s favor, with Toro, Echevarria and Chastain lined up to support granting the company another ten years as the franchised hauler. The only question, those close to the situation said, was whether the trio would approve a straight-out ten-year extension or opt to grant a five-year continuation of CR&R’s status coupled another five-year option.
In the days and even hours before the meeting, however, there was an unanticipated outpouring of discontent on the part of CR&R customers about what was in the offing. At issued among those lobbying the mayor, council and other public officials was the disregard CR&R’s corporate managers had with regard to the quality of service provided by the company and the seeming confidence those corporate managers – high-level, mid-level and low-level – had going back decades that there was no need to redress that issue since the continuation of the franchise contract was already, permanently it appeared, sewn up. The manner in which city officials had been confronted with those expressions of dissatisfaction with CR&R’s service and that the business community was being forced to pay top dollar for it interrupted the game plan, which had been to put the matter to bed at the September 19 meeting by having the council vote to roll the contract over once more.
While Chastain and Echevarria remained on task to get the continuation of CR&R’s contract behind everyone, Councilman Toro had been rattled just enough by the complaints he had heard to take a pause. He called for the council to hold a workshop on November 1 to which CR&R was invited and to be given an opportunity to refine its proposal. With none of CR&R’s competitors requested to attend, the council was to discuss the franchise arrangement in general and go over what CR&R had to offer, most particularly certain proposed contract enhancements that included committing to helping the city achieve full compliance with SB-1383, which calls for the recycling of organic or food waste, to involve replacing all existing 64-gallon residential bins with new 96-gallon ones that would expedite organics/food waste recycling; implementing what CR&R called a “new” host fee, one which the original contract as written up in 1999 had required to be in place, which CR&R said would generate an estimated $200,000 per year in city revenues; the addition of free paper shredding for residents to be provided during the city’s twice-yearly community clean-up events which CR&R was already participating in; CR&R augmenting its service with so-called “sharps disposal,” i.e., providing safe boxes in which to discard syringe needles; begin a site improvements and expansion to the company’s Colton facility within 24-36 months; and increase by $250,000 the   impact mitigation fee the company would pay to Colton for damage to its roads and other infrastructure by the trucks and vehicles accessing CR&R’s Colton facility, along with the freeze of rates until June 2024 and purchasing and installing the license plate reader. In return for those contract enhancements the council was to consider extending the current contract for five years with an additional five-year option at the city’s discretion.
In the weeks intervening between September 19 and November 1, CR&R found itself subjected to adverse publicity as members of Colton’s business community, most particularly, documented and presented scores of examples of poor service or failure to execute on elements contained among the franchise contract requirements. Colton city officials were inundated with citations to that effect, as well as complaints that when the overall average of rates charged by CR&R including to residential, commercial and industrial customers were compared to those of its trash-hauling competitors, it was demonstrable that CR&R was the most expensive service provider of its type not just in San Bernardino County but regionally.
Prior to the November 1 workshop, CR&R officials buttonholed Toro and provided him with a selective roster of trash-hauling rates from throughout the Southern California region, in particular specially chosen cities in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties in which one category of customer or other – almost exclusively residential ones – was paying rates comparable to or higher than that paid by customers in Colton. Toro, for the most part, did not take up the subject of the rates CR&R charges its commercial and industrial customers, one which in virtually every case are substantially higher, in some cases by a factor of more than 2, than that charged by its competitors.
At the November 1 workshop, Toro presented the CR&R-provided figures as the product of his own independent research. He also presented his idiosyncratic philosophy with regard to the competitive bidding of governmental contracts. “I personally do not have confidence in the RFP process,” Toro said. “Why? Because I’ve been through an RFP process in my personal life and what happened.”
He explained further.
“Well, the business that I was in, there were four or five bidders. We were the in-house vendor and we came in third place. I don’t know how that happened. Obviously, somebody underbid it, and, come long story short, it was underbidded, underbid by $6 million. That first year – and I was fortunately to get absorbed into this company that won the contract because they needed that experience – what happened? What I was doing, the workload became four or five times more. I had to take less pay. Within a year, it was scare tactics. ‘All hands on deck! We’re going to lose the contract.’ Why? Because they couldn’t meet the expectations of what was happening. So, they had to basically burn the bridges at both ends, trying to make things work. Seven years later, now that the contract is ready for renewal, they’re finally at the place they should have been seven years ago. But within that seven years, so many people lost their jobs, customer services really tanked during the first two or three years. That’s my expectations of what’s going to happen if we go out to RFP. That’s my personal opinion on RFPs.”
“When I made the motion to have this workshop, it wasn’t to discuss going out to an RFP,” Toro said. “It was, because staff doesn’t want to negotiate this, for this council to sit back and say, ‘This is what we want to tell CR&R is what we want’ and for them to come back to us and say, ‘Yes we can.’ or ‘No, we can’t.’ At that point, then we can decide which way we want to go.”
Toro provided a selective comparison of rates charged by CR&R in Colton and rates charged by other haulers in other cities. The rate he quoted appeared to be related to domestic or residential customers rather than commercial and/or industrial ones.
He said that customers in Barstow, Adelanto, Victorville, Chino Hills, San Bernardino and Grand Terrace have lower rates than those in Colton, but that in Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Chino and Redlands, customers, or at least residential customers, are currently paying higher trash rates than in Colton.
While Toro made allusion to complaints about the quality of service CR&R was providing its customers in Colton, he downplayed that as a serious consideration in determining whether the contract should be extended. He insisted that CR&R had made and was continuing to make strides in redressing such issues, and implied that CR&R compared favorably to Burrtec, Republic, Valley Vista, Athens and Waste Management in comparison in terms of meeting basic service requirement.
Further, Toro implied, if CR&R were required to bid against the other companies, it would be able to hold its own.
“I don’t know who said it – These guys [CR&R] are the hometown people,” Toro said. “They know the city. They know what they’re getting into. Shouldn’t they be the lowest bidder?”
Despite that assertion, Toro did not suggest that his theory should be tested.
At the November 1, meeting, both Chastain and Echevarria came across as stridently in favor of CR&R.
For Echevarria, the workshop format which allowed CR&R’s proposal to be considered without seeking out counterbids from other companies was not weighted strongly enough in favor of the city’s current franchisee. Echevarria decried that Mayor Navarro had constrained the forum to prevent CR&R from making a comprehensive presentation of its proposal for being permitted to retain the contract to provide Colton with sanitation service.
At one point, however, Echevarria seemed persuaded to accept that dealing with the extension of trash hauling franchise almost three years prior to it expiring was a bit premature and he signaled his willingness to put off the decision relating to the trash hauling franchise until much further down the road, closer to the time the franchise is nearing its expiration. He endorsed an option put onto the agenda by city staff to table the matter until later.
