When Will Glendora USD Re-Open In-Person Learning?

In order to re-open Glendora USD schools, a waiver must be received from Los Angeles County. Governor Newsom and LA County Department of Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer have developed an extensive list of requirements that school districts must reach before consideration will be given to allowing in-person education to reopen. With many hurdles (that are often changing), it’s likely that in-person education for most schools in LA County, including GUSD, won’t be a reality until sometime in 2021! This is unacceptable! I urge you to assist GUSD’s advocacy by taking a few minutes to reach out to Dr. Ferrer, Governor Newsom, LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Glendora’s state legislative reps Assembly Member Blanca Rubio and Senator Anthony Portantino. They have the power to make it happen.

Contact information for Dr. Ferrer and legislators is below. You can click their names to be taken to the comment pages:

LA County Director of Public Health Barbara Ferrer 

Governor Gavin Newsom 

LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger

Assembly Member Blanca Rubio 

Senator Anthony Portantino 

The following covers sample talking points:
Please reopen schools for in-person education. This prolonged closure is causing serious damage to the educational, psychological and social development of our children. Our local school district, Glendora USD, has completed all of LA County’s requirements and submitted a request for waivers for all 5 of its elementary schools. However, the County’s approval process is moving so slowly that it’s reasonable to expect that a waiver won’t be given until sometime in 2021. This is unacceptable! Please consider the well-being of our children and create a faster path to school reopening.

Trump and Biden Policy Stances (reposted article)

This is an important election, more than most. Trump and Biden propose taking America on two very different paths. I’m reposting an article here that outlines their respective policies and platforms in a comprehensive and non-partisan way. I’ve reviewed many of the different comparisons that are available and this one is more thorough and substantive than others:

Trump and Biden Policy Stances link

Trump and Biden Policy Stances, a Summary

September 2, 2020 Updated: September 13, 2020

This list gives a basic outline of the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties in the 2020 election.
The Epoch Times has included actions the Trump administration has taken in its first term.


Grant tax credits to companies that move manufacturing back to United States, tariffs on those that don’t.
Continue improving trade deals after USMCA, China Phase 1, South Korea, and Japan deals.
Continue to cut regulations for businesses.
Fund on-the-job training, apprenticeships.
Make major investment in infrastructure.
Launched “opportunity zones” program in 8,766 distressed areas, which, so far, have attracted $75 billion in private capital.
Build on becoming a net energy exporter.

Increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Strengthen worker organizing, collective bargaining, and unions.
Make major investment in infrastructure focused on reducing carbon emissions.
Make racial equity part of the mandate of the Federal Reserve.
Will insist on strong and enforceable standards for labor, human rights, and the environment in any future trade agreements
Will ban anonymous shell companies, expand anti-money-laundering requirements, disclosure of beneficial ownership, and greater oversight of cross-border transactions.


Signed tax cut legislation.
Cut capital gains tax to 15 percent.
Increased the estate tax basic exemption amount from $5 million to $10 million.
Proposes a cut to payroll tax.

Greatly increase capital gains tax to same rate as income tax.
Increase taxes by $4 trillion over 10 years, including raising taxes on people making over $400,000 a year.


Restore balance and vertical separation of powers between the federal and state governments.
Promote voter ID, urging all states to join program to keep voter rolls accurate.
Supports apportionment and redistricting based on Census count of all citizens, and not including illegal immigrants.
Appoint more federal judges.
Make Puerto Rico the 51st state; keep the District of Columbia as a district.
Pass congressional term limits.
Directed federal agencies to move out of D.C. to opportunity zones.

Make the District of Columbia the 51st state.
Supports removing the Confederate flag and statues of Confederate leaders from public properties.
Establish a national commission to examine slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and racially discriminatory federal policies on income, wealth, educational, health, and employment outcomes, and to study reparations.
Opposes Voter ID laws and supports automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, early voting, and universal vote-from-home and vote-by-mail options.
Supports apportionment and redistricting based on Census count of everyone, including illegal immigrants.
Supports requirement for all federal office candidates to disclose at least 10 years of tax returns.

Health Care

Rescinded the individual mandate in Affordable Care Act and supports repealing the entire act.
Protect those with pre-existing conditions.
Supports health care price transparency.
Stop “surprise billing” by banning out-of-network charges when the patient doesn’t have control over provider choice.
Drive down prescription drug prices. Allow purchases from abroad; cut out the middlemen who negotiate drug rebates; introduce “favored nation status” where Medicare pays the lowest drug price available globally.
Accelerated generic drug approval.
Signed the Right to Try bill.
Anti-abortion—curbed federal spending that even indirectly supported abortion.
Permanently expand telehealth through Medicare payments and preserve more rural hospitals through Medicare incentives.
Enabled short-term insurance up to a year and is expanding the use of health savings accounts.
Allowed employers to pay premiums for employees in individual market.
Allowed small businesses to band together to access insurance plans available to large employers.
Declared opioid crisis a national public health emergency and focused resources on supply, demand, and treatment.

Introduce “public option” health insurance plans run by the federal government.
Protect and expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Increase tax credits toward health coverage. Give the tax credits to higher-income people who currently aren’t eligible
Provide free health care to illegal aliens.
Expand Medicaid in states that rejected expansion offered by ACA.
Stop “surprise billing”—ban out-of-network charges when the patient doesn’t have control over provider choice.
Lower drug prices. Repeal law barring Medicare from negotiating lower prices with drug corporations; government-set prices for new drugs with no competition; allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from other countries.
Treat abortion as a constitutional right and restore federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
Double the federal funding to community health centers.
Target health care companies for antitrust violations.
Exclude drug ads from tax deductible costs for pharma companies.
Expand national and global vaccine programs.


Support school choice—homeschooling, career and technical education, private or parochial schools, magnet schools, charter schools, online learning, and early-college high schools.
Wants funding to follow child (currently an average of $12,000 per student per year in public school).
Ensure First Amendment protections for students on campus.
Sue colleges for discriminating against Asians and whites.
Opposes Common Core and supports alternatives; supports less testing.
Opposes school-based clinics that provide referral or counseling for abortion and contraception.
Restore private sector student loans and decrease student costs

Triple the funding for Title I schools, increase teacher wages.
Double the number of psychologists, guidance counselors, nurses, and social workers in schools.
Increase federal funding for public school infrastructure.
Provide universal Pre-K for all 3- and 4-year-olds.
Double funding for home visiting programs for parents of young children.
Make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all students whose family incomes are below $125,000.
Forgive student debt for low-income and middle-class individuals who have attended public colleges and universities.

Border Security/Immigration

Halt the diversity visa lottery program that randomly gives out 50,000 green cards annually.
Clarify birthright citizenship to exclude illegal immigrant children and “birth tourism.”
Possibly resubmit DACA repeal to Supreme Court.
Continue to build 733 miles of border wall on the southern border.
Increase merit-based immigration from 12 percent to 57 percent, and possibly higher.
Continue Migrant Protection Protocols, where asylum-seekers who enter illegally are sent to wait in Mexico for their case to be adjudicated.
Step up workplace enforcement of illegal workers and their employers.
Forged cooperation agreements with Central American countries to help with regional asylum issues.
Punish “sanctuary cities” that protect illegal immigrants from federal immigration enforcement.

