Your Voice.
Your Vote.

Based on the feedback I have received after knocking on more than 1,800 doors, I would look to considering the following as priorities:

1. Sidewalks on Bonita and surrounding neighborhoods (seniors from all over the city walk Bonita because it is flat);
2. Speedbumps in our alleys;
3. Expand bike lanes;
4. Strategically increase lighting, particularly with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in mind;
5. Trim hedges to enable visibility for individuals entering and exiting neighborhoods; and
6. An infrastructure assessment to ensure the population of people is adequately supported by existing infrastructure given the subdivision of existing property and the housing element. I would also look toward “defensible city” principles to ensure we are adequately supporting public safety, especially as we navigate expansion of the Metro A Line.

I wouldn’t select individual projects according to my personal preference. As the councilmember representing District 1, one of my first projects will be to recruit La Verne residents to execute the resident-driven District 1 Improvement Plan (DIP). In short, the DIP focuses on four areas: (1) beautification, (2) safety and preparedness, (3) community life, and (4) asset mapping. I would use the DIP, resident feedback, professional staff recommendations, and objective measures such as safety, accessibility, infrastructure condition, and community impact to help prioritize improvements. Our goal should be to maintain and improve La Verne’s beautiful aesthetic while making sure our public spaces are safe, accessible to everyone—including residents with physical disabilities—and supportive of the businesses and organizations that depend upon them. Before asking residents for more money, I want us to aggressively pursue outside funding. Funding should include grants, partnerships and private/community contributions where appropriate, existing dedicated infrastructure funds, and, where necessary and fiscally responsible, city funds approved through the normal budget process. I believe the City can do more to make our shared spaces beautiful, safe and accessible by leveraging something La Verne already has in abundance: residents who genuinely love this community.

Without question. I believe our city can promote both physical and mental well-being by ensuring there are ample and diverse opportunities for people to safely get outside and move around their community. La Verne has significant populations of both youth and seniors, and it is critical that these groups are considered in city planning. Ensuring that safe, walkable, bikeable and accessible routes exist not only gives people opportunities to enjoy their community, but can reduce unnecessary vehicle trips, improve safety and help preserve the small-town character I want to maintain. Bonita Avenue is a good example. Its relatively flat terrain makes it attractive to walkers, including seniors. I would explore ways to make corridors like Bonita even safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, while considering traffic flow, businesses, accessibility and the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. My goal isn’t simply “more bike lanes.” It is a connected and safe mobility network that works for children, seniors, people with disabilities, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.

I would use the DIP and other forms of resident feedback to better identify our specific pain points, and then combine that feedback with traffic and public-safety data. Personally, I will advocate for reduced speeds around areas where youth and seniors are known to congregate and recreate, improved signage and crosswalk visibility, and targeted enforcement in high-impact areas based upon police and traffic-engineering recommendations. Residents of District 1 have already raised specific concerns with me. Some want traffic-calming measures in alleys where speeding vehicles present an obvious hazard to pedestrians in very narrow spaces. Others have identified vegetation and hedges that obstruct visibility after maintenance, while many have requested increased traffic enforcement in strategic locations. I want to identify the problem, measure it, implement the appropriate solution, and then measure whether the solution actually worked. That is the same performance-based approach reflected in my Fiscal Sustainability & Performance Plan.

Define “ever.” But under the circumstances we face today, no. Our Police and Fire Departments are part of the identity and fabric of La Verne. Local control provides accountability, familiarity with our neighborhoods and direct responsiveness to our residents. I would not support outsourcing simply as a cost-cutting measure. If circumstances ever changed so dramatically that the City’s ability to provide safe and effective emergency services were genuinely threatened, I would have a responsibility to examine every option. But my priority is maintaining strong, locally controlled La Verne Police and Fire Departments.