Councilwoman Chastain pressed for voting that evening to extend CR&R’s franchise another decade.
At that point, Toro intervened, offering a substitute motion, which under Robert’s Rules of Order takes precedence over a previously offered motion. “I would like to see what CR&R out of all those things we asked for can deliver on,” Toro said. He then put that sentiment into a motion to have CR&R “take all our information and come back at a date to be determined to [let the city council] know what they can do and can’t do. If at that point they can’t give us an offer we can’t refuse, then we continue with option 2 [i.e., Echevarria’s proposed endorsement of staff’s option to eventually take the matter out to bid].”
Thus, instead of using the workshop as a public hearing to provide the basis for a vote on extending the contract, the council, divided 3-to-2, with Toro, Chastain and Echevarria prevailing and Navarro and González dissenting, gravitated toward renewing CR&R’s hold on the franchise for another ten years, without actually doing so.
The matter hung in limbo until this week, when the council returned to the matter at its February 20 meeting. CR&R offered what was quantified as fifteen enhancements to the current franchise contract. On the table was action by the council which would extend CR&R’s franchise until the end of June 2036, such that there will have been no public bid on the contract to haul Colton’s trash for 40 years at that juncture.
Alex Braicovich with CR&R enunciated the elements of what his company was offering, including those fifteen enhancements beyond the original proposal made at the August 15, 2023 council meeting, which he said had been formulated on the basis of exchanges with the city council at the September 19, 2023 meeting and the November 1, 2023 workshop. Those enhancements entailed providing residents with 33,000 new 96 gallon trash carts at a cost of $2.8 million to his company; a residential rate freeze through June 30, 2026, which would, he said, provide $4 million in savings to city residents; extending the rate freeze to include Colton businesses; adding paper shredding events; adding an in-home residential harps program to households who can use it; installing a license plate reader at the company’s facility; accepting a host fee agreement, which would provide new fees paid to the city on a quarterly basis with no increase to Colton residents or businesses; making improvements to CR&R’s Colton operations site, which will increase property tax revenues to the county and city; providing the city a choice of $250,000 or $500,000 in one-time mitigation fees; providing the city with an annual community contribution of $10,000; doubling the number of community cleanup day from two to four per year; offering to pick up four tires per year per home; doubling the number of residential curbside bulky items pickups from four per year to eight per year, with four items per pick-up; offering a senior citizen discount rate of 10 percent; including new performance language within the contract; conducting a bi-annual customer satisfaction survey in the city; offering Colton residents a new exclusive low-cost disposal rate to allow them to take trash directly to the Colton Transfer Station, reducing the former cost of $43 for 500 pounds to a $25 minimum for up to 1,000 pounds; including graffiti mitigation language relating, apparently, to the trash bins in the franchise contract; and CR&R making a commitment to provide $45,500 to provide what he said would be full annual funding to allow Colton to hire a community services officer.
Toro enthusiastically embraced perpetuating CR&R’s franchise contract with the city.
“We provided CR&R what we wanted,” he said, in some measure addressing his council colleagues and staff, in some measure addressing the public and simultaneously addressing Braicovich and other representatives of CR&R. “I believe of all the things we requested, some of the things we already get, and I want to say that basically that you’ve given us everything that we’ve asked for.”
Toro contradicted or at least attempted to contradict González’s assertion that there was nothing to compare CR&R’s proposal to, given that the city had not solicited nor been provided with proposals from competing companies. “But we do have something to compare to, which is the contracts of all the other cities,” Toro insisted. “It is imperative to get the best deal for our residents. For me the best deal is what we asked for. We asked and they’re basically giving it to us. Tonight, they came back even with something more.”
He took issue with González’s contention that CR&R had sought, in August, September and then in November, to make offers featuring less than stellar service levels and unacceptable rates in an effort to get the council to accept a deal more favorable to the company than to the city’s residents and businesses.
“So, I’m assuming best business practice is when you give a proposal, you don’t give the stars and the moon, Toro said. “You start out basically and that’s correct on the 19th [September 19] had we made a decision that night to accept their proposal, the only thing we would have got was a plate reader and a half percent increase or savings, whatever, on the rate increase. And fortunately, and I thank this council to allow us to go to a workshop which gave me time anyways to look at the contracts the other cities have and determine what I thought would be great for the city and we had that workshop and Dr G [i.e., González] is the only one who came up with anything additional and Councilman Echevarria came up with the plate reader and Councilwoman Chastain came up with the rate freezes. Right now, those are enhanced because we came and had this workshop and talked about and discussed it and, again, RFPs personally, I’ll say it again I was involved with an RFP with a company I was with and I don’t think even to this date talking three months ago talking to people that are in that position it doesn’t seem they got the best deal anyways. I’m for going forward with the contract enhancements. Originally, I was only interested in the five plus five years but with the rate freezes for both the residential and commercial rates until 2026 for a ten-year agreement and I hear in the back of my head about how this contract has been a contract for the last thirty or forty years, this would actually somewhat of of a new contract with enhancements.” Furthermore, staying with CR&R is justified by the consideration, Toro said, that “This is a company that’s in our city. With that said, I would propose the ten-year [extension to CR&R’s contract].”
Gary Grossich, a Colton business owner weighed in.
Noting that the current contract in place was extended with no bids, Grossich said “The council should be aware that value of this contract over 10 years will exceed $125 million. Our current ordinance requires the city to go out for an RFP [request for proposals, i.e., to solicit bids] for any contract over $25,000 with some minor exceptions. Unfortunately, trash contracts are exempt under state law from that requirement. For the third time, we’re here again before the council with a new offer. Since CR&R is in competition with their own previous offers, can you imagine how much better they and others may be able to do in a competitive bidding process? There’s an old saying: ‘The devil’s in the details.’ With this proposal, there are very few details provided. Just generic statements, with little or no back-up documentation. This is where your professional staff comes in. You guys are proposing to accept a deal and then negotiate it afterwards. That does not work.”
Grossich decried the consideration that the city has consistently allowed the CR&R’s corporate predecessors Taormina and Republic and now CR&R to increase the trash hauling rates by a percentage matching the consumer price index. He noted that when CR&R came back with its proposal at the September 19 meeting, it offered to forego the rate increase for residential customers in the current 2023-24 fiscal ending in June 2024 and that represented a one-year suspension of the price hike, which would have been 8.7 percent. Grossich said the city had erred in 2015 when it did not work into the franchise contract extension at that time a limitation on the annual price hike that CR&R could charge. He said the city was making the same mistake this time around.
“If we had gone out to bid the last time, this would be a non-issue because we could have capped the CPI somewhere around 3 percent,” he said. “In fact, the CPI cap is something we should be asking for in these upcoming negotiations.”
Since the city is allowing CR&R to use the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) in boosting its rates to customers in the city, Grossich asserted, the city should insist on CPR abiding by the same formula on an annual basis with regard to the fees it pays the city under the terms of the franchise contract.