Provide a pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, including Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status recipients.
Halt border wall construction, increase screening at ports of entry.
Widen asylum criteria, stop the Migrant Protection Protocol program, increase refugee cap to 125,000 per year (from 18,000), and vastly expand government resources for all immigrants.
Rescind travel bans from terror-prone countries.
Stop workplace enforcement of illegal workers and promote union organization.
Decrease detention and Immigration and Customs Enforcement interior enforcement efforts.
Expand temporary worker visa programs for seasonal and high-skilled workers, and provide a pathway to citizenship for agricultural workers.
Continue family-based immigration, also known as chain migration.
Provide green cards to foreign graduates of doctoral programs.


$1 trillion investment to fix current infrastructure, including bridges and roads, and expand rural broadband and 5G wireless infrastructure.

$1.3 trillion over 10 years for infrastructure and Green New Deal plans.
Speed transition to electric vehicles; install 500,000 public charging outlets.
Implement a high-speed passenger rail system between New York and Washington, move the California high-speed rail project ahead, and begin construction of a high-speed rail system from coast to coast.
Provide every American city with 100,000 or more residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options.


Keep zoning decisions local, rather than through a previous administration’s federally administered Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation.
Create program to help foster children with housing once they age out of the system.
Use Housing and Urban Development programs to reduce homelessness, especially for veterans and families with children.

$640 billion over 10 years for access to affordable housing.
Create new Homeowner and Renter Bill of Rights.
Provide Section 8 housing vouchers to all eligible families paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent.
Eliminate local and state housing regulations that “perpetuate discrimination.”
Withhold federal funds from states that refuse to repeal zoning regulations, with emphasis on ending single-family housing.


Focus on clean air and water, not carbon emissions.
Expedited environmental assessments.
Fund national parks cleanup.
Rejects U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of U.S. sovereignty, and opposes any form of global tax.
Narrowed and clarified the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the United States rule that federally regulates waterways.
Supports development of all forms of energy without subsidies.
Proposes shift of environmental regulation from federal to the states and transform EPA into an independent bipartisan commission.

Invest $1.7 trillion over 10 years for “climate and environmental justice.”
Implement Green New Deal; move away from fossil fuels and fracking.
Promises 100 percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by 2050.
Require aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations.
Upgrade 4 million buildings and weatherize 2 million homes over 4 years. Reduce carbon footprint of U.S. building stock 50 percent by 2035.
Demand worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies.
Recommit to Paris Climate Agreement. Restore funding to Global Environment Facility and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Law Enforcement

Eliminate “no-knock warrants.”
Fully fund and back police departments.

Decrease funding to police departments and increase diversity.
Establish “no-knock warrants” standards.
Limit the sale and transfer of surplus military weapons to domestic law enforcement agencies.
Limit qualified immunity.

Criminal Justice

Signed the First Step Act in 2018, which allowed for almost 3,100 inmates to be released, mostly drug offenders and inmates serving sentences for weapons charges.
Supports death penalty.
Crackdown on child sex trafficking and internet sites that facilite it, as well as pornography.
Opposes federal decriminalization of marijuana, but indicated support for allowing states to legalize it.

Create new $20 billion grant program to get states to shift from incarceration to prevention.
Supports end of mandatory minimum sentences at federal level.
Decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions.
End all incarceration for drug use alone and divert individuals to drug courts and treatment.
Eliminate death penalty.
End cash bail and the use of private prisons.
Provide housing to all individuals upon release from prison.
Liberally use clemency powers for certain nonviolent and drug crimes.

Second Amendment

Uphold Second Amendment rights.
Opposes laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common rifle.
Condemns frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the harassment of firearm dealers.
Opposes federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, and registration of ammunition.
Banned bump stocks.
Repealed law that required the SSA to send mental health information to the national background check system.
Supports “red flag” laws.

Ban manufacture and sale of military-style firearms and high-capacity magazines; regulate possession of existing assault weapons.
Restrict individuals to one firearm purchase per month.
Prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.
Increase background check time from 3 days to 10 days. Require background checks for all gun sales, including gun show and online sales.
Send information from the Social Security Administration to the national background check system to stop “certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons” from owning a gun.
Incentivize expansion of “red flag” laws in all states.
Move toward a system where all guns sold are “smart guns,” requiring an owner’s fingerprint to operate.


Launched Space Force as the sixth branch of the military.
Rebuilt troop numbers and readiness.
Passed the VA Accountability and Veterans Choice acts.
Dismantled the ISIS terrorist group.
Killed Iranian terrorist Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Bring more troops home.
Build a strong cybersecurity defense system and missile defense system.

Supports sufficient military funding and modernization, but likely decrease in overall defense spending.
Use force only to defend vital interests and with the informed consent of the American people.
End Middle East wars, bring troops home from Afghanistan, end support from Saudi Arabia in Yemen conflict.
Climate change to be at core of Department of Defense policies and plans.
Allow transgender troops.
Close Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Foreign Affairs

Pulled out of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Paris climate accord, Iran nuclear deal, U.N. human rights council, U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization, and the International Criminal Court.
Escalated sanctions on Iran and Russia.
Peace agreement between Israel and the UAE, and aiming to add more countries.
Moved U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
Facilitated a larger contribution from countries to NATO.
Advance the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
Expanding defense cooperation with Taiwan and Poland.
Cut international aid.
Supports Russia rejoining the G7.

Supports rejoining Iran deal, if Iran in compliance.
Rejoin Paris Climate Agreement. Rejoin WHO and expand funding to it. Rejoin U.N. Human Rights Council, and U.N. Population Fund.
Expand international aid and commit to the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.
Increase funding for diplomatic missions.
Commits to Israel security.
Strengthen ties with Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Call for commitment to NATO.
Engage allies, including China, to push for North Korea denuclearization.
Nuclear weapons only as a deterrent or retaliation
Supports extending New START treaty with Russia.


Completed Phase 1 trade deal.
Pushed against proliferation of Huawei in 5G and other IT infrastructure, and took action against TikTok and WeChat.
Cracks down on China’s influence operations in United States, including Confucius institutes, Chinese state-run media.
Cracks down on Chinese nationals stealing intellectual property and trade secrets.
Closed consulate in Houston for spying. Expose and uproot Chinese propaganda and surveillance of Americans.
Urges universities to divest from China stocks.
Divest federal retirement funds from Chinese stocks.
Scrutinize U.S.-listed Chinese companies for shady accounting practices.
Highlights state-sanctioned religious persecution.
Sanctioned Chinese entities for human rights violations.

Make bilateral U.S.–China agreements on carbon mitigation contingent on China eliminating unjustified export subsidies for coal and other high-emissions technologies and making verifiable progress in reducing the carbon footprint of projects connected to the Belt and Road Initiative.
Urge tech companies to pledge not to facilitate repression in China

Judges, LA County District Attorney and Propositions Galore!

