Monthly Archives: January 2016

THE CONTEMPT IN wildomar CONTINUES

Leave a reply

On Wednesday night January 27, 2016 the city of wildomar held a special meeting to discuss the change over to voting “by district”.

During the comment period a question was asked about why the public has not seen the “Letter received from the Law Firm” which started this process and why was it not included in the agenda packet for the special meeting.

During the response period citizens where assured by the city clerk with the concurrence of the city attorney that the letter in question and the “City Attorney’s” response would be made available on the city website As Soon As Possible

noun. The definition of concurrence is agreement or things that act or occur together. When two people agree on something, this is an example of a concurrence of opinion.

On Thursday January 28, 2016 an e-mail response was received by a citizen of wildomar which follows. The recipient of this letter has been redacted:

From: Debbie Lee [mailto:dlee@cityofwildomar.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:30 PM
To:
Subject: District Elections Letter

Please see the attached letter which you have requested. This should be up on the website before the close of business today. Also, I have requested a copy of the response letter which our City Attorney wrote and sent. As soon as I receive that I will forward it to you.

Should you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you,

Debbie A. Lee
City Clerk
Human Resources Manager
Risk Manager

City of Wildomar
23873 Clinton Keith Road
Suite 201
Wildomar CA 92595

951.677.7751 x215
951.698.1463 (Fax)

City Hall Hours:
Monday – Thursday
8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Closed Fridays

www.cityofwildomar.org

All e-mail to and from the City of Wildomar may be considered public information and may be disclosed upon request.

As of 6:30 p.m. January 29, 2016 the person requesting this information has received only the “Letter received from the Law Firm” which has also posted on the city Website.
This letter was posted on this site in the previous post with a link to the city clerks page where said letter is contained.

http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/city-clerk/elections/Alleged%20Violation%20of%20CVRA.pdf

The “Response Letter” from the city attorney has not been received by the requester above nor has it been posted on the city website. But apparently a local blogger with inside connections has posted two (2) response letters from the city attorney on their website at 2:29 p.m., Friday, January 29, 2016. Something to remember is city hall is closed on Friday’s in this town.

So much for respecting the citizens of wildomar. This is reminiscent of the fence being removed from Windsong Park before any of the security measures were in place or residents bordering said park were notified.
(Portions of the fence were left in place to secure the porta-potty and hold the plastic signs containing the park rules)

THE LETTER THAT STARTED THE PROCESS

Leave a reply

Below is the letter received by the city of wildomar from a law firm pointing out why they feel this city needs to vote “by district”.
This letter was finally made available on the city website after 2 council meetings (one regular and one special) more than 5 weeks after it was received.
The City of Hemet received a copy of this boiler plate letter which was published in the Press Enterprise several weeks ago.

The Letter 1

The Letter 2

For those that wish to have the PDF which also include the envelope the link is below
http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/city-clerk/elections/Alleged%20Violation%20of%20CVRA.pdf

The city of wildomar website was used for this purpose so no one can be accused of doctoring the document.

The cities response to this letter will be added here as soon as the city post it.

SOCIAL MEDIA CLAPTRAP +wildomar

Leave a reply

UPDATE
At 6:48 pm on Sunday January 24, 2016 less than 72 hours is left before the meeting of Wednesday January 27, 2016 at 6:30 pm so proclaimed by a local blogger and the city of wildomar has failed to post an agenda or any notice of the impending meeting. So much for that meeting.

The city of wildomar has once again debased itself and shown its contempt towards its citizens by releasing information about an upcoming city council meeting. This meeting maybe about the impending change over to voting “by district” mentioned during the last regular city council meeting during which it was announced the city manager was being given authorization to seek out a demographer. This extremely important information has apparently been released to a local blogger before the legitimate press, as of 10:40 p.m. there is nothing posted in the Press Enterprise, (might be a reason this community gets no respectable coverage by any real journalist), even before city officials have placed this item on the city calendar.

City Calendar January 23
The above screen shot shows Saturday January 23, 2016 at 10:23 p.m.. No meeting is shown for Wednesday January 27, 2016

A local blogger has with bias released the date and time of what appears to be “a special city council meeting” with his version a the appending agenda, which may turn out to be nothing more than hogwash.