“CR&R proposes to increase their host city fee on the transfer fee to $1 [per ton],” Grossich said. “At 50,000 tons per year, that equates to an additional $50,000. In negotiations, the city can get a minimum of $200,000 as a host city with an annual CPI increase. In fact, CPI increases on the transfer station have been part of the original contract with Taormina in 1997, but the city has failed to collect any CPI all these years. As part of negotiations, the city should be getting annual CPI increases on all revenue generated as part of the contract, as the trash haulers do, which is their right, including residential billing services.”
Grossich, a member of the Colton Planning Commission said, “Regarding the Colton Transfer Station improvements, the Colton Transfer Station was already approved by the Colton Planning Commission three years ago. As part of the contract, we should be requiring the completion of the proposed improvements within the agreed-upon timeframe.”
Grossich harked back to the negotiations that were ongoing between CR&R’s corporate predecessor, Republic, in 2014 and 2015 prior to the extension of the franchise contract from 2016 to 2026. At that time, amid reports that Republic was looking to sell its Colton operation, some Colton residents were pushing then Mayor Richard DeLaRosa and members of the city council to impose on Republic a condition that it agree to a $500,000 to $1,000,0000 transfer fee if it were to divest itself of its Colton operations and facilities. No such provision was put into the contract and shortly after securing the franchise extension, Republic sold its Colton operation to CR&R.
“Any future sale of the Colton hauling trash franchise or the Colton materials recovery facility should require a $1 million transfer fee as part of agreeing to a new operator,” Grossich told the council. “This transfer fee occurs in many leases and contracts. There should be no problem with a hauler agreeing to a transfer fee unless they intend to sell before the end of the agreement.”
Grossich added, “Any audits required by the city as part of the trash contract should be paid for by the hauler and not the city.”
Before the city council voted, Mayor Frank Navarro endeavored to convince his council colleagues that they were acting prematurely by extending the existing franchise contract while there is more than two years remaining before it expires and before at least exploring what other trash haulers have to offer in terms of service levels and rates. It would be more appropriate, he suggested to test the market by conducting an open public bid for the franchise over the 2026-to-2036 timeframe.
Seeking bids on the contract, he said, “is a good business decision.”
Moreover, he strongly implied, two-thirds to three-quarters of the “enhancements” that CR&R had offered were fluff, penny ante concessions lacking depth or real value. Moreover, he said, one of the inducements was of benefit to the company rather than the city or its residents and at least two of the enhancements were virtually meaningless in that they represented actions that were mandated by the State of California and which would have to be provided by any be trash service provider the city made an arrangement with.
Navarro questioned whether the rate discount CR&R was offering senior citizens was both sincere and legal.
The mayor suggested Braicovich was either making misrepresentations or withholding information in those parts of his presentation relating to the new bins to be distributed and the senior citizen discount.
To offer service, a company must provide its customers with trash bins to begin with, Navarro noted. That CR&R will be outfitting Colton residents “between now and 2036,” the mayor said, is simply part of the price of doing business, he said, for which the company was due no special consideration. “They’ll have 12 years to replace those containers,” he said.
The State of California has put into place a new law, pursuant to Senate Bill 1383, requiring that all cities and trash haulers have in place by 2036 a recycling program to divert organic waste or food remnants that previously and currently are going into landfills. The 96-gallon bins that CR&R is to provide all residential customers which the company is acclaims as a feature of the new franchise contract is the company’s way of achieving compliance with Senate Bill 1383. In any event, CR&R would be providing those bins anyway, Navarro said, so it is disingenuous of CR&R to imply or directly state that the new franchise contract is providing residential customers something they would not otherwise be getting as a matter of course. A further misrepresentation, according to Navarro was that the senior citizens would not have otherwise been able to obtain a rate reduction, since smaller households, such as those with one or two senior citizens, could already request smaller bins than the standard sizes provided to most standard households, which generally consist of four residents or more. In that way, senior citizens could already reduce their rates by even more than ten percent if they chose to do so, Navarro said.
“We talked about the containers,” he said. “We’ve been told every time that we’ve brought the vendor to our meetings that we have to have the 96-gallon containers. Tonight, he [Braicovich] was challenged with that and he was asked what about the elderly people that can’t handle the 96-gallon container, can they get a smaller one. Tonight he told us yes. He never said that that before.”
Not only that, Navarro said, there was potentially a legal problem with CR&R’s senior discount program. If it turns out that the company is defraying the cost of providing those discounts by charging its other customers more, that is likely a violation of Proposition 218, Navarro said.
“The 10 percent senior rate discount?” he said. “Again, Prop 218. I don’t like that. There’s some legalities there and I’ve talked to our city attorney about that and our city manager about that. I’m not comfortable with that until we clarify that.”
Navarro said CR&R’s offer to help the city achieve Senate Bill 1383 compliance was a canard.
“Full SB 1383 compliance?” he said. “Yeah, we are going to make full SB 1383 compliance, whether it’s with this vendor or a future vendor if we go out for an RFP, which I highly recommend that we do.”
CR&R was engaging in further sleight-of-hand and trying to sucker the city, its residents, city staff and the city council by claiming it was making a concession by agreeing to paying a host fee, Mayor Navarro said.
“There has been a host fee in this contract since 1996,” he said. “Unfortunately, it was never collected.”
Both Cr&R’s corporate predecessors and CR&R had rather, he said, taken advantage of the city by failing to live up to that commitment.
“Did the vendor ever come to the city and say, ‘As a good neighbor, I think we should look at this, ’cause you guys are entitled to a host fee?’” Navarro asked. “That never happened. They are talking about being good neighbors and stuff like that, doing good business with the city. It’s a joint effort between the city and the business. We work together to make things successful in the City of Colton.”
Navarro said the company was similarly touting the “Paper shredding services, the needle disposal and community clean-ups” contained in its franchise extension proposal. “I don’t know that there’s that many people who require paper shredding. I do my own shredding at home. I’ve got a shredding machine. I just put it in there and it’s done. The new in-home sharps program? How are you going to identify who needs a sharps box and who doesn’t? And how are you going to identify and how are you going to manage the distribution of those boxes and the collection of those boxes when they’re full?”
Community clean-up programs are a universal feature of city trash franchises throughout California that all trash hauling companies participate in, he said.
“Eight curbside bulky item pick-ups per year?” Navarro said in running down his enumeration of CR&R’s proposed contract components. He said the company’s past performance in that regard was grounds to discontinue Colton’s relationship with CR&R rather than to perpetuate it.
“I drive around the city a lot, and I see stuff at the curb,” Navarro said. “I make mental note of it. I’ll drop by the next three or four days. It’s still there. Our garbage trucks go by all the time. Our drivers should be proactive and say, ‘You know what? I’m going to tell management there’s stuff to be picked up at the curb. Let’s contact the resident.’ Did they call in? How many people will be using eight pick-ups work from the curb? I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of them.”