There’s no denying this year’s ballot is overwhelming.
I urge everyone to take a deep breath, dig in, and get knowledgeable about the choices.
Most of all, I encourage you to VOTE!!!

I’ve recently received numerous requests for voting recommendations. It appears that most people are informed about the candidates and know who they prefer. However, they want information about the 25 California state propositions, 1 county measure, 3 judges and the LA County District Attorneys’ office that are all on our November 2020 ballot.
For those interested in my views, here they are:

For LA District Attorney Vote Yes for Jackie Lacey
Jackie Lacey assumed office in 2012 as the first woman and first African-American to serve as Los Angeles County District Attorney since the office was established in 1850. She has spent most of her professional life as a prosecutor, manager and executive in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Lacey’s top priority is keeping the streets of Los Angeles County safe from violent and dangerous criminals. She is committed to safeguarding our children from human sex traffickers, our seniors from financial elder abuse and our communities from environmental crimes that threaten our health and our livelihood.

George Gascón joined LAPD in his early 20’s, moving up from a patrol officer to assistant chief to Bill Bratton. In 2006, he became Chief of Police for Mesa PD and, in 2009, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom named him San Francisco’s Chief of Police. When Kamala Harris vacated her position as S.F District Attorney in 2011, Gov. Newsom appointed him to that position where he served until 2019 when he moved to LA to campaign for the position of LA County DA. Gascon’s top priority is to modernize LA’s criminal justice system. In contrast to Jackie Lacey, George Gascón has no hands-on experience as a prosecutor, manager or executive in the LA County DA’s office.

From the LA Times on Oct. 2, 2020:
More than $12 million has been pumped into November’s contentious Los Angeles County district attorney race, with donors lining up on opposing sides of a stark ideological divide between incumbent Jackie Lacey and challenger George Gascón. Lacey’s campaign is boosted primarily by law enforcement unions. On Gascón’s side, a set of wealthy advocates, mainly concentrated in the Bay Area, have contributed a majority of the funds. Spending in the race has intensified in recent weeks, with New York billionaire George Soros putting $1.5 million behind Gascón, helping to push him into the overall fundraising lead. Just days earlier, a pair of law enforcement unions contributed $1 million to support Lacey.

For LA County Superior Court, Vote Yes for:
Office No. 72 – Steve Morgan
Office No. 80 – David Berger
Office No. 162 – Scott Andrew Yang

State Propositions
My statement: Many of the propositions this year are complicated and written in ways that are non-transparent. A few lump multiple issues together. One thing is clear… most will increase residents’ personal tax burdens. I’m opposed to continually taking more income from tax-payers to fund endless programs with unknown outcomes. It’s important that we live within our means, both personally and in government.

• Prop. 14: Vote NO
Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute.
Prop 14 would issue $5.5 billion in bonds for a state stem cell research institute. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which issued $3 billion in bonds to finance stem cell research. Times have changed and the original rationale — California doing what the feds wouldn’t — is no longer applicable. Additionally, private enterprise has taken a bigger interest and stepped up research in this field. It’s time for California’s stem-cell agency to continue its work as a self-sustaining non-profit or close down and allow federal grants and private business to push the industry forward.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over approximately 30 years.

• Prop. 15: Vote NO
Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has a Deceptive Title…this is a massive 12-15 billion $ tax increase)
Prop 15 would repeal part of Prop 13 by amending the State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. This is a direct attack on Proposition 13. Commercial property owners are already struggling ecconomically, and increasing their tax burden will lead to many forced sales and foreclosures in commercial zones.
Fiscal Impact: It is estimated that, upon full implementation, this ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year. That money comes from the increased taxes that will be collected from property owners. Those increases may also be passed on to businesses that lease space in the form of higher rents or increases in their “triple net” lease agreements.

• Prop. 16: Vote NO
Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…this would allow discrimination based on race in government decisions and hiring)
Prop 16 would allow government decision-making policies to discriminate by race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping intact Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. A “no” vote will keep discrimination illegal.
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities because the measure does not require any change to current policies or programs.

• Prop. 17: Vote NO
Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment Statewide Property Tax Increase
Prop 17 would amend California’s Constitution to grant felons the right to vote before completing the terms of their sentence including parole. A “no” vote will require that felons fully complete all terms of their sentence before being granted the privilege to vote.
Fiscal impact if passed: Increased annual county costs, estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, for voter registration and ballot materials. Increased one-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to update voter registration cards and systems.

• Prop 18: Vote NO
Primary Voting For 17-Year-Olds Amendment
The California Constitution currently permits individuals who are at least 18 years old on the date of an election to vote in that election. Prop 18 would be a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. Prop 18 would allow high school students to vote on tax increases which are often on the primary election ballots.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Increased costs for counties, estimated between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years, to send and process voting materials to eligible registered 17-year-olds. Increased one-time costs to the state in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to update existing voter registration systems.

• Prop. 19: Vote NO
Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…this is a tax increase disguised as a tax relief measure)
Prop 19 is a confusing measure because it is three measures in one. The most concerning part of Prop 19 is that it would take away one of the best tools parents have to help their children—the right, enshrined in California’s Constitution since 1986, to pass their home and other property on without any increase in property taxes. Prop 19 eliminates that measure. The only exception is if the children move into the home within a year and make it their principal residence. Proposition 19 is a billion-dollar tax increase on families. The other two parts of the measure may have merit but voters should be given the opportunity to vote on each of the measures separately.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Local governments could gain tens of millions of dollars of property tax revenue per year. These gains could grow over time to a few hundred million dollars per year. This new state revenue would come from property tax reassessment on inherited property and most would be earmarked for fire protection.

• Prop. 20: Vote YES
Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…this measure will support the police and hold criminals accountable)
Prop 20 would make changes to AB 109 (2011), Prop 47 (2014), and Prop 57 (2016)—three measures that were each intended to reduce the state’s prison inmate population. The goal of this measure is to better protect the public by closing loopholes in the laws mentioned above that allow convicted child molesters, sexual predators and others convicted of violent crimes to be released from prison early. Prop 20 also expands DNA collection to help solve rapes, murders and other serious crimes, and strengthens sanctions against habitual thieves who steal repeatedly.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in county jail populations and levels of community supervision. While their increased costs, the implementation of Prop 20 will result in increased safety when many violent crimes are reclassified from misdemeanors to felonies and a cost saving to businesses who are repeatedly robbed by criminals knowing that they will not be arrested or charged for shoplifting if the amount stolen is less than $950.

• Prop 21: Vote NO
Local Rent Control Initiative
In 2016, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report that found that expanding rent control “likely would discourage new construction” by limiting the profitability of new rental housing. Prop 21 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act which allows housing providers to raise the rent on a vacant unit to market value after a tenant moves out. The same law also bans rent control on units constructed after February 1995 and on single-family homes and condos.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.