WildomarRap January 23
The above is a screen shot of the time which this information was posted on the internet January 23, 2016
If you wish to read the writers highly biased version of what he feels will be the agenda visit http://wildomarrap.blogspot.com/ check out the article entitled “District Conversion Update 2”
You have got to love the line “bad people will find a way around the laws”

WHEN WILL THE CITY OF WILDOMAR SHOW ITS CITIZENS THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE

WHO GETS COUNTED IN EACH VOTING DISTRICT

Leave a reply

WILL THE SUPREMES HAVE A SAY IN WILDOMAR’S ELECTIONS
In the blind rage created when the city council received a letter from a Malibu Law firm over alleged Voting Rights Act violations. The city council ordered the city manager to hire a demographic firm to once again divide (as was done in July of 2009) the city of wildomar into districts, one each for the 5 individually elected council positions.

The city council is attempting to get everything in place for the upcoming November elections during which 2 council positions will be decided.

Unbeknownst to the city council along with most citizens, as many work for a living leaving little time for minutia,

The Supreme Court of the United States SCOTUS is currently weighing arguments heard on December 8, 2015 in Evenwel v. Abbott
Issue: Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/

Question presented:
“Whether the ‘one-person, one-vote’ principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/Evenwel_v._Abbott

The question for wildomar is:
1. How will districts be determined
A. Total Population in a district
B. Eligible Voters-persons over 18 years of age legally allowed to registered to vote
C. Registered Voters in a District.

As a ruling is expected before the end of the courts current term which is not until the end of June can districts be apportioned in the city before this happens.
Will city officials (elected and hired) in their haste to have it their way muck it up

WILDOMAR DISTRICTS, WHAT MIGHT BE

Leave a reply

On July 22, 2009 Item 1M of the consent calendar the city of wildomar by ordinance established voting districts.

Ordinance 31

Ordinance 31

Full Document can be Found at http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/minutes/07-22-09-ca.pdf
Starting on page 110 of 219 of the pdf.

Included is a map Exhibit A

2009 Districts

As wildomar has not grown substantially any new districts would more than likely look similar. A full description of the boundaries can be found in the link above.

weeeee’re tooooo smaaaaall, really ?

Leave a reply

This was the cry amongst council members as they left the last council meeting during which the decision was made for them to return the city to “vote by district” a position voters had decided on at the time this community voted to become a city, only to have the council spend thousand to take it away.

The microscopic City of Bradbury, California which incorporated in 1957 voted to hold council elections “by district”. In the 1960 federal census this city had a population of 618 citizens. Even today with a population of 1,087 citizens, of which 16.5% (180 persons) are under 18 years of age and ineligible to vote, leaving approximately 900 eligible voters divided amongst 5 precincts or 181 eligible voters per precinct. “Each district brings a special perspective to the table.” Neighborhoods are distinctive. The same can be said of wildomar.

A good article dating to 2003 can be found below.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/01/local/me-bradbury1
Town of 855 Takes Its Politics Seriously

ASSUMING Wildomar follows the general pattern of Riverside County. Using 2010 Federal Census numbers Wildomar had total population of 32,176 citizens. Of that number 27.9% (8,966) are under age 18 leaving an eligible voter population of 23,210. Using the federal percentage increase of 9.8% results in 25,484 eligible voters as of July 1, 2014

During the November 4, 2014 election a total of 11,705 citizens voted for city council members.

If that number held true for the next election each district would have approximately 2341 voters out of an eligible voter population of 5096 per district. That makes “by district” completely doable.

VOTER REGISTRATION STATISTICS BY COUNTY REPORT OF REGISTRATION AS OF OCTOBER 20, 2014
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2014-general/pdf/02-voter-reg-stats-by-county.pdf

Registered voters in riverside county 891,575
Persons Eligible to voter in Riverside County
October 20, 2014 1,394,302

Percentage of Eligible to vote that are registered to vote equals 64%

Statewide percentage was 73.3%

VOTER PARTICIPATION STATISTICS BY COUNTY
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2014-general/pdf/03-voter-particpiation-stats-by-county.pdf

Turn-out of registered voters 40.13%
Turn-out of eligible voters 25.66%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildomar,_California
The 2010 United States Census[11] reported that Wildomar had a population of 32,176.
The population was spread out with 8,966 people (27.9%) under the age of 18.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0685446.html
Population, percent change – April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 9.8%