As for CR&R’s gesture of spending $1,000 to $2,000 on purchasing a license plate reader, the mayor questioned what the intent was, whom the device would benefit and how, precisely, it would be of benefit.
“The plate reader installation might be a good thing or not, but it’s mostly to the benefit of the business owner,” Navarro said. “They say, ‘We can identify people who are going to our facility with stolen stuff.’ How do you know the stuff they are bringing in is stolen? We don’t know.”
Similarly, Navarro said, “Site improvements to the Colton yard? It’s not to the city’s benefit. It’s to their benefit. Those improvements they make at the Colton yard are for the efficiency of their operation, not for the benefit of the city. What benefit is the city going to gain from those improvements at the yard?”
Mayor Navarro was critical of CR&R for playing with house money in its offers with regard to suspending the consumer price index-based escalation of the company’s service rates for what will be three years as a ploy to induce the council into extending to 40 years the time the company and its corporate predecessors will have gone without being subjected to a competitive bid. Having previously gone on record that the company should see its annual rate increases capped at 3 percent, Navarro remarked, “They’re going to freeze the residential rates until June 30 of 2026. Then, directly addressing Braicovich, he said, “You are also going to include a freeze of commercial rates until June 30 of 2026, but you have an asterisk there that says, ‘The county disposal adjustable pass-through.’”
If CR&R wants to offer such an inducement as the freezing of rates to get the city to buy into extending the franchise, the company should be prepared to stand by its commitment no matter what, Navarro suggested.
“Do we know what the county’s going to change the cost of you taking the solid waste to their dump?” he asked. “We don’t know. That right there may add another 7 or 8 percent to what the population will be paying. Can we get a different amount from another vendor? Probably could.”
For just that reason, the mayor said, it was incumbent upon the city to solicit bids from as wide of a selection of trash service providers as possible.
“We don’t know until we have something to compare it with,” Navarro said, pointedly addressing Toro, Echevarria and Chastain. “We’re sitting here saying, ‘They’re giving us everything we want.’ Of course, they’re going to say everything we want, but is it the best deal? I don’t think so, with all due respect to CR&R. Until we go out there and do an RFP and bring the competitive agencies into the picture and look at their proposals, we’re just following the lead. We’re not doing our due diligence as elected officials for the City of Colton. We are not.”
Navarro was rather dismissive of CR&R’s offer of a $10,000 yearly endowment to the community for public service or as a charity donation.
“The annual $10,000 community contribution?” he remarked. “Thank you very much. We could get $20,000 from another agency. We could get maybe $500,000 from another agency. We don’t know.”
Other aspects of what CR&R is offering in the updated version of the franchise are empty, he said, given the inexactitude of the representations.
“New performance review language on the contract? Navarro remarked. “Where’s the language? I haven’t seen that. I even asked the staff, ‘Have you seen the language that they’re proposing to change on the contract?’ Staff’s telling me, ‘No, we haven’t.’”
Navarro continued to list out the changes or additions CR&R was proposing, noting that some were long overdue, implying that CR&R and its corporate predecessors have been shortchanging the city, its residents and its business all along, which is a reason to discontinue the arrangement with CR&R and seek bids on the franchise contract anew.
“New customer service survey,” he said. “That’s a good thing. How long have you been in business with the city? Have you ever done one of these before? Why not? Why is it all of a sudden you want to do this new satisfaction survey with the residents when you’ve been here all this time and you have received many complaints, many complaints from our offices, myself and my colleagues up here about issues with the service you are providing the city? And just now you are bringing it to the forefront because now you want to push this contract through and get an extension without even considering the fact that maybe an RFP would be good?”
Navarro sought to reassure those in the community that had concerns that bringing in another trash hauler to serve as the city’s service provider would not have the effect of throwing those now working for CR&R in Colton out of work.
“In the event we do go for an RFP and let’s say in the event that CR&R is not the winning bid, the new company coming in will hire, if not everybody, most everybody who currently works for CR&R,” Navarro said. “Why? Because they know the routes.”
Navarro said, “I hope my council members up here will reconsider their position and really step up and take the obligation and responsibility and be accountable to our residents. I want everybody up here on the dais to not forget why you were placed here. You were placed here with the responsibility to respond and be accountable not to CR&R, not to any other company, but to the residents of this community.”
Despite Navarro’s appeal to his colleagues that they shift the momentum in favor of perpetuating CR&R’s exclusive hold on the franchise to an open bid process, the council majority of Chastain, Echevarria and Toro, on a motion by Chastain and seconded by Toro, voted to have City Manager Bill Smith bring back by April a final approval of the extension of CR&R’s franchise through to the end of June 2036.
Before the Tuesday night meeting, based on a long simmering scandal and intermittent memory of its particulars throughout the Colton community, the specter of long-running and constantly perpetuating public corruption at Colton City Hall hung over the question of whether Echevarria, Chastain and Toro would continue a now 28-year-long cycle the city has been unable to shake.
From the outset of the city’s creation of its trash-hauling franchise, that arrangement has been steeped in an atmosphere involving bribery, kickbacks and mob tactics.
Colton, as San Bernardino County’s second-oldest municipality, having been founded in 1875 and incorporated in 1887, was a mature and full service city with a level of sophistication equal to or greater than all of the county’s other governmental jurisdictions, with its own police department, fire department, water, electrical and sewer utilities, cemetery facilities, park and recreation divisions, public works operations, libraries and sanitation department.
Following his 1994 election as mayor, George Fulp, using as a pretext that Colton’s rank then as only the 13th largest of the county’s 24 municipalities should not entitle it to status as what was arguably the county’s most administratively active of all of the county’s cities, initiated an effort to dismantle it as a governmental organization, beginning with its sanitation department, which he proposed to privatize. After encountering some initial hesitancy and resistance, he ultimately was able to assemble sufficient votes on among the then-six members of the remainder of the city council to shutter that municipal division in favor of the concept of creating a city trash-hauling franchise.
Unbeknownst to the public generally or virtually all of the those involved in Colton governance other than a very few within Fulp’s circle, the newly elected mayor was in need of financial supplementation as a consequence of multiple dealings he had, as well as some legal issues and lawsuits he was entangled in. The prospect of converting some of the city’s divisions, which traditionally had been manned by city employees, into franchises which would create a heretofore unavailable revenue stream to private companies able to wangle having those franchises conferred upon them presented an opportunity for Fulp to sell his vote and those of any other of the officeholders he was able to influence to those willing to pay for a city decision in their favor.