• Prop 22: Vote YES
App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…this measure would allow Uber, Lyft and other app-based services to continue to operate in California)
Prop 22 would allow app-based rideshare and delivery companies (Uber, Lyft, Door Dash and others) to hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that brick and mortar businesses must provide to employees. Prop 22 is in response to Assembly Bill 5 (2019) which forced the re-classification of rideshare and delivery drivers from independent contractors to employees. If this measure fails to pass, AB 5 will stay in effect, resulting in significantly increased costs to ride-share and delivery businesses who would likely pass those increased costs on to their customers or, potentially, will no longer provide services in California.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Minor increases in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors.

• Prop 23: Vote NO
Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Prop 23 would require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.
The California American Nurses Association, the California Medical Association, and patient advocates strongly urge NO on 23 because the increased costs of compliance would likely force many community dialysis clinics to shut down—threatening the lives of 80,000 California patients who need dialysis to survive.
Fiscal impact if passed: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

• Prop 24 Vote NO
Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
This measure would expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws and would create a costly new bureaucracy, the Privacy Protection Agency, to enforce the data privacy laws. The state’s Department of Justice currently oversees and enforces existing consumer data privacy laws that businesses are required to follow.
Fiscal Impact if passed: Increased state costs of at least $10 million annually for a new state agency to oversee and enforce consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, for increased court and Department of Justice enforcement workload. Some or all of these costs would be paid by penalties collected for violations of consumer privacy laws. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer data.

• Prop 25 Vote NO
Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…should we change cash bail system to an “honor system”?)
In 2018, the governor signed SB 10 which made California the first state in the U.S. to end the use of cash bail for all detained suspects awaiting trials. Instead, release would be based on their assessed risk of committing another crime or not appearing in court if released. No one would be charged fees as a condition of release. A “no” vote will undo SB10 and return the state to a cash bail system.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local costs possibly in the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for releasing people from jail prior to trial. Unclear whether some of the increased state costs would be offset by local funds currently spent on this type of workload. Decreased county jail costs possibly in the high tens of millions of dollars annually.

• LA County Measure J Vote NO
Budget Allocation for Alternatives to Incarceration Charter Amendment Statewide Property Tax Increase (Caution: Ballot Has Deceptive Title…this LA County measure would move approximately $150 million from the public safety budget to social service programs)
In August of 2020, the LA County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to place this measure on the November ballot. It would amend the county’s charter to designate at least 10% of its locally generated, unrestricted revenue be taken from public safety (police, district attorney and probation services) and redirected to community investment initiatives (housing, youth development, mental health care). Board Chair Kathryn Barger cast the “no” vote, citing concerns that the measure was rushed and that enshrining it in the county’s charter would “handcuff future boards”. The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board wrote: “Ballot-box budgeting of the sort the supervisors propose is a bad idea and poor substitute for careful study, deliberation and decision making.”
Fiscal Impact: Unknown

How the November 2020 Election is Different and How To Ensure Your Vote Counts

In California, voting for the Nov. 3rd Presidential Election will be different from other elections in several ways. This year, a ballot will be mailed to every registered voter in the State of California. Previously, they were only sent to individuals who specifically requested mail-in ballots. Voters will still have the ability to vote in person, but polling place locations and voting dates will be different.

When you sign-up for a California driver’s license you are automatically added to the voter rolls unless you state that you are not a U.S. citizen or request to opt out. Not everyone who is registered for a license is expecting, or able, to return a mail-in ballot this year. Additionally, many others who have passed away, moved, or don’t wish to vote, will also receive a mail-in ballot because voter rolls have not been given an up-to-date purge and the system is now set for 100% mail-in. This creates an opportunity for these wayward votes to be scavenged.

Ballot harvesting was allowed by the California Legislation before the 2018 midterm elections. This relatively new law allows any representative to gather or “harvest” ballots on behalf of registered voters. Both assisted living facilities and college campuses are ripe for ballot harvesting. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, along with others, has called for the law to be fixed or repealed, saying it “does open the door to coercion and fraud.”

The danger of Ballot Harvesting is a bi-partisan concern. On September 17, 2020, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat-Hawaii and Congressman Rodney Davis, Republican-Illinois, introduced The Election Fraud Protection Act in Congress. Rep. Gabbard wrote: “The strength of our democracy lies in the integrity of our elections. Ballot harvesting allows third parties to collect and tamper or sway an election for or against a certain candidate or party. No one should get in between a voter and their vote.” Rep. Davis wrote: “We’ve seen ballot harvesting widely used in states like California and a recent court case in North Carolina outlined the clear opportunities for fraud and coercion with the ballot harvesting process.” This bill will prohibit federal funding for states that allow ballot harvesting, thus encouraging all states to stop this practice.

Voting in person is the best way to ensure that your vote will be counted. Take your mailed ballot with you to your polling place, “surrender” it to the polling authority who will then give you an in-person ballot, cast your votes on-site and then place your completed ballot in the secure box provided.

Counties will vary on how they operate in-person voting and how they manage mail-in ballot processing. Your polling place will be listed on your ballot, or you can find it at your county’s Registrar of Voters website.

I’m attaching a 2 page info-sheet prepared by Election Integrity Project-California (EIPCa) that details plans for in-person voting for each county in California. It outlines what residents can expect for their area. You can click the link to read the PDF: 4 voting plans for the state

The Election Integrity Project is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3), public benefit corporation with the goal of enabling citizens to become active participants in the entire election process, from overseeing the integrity of the voter rolls to ensuring that each lawfully cast vote is counted fairly and that all processes are in compliance with federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations. For over nine years, it has trained over 10,000 citizens to observe, document, and research California elections.

Election Integrity Project suggests that voters should:
• Check your registration at your county registrar’s website or the CA Secretary of State’s website. Report any problems to EIPCa.
• Sign-up to track your ballot at this ballot tracking website. This will help prevent your ballot being used by someone else.
• Mark your calendar: you should receive your ballot in the mail NO LATER THAN October 14.
• If it has not arrived, call your Registrar’s office IMMEDIATELY, report your ballot missing, insist that it be cancelled and that you be mailed a new one; and verify the mailing
• Vote in person, if possible. It remains the best method to ensure that your vote is counted.
• If you cannot vote in person, turn your ballot in only to a staffed drop box that is emptied daily, a polling location, or your county elections office.

EIPCa needs volunteers to observe at the polls and to observe the mail-in ballot tabulating process. To volunteer, click here to contact the Election Integrity Project CA. EIPCa is offering volunteer training that is 90 minutes long and is conducted through zoom conference during this election season.

San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Update

November, 2016

Now that the election is over, it seems a good time to offer an update on an issue that I have been following for several years, The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.


  • In Oct. of 2014, President Obama issued a proclamation declaring over 346,000 acres in the Angeles National Forest a National Monument. That 2 page proclamation is the guiding document for care of the Monument.  It discusses the special features of the Monument that must be preserved and protected, and the millions of people in the region who will visit it.
  • It directed the Forest Service to create a management and transportation plan for the Monument within 3 years, to be completed by Oct. 2017.
  • Additionally, because the Monument is within such close proximity to the 10 million residents of LA County, the proclamation directed the FS to engage maximum public involvement in the development of that plan.

What has been done so far?


Judges and Propositions Galore!

There’s no denying this ballot is overwhelming. 

