Veterans Cemetery Location in Irvine Still Unclear – At least 12 different people yelled “recall!” and a man screamed, “you’re crooked!”

Editorial –

City Hall and the Irvine Company have a Problem – No More Brick and Mortar Retail Stores – So No Sales Tax Revenues – this Leaves Food and Hotels – the Irvine Company’s Rent is So High that the Food Guys have to Charge $55.00 for a Cheeseburger and No One’s Buyin’ – and the OC and Especially Irvine Aren’t Destinations for Anyone – So there’s No Demand for Hotels – Good Luck.

There Won’t be a Veterans Cemetery in Irvine because there’s No Chinese Money or Feng Shui in Dead American War Veterans – City Hall and FivePoint can’t Figure Out How to Monetize Them.

So Screw the Veterans We’ll Pimp Out that Land to Emile Haddad at FivePoint – for His Development Orgy – Get More Traffic – Pat Ourselves on the Back and Wait for the Envelope.

The location of Orange County’s first veterans cemetery remains unclear after the Irvine City Council directed staff to identify a site in or around the Great Park and put the project through the planning process.

Councilman Jeff Lalloway brought a motion Tuesday night to reinstate original cemetery site near the heart of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, adjacent to the Great Park. But, before it could go to a vote, Mayor Don Wagner introduced a substitute motion that directs different commissions and city staff to start studying the original site and explore other city-owned land.

“Give me a site,” Wagner told Voice of OC after the meeting. “You tell me where it can be … is it a golf course (that’s slated to be built in the Great Park)? Is it the ARDA land (original site)? I don’t think it will be the ARDA land though.”

Wagner, along with Mayor Pro Tem Christina Shea and Councilwoman Melissa Fox voted for the substitute motion and said Lalloway’s funding source isn’t sustainable. The money Lalloway sought was from the Great Park development fund — separate from the general fund.

Councilwoman Lynn Schott and Lalloway dissented. Immediately following the vote, many people in the audience booed and jeered the council.

At least 12 different people yelled “recall!” and a man screamed, “you’re crooked!”

Lalloway called for using money from the Great Park development fund — at least $40 million of it — to demolish dilapidated buildings and other structures on the original site and prepare it for construction. The land still has taxiways, hangars, jet-testing buildings, an active Federal Aviation Administration antenna array and other miscellaneous buildings on it.

Wagner said Lalloway’s motion was on the right track, but needed to follow the city’s planning process.

“Lalloway’s motion was around half of what needed to be done — it needed to be fleshed out,” Wagner said.

During the meeting, Lalloway said Wagner’s motion, which Wagner passed paper copies of to the council and the city clerk, will “kill” the veterans cemetery in the city.

“And what this is, what I’m handed — this motion — this is what you do when you want to kill something,” Lalloway said.

The Council’s move comes two weeks after the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed staff to begin studying roughly 280 acres of county-owned land for a veterans cemetery in Anaheim Hills.

During the meeting, Shea said much of the Great Park money, which stems from a settlement with the state over the now-defunct Redevelopment Agency funds, is tied to other commitments.

“We have these agreements with our development partner that we have to be committed to building the Great Park (with the fund),” Shea said.

Fox said Lalloway’s motion would halt the cemetery.

“However, we have a lot of undeveloped land. We have the entirety of the (Great) Park. We have what I heard tonight is a golf course. We have the entire cultural terrace to plan,” Fox said. “We have over 600 unplanned acres. What we cannot do is move forward in a fashion that kills this cemetery.”

The city was going to swap the original 125-acre original site for developer FivePoint Holdings-owned agricultural 125-acre land next to the 5 and 405 interchange on Bake Parkway. Irvine voters rejected the land swap June 5 by a margin of over 25 points.

Lalloway called the vote a “landslide.”

“The ‘No’ on the land swap won 63 to 37 (percentage points). I’ve been around politics for quite some time … I’ve never seen anything like it,” Lalloway said.

A state Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) 2016 site study estimated the price tag for the first phase the cemetery at $77.3 million — demolition and site preparation make up the bulk of the cost.