While the sanitation division yet remained in place, the city initiated a bidding process using a request for proposals, inviting the region’s trash haulers to compete for the franchise. The city commissioned Arizona-based R.W. Beck Company to set up the parameters of the competition and then evaluate the proposals. That recruitment of applicants was conducted, and the submission of proposals was carried out, which attracted a wide variety of national, state and local refuse handling companies, including Waste Management, Inc. Republic Industries, Burrtec Industries, Taormina Industries, Advance Disposal, Edco and Avakian Enterprises, among others.
While the application, evaluation and selection process of a trash hauler was yet ongoing in the 1995/1996 timeframe, Fulp was in contact with Gil Lara, a lobbyist who had been hired by Taormina to boost its prospect of capturing the Colton franchise. In short order, money was being conveyed to Fulp and two members of the Colton City Council, Abe Beltran and Don Sanders, as part of a strategy to influence the outcome of the trash franchise sweepstakes.
Penultimately, R.W. Beck, after conducting a thorough vetting of the actual capabilities of the applicants, their financial wherewithal and staying power, the service levels they offered and their actual ability to deliver those services as represented, the capacity of their locally-based facilities and workforces as well as their ability to access at a sustainable cost the parallel services, facilities and augmentations critical to the delivery of the service they were proposing to provide, determined that Fontana-based Burrtec, which already had extensive operations within San Bernardino County, merited being chosen as the city’s franchised trash hauler from among the seven applicants.
Shortly after R.W. Beck delivered that recommendation, however, Mayor Fulp insisted upon the city council holding a closed-door meeting with R.W. Beck principal Richard Tagore-Erwin. During that closed door meeting, outside the view of the public, Fulp, along with then-councilmen Don Sanders and Abe Beltran, strong-armed Tagore-Erwin, pressuring him to alter R.W. Beck’s recommendation. After a two-week interim, during which Toarmina lobbyist Gil Lara went to work on Tagore-Erwin and the four other members of the city council, R.W. Beck delivered a second evaluation of the competition for the franchise contract, elevating its estimation of the proposal made by City of Industry-based Taormina Industries, previously ranked third in the competition, to a rough equivalency with the earlier-delivered rating of Burrtec’s qualifications. Based upon this second recommendation, Fulp, Sanders and Beltran convinced Councilwoman Deirdre Bennett to join them in supporting Taormina, whereupon Councilwoman Betty Cook and Councilman David Sandoval moved with the flow, such that by a 6-to-1 margin, with Councilman John Hutton dissenting, the city council on May 16, 1996 voted to confer the franchise contract upon Taormina.
A firestorm of controversy erupted, but shortly thereafter the dismantling of the city’s sanitation division was finalized, and Taormina assumed the status of the city’s franchised domestic trash hauler. Before the year was out, a successful recall effort against Fulp materialized and he was removed from office and replaced by Karl Gaytan. In the same November 1996 election, Beltran was voted out of office as the city’s Third District councilman, replaced by Kelly Chastain.
Meanwhile, the city’s then-police chief, Bernie Lunsford, and then-city attorney, Julie Biggs, referencing irregularities that had occurred in the trash franchise contract bidding competition, persuaded the council to hire former Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Mark McDonald to carry out an investigation into the matter. Ultimately, McDonald delivered his findings, which popularly became known as the McDonald Report, which scathingly identified a rigged bidding process marred by Taormina’s provision of inducements, characterized by McDonald as “tantamount to bribes” to Fulp, Beltran and Sanders, as well as conduct on the part Fulp’s hand-picked city manager, Malik Freeman, and then-assistant city manager Daryl Parrish, which resulted in the contract being steered to Taormina despite R.W. Beck’s first straightforward determination that its proposal was inferior to that put forth by Burrtec and Waste Management, Inc. McDonald stated in the report that Parrish acknowledged he recognized rigging the awarding of the contract in such a way that the franchise was given to a company that had been outperformed by two of its competitors was highly improper but that he had gone along with what had been done because he had “mouths to feed” and could not afford to lose his job.
The first direct casualty of the McDonald Report was Freeman, who was terminated by the council in an effort to stem the public outrage based upon the report’s narrative describing him as taking an active role in carrying out Fulp’s, Beltran’s and Sanders’ bidding in vectoring the contract to Taormina. Parrish, whose transgressions in the matter were acts of omission rather than commission, was suspended but not terminated.
The report, which was provided to the FBI, resulted in investigations into the political situation in Colton and reports of graft, bribery and payoffs at City Hall. Beltran, who had been prosecuted by the district attorney’s office in 1996 on political corruption charges unrelated to granting Taormina the trash franchise, which contributed to his electoral defeat by Chastain that year, was implicated in further criminal activity and acts of political corruption tracked by the FBI, as was Sanders and, eventually, Fulp’s successor as mayor, Karl Gaytan. Fulp, who departed from California shortly after his political career in Colton ended, was not prosecuted, although there were hints, never confirmed, that he had cooperated with the FBI in an effort to avoid prosecution in return for helping bring others to justice. The FBI assembled criminal cases against Beltran, Sanders, Gaytan and another Colton councilman, James Grimsby, who came into office in a recall election in 1997 and in short order began tapping into the cycle of graft that ultimately felled Beltran, Sanders and Gaytan. All were convicted and forced to leave office.
While the focus of the McDonald Report and portions of FBI investigation included the illicit inducements to Fulp, Sanders and Beltran that led to Taormina’s success in achieving the trash hauling franchise in Colton, no prosecutorial authority charged Taormina or its officials with a crime. A Colton community activist, the Reverend Steve Anderson, lobbed charges that the company had used “mob tactics,” including bribery and intimidation, in obtaining the franchise contract. Taormina filed legal action against Anderson, which ultimately served to ward off any further public outcry over the circumstances that had led to the awarding of the franchise contract to Taormina.
Because of the constant need for refuse handling and the consideration that Taormina had a lock on the franchise, early talk about rescinding the council’s vote that conferred the franchise on Taormina ended and no serious effort was ever made by the council to rebid the contract. Eventually, owners William and Vincent Taormina agreed to merge Taormina Industries Inc. with Republic Industries, Inc. in exchange for 6.5 million shares of Republic stock, which was then valued at $250 million. Republic Industries is the second largest non-hazardous solid waste management company in the United States after Waste Management, Inc.
Contained in the original contract with Taormina, based upon a commitment the company had made in the representations made to members of the city council to get at least one further vote to add to those of Fulp, Beltran and Sanders to form the critical majority needed to override the original R.W. Beck recommendation to award the contract to Burrtec, were provisions calling for the company to establish with the city limits of Colton a company yard, including sorting/separation facilities and a transfer station. Upon Taormina’s corporate successor, Republic, setting up that operation, the company was to pay the city an annual host fee as well as a mitigation fee to offset the cost of repairing the city’s roads due to the wear and tear from bearing the weight of the company’s trucks. Despite the company’s eventual establishment of its Colton yard, successive mayoral administrations, including those of Deirdre Bennett and Chastain, failed to enforce the collection of those fees.