I personally believe our police and fire personnel are critical staples of our community. I want well-trained, well-prepared and, consequently, competitively compensated emergency personnel. Having completed CERT training and participated in several ride-alongs, I have tremendous appreciation for the work these professionals do. I want La Verne to be able to recruit, train and retain excellent personnel. That said, compensation decisions must be balanced against the City’s long-term financial solvency. That is the balance I would bring to every labor negotiation: fair compensation, competitive retention and fiscal sustainability. More particularly, I believe the concerns surrounding paramedic compensation deserve serious consideration. A significant portion of La Verne’s fire-department calls involve emergency medical services. If we train talented personnel but cannot retain them because surrounding agencies provide substantially better compensation, La Verne absorbs the cost of developing employees who then take their experience elsewhere. So let’s get creative, because the work deserves recognition. We should examine compensation, retention incentives, staffing models, outside funding and revenue growth rather than simply demanding “more for less” from employees. Citrus helped create the La Verne we inherited. We now need the next generation of economic activity capable of helping sustain the La Verne we want to preserve. I am meeting with the LVFA tomorrow to better understand their needs and position.

Absolutely—and La Verne is already moving in this direction. Through SGV CARE and the City’s broader LEAP partnership, behavioral-health professionals can respond to appropriate nonviolent mental-health calls rather than automatically requiring a traditional police response. The City’s program describes SGV CARE as a clinician/substance-use counselor team capable of crisis de-escalation and connecting people with appropriate services. That makes sense to me. Not every person experiencing a mental-health crisis needs a police officer, while situations involving violence, criminal conduct or serious medical emergencies obviously require the appropriate first responder. Mental health is complicated. I respect the field and would rely on experts in both mental health and law enforcement, as well as measurable program outcomes, to guide my policy decisions.

Yes—strategically. I believe many residents would be surprised by the staffing limitations under which local police departments operate. If the data show that additional patrol coverage is needed and we can responsibly afford it, I support increasing visibility in our neighborhoods. But I don’t want “more patrols” simply to mean more work and overtime for the same officers. That can create its own problems involving fatigue, morale, retention and cost. I want a staffing model that adequately responds to the public’s needs, strategically deploys officers based on crime and call data, increases visible community-oriented policing, and minimizes unnecessary overtime.

Homelessness requires us to distinguish between several related but different problems: housing insecurity, mental illness, substance abuse, public safety, and unlawful conduct. One response cannot solve all five. La Verne already has a foundation through LEAP, which brings together Community Services, Police, Public Works, Fire, Tri-City and L.A. CADA. The City also uses Tri-City navigators and regional mental-health resources to connect unhoused individuals with services. I would strengthen that multidisciplinary approach. When someone needs housing or mental-health assistance, we should aggressively connect that person with services. When someone is experiencing a medical emergency, we need medical professionals. When criminal activity occurs, we need law enforcement. Compassion and accountability are not competing principles. We can treat people experiencing homelessness with dignity while also protecting residents, businesses, parks and public spaces. Most importantly, I want measurable results: How many contacts are we making? How many people accept services? How many are successfully connected with housing or treatment? Which locations generate repeated calls? What programs are actually reducing repeat contacts? Measure performance, improve continuously, and show residents the results.

I would focus on three things:

1. Establish and expand Neighborhood Watch programs, with the long-term goal of creating a connected network throughout our neighborhoods;
2. Expand community-oriented policing, so residents know the officers serving their neighborhoods and officers know the communities they serve; and
3. Ensure our officers have the training, staffing, compensation and resources necessary to effectively do their jobs—and go home as healthy, loving people to their families.

My District 1 Improvement Plan adds another component: connecting Neighborhood Watch with CERT and other resident volunteers to create a stronger neighborhood-level safety and preparedness network. Trust comes from relationships, transparency and accountability. We should measure outcomes, communicate them clearly and give residents meaningful opportunities to participate in improving their neighborhoods.