According to the CalVet study, the fully built-out cemetery would be home to over 210,000 graves, with most of them slated for cremated remains, or “cremains.” The $77.3 million first phase would provide 5,000 graves for cremains, 3,250 of which would be columbarium spots. CalVet estimated the cemetery would serve veterans’ burial needs for 100 years.

The Bake Parkway land, which is being used as strawberry fields, was cheaper to build on, according to a state Department of General Services (DGS) June 2018 preliminary report. It estimated the price tag for the first phase at $38.6 million.

Like the original site, the DGS study conducted at the strawberry fields was for 5,000 graves with the same ratio of in-ground and columbarium spots for cremains.

If the swap had passed, FivePoint pledged $10 million for the strawberry fields site.

Shortly after last month’s election, Nick Berardino, former general manager of the Orange County Employees Association, asked Supervisor Todd Spitzer to consider using land off the 91 freeway and the 241 toll road in Anaheim Hills for a veterans cemetery.

Berardino, a combat Marine in the Vietnam War, also chairs the Veterans Alliance of Orange County (VALOR). The alliance supported the land swap in Irvine and actively campaigned for “Yes on Measure B.”

The Board of Supervisors directed county staff to start studying the site June 26, after veterans from VALOR spoke in favor of the Anaheim Hills site during public comment. Staff is scheduled to report back to supervisors on or before Aug. 14.

During his opening remarks, Lalloway warned against the Anaheim Hills site.

“Remember, the county site is not happening … don’t fall for that red herring — the county is not going to save you,” Lalloway said, citing delays due to studies, politics, legislation and funding. “When has the county saved anybody?”

Roughly 50 people spoke at the City Council’s rowdy Tuesday meeting. The majority, which included some Irvine veterans, were in favor of Lalloway’s plan to go with original site.

A minority, including veterans, were in favor of Spitzer’s proposed site in Anaheim Hills or the strawberry fields.

When someone from the minority spoke, boos and jeers erupted from the audience.

Berardino said to let the county move forward on the Anaheim Hills site and leveled his ire at Lalloway.

“This is cheap politics. This is sewer politics,” Berardino said. “That’s what this is about … I don’t have beef with Jeff (Lalloway), he’s playing politics.”

Lalloway shook his head at Berardino’s comment.

“Yes you are,” Berardino said. He later yelled at the council, “stand up to that!”

Many people booed Berardino during and immediately after his comments.

“I think this is the right thing to do contrary to what Nick Berardino said about some slick political play … this is the right thing for our veterans,” Lalloway later said.

Former Mayor Larry Agran, who helped get the land swap question on the ballot, told the council to stop the delaying.

“No more political detours, no more development schemes, no more delays. Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery now, starting tonight. Adopt Council Member Lalloway’s Motion,” Agran said.

At one point, Shea stepped out of the chamber while someone was speaking during public comment, prompting heckles and jeers from the audience when she returned.

The City Council decided to go with a dual track in April 2017: one option was the original site, which was brought forward by Lalloway and the other option was the land swap with developer FivePoint Holdings, brought by Shea.

“I worked with the veterans, we found a land swap. This was not FivePoints’ idea, it was our proposal,” Shea said during council deliberations, followed by hisses and laughter from the audience. “You can laugh and snicker if you want, but that’s what it was.”

During his visit May 2017 when he toured both sites, Gov. Jerry Brown said the location would be the Council’s choice and the state “would back them up.”

In a split vote June 2017, the five-member council opted to go for the land swap. Lalloway and Schott dissented. Fox was the swing vote who proposed moving forward on both options at the April 2017 meeting.

During public comment, many people accused Wagner, Shea and Fox of selling out to FivePoints for the land swap.

“The answer rife in this audience is of course we were bought off,” Wagner said during the meeting. “Maybe the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars and all the other groups that sent letters of support (for the land swap) were bought off as well. I find that idea offensive and laughable.”

Wagner said the current council hasn’t approved a FivePoint project, or any other housing development except for student housing near the UCI campus.

After the second reading of a zoning ordinance required for the land swap, Irvine resident and U.S. Army veteran Ed Pope, along with Agran, began a petition campaign in October to stop the land swap. Pope and Agran, who was in the Air Force Reserve, turned approximately 18,500 petition signatures to the city clerk in November, well past the roughly 12,000 required amount.