Other cities that have voted “by district” for a number of years are
Hollister, CA Population: 34,928 (2010 Census)
Parlier, CA Population: 14,865 (2013)
Sanger, CA Population: 24,681 (2013)

OH HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN

Leave a reply

The City of Wildomar will be holding three public hearings in the near future to establish “VOTING BY DISTRICT” as was originally the choice of the community when citizens voted to become a city in 2008. With a simple question they chose “By District”

Measure D – Future Wildomar Elections
24/24 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
By District 3,457 56.96%
At Large 2,612 43.04%
Total 6,069 100.00%

The city council assumed that voters did not understand what they were voting for in that 2008 election so they devised a series of confusing measures that were placed on the November 3, 2009 ballot.

I – Wildomar Council At Large
13/13 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
YES 1,397 60.45%
NO 914 39.55%
Total 2,311 100.00%

J – Wildomar Council By District
13/13 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
NO 1,802 79.45%
YES 466 20.55%
Total 2,268 100.00%

K – Wildomar Council From Districts
13/13 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
NO 1,896 83.82%
YES 366 16.18%
Total 2,262 100.00%

In splitting the vote they achieved the city council’s goal of “At Large” elections.

Apparently a number of cities in recent weeks have received a letter from a law firm requesting they consider establishing a vote by district format in order to achieve a more equitable representation of its citizens. Either that or explain before a judge why they don’t need to.

The link below opens the letter received by the City of Hemet on December 22, 2015. Only the name will have been changed but is more than likely the same a received by the City of Wildomar

295366403-HEMET-Threat-of-lawsuit-prompts-change-to-district-elections

The Wildomar city council decided rather than fight the matter, which could have cost hundreds of thousands, they would establish districts in time for the upcoming elections in November. At that time 2 council members would be up for election.

On has to wonder how long the city council has known about this item, as the City of Hemet received their letter on December 22, 2015 and made the decision to establish districts.
(This question has been answered by a Press Release on January 14, 2015. The city of wildomar received its letter on December 21, 2015)

Thanks to the “California Public Records Act” the number of citizens that will receive the above “Press Release” from the city of wildomar is a known number and it is minuscule. Only 225 names are on the list (when one removes duplicate names this list is less than 220).

The question that remains to be decided in upcoming public meetings is will these elections be “from district” whereby the entire city vote for council members from each of the districts
(Update: apparently SB 493 mentioned below limits the city council to only changing to a “by district” method of voting explained below without having to go to the voters.)

This is what the city of wildomar is going to do adopt a city ordinance for elections “by district”

The three public hearings are just formality with no real meaning as of yet.

or “by district” only the registered voters in a district vote in the election to choose the council member from that area.
A candidate for the city council must reside in the district in which he or she is running.

This decision was made easier by the passage of SB 493, Cannella. Elections in cities: by or from districts, which was signed into law by the governor on October 10, 2015
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB493

HOOK, LINE AND SINKER

Leave a reply

Some residents are truly gullible beyond belief.

https://www.facebook.com/WildomarRap/
My biggest takeaway from it is that Wildomar is getting it’s 4th park. The park is park of Grove Park mixed use development on the east side of the freeway off of Clinton Keith Rd.

Figure 1
Parcels 3 and 5 are already Wildomars 4th Park

One would first have to forget the 27 acres of parkland purchased with a measly 1.9 million dollars ($1,900,000.00)of Quimby Fees provided by the residents of Wildomar.
Let us not forget the additional $300,000.00 in Quimby Fee’s that came with the transfer from the County of Riverside to the City of Wildomar. This purchase occurred almost 8 years ago on May 6, 2008. (7 years 8 months)
http://www.rivcocob.org/proceeds/2008/p2008_05_06_files/03_08001.pdf

Below is the link to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors action on July 16, 2013 wherein they transferred title to two parcels and the last 300K in Quimby Fees held by the County of Riverside
http://rivcocob.org/proceeds/2013/p2013_07_16_files/03-68001.pdf

This property was accepted by the City of Wildomar on November 13, 2013 by Resolution 2013-41
http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/minutes/11-13-13-cm.pdf

After forgetting about the above purchase one would have to deem the currently talked about 1.8 acre property as a park.