Yes, if appropriate safeguards cannot be demonstrated. I understand both sides of this issue. If my car is stolen—or, far worse, a child is abducted—I want our Police Department to have every reasonable and lawful tool available to quickly locate that vehicle. At the same time, public safety technology should never become unchecked surveillance. I want safeguards that allow us to answer basic questions: Who accessed the system? When? For what legitimate law-enforcement purpose? How long is information retained? Who can receive it? And is there an auditable record of its use? If we cannot provide residents satisfactory answers to those questions and establish appropriate oversight, then yes, I would strongly consider ending the program. Public safety and civil liberties both matter.

I support responsible housing development, but I would not approve development without seriously examining its cumulative impact on the residents who already live here. I have real concerns about concentrating a disproportionate share of affordable housing and new density in the southern portion of La Verne. We are also seeing substantially more ADUs in District 1. Residents have raised legitimate questions about electrical capacity and outages, internet and telecommunications infrastructure, water, traffic, parking and emergency services. I would seek analysis of those variables and present the findings through an easy-to-read public scorecard so residents can understand the benefits, costs and infrastructure impacts of significant development proposals before decisions are made. La Verne’s General Plan itself addresses land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, safety, economic development, fiscal sustainability, and community health and wellness. Those issues should be considered together rather than evaluating housing in isolation. We have an obligation to comply with state housing law, but we also have an obligation to advocate for responsible planning. I would not support development that unnecessarily or disproportionately burdens existing neighborhoods.

We need to treat economic development as a revenue and quality-of-life strategy, not simply wait for businesses to find us. First, I want us actively identifying the businesses residents want and recruiting them. Second, we should work with commercial property owners to understand vacancies and obstacles preventing desirable businesses from locating here. Third, we should make permitting predictable and efficient without sacrificing legitimate safety or planning standards. The City already has economic-development tools, including business recruitment, vacancy mapping, incentives in appropriate cases, and a process intended to help businesses navigate permitting. I want to measure how effectively those tools are actually producing results. My Asset Map under the DIP would complement that effort in District 1 by identifying businesses and organizations serving residents and helping us understand both what we have and what we are missing. This also ties directly into fiscal sustainability. Sales tax is an important City revenue source. Supporting successful local businesses simultaneously strengthens community life and reduces pressure to generate additional revenue directly from residents.

I would begin with the principle that development should fit the surrounding community rather than force the surrounding community to fit the development. The property is currently designated Community Facility and zoned Institutional, although state housing laws can affect what ultimately may be permitted. A residential redevelopment application has already been submitted, and the property was subsequently purchased by Lewis Management Corp. I would support a thoughtful plan that protects the surrounding neighborhoods, addresses traffic and infrastructure impacts, preserves meaningful community or recreational amenities where feasible, provides appropriate transitions in height and density, and incorporates substantial resident input. I am not opposed to development simply because it is development. I am opposed to treating the concerns of the people who already live around a project as an afterthought.

Not as a predetermined policy. Sierra La Verne is private property, and its history, environmental conditions, fire risk, open-space value, infrastructure demands and effects on surrounding neighborhoods make it fundamentally different from simply identifying an empty parcel for development. Any proposal would need to be evaluated on its actual merits, including state law, property rights, traffic, fire safety and evacuation, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, open space and neighborhood compatibility. I would be particularly reluctant to sacrifice significant open space without a compelling public benefit and meaningful community input. Housing is important, but so are infrastructure, safety, open space and the character that makes people want to live in La Verne in the first place.

Yes, I would consider it—but I would want the numbers first. My approach would be the same as my Fiscal Sustainability & Performance Plan: measure before we promise. I would want a side-by-side analysis of current electricity costs, projected rates, renewable-energy options, reliability, administrative costs, opt-out provisions and the experiences of comparable cities before committing La Verne to an alternative provider or community-choice program. I would also look for opportunities to help residents lower consumption through energy-efficiency programs, rebates and grants, particularly for seniors and lower-income households. The goal shouldn’t be to join a program because other cities have done it.