I urge you to take a deep breath, dig in, and get knowledgeable about your choices.

Most of all, I encourage you to


I’ve recently received numerous requests for voting recommendations. It appears that most people are informed about the candidates and know who they prefer. However, they want information about the 17 California state propositions, 2 county measures and 8 judges who are on our November 2016 ballots.

For those interested in my views, here they are:


WATER WATCH: City Council Opposes Proposed State Stormwater Bill SB1298

Reprinted with permission from Glendora City News

Article and photo by: Aaron Castrejon

Glendora City leaders expressed concern July 12, 2016 over a proposed state senate bill aimed at giving local governments power to set water rates and finance storm water projects.

The council voted 4-0, with Council member Mendel Thompson absent, to send a letter of opposition to the state Legislature, League of California Cities, California Contract Cities and Governor Jerry Brown regarding SB 1298, urging them to vote against any legislation that would subvert Prop 218. (Click to read the City’s letter here: Senate Bill 1298 Glendora Opposition Letter)

Council member Judy Nelson and Mayor Pro-Tem Gary Boyer requested to agendize and discuss the item at the July 12 City Council meeting after business owners raised serious issues with the cost of implementing a stormwater permit possibly passed on to them.

“There was such concern at the meeting amongst business owners about the potential cost that could be assessed on properties without voter approval,” Nelson said.

SB 1298 could conflict with existing law under the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act.

Prop 218, a California constitutional amendment, protects taxpayers by limiting how local governments and charter cities can increase taxes, fees and charges without taxpayer consent.

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit went into effect in December of 2012. The MS4 permit requires municipalities to implement measures to clean polluted storm water emptied into each city’s catch basins, storm drain lines, road gutters and from curbs, but at a staggering cost.

Glendora, the county and five other cities which are tasked with creating an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan for their geographical area calculated a worst case scenario for possible costs incurred by adhering to the permit, said Glendora City Manager Chris Jeffers.

Los Angeles County could pay $20 billion over a 20-year period, while Glendora alone could be responsible for $233 million of that amount.

If the conflicting language in SB 1298 remains, it could pass those fees down to property owners, who could see an annual fee of $1200 for “average property” sizes, Nelson said.

SB 1298, authored by Senator Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), was created to “safeguard California’s water supplies by giving local governments more authority to finance local water projects and set reasonable rates,” according to the senator’s website.

The proposed bill would add definitions and change others in Prop 218, some of those changes include changing the definition of “water” to define “water service,” meaning “services provided by any system of public improvements intended to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of water from any source, according to an analysis provided by the Assembly.

SB 1298 also makes findings and declarations that Prop 218 was meant to improve transparency and accountability of local government fees, arguing that some court interpretations see the law as requiring local governments to manage water supplies and address water pollution, establish rates to encourage conservation and provide assistance for low-income residents, the Assembly Analysis reported.

“The whole purpose of Prop 218 was to ensure transparency on tax increases and to ensure that citizens had a right to vote on every tax increase, assessment increase and fee increase imposed on them,” Nelson said. “This proposition [SB 1298] would pass without any voter knowledge or input.”

Boyer expressed great concern over SB 1298’s redefining of “water service” as too vague.

“It can virtually mean anything. The idea of 218 was to really protect us and give us a say. If this bill passes, it’s going to water down Proposition 218 so much that I can see it’s almost going to be useless in the future,” Boyer added.

Even with reasonable adjustments to the bill the city is seeking though, the cost to implement the MS4 storm permit could rise, Jeffers said. To what degree would be depend greatly on testing and results being done on rivers and runoff that street runoff funnels into.

The League of California Cities has raised concerns over SB 1298 with Hertzberg who was receptive and possibly looking to adopt given suggestions, city staff said.

The state Legislature is in recess until August and the new bill language will not be known until then.

Calling All Glendora Artists!


Glendora’s Community Services Department is sponsoring a competition to design the logo for our city’s new urban trails system. The City of Glendora is currently planning an 11.3 mile network of walking trails, and the first phase is beginning. The “San Dimas Wash Urban Trail” will be part of a larger network of trails along the Little Dalton Wash, Big Dalton Wash and the San Dimas Wash. Please see the flyer and link below for more information. Good Luck!


Calling All Artists

Update on FAA flight path changes over Glendora

As mentioned in my previous article, the City of Glendora recently wrote a letter to the FAA requesting additional time for community feedback and education regarding the plan for The SoCal Metroplex Project. This project is to implement a satellite-based, air traffic control system called NextGen which is expected to re-route more flights over several San Gabriel Valley cities, including ours. Unfortunately, the FAA responded to our request with a denial. (These letters, along with our City Manager’s final rebuttal, are attached with links at the end of this article.)


In November of 2015, after receiving pressure from Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (CA D-32), the FAA agreed to hold a meeting in Glendora to discuss the flight path changes with us and neighboring cities. During this meeting, we we learned that the new route over Glendora, San Dimas and La Verne will be at an altitude of 8,000 to 10,000 ft and most flights will be at night. Comparatively, the Ridge Road at the top of the mountain behind Glendora is at 2,400 feet.

The FAA representatives did not offer information regarding how many increased flights are expected to pass over our city.

After the meeting, the City of Glendora formally requested that the FAA delay the final flight path decision until local cities had received more information about the impact this change would have. We received a written response from them mid-January stating that all required outreach had been completed and they would not be offering more opportunities for comment.

Glendora’s city manager, Chris Jeffers, wrote a follow-up letter which expressed disapproval with the lack of information directly offered to the cities that will be impacted by the Metroplex Project.

To read the written correspondence, you can click the links below:

City Manager’s request to FAA

FAA response

City Manager’s rebuttal

Water restrictions in Glendora have been amended

Glendora’s results are in for the first five months of Governor Brown’s Statewide Water Conservation mandates. Glendora residents, businesses, schools and the City have responded and, as you can see from the data shown below, we are successfully meeting our mandated goal of reducing water usage citywide by 36%. We are required to continue at that level through February, 2016, but we are clearly on the right track. Thanks to each of you for your efforts to conserve water.

At our Sept. 8th, City Council meeting, the Council approved amending the current watering restrictions to add flexibility. Previous rules limited watering of ornamental landscape to no more than two-days a week at 10 minutes per station/zone. The new amendment permits more days and time in your watering schedule.

Read more to learn about the details…


The world is coming. Help welcome it!

 The Special Olympics World Games begin on July 25, 2015.7,000 athletes from 177 countries will be welcomed to Southern California for a three-day Host Town program where as many as 100 communities from San Diego to San Luis Obispo will host the delegations.The City of Glendora is partnering with Azusa Pacific University, City of Azusa and City of Duarte to serve as hosts for the World Games Los Angeles 2015.

Glendora is honored to host South Africa.  On Thursday, July 23 the delegation will visit Glendora with a tour of Rubel Castle, Centennial Heritage Park and other city landmarks. The community is encouraged to celebrate the athletes by participating in a hometown parade at 3:30pm on Glendora Avenue and then at 6:30 pm the day will conclude with a Concert in the Park with Elvis.