Leading up to the June 5 primary election, proponents of the strawberry fields and supporters of the original site waged battles against each other through social media postings and email blasts. Both sides accused each other of distributing misleading information and the ballot question divided the council — Shea and Fox actively campaigned for the “yes” vote through social media, while Schott and Lalloway criticized them for attempting to sway people’s votes.

Veterans have been fighting to get a cemetery for years in Orange County. Currently the closest veterans cemeteries that aren’t full are in San Diego and Riverside counties.

Although the land swap fight is over in Irvine, the battles surrounding the veterans cemetery haven’t stopped.

On Monday, Fox filed a complaint against resident Harvey Liss to the District Attorney’s office over perceived threats in an attempt to get her to vote for Lalloway’s plan.

In a July 2 email, Liss told Fox she should vote for Lalloway’s plan or could face a recall election.

Liss said he wanted her to vote “for the right thing” and said his mention of recall in the email shouldn’t be considered a threat.

“Liss’s threat is a misuse of the political system. It is to the people of Irvine that I owe my best efforts, my best judgment, my faithfulness, and my sole allegiance. I will not be bullied, threatened, or extorted into voting against what I believe to be the best interests of the City of Irvine,” Fox said in a July 9 news release.

He said the threat “is nonsense — they (the City Council) can do whatever they want.” Liss said he isn’t the only one talking about a recall. “A lot of people have asked for a recall.”

Spencer Custodio is a Voice of OC reporter who covers south Orange County and Fullerton. You can reach him at [email protected]. Follow on Twitter @SpencerCustodio

Brandon Pho is a Voice of OC intern. You can reach him at [email protected]

https://voiceofoc.org/2018/07/veterans-cemetery-location-in-irvine-still-unclear/

Operator of Orange County malls Fashion Island – Irvine Spectrum – Tustin and Irvine Market Place says it shares license plate data with local police, but not ICE

A major Orange County land developer that owns three shopping centers equipped with cameras that read license plates said Wednesday it does not share information about vehicles captured in the recordings with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Irvine Co. said the data collected by a contractor are “only shared with local police departments as part of their efforts to keep the local community safe.”

Those shopping centers include Fashion Island in Newport Beach, the Irvine Spectrum Center in Irvine and the Market Place on the border of Tustin and Irvine.

Both the Irvine and Newport Beach police departments said Wednesday that their respective agencies don’t share that data with ICE. Tustin police did not immediately respond to a call for comment.

The statements came after a report published Tuesday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation raised privacy concerns about how the data are used.

According to Irvine Co., the readers record license plate numbers as well as the location, date and time the information is collected. Encrypted information is then sent to a searchable database operated by Vigilant Solutions, a Livermore, Calif., business that collects information from license plate readers for law enforcement and private entities.

In Irvine, the technology would notify police when there’s a hit on cars that have been reported stolen or are associated with a wanted suspect, Irvine police spokeswoman Kim Mohr said.

“It’s like having extra patrol officers, in a way, because it’s the eyes out there,” Mohr said, adding that police cars are also outfitted with the technology.

In Newport Beach, investigators can search the Irvine Co. database as part of active criminal investigations or patrol operations, but they haven’t actually ever used the tool in that way, Newport Beach police spokeswoman Jennifer Manzella said.

“It’s not a database that we can just peruse at will,” Manzella said. “We have to be able to document who is querying it and why it’s being queried.”

Though Irvine Co. says it does not sell its information or share it with ICE, immigration authorities do have access to data collected from license plate readers elsewhere by commercial third parties and sold to Vigilant Solutions, according to the Northern California firm. In some cases, Vigilant Solutions owns the cameras the third parties use.

Vigilant spokeswoman Mary Alice Johnson declined to identify those third parties but said some include repossession companies whose trucks are outfitted with license plate readers. None of the third parties are law enforcement agencies, she said.

ICE is among at least 1,000 law enforcement agencies across the country that pay for access to the database — and it’s up to those agencies to set policies on how to use the information, Johnson said.