Water is a basic necessity, and rate increases can disproportionately affect seniors on fixed incomes and lower-income households. My first priority would be making sure residents are receiving every existing discount, conservation incentive and assistance program for which they qualify. I would also explore whether grants, targeted assistance or expanded conservation programs can reduce costs without shifting an unreasonable burden to other ratepayers. Longer term, however, we have to address the underlying cost of providing water. I would insist upon transparency regarding what portion of rate increases comes from purchased water, infrastructure, staffing, debt and other costs, and identify where efficiencies are realistically available. Again, the approach is: measure performance, improve continuously and show residents the results. Before asking residents to pay more, they deserve to understand why and what the City has done to control the cost.

The City’s immediate priority should be increasing revenue without defaulting to additional resident taxation. Property taxes and Measure LV are important General Fund revenue sources, but continually asking existing residents to pay more is not a sustainable economic-development strategy. My Fiscal Sustainability & Performance Plan lays out six steps: plan ahead, measure performance, improve continuously, grow revenue, protect our future and show the results. That means using realistic five-year forecasts; establishing measurable performance indicators; identifying efficiencies and using technology; aggressively pursuing grants, partnerships and appropriate cost recovery; maintaining healthy reserves; responsibly addressing pension and long-term obligations; and providing residents with a simple public scorecard showing where their money goes and what it accomplishes. I have also met many professional residents willing to provide their expertise to vet resident-driven proposals. By leveraging the knowledge, experience, history and connections already present in La Verne, I believe we can help produce the next generation of economic activity in La Verne. Citrus helped build the community we inherited. Our challenge is finding what will economically sustain the community we want to leave behind.

For Mayor, yes. The Mayor represents the entire City and, in my view, should therefore be directly accountable to voters throughout La Verne.

The 2028 Olympics present both an opportunity and a responsibility for La Verne. My priorities would be ensuring safe neighborhoods, strong businesses, reliable infrastructure, attractive public spaces, and clear communication with residents. La Verne is positioned near major regional assets, including the Fairplex and transportation connections, so we should examine opportunities to capture economic activity generated by visitors without compromising residents’ quality of life. The City’s own economic-development materials identify Fairplex and Brackett Airport as super-regional assets. I would want businesses prepared to benefit, emergency services prepared for increased regional activity, infrastructure looking its best, and residents informed well in advance about traffic or other impacts. The Olympics should not simply be something happening near La Verne. We should determine how La Verne can responsibly benefit from it.

Resident education, responsible prevention and collaboration with wildlife experts. District 1 has many dog owners, and I understand that the loss of any family pet is one loss too many. At the same time, coyotes are part of the natural environment surrounding our community, so our policies need to be informed by wildlife science rather than fear or reaction. The City already maintains a Coyote Management Plan and encounter-reporting system. I would evaluate how effectively those tools are working, consult appropriate wildlife experts, examine encounter data, educate residents about attractants and pet safety, gather public input, and determine whether additional measures are warranted. The goal should be straightforward: reduce dangerous encounters, protect pets and residents, and responsibly coexist with the natural environment around us.

My priority is maintaining the infrastructure residents use every day: streets, sidewalks, water and sewer systems, traffic signals, parks, and public facilities. We should use objective assessments to identify our most deteriorated streets and infrastructure and prioritize projects based on safety, condition, usage, and long-term cost.

We should aggressively pursue state and federal grants, transportation funding, regional partnerships, development impact fees where appropriate, and responsible capital planning before asking residents to shoulder additional costs. Preventive maintenance today is much less expensive than rebuilding failed infrastructure tomorrow.

Yes, where expansion can be done safely and makes sense for the surrounding neighborhood. I support improving bicycle, pedestrian, public transit, and ADA accessibility, particularly around schools, parks, commercial areas, and transit connections.

I also support working with Foothill Transit and other transportation providers to improve access for seniors and residents with disabilities. Transportation planning should give residents choices while ensuring that changes do not unnecessarily create new traffic or safety problems.