How Can You Help
Come fill the Avenue for the July 23rd Hometown Parade at 4pm.
These athletes have traveled far and we would like to make them feel welcome.
Make posters and bring them to the parade to cheer them on!
Come have dinner with the  Athletes and enjoy a South African Braai (Traditional South African BBQ)
5:30pm at Finkbiner Park (Shade Structure)
Please RSVP at City Hall – Community Services Department by July 16th.
Cost is $30 per person
Enjoy the FREE Concert in the Park at the Larry R. Glenn Memorial Bandshell
6:30pm at Finkbiner Park
Raymond Michael – Elvis Tribute

Public comment period is open for the San Gabriel Mountains Monument Plan

The planning phase for the new management of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument is underway. Once developed and approved, it will control how the 350,000 acre area is to be used.

During certain stages of planning, the Forest Service solicits comments from the public. The first official comment period is open now until July 27, 2015.

You may comment via the email link below or contact the Forest Service for more information. You may also request a hard copy of the “scoping letter” that explains the process by calling (626) 574-5278 and asking for Justin Seastrand, Forest Planner. 

Below is the email link for submitting comments:


What topics or concerns would you like to see addressed?  Which recreation activities do you enjoy in the forest and don’t want to see limited? Are there areas that are currently closed that you would like to see reopened for recreation?

Every comment will be considered, and concerns that are most frequently mentioned will receive priority. I urge each of you to take the time to let the USFS know of your desires regarding the usage of the natural resources in our backyard. Every opinion is important.

One of my major concerns with this designation is that the San Gabriel River, our primary water source where Glendora collects up to 85% of it’s water, is included within the boundaries. The president’s proclamation, states that there are threatened fish and rare plants living in the river, and there is ongoing debate about whether those species will eventually be given priority over the collection of drinking water. One of my comments will stress the utmost importance of protecting this water source for drinking water.

An additional concern of mine is that there has been serious conversation about creating transportation systems to bring groups of visitors from across the southland to various entrances in the Monument such as at Glendora Mountain Road, Angeles Crest Highway and Highway 39.  One of my comments will stress the importance of working together with foothill cities, including Glendora, to prepare for the impact that an influx of visitors could have— where will they park, how do we provide trail and road maintenance, additional security, and how do we protect the privacy and tranquility of residents who live near the trailheads?

It will be very important for Glendora and other foothill cities to work closely with the USFS on this part of the management planning process, so we urge residents to submit their comments during the June 12th—July 27th public comment window.

Thank you,




Volunteer to clean hiking trails

California Trial Users Coalition




SATURDAY, JUNE 13th, 2015

8 A.M. TO 3 P.M.







BARRY WETHERBY AT 818-957-1455 E-MAIL:  BHWetherby@aol.com

TERRY KAISER at 818-262-0315   E-MAIL: hdconcerns@ca.rr.com




ID # 95-4690961 & 2028091

For more information please visit CTUC website:


Mandated water conservation

Dear Friends,

If you haven’t already heard, the State Water Resources Control Board of California has imposed new mandatory water restrictions. Glendora households must limit water usage to 125 gallons per person per day.

What does this mandate mean for residents? That depends on your water usage. Beginning with the basics, here’s how to read the details of your water bill and determine what your daily water consumption is.

How to calculate your Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day (R-GPDC) usage:


A photo essay from Vietnam and Cambodia


My family and I just returned from a three week trip to Vietnam and Cambodia. It gave us a peek into the lives of the people living there.

Both are war-torn countries, and almost all of the individuals we met have family members who were killed, injured, or displaced by wars. They told us that their governments are still corrupt with fixed elections, billions of dollars misspent, lack of basic infrastructure and living conditions below the poverty level.



They are a very kind and friendly people— tour guides, hotel staff, people in the cities and small villages all did their best to greet us with smiles and make us feel welcome.  Children were very polite and would always smile and say “hello madam!”



Election statement

Dear Glendorans,

Thank you! I am honored to be re-elected to City Council and will continue to serve your best interest over the next four years. I appreciate your input and take your concerns to heart.

Congratulations also to Gary Boyer and Mendell Thompson who were elected. I look forward to working with both of them on the new council.



Endorsements: Part 2

Dear Friends,

The Examiner published a letter to the editor today from former State Senator Richard Mountjoy about my blog: http://glendorajudy.com/city-council/campaign-endorsements/

I would like to clarify that this letter was written without my cooperation. I had previously declined a request from the Examiner to reprint my blog in their paper. I am not interested in negative campaigning or brinksmanship.

The City of Glendora has excellent candidates who are running for city council and my aim, if re-elected, is to have a good working relationship with each of them.


Judy M. Nelson, Mayor, City of Glendora

MS4: Storm Water regulations

New storm water regulations are going into effect for all of Los Angeles County.

At the end of 2013, the LA County Regional Water Quality Control Board implemented extremely stringent clean water permit requirement for all municipalities, including Glendora. Referred to as the MS4, or the Stormwater permit, it requires that water runoff must either remain in our city or, if it leaves via the storm drains, must not exceed new pollutant requirements.

The 1972 Clean Water Act mandates that each state implements a permit system for regulating and treating sources of water pollution. In Los Angeles County, the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board consisting of seven members appointed by the Governor, governs this system.  Glendora has done a good job of complying with past MS4 permit requirements by monitoring and making continual improvements to our water control measures as needed. The challenge is that the new MS4 regulations are much more stringent than in the past and, if runoff exceeds permit requirements, hefty fines can be assessed. This presents major challenges for our city, requiring us to set up an extensive new water testing and mitigation program. In 2014, Glendora spent close to $300,000 to develop an initial compliance plan and start the first phase of testing.  The annual cost to our city for complying with this permit could be in excess of a million dollars.


Happy New Year!

Peace, Prosperity, Happiness and Health to all in 2015.

Misuse of the Antiquities Act?

I recently had an editorial published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune regarding misuse of the Antiquities Act in relation to the San Gabriel Mountains. I’m including the direct link to the article, as well as my unedited version below.


Presidential Misuse of the Antiquities Act?

On October 10th, 2014, President Obama designated 350,000 acres of the San Gabriel Mountains and River as a national monument. This action was prompted by a request from Representative Judy Chu (D-27) to create the monument by executive order because her legislative bill, HR4858, the “San Gabriel Mountains Recreation Act” had stalled in Congress. Just seven weeks after Rep. Chu announced her request, President Obama signed the monument into effect.

Obama used the controversial Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the monument. This act allows a president to rapidly create a national monument without congressional approval. The designation was proposed only 7 weeks prior to enactment, and was rushed through so quickly that the LA County Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of Los Angeles and cities throughout the San Gabriel Valley did not have an opportunity to state a formal opinion before it was signed into effect. Now that the monument has been enacted, the Dept. of Agriculture in Washington DC is tasked with creating a new management plan which is projected to take at least three years.

The San Gabriel Mountains are a vital natural resource and have been included as part of the Angeles National Forest since 1908. US Forest Service rangers have been protecting and preserving the area for over 100 years. The mountains are not in danger that would require an emergency order of protection, and any isolated issues with trail maintenance, signage, or litter are handled by the USFS or volunteers from local organizations. To create a new bureaucratic overlay with unknown outcomes and expense was unnecessary.