In 2005, with the ten-year anniversary of the trash franchise approaching, Republic was able to coax then-Mayor Deirdre Bennett, one of Fulp’s protégés, and the rest of the city council, consisting at that point of Councilman Ramon Hernandez, Councilman Richard DeLaRosa, Councilwoman Chastain, Councilwoman Helen Ramos, Councilman John Mitchell, and Councilman Isaac Suchil, out of considering conducting an open bid process on the city’s refuse-handling arrangement. This was effectuated, in large measure through Taormina’s/Republic’s generosity in endowing the city leaders’ respective campaign funds with political donations.
In 2010, David Zamora, who as the city’s longtime community development director had a close-up view of the circumstance at City Hall and the graft at play during the Fulp, Gaytan, Bennett and Chastain regimes, resolved to run for mayor as a reformist candidate. Among Zamora’s intended reforms was requiring that Republic live up to the letter of both the original and succeeding franchise contracts, such that all of the fees due to the city for allowing Republic to do business in the city were paid and the company matched any annual increases to those fees matching the percentages in the rate increases Republic was imposing on its residential, commercial and industrial customers in Colton.
The Zamora administration efforts toward that goal and was closing in on that objective when, on July 14, 2011, while he was driving back to City Hall from lunch at his home, he suffered a heart attack and was killed when he crashed into a telephone pole. The focus on having the city follow through on holding Republic to account was lost and the company continued to elude paying the fees specified under the franchise contract.
By 2014, Republic Industries and its corporate predecessor had held the Colton trash-hauling franchise contract, serving essentially as the City of Colton’s privatized sanitation division, for 18 years. With the franchise due to elapse in 2016, the concept of putting the franchise out to bid surfaced in that year’s election. Frank Gonzales, Colton’s longtime mayor who had been defeated by Fulp in 1994 election, had made a comeback as a city official in 2010, when he was elected to the city council. Four years later, in 2014, he again sought election as mayor, facing Richard DeLaRosa, who had served two terms on the city council from 2002 until 2010. During his campaign, Gonzales sought to make an issue of the city’s automatic renewal of the trash franchise. He called for putting out a request for proposals to as many regional trash hauling companies as the city might reasonably expect would respond, to effectuate a competitive bid process for the refuse hauling contract. Consequently, Republic Industries threw its support behind DeLaRosa in his mayoral campaign.
Simultaneously, in August 2014, Republic Industries pledged a $40,000 donation to the city to secure an exclusive opportunity to open negotiations with the city on the extension of the franchise contract. At the behest of Public Works Director Amer Jakher, who at that point had been elevated into the position of acting city manager, the city council accepted the money, with most council members stating that the city could still go out to bid if the negotiations did not prove fruitful.
In November of that year, Gonzales lost the 2014 mayoral election to DeLaRosa.
In the immediate aftermath of his election victory, DeLaRosa began pressing the city council to bypass any sort of competitive bid process as the council began a progression toward addressing the 2016 expiration of the trash hauling franchise contract.
In rejecting the opportunity to compare bids upfront, Colton put Jakher into a weak bargaining position. Other companies were prepared to offer Colton terms that substantially bettered anything Republic put on the table. Representatives of other companies told the Sentinel they were anxious to bid on the Colton contract and that they were aware of the terms under discussion in Colton and were prepared to improve upon the service levels Colton residents and businesses were receiving at reduced rates from what Republic was charging. They also said they made this clear to Colton officials.
Among those companies was Athens Services, which in 2013 had been awarded the contract with the County of San Bernardino to operate county landfills. Athens was particularly interested in establishing service areas in San Bernardino County and was prepared to underbid and outservice Republic to the point that it would have been willing to operate at close to cost to achieve the Colton contract. Colton never entertained any overtures from companies other than Republic.
Previously, refuse from Colton had been deposited into a landfill within Colton and the city received a host “tipping fee” from San Bernardino County, which owned the landfill, for accepting trash into the landfill within its borders. But the county shuttered the Colton landfill, ending that revenue stream to the city. In 2012, as Republic was looking ahead to ensure that it kept its Colton contract, the company offered to provide Colton $140,000 per year to replace the lost tipping fees from the Colton landfill closure. In addition, it offered to forego annual consumer price index increases for the last three years of the contract. This offer was predicated on Colton allowing Republic to haul the trash to its own landfill in Brea, which provided Republic with substantial savings. At that time, the council rejected Republic’s offer and decided to continue Colton’s waste disposal agreement with San Bernardino County, resulting in the trash being taken to the county’s Mid-Valley Landfill.
From the time the Colton City Council voted against Republic’s 2012 offer until 2015, Colton ratepayers experienced three separate Consumer Price Index increases, including a 4.25 percent increase in 2014. Inexplicably, in its 2015 negotiations with Jakher, Republic kept the Consumer Price Index rate hikes totaling almost 8 percent while convincing the city to allow Republic to take the trash to its preferred landfill in Brea.
In its negotiations with Republic, Colton also lost $140,000 in yearly waste disposal fees, which Colton had been receiving from the county. This money was provided as a consequence of the county’s waste disposal agreement with 14 of the cities in the county that use county landfills. For using the county’s landfills, those cities are given a discounted rate less than the gate fee haulers bringing trash in from outside the county are required to pay. The difference between the regular gate fee and the negotiated waste disposal agreement rate is referred to as the waste disposal agreement rebate. While some cities in the county receive the entire waste disposal agreement rebate, the arrangement arrived at between Colton and Republic in 2015 provided Colton with only $4.24 of the $8.19 per ton rebate when Colton trash was reposited into a county landfill, and Republic kept the rest. Moreover, the contract extension allowed Republic to divert Colton’s trash to a landfill operated by Republic, depriving Colton of the $140,000 rebate altogether.
While Jakher was negotiating with Republic over the extension of the trash franchise, a report surfaced that Republic was in secret negotiations with an undisclosed entity to sell off its Colton operation, including its yard and its franchise. Despite that report, Colton officials pushed forward with the franchise extension negotiations.
Ultimately, pursuant to the 2015 agreement, Republic offered, and Jakher and the city council accepted, an offer which provided Colton with $210,000 for “street sweeping” and $80,000 for “tree trimming” and $30,000 per year in “host city” fees, along with a small increase in the administrative fee, estimated at between $15,000 and $20,000 yearly that Colton received for handling residential billing for Republic and now for CR&R. Republic further agreed to return five percent of its revenue – quantified at roughly $360,000 in 2015 dollars– to the city for street repairs to make up for the damage caused by its trash trucks.
In July 2015, Mayor DeLaRosa, Councilman David Toro and councilwomen Deirdre Bennett and Summer Jorrin voted to extend the trash hauling franchise agreement with Republic Industries for ten years, into 2026, with councilmen Frank Navarro, Isaac Suchil and Luis González (no blood relation to Frank Gonzales) dissenting.