In a statement, ICE said that it uses information as a tool in criminal and civil immigration enforcement investigations and must comply with its own privacy rules.

“ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database, and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database,” the agency said. Its rules, ICE said, “are the most stringent requirements known to have been applied for the use of this technology.”

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California is suing for records about ICE’s use of the technology, including contracts with the private companies operating the databases, training material, privacy policies and other documents.

“Aggregation of this information into databases containing billions of license plate scans stretching back months and even years threatens core civil rights and liberties protected by the Constitution,” the ACLU of Northern California said on its website.

Times staff writer Cindy Carcamo contributed to this report.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-irvine-company-license-plates-20180711-story.html

Customers sue embattled Compton water district over discolored water

Frustrated by discolored drinking water pouring from their taps, four Compton residents filed a class-action lawsuit late Monday against their water provider, Sativa Los Angeles County Water District.

The lawsuit, filed at Los Angeles County Superior Court, accuses Sativa of failing to provide quality drinking water, misappropriating taxpayer dollars and causing a financial burden on its low-income customers in Compton and Willowbrook. It comes days before a crucial decision by county oversight officials on whether to dissolve the small public water district.

“Sativa mismanaged public funds by failing to use them for the intended purpose of maintaining and improving the water district’s infrastructure for the delivery of potable water,” the lawsuit alleges.

The claims in the suit echo some raised by oversight authorities about Sativa in recent years.

The district has been accused of financial instability, nepotism, poor maintenance and mismanagement. It has fended off two previous dissolution attempts by L.A. County’s Local Agency Formation Commission — the state-appointed body charged with monitoring special districts.

The commission meets Wednesday to consider initiating its third attempt to dissolve the district.

That decision will come amid mounting complaints by residents of discolored water that smells of chlorine or rust. Residents said the water stains white clothes and forces them to purchase bottled water with which to drink, cook and bathe, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs include four mothers who said they are affected by water problems dating as far back as five years.

“It’s a wake-up call for everybody, even for those who [oversee] the district,” said Martha Barajas, one of the plaintiffs. “Maybe people will listen to us now.

“We’ve given Sativa plenty of time to fix the problems,” she added.

The 1,600 households served by Sativa pay a flat rate of $65 a month, adding up to nearly $1.3 million in annual revenue.

Sativa says it lacks the estimated $10 million to $15 million needed to upgrade the 70-year-old pipes it blames for depositing manganese in drinking water, which can make faucets run brown.

The lawsuit states Sativa “miserably failed again and again” to meet state clean drinking waters standards. It points to a compliance order from the State Water Resources Control Board last month that said Sativa violated the state’s health and safety code when it neglected to maintain the minimum water pressure, delivered “muddy water” and did not engage in proper flushing.

The order said water tested from Sativa wells, faucets and hoses contained higher-than-normal levels of manganese and was sometimes cloudier than standards allow. The state water board noted that from March 2017 to May 2018, Sativa received at least 97 complaints of brown water from customers.

In addition to dirty drinking water, Sativa has come under fire after The Times reported allegations that the district had hired paid supporters to attend a forum to address the problem. Sativa’s board and its administrative manager, Maria Rachelle Garza, strongly denied any involvement. Days later, Garza was placed on leave.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Sativa and its five board members: Luis Landeros, Christina Casillas, Juan Aguilar, Roxsana Zepeda and Lucia Castrellon. They could not immediately be reached for comment.

Landeros previously told The Times that the district is working to fix the problem but needs financial help from the state and county.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-compton-lawsuit-sativa-20180709-story.html

Hangar Fire - "Without Litigation" - City of Tustin Already On the Hook for $90 Million in Clean-Up Costs - "Not Including the Actual Hangar Property" - and Heading for a Billion Dollars - Developers Likely Not Off the Hook Either - Property Value Assessments Undergoing Official Review - Ask Yourself - Would You Buy or Rent at the Tustin Legacy - Remember there's "Another" Hangar Too
Addicted? 1-800-662-HELP
URGENT REMINDER - if You're on Southern California Edison's - "Time to Fuck You" - "Electricity Rate Plan" - "Opt Out Now" - Call Today or Visit the Website - 1-800-810-2369