The San Gabriel Mountains are directly adjacent to the greater Los Angeles metro area, and the new monument raises many issues regarding drinking water rights, recreation access and land management that could have benefited from prior discussion with local stakeholders. However, this did not occur because when a national monument is created with the Antiquities Act it can be done without any public input, studies or reviews. It does not require a vote or written legislation.

This is the 13th national monument that the President has signed into effect with the Antiquities Act of 1906. This legislation was created to allow presidents the power to quickly protect objects or structures that are in imminent danger of destruction such as cliff dwellings, pueblos, and other archeological ruins (hence the name “Antiquities Act”). The legislation states that monuments should be created from “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Presidential authority regarding size was supposed to be narrow and limited. Large-scale designations over 5,000 acres, such as the San Gabriel Mountains, were expected to be voted on by Congress to allow for the democratic process to occur.

Many lawmakers have voiced concerns that President Obama is abusing the Antiquities Act by rapidly designating over a dozen national monuments without proper protocol or public input. They believe that unless there is a dire impending threat to the proposed monument, Congress is the appropriate body to implement federal land withdrawal policy. However, despite growing concerns, President Obama recently stated, during the signing ceremony for the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, “And I am not finished. We are looking at additional opportunities to preserve federal lands and waters, and I’ll continue to do so, especially where communities are speaking up.”

While it has been publicized that this monument was many years in the making, nothing could be further from the truth. It was less than 7 weeks from proposal to enactment. Many are confusing it with Rep. Chu’s HR4858, the “National Recreation Area Act,” which was submitted to Congress in June of this year. Currently, HR4858 is being reviewed by the Congressional Natural Resources Committee and does not have enough support to pass due to many concerns regarding the potential impacts it could have on management of the mountains and rivers.

Two months after submitting her bill to Congress, on August 18th, Rep. Chu announced that she had urged President Obama to use his presidential power to create a San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in order to bypass the congressional stalemate. However, a national monument designation created by executive order lacks written management guidelines and is not interchangeable with a bill that is vetted by Congress.

One of the major concerns with this monument designation is that the San Gabriel River has been included within the boundaries. The river provides approximately 30% of the drinking water for the Los Angeles region and several foothill cities rely on it for up to 85% of their water. The river allows many cities to be largely independent from importing expensive water from Northern California.

Unfortunately, we now have no written assurance that the collection of water from the San Gabriel River will not be restricted. Included in the President’s National Monument proclamation is this concerning statement: “The San Gabriels’ rivers not only provide drinking water but are also areas of high ecological significance supporting rare populations of native fish, including the threatened Santa Ana sucker. The San Gabriel River supports rare arroyo chub and Santa Ana speckled dace, a species found only in the Los Angeles Basin.” Similar to how water is being restricted in California’s Central Valley, due to protection of the Delta Smelt, it is now entirely possible that the protection of these indigenous species will take precedence over water collection and recreation access in the San Gabriels.

Often, new national monuments come hand in hand with increased entrance fees, restrictions on the types of recreation allowed, and limitations on access to certain areas. The USDA’s FAQ sheet says that usage and access will occur to “the extent consistent with the proper care and management of the objects protected by the designation and subject to the Secretary’s special uses authorities and other applicable laws.” Although we have received verbal assurances from Rep. Chu that nothing will change with the management of the San Gabriels, the terms will not be placed into writing until the Secretary of Agriculture creates the plans, and even then the directives can be changed by future presidents as they see fit.

Now that the monument has been signed into effect, it is important to turn our attention to the creation of the new management plan. The USDA states that “within three years after the designation, a management plan will be developed with public input. The management plan will be developed and implemented…in an open and transparent process. The Sec. of Agriculture has directed the Forest Service to provide for maximum public involvement in the development of the plan.” If nothing is expected to change, as Rep. Chu states, it begs the question as to why it will take three years to create a plan and why the designation was necessary in the first place.

Regional cities, community organizations and citizens are advised to notify the U.S. Forest Service and their elected officials that they would like to be included in any upcoming planning meetings to ensure their voices are heard. We cannot take it for granted that our needs will be represented without active involvement in the decision making process.


Mayor, City of Glendora

My Council Statement on the SGM National Monument

In June of this year, Representative Judy Chu introduced a bill to Congress, HR 4858, the San Gabriel National Recreation Area Act. It was referred to the Congressional Natural Resources Committee and it is clear that it currently does not have enough support to move on. On August 16th, just 2 months after submitting HR4858 to Congress, Rep. Chu announced that she asked President Obama to use his executive power to create a San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, using the controversial Antiquities Act of 1906.

This past Friday, October 10th, President Obama signed a proclamation designating 350,000 acres of the San Gabriel Mountains as a National Monument. This is the 13th time our President had used his executive power to designate a national monument.

While it has been publicized that this monument was many years in the making, that could not be further from truth. It was implemented less than 7 weeks after it was announced. Some are confusing it with Rep. Chu’s National Recreation Area Act which did in fact undergo many years of study and input. The National Monument designation is different from the National Recreation Area bill and must not be considered the same. It does not have any written legislation to guarantee water rights, land management or recreation access.

I have actively expressed opposition to creating a National Monument for the following reasons:


President Obama takes helicopter tour of the San Gabriel Mountains?

Numerous residents saw three military helicopters flying in formation over the San Gabriel Foothills yesterday, presumably giving President Obama a tour of his latest National Monument. This will be the 13th time our President has used an executive order to create a National Monument.

Click the link below to see the video:

Rep. Judy Chu’s Plan for the San Gabriel Mountains Faces Opposition Rally

On Monday October 6, 2014 at 2pm the field office of Congresswoman Judy Chu will hear from a growing movement of citizens and elected officials against her lobbying efforts to have approximately 620,000 acres of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains designated as a national monument. They will deliver letters of opposition to Representative Chu and local groups will speak out against the plan during a media event outside Rep Chu’s office at 527 S. Lake Ave, Pasadena CA 91101.

Rep. Chu currently has a bill, HR4858, being reviewed by a Congressional committee to designate the San Gabriel Mountains as a National Recreation Area, however she hopes to bypass the legislative process and have President Obama declare the mountains a National Monument with an executive order as early as this month without proper studies or public input.

Event Location:
The field office of Congresswoman Judy Chu
527 S. Lake Ave, Pasadena CA 91101
Monday October 6th, 2:00-3:30pm

Public Officials raise concerns about fast-tracked National Monument plan

San Bernardino County supervisors unanimously expressed serious concern for the impact of Rep. Chu’s plan on their county. Several Los Angeles County supervisors have also expressed concern over Chu’s legislation. Residents and public officials have created a grassroots movement against Chu’s campaign for further federalization of local lands.

Elected officials independently opposing the National Monument designation are City Council members from the municipalities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Claremont, Diamond Bar, Glendora, La Verne, Monrovia, Rosemead and West Covina.