Comparisons with deals closed elsewhere showed the degree to which Jakher and the city had been outnegotiated. In Fullerton, for example, customers were paying 78 percent of what customers in Colton were paying per month for trash service. In Cypress, where the city invited proposals from trash companies, five companies bid on the project and the end result was that homeowners there, in 2015, paid $12.97 monthly for collections, or 54.5 percent of the $23.79 monthly for weekly trash pick-up Colton residents were paying in 2015 for the same service.
With regard to the trash hauling rates paid by commercial and industrial customers, Colton customers were at an even more lopsided disadvantage to their counterparts in virtually all other cities in the regions in terms of what those commercial and industrial customers elsewhere were paying for trash pick-up.
In reality, the one-time $540,000 Republic offered to return to Colton in the form of street sweeping, tree trimming service, road repair and host fees was dwarfed by what other cities obtained in exchange for their trash franchises. Athens paid West Covina $2 million plus $100,000 in additional yearly community contributions for an additional 25-year extension. In Covina, Athens paid $2 million plus a $200,000 annual contribution for a 20-year deal. In Chino Hills, where residents in 2015 paid a $17.38 per month rate for trash service compared to the $23.79 residents in Colton paid, the residential rates were guaranteed to escalate to not more than $21.59 by the end of the contract in 2021. In 2010 Republic paid the city of Chino Hills $500,000 to lock in that contract for an additional five years, even though that extension wasn’t scheduled to begin until 2016.
Colton missed another opportunity with the deal it closed with Republic in 2015. It turned out that the report that time that Republic was in separate negotiations with another waste hauling and recycling company for the sale of its Colton operations was indeed true. That company was CR&R. This rendered Republic into a very vulnerable and delicate position in its negotiations with Colton, in that if it did not maintain the Colton franchise, it would have nothing to sell to CR&R. Thus, Colton could have pressed for a host of concessions from Republic, such as reductions in the rates to be paid by either or both domestic and business customers or a limitation on the per year maximum percentage increase in those rates over the life of the contract. The city could have also, had it chosen to do so, insisted upon an ownership transfer clause in the contract that would have required a one-time payment of anywhere from, for example, $100,000 to $500,000 to $1 million, if Republic were to sell off its Colton operation. Despite that opportunity, neither Jackher nor the mayor and city council insisted on any of those provisions or a similar one being put into the contract.
Even more notably, Jackher and the mayor and council failed to ask for what Frank Gonzales had suggested during his 2014 mayoral run, which was a million dollars in an upfront franchise fee and another $250,000 per year more in pass-through franchise revenues going forward.
In the summer of 2015, after the deal with Republic was finalized, Mayor DeLaRosa was confronted about the less than resolute fashion in which his administration had negotiated on behalf of the city and its ratepayers. This provoked a curious response in which DeLaRosa sought to justify the terms of the agreement to extend the franchise contract while suggesting that if those terms were in any way less than ideal, that was an outgrowth of the previous mayoral administration of Sarah Zamora, the wife of David Zamora who had been appointed as the city’s caretaker mayor after the death of her husband. It was under Sarah Zamora that the negotiations with Republic had been initiated, DeLaRosa pointed out.
“The prior council had acted to start the negotiations with the current hauler and that put us in the position where we had to negotiate with the current hauler first,” he said. Nevertheless, he insisted, “From the dais, we on the council did our best. We did our due diligence. Over the more than a year it took to negotiate this contract including right up to the very last meeting where we approved it, we told them [Republic] we wanted more. We asked for changes several times, for them to put different things on the table. I don’t know how much more you can negotiate or who else you can put in place to negotiate beside the city manager and the public works director. Those two people were in place. It is hard to say whether by being more hardnosed we would have gotten more. Everything the council asked for they gave us. There is no concrete or tangible number we can look at to compare what we could have gotten. We could have gotten a better rate. We could have gotten a worst rate. It goes both ways. I believe we kept the rates low.”
DeLaRosa said Colton had not responded to overtures from other trash hauling companies offering rates and terms that were more favorable than those provided by Republic in large measure because “The tone of these negotiations was set last year prior to me being on the council. The agreement was we would not enter into negotiations with other companies while we were considering contract proposals from Republic. We could not hold formal discussions with other companies because we had an agreement to look at the current hauler first. We could not formally look at any other numbers. The previous council accepted that in 2013 and 2014.”
Asked if he considered going three decades without a bid process wise, DeLaRosa said, “At least four of us on the council felt there was not a need to go out for a request for proposals because they met what our expectations were. What we asked for is what we got, including host fees and money coming in for other purposes. I don’t regret the decision.”
In the years since, however, DeLaRosa’s perspective may have changed, as the terms contained in the city’s trash hauling franchise contract – ones that are tangibly and demonstrably inferior to those contained in virtually all such contracts among municipalities in San Bernardino County and Southern California – are widely considered to be a black mark upon DeLaRosa and his mayoral administration.
One of the rationalizations given by the DeLaRosa administration for staying with Republic was that it was a known entity to the city, such that by simply extending the contract the city’s residents and businesses would not experience any disruptions or diminutions in service that might result if the franchise were to be handed over to a company unfamiliar with the community.
The ink was barely dry on the new franchise contract when Republic Industries sold its Colton operation and that in the adjoining City of Loma Linda – lock, stock and barrel – to CR&R, Inc.
In a very compressed time after the new franchise contract went into effect, Republic finalized its agreement with CR&R, which purchased Republic’s trash hauling operations in Colton and Loma Linda, such that CR&R by March 2017 had fully taken over refuse handling in Colton.
In short order, a wide cross section of Colton residents noted what they considered a significant reduction in the quality of their trash service. Residents, commercial business and industrial operations in the city were making repeated note and complaints to both CR&R and the city about inadequate service, including skipping pick-up of trash on normally-scheduled days, weekly disposal of bins and dumpsters running to two weeks, mischanneling both recyclable material and greenwaste into garbage trucks, failure to maintain the cleanliness of receptacles and dumpsters, including twice-yearly steam cleaning. More recently, with the advent of the state’s Senate Bill 1383, which mandates organic/food waste recycling, customers would complain of pickup delays that resulted in rotting, bacteria-laden and maggot-infested dreck and detritus accumulating in their recycling bins and the health hazard that represented. Further complaints mounted that the city’s businesses, both merchants and industrial operations, were being gouged on the rates they are paying. Substantial numbers of residents and businesses, who had previously been blissfully unaware or apathetic about the city’s trash franchise and its terms became conscious of the circumstance that had led to the city allowing the franchise contract to be perpetuated for three decades without a competitive bid process, leading many to believe it was incumbent on the council to cure the matter by putting the contract out to bid. They were soon informed that the next opportunity for doing that would be many years away as the city’s current franchise had been extended by the council the previous year.