Hook 1A

For a view to give you perspective Section A-A

Hook 4A

The elevation change on the left at the “Bioretention Planter” to the pad on the left is 17.8 feet.
The elevation change on the right at the point A-A crosses the sidewalk which is at the base of the slope up to the sidewalk along the roadway is 10 feet.

An example of something similar can be found at Regency Heritage Park. The hillside next to the homes on Autumn Oak is approximately 4 feet from the elevation of the basketball court with a 6 foot block wall above that for 10 feet total.

P07-25-14_09.52

The full effect of this retention basin will be felt with every significant rainfall as shown by the 4.25 acre Drainage Management Area A shown below.

Hook 3A

This DMA directs three separate storm drains into the bioretention basin before it exits to the west property line.

What is left over after the hillsides, retention basin and parking lot is approximately 11,000 square feet (.25 acres) of relatively flat property.

There is an attempt to make the sidewalk from the bottom parking lot up to the commercial center ADA compliant. ADA allows for a maximum grade of 5% and this developer proposes a 4.9% grade. The issue here is the California State Parks Guidelines call for rest areas on difficult trails every 200 feet. Rest areas are defined as level portions of a trail wide enough to provide wheelchair users and others a place to rest and gain relief from prevailing grade and cross-slope demands. The most inviting rest areas have a bench, shade, a place to rest bicycles, and a trash receptacle.
figure-5-4

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap5a.cfm

This sidewalk would benefit from 2 such rest areas, one at the switch back and one approximately 1/2 the distance down the hill.

Lastly of the 19 parking spaces shown not one is a van accessible handicap parking space.

Next on tap will be the Oak Preserve with the Regional Trail Head.

First thing to look at is the trail extends only as far as the parking lot next to the Tot-Lot. The Oak Preserve is fenced between the Preserve and the development.
Secondly even if the trail were built from Yamas to the beginning of the trail the climb in/out of the Oak Preserve would be via a 2:1 slope or 50% grade. Not ADA compliant.
Third – as shown the trail exiting the western edge of the property is a reported 7.5% grade. Again not ADA compliant.
With storm drain coming in capable of 500 cfs in a 100 year event this basin will soon look like Regency Heritage Park, a disaster.

Hook 6A

By allowing this 1.8 acre sight to be called a park when in reality is contains a .25 acre area capable of recreation the citizens of this community will be cheated out of impact fees that could be used to work on the existing 27 acres of parkland already owned by the city.

PLAYING WITH THE RULES

Leave a reply

There will be a parks subcommittee meeting this week, Wednesday January 6th at 5:00pm, where the year’s parks event calendar will be set. As there been no notice posted this meeting will be held in violation of the Brown Act.

Not sure why the city is even bothering to do this as the Rotary BBQ is a done deal even before the subcommittee meets or the city council votes.

This posted on the Rotary Club Facebook Page December 30, 2015

This posted on the Rotary Club Facebook Page December 30, 2015

Last years BBQ cost the this city a lot of money to add additional electrical capacity just for this event, maybe as there has been no independent annual audit submitted to the city council for approval as required by law (CGC 50075.3). The Measure Z Citizen Oversight committee has not met since July of last year

(Resolution 2013-38 Committee Structure Section F. 1. The Committee shall conduct at least four meetings a year)

At that meeting two members had not completed their end of the fiscal year assessment of the city parks therefore any assessment will not reach the city council until sometime after the next Oversight Committee meeting in late February.

California Government Code 50075.3. The chief fiscal officer of the levying local agency shall file a report with its governing body no later than January 1.

During the February meeting the term of 3 positions will be coming to an end. Hopefully the city council will have properly advertised for volunteers and/or the current members will reapply.
Last year the city received one applicant in the time period declared by the city council during its January meeting. One additional applicant was selected several months later without further advertisement.

As a side note.
Another blogger made mention of the sandbag events held recently in Wildomar. It was claimed that the cost was $6000 per event for a total cost of $12,000. With this bloggers mention of approximately 165 total participants this would make the cost about $2.90 per bag.
PV Maintenance made the claim at one such event that filled sandbags could be obtained by the city locally for $1.00 per bag.
ISN’T LOCAL CONTROL WONDERFUL

The link below is the text of California Government Code 50075-50077.5 which concerns special taxes.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=50001-51000&file=50075-50077.5