Local leaders have concerns over the impact to our water supply if the San Gabriel River is included in a National Monument. Recreation access and land usage may be restricted if this plan is implemented. Winter sports, off road biking and hiking, atvs, rifle ranges, horseback riding and many other activities and businesses could be curtailed.

Other groups attending and delivering letters of opposition will be the California Trail Users Coalition, Pasadena Bait Club, Public Lands for Public People, SoCal Cycling, Mt. Baldy Lodge, Off-Piste Hikers, Glendora Community Conservancy, San Gabriel Valley Regional Conservancy (SGVRC), and California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA).

You can download a copy of the press release below:

SG National Monument Press Release pdf

US Forest Service meeting

US Forest Service is holding a meeting presenting the possibility of creating a San Gabriel Mountains National Monument by using the Antiquities Act. Please attend if you are able. Information is as follows:

Tuesday, August 26th from 4:00-7:30 p.m. at the Baldwin Park Performing Arts Center, 4640 North Maine Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706.


Meet the 2014 Candidates

Layout 1

For more about the candidates please visit their campaign websites:

Arturo Alas: www.electalas.com

Jack Orswell: www.jackorswell.com

Joe Lara-Gardner: www.vote4joegardner.com

Biggest water saving and guzzling districts

The Associated Press recently reported that the State Water Resources Control Board completed a survey of 276 large water districts throughout the state of California. The SWRCB listed Glendora as the number one water conserving municipality in Southern California for the month of May with an overall reduction of 26%.

Glendora was second in water reduction for the entire state of California with only the City of Folsom, in Sacramento County, coming in first. The City of San Francisco posted a 19% increase in water consumption for this same time frame.

“These large suppliers reported the biggest decreases in May water use:

– City of Folsom (Sacramento County), 31 percent.
– City of Glendora (Los Angeles County), 26 percent.
– City of Gilroy (Santa Clara County), 25 percent.
– American Water Company (Sacramento County), 24 percent.
– City of Pleasanton (Alameda County), 23 percent.
– City of Ceres (Stanislaus County), 22 percent.
– City of Santa Rosa (Sonoma County), 22 percent.
– Sacramento Suburban Water District (Sacramento County), 21 percent.
– American Water Company (Monterey County), 20 percent.
– City of Roseville (Placer County), 20 percent.”

Read more at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/16/biggest-water-saving-guzzling-districts/

H.R. 4858

Congresswoman Chu recently submitted her San Gabriel National Recreation Area bill to Congress. It is now officially referred to as H.R. 4858 and was sent to the House Natural Resources Committee. From there it has been sent to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.

You can read the text of the HR 4850 here:


You can see the current planning map here:


You are able to zoom in and out of the map in order to see exactly where the boundary is. However if the bill is enacted, the legislation is worded so that the map boundaries can still be altered. For Glendora, it appears that the current boundary has been moved to the base of the foothills. The boundary includes the San Gabriel Mountains and homes in the hills as well as Glendora Mountain Road and Big Dalton Canyon.

Continuing concern is the inclusion of:

• The San Gabriel River, which provides most of Glendora’s water supply.

• Glendora Conservancy owned land on Bluebird Hill and Colby Trail.

The Conservancy land is a valuable resource for Glendora and is protected and cared for by a non-profit, volunteer run Glendora organization. I am requesting that it be removed from the NRA boundaries and, if you see fit, please do the same.

If you would like to voice your opinion on this legislation, now is the time to contact Congress. The best way to reach them is by fax or phone—emails from outside the district they represent are blocked and mail can be delayed while it is being inspected for safety of the contents.

• Doc Hastings, R-WA, Chair, Committee on Natural Resources
ph: 202-225-5816 fax: 202-225-5758

• Rob Bishop, R-UT, Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
ph: 202-225-0453 fax: 202-225-3251

• Grace Napolitano, D-CA (part of her district is within the NRA boundaries)
ph: 202-225-5256 fax: 202-225-0027

• Ed Royce, R-CA (part of his district is within the NRA boundaries)
ph: 202-225-4111 fax 202-226-6962

• Gary Miller, R-CA (part of his district is within the NRA boundaries)
ph: 202-225-3201 fax 202-2256-6962

• Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, House Majority Leader
ph: 202-225-2915 fax: 202-225-2908

• Darryl Issa, R-CA,
ph: 202-225-3303 fax: 202-225-3303

• Tom McClintock, R-CA
ph: 202-225-2511 fax: 202-225-5444

National Recreation Area Town Hall Video


The Glendora Chamber of Commerce held a town hall meeting on May 21st 2014 to discuss Congresswoman Judy Chu’s proposed legislation to 1). Create a San Gabriel National Recreation Area, (NRA) 2). to designate portions of the San Gabriel Mountains as Wilderness and 3). to designate portions of the San Gabriel River as Wild and Scenic.

If passed, the NRA legislation would place a National Park overlay upon approximately 621,860 acres of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges, and the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers as far south as Puente Hills. Urban areas 1/4 mile on either side of the river and portions of foothill cities will be included.

Runtime of video is 1 hour 40 minutes. See the time codes below to skip ahead:

1:30 Intro and reading of Congresswoman Chu’s written response by Bill Ruh
8:00 Dr. Cliff Hamlow gives the rules of moderating the discussion
12:00 Introduction of the US Forest Service representatives
13:30 Background information about the legislation
19:00 Dr. Char Miller speaks
29:00 Dr. Hamlow reads letters from the local water agencies
32:00 Mayor Judy Nelson of Glendora talks about potential impacts to water rights
39:00 Councilmember Denis Bertone of San Dimas speaks
48:00 Mayor Pro Tem Margaret Clark of Rosemead speaks
56:00 Mayor Joe Lyons of Claremont speaks
1:05:00 Mayor Judy Nelson of Glendora speaks
1:13:00 Audience questions and discussion

Glendora City Council votes to support the National Recreation Area

On April 22nd 2014 the Glendora City Council voted 3-1-1 to support the proposed National Recreation Area legislation by Congresswoman Judy Chu, CA district 27. The lone nay vote was cast by Mayor Judy Nelson.

The video runs 1 hour and 40 minutes.

00:48 Description of legislation by City Manager Chris Jeffers
07:12 Mayor’s comments by Judy Nelson
14:50 Public Comments
54:29 Council Comments By Mayor Pro Tem Karen Davis, Councilmembers Doug Tessitor and Joe Santoro
1:29:55 Mayor’s closing comments
1:34:48 Mayor’s motion to inform the public and not support the legislation yet- Not passed.
1:36:33 Mayor Pro Tem’s motion for the city of Glendora to officially support the legislation- Passed.

Glendoran Magazine Story

I had the good fortune of being interviewed by Mr. Jerry Kitchel of the Glendoran Magazine for this month’s cover story.



Mayor’s Inaugural Statement

This is my inaugural address at the Glendora City Council meeting on March 25, 2014:

“As a resident of Glendora for the past 34 years I proudly and humbly accept the position of Mayor. I look forward to representing our beautiful city and its citizens.

At this time I would like to introduce my family.  Without their support I would not be here tonight.  Would you please stand…