It was the perception of a substantial number of Colton residents that DeLaRosa was primarily responsible for the state of affairs as word spread from those who knew to those who did not that he had come into office with the financial support of Republic Industries, and that he had then refused to utilize his gravitas and authority as mayor to insist on a competitive bidding process on the refuse handling franchise, resulting in Republic retaining the contract and then rapidly moving to sell its Colton assets and operation at a tremendous profit.
In 2018, amid suggestions that he had sold his constituents out in return for campaign money from Republic to enable him to defeat Frank Gonzales in 2014 and that his vote on the city council in 2005 to extend Republic’s franchise contract was equally suspect, DeLaRosa opted out of seeking reelection as mayor, stating he was departing “to make way for new visions.”
In 2018, Colton’s voters approved Measure R, reducing the number of council districts from six to four. In 2022, Chastain, who had represented District 3 previous to becoming mayor, ran for city council once again, this time in the newly drafted District 2. She was successful in that bid, taking a place on the council dais after a 12-year hiatus. She joined Mayor Navarro, who had been elected to the council representing District 3 in 2012, was reelected to that post in 2016 and was elected mayor in 2018 and reelected in 2022; Councilman Toro, who was first elected to the council representing District 1 in 2006 and reelected in 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022; Councilman González, who was elected to represent District 4 in 2014 and reelected to that post in 2018 and was elected to represent the redrawn District 3 in 2022; and Councilman Echevarria, who was elected to represent what was District 5 in 2020 and was then elected to represent the newly drafted District 4 in 2022.
To a majority of the residents in blue-collar Colton, the goings-on at City Hall merit very little of their attention as they attend to the serious and time-consuming and attention-monopolizing efforts of earning a living and raising a family. They are inclined to entrust to both elected city officials and city staff the responsibility of running the city, including determining which private companies the city should confer its franchises upon. Still, like most communities, Colton has a core of residents who are civically active and involved, monitoring closely the action of their government, the decisions of their elected and appointed leaders and the comportment of those decision-makers. At least a handful of those share with others long memories and others possess an institutional memory. For some of those, the February 20 vote by Toro, Chastain and Echevarria is disquieting, one which conjures for them ghosts of past violations of the public trust.
In his interview with Mark McDonald in 1997, Taormina Chairman of the Board Dave Ault acknowledged, “The [trash-hauling] business is run by the mob and racketeers.” As the McDonald Report documented, that was the case in the 1990s in Colton. Over the next generation, that continued to be the case. Under the succeeding administrations of Mayor Karl Gaytan, Mayor Deirdre Bennett, Mayor Kelly Chastain, Mayor Sara Zamora and Mayor Richard DeLaRosa, a franchise locked into place by means of pay-offs, quid pro quos, bribes and kickbacks was perpetuated, with the contract provisions that enriched Taormina and its corporate successors assiduously adhered to while those which called for the company to reimburse the city for its costs in hosting the trash hauler’s operation or to pay the city franchise fees were ignored. During the abbreviated seven months that David Zamora was mayor at the tail end of 2010 and slightly more than the first half of 2011, an effort to reverse that pattern was begun, only to be cut short by Zamora’s untimely death at the age of 56. In the current administration of Frank Navarro, Zamora’s quixotic effort was revived, only to run into the concerted opposition of Chastain, Echevarria and Toro to thwart it.
Knowledgeable observers of the political scene in Colton are troubled by how the trio, individually and collectively, were so nonchalant in having the city skip for four decades carrying out a competitive bid on a contract which in its current ten-year application is worth well over $100 million and actually approaching somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million. Of note is that Toro, Echevarria and Chastain did not merely passively accept rolling the franchise contract over but actively pursued doing just that, consciously and deliberately disregarding the reasoning for seeking bids enunciated by both Navarro and González, and disregarding the recommendation by City Manager William Smith that the city put the franchise arrangement commencing in July 2026 out to bid.
For many of those observers, each of them – Chastain, Toro and Echevarria – has an equally good or even better reason than both of the others to recognize that best governmental practices dictate that competitive bidding on public contracts is basic principle in sound, transparent, open and honest governance.
Chastain was a member of the city council that commissioned and then accepted the McDonald Report, such that she cannot plausibly argue that she is not aware of the corrupt foundations of the franchise contract with Taormina that was inherited by Republic and passed along to CR&R. Even more pognantly, whe was a member of the city council when a decision was made to roll the franchise contract over for first time in 2005 and she was the city’s mayor who was voted out of office in 2010 at least in part because of the perception on the part of the city’s voters that she had failed them by neglecting to use her mayoral authority to have Republic adhere to the conditions of the franchise contract.
Toro is at this point the senior member of the city council, with more than 17 years as an elected official, one who cannot claim to not have an appreciation of how government works and the responsibility of officeholders to look after the best interests of those who have put them into their positions of trust. He came onto the city council in 2006, too late to have been involved in the decision to extend the franchise contract that was made by the city council earlier that year. Nevertheless, he was a member of the council throughout Chastain’s four-year tem as mayor, which ended with her being chased from office, in some measure because of the perception that she had not lived up to her responsibility to hold Republic to account for not meeting its obligations under the franchise contract. He then remained on the council during the several more years of Sara Zamora’s administration while the Republic continued to skip out on the host fees and mitigation fees it was obliged to make as the city’s refuse handling franchisee. He provided a key vote in support of the DeLaRosa Administration’s action to extend the franchise contract in 2016, and then experienced Republic’s almost immediate sale of its Colton operation to CR&R, followed by the drop in service levels and accompanying customer complaints from his constituents.
Echevarria, while less experienced as an officeholder than any of his council colleagues, nevertheless has at this point three years experience as a council member, during which time he has heard repeated complaints about both the level of service being provided by CR&R and the rates the company is charging its customers for that service, ones that are higher than virtually any of its competitors. Echevarria, a law enforcement professional who has achieved the rank of lieutenant with the San Bernardino Police Department, is by means of his employment highly attuned to the prevalence of organized criminal activity and racketeering at the local level and the degree to which it has crept into municipal operations throughout San Bernardino County, particularly in Colton, where no fewer than two of its former mayors and four of its former councilman were convicted of felonies and sent to prison since the 1990s. Even more significantly, Echevarria holds a master’s degree in public administration, a level of training in the management of government which instilled in him the basic importance of seeking competitive bids on public contracts.
While only a handful of Colton residents now have the institutional memory to remember Taormina Chairman of the Board Ault told McDonald that the trash-hauling business is run by the mob and racketeers and only a few of those are willing to speak publicly, given the reach and power that public officials have, in private around the Hub City the view is being shared that organized crime has tentacles which reach into Colton City Hall.