I support implementing Safe Routes to School strategies in partnership with Bonita Unified School District, our Police Department, Public Works, parents, and schools. We should identify dangerous intersections and missing sidewalk connections and prioritize crosswalks, lighting, signage, traffic-calming measures, ADA improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure where needed.

Children should be able to safely walk or bike through their own neighborhoods.

I strongly support maintaining our local La Verne Police and Fire Departments. Having our own departments provides local accountability, community familiarity, and a level of responsiveness that is important to our residents.

As an elected official, however, I will always evaluate how taxpayer dollars are spent. Regional partnerships and mutual aid can make sense, but I do not currently support replacing our Police or Fire Departments with contracted County services.

I believe the City should maintain a professional and respectful relationship with the La Verne Firefighters Association while recognizing that the City Council also has a responsibility to taxpayers and the City’s long-term financial health.

Our firefighters deserve appropriate staffing, training, equipment, facilities, competitive compensation, and the resources necessary to safely perform their jobs. At the same time, labor agreements must be financially sustainable. I will continue approaching these issues in good faith and with respect for both our employees and our residents.

Yes, for appropriate calls. Mental-health professionals can be an important part of our public-safety system when circumstances allow. Police must remain available whenever there is a threat of violence, a crime in progress, or another safety concern. The objective should be getting the right responder to the right call while keeping residents and responders safe.

Yes. Visible police presence can deter crime, improve response, and strengthen relationships between officers and residents.

However, deployment decisions should also be intelligence-driven. I support using crime data, calls for service, community concerns, and emerging trends to determine where patrol resources are most needed rather than simply measuring effectiveness by the number of patrol cars on the street.

Homelessness requires both compassion and accountability. I support outreach that connects people with mental-health treatment, substance-use services, veterans’ resources, housing assistance, and other services that can help move people toward stability.

At the same time, compassion does not mean ignoring behavior that threatens public safety or prevents residents from safely using parks, sidewalks, businesses, and other public spaces. We can offer assistance while maintaining reasonable standards of conduct in our community.

Public safety and public trust should reinforce one another. I support well-trained officers and firefighters, strong supervision, appropriate staffing, modern equipment and technology, community engagement, transparency, and clear accountability.

I also believe residents should know how public-safety resources are being used and whether they are producing results. My background in public safety has taught me that effective policing depends upon relationships and trust between officers and the community they serve.

I would not support eliminating an effective public-safety tool solely because the technology raises privacy questions. I would support continually reviewing the program to ensure there are appropriate safeguards governing data retention, access, sharing, oversight, and use.

Technology should help our Police Department identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects, and investigate serious crimes without creating unnecessary surveillance of law-abiding residents. Public safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive; good policy should protect both.

La Verne must comply with state housing law, but that does not mean abandoning responsible local planning. I support housing and development that are thoughtfully located, supported by adequate infrastructure, and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

Traffic, parking, public safety, schools, water, sewer capacity, and neighborhood character should all be considered when we retain the legal authority to do so. I have supported the City’s efforts to preserve local planning authority because I believe decisions affecting La Verne should be made as close to our residents as possible.

We need to make La Verne an easier and more attractive place to do business. That means reviewing permitting processes, reducing unnecessary delays, improving communication with applicants, supporting existing businesses, and actively recruiting businesses residents want.

The arrival of the Metro A Line also presents an opportunity to strengthen Old Town and other commercial areas. Economic development should be intentional. More successful businesses mean more local jobs, more choices for residents, and additional revenue to support City services without relying solely on residents.

I would support a thoughtful use that is compatible with the surrounding community and takes into consideration traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood impacts, and community input.

I would not commit to a specific development before reviewing an actual proposal, environmental analysis, traffic impacts, and feedback from nearby residents. Large properties create opportunities, but the City has a responsibility to make sure development improves rather than diminishes the surrounding community.

I would not support automatically converting golf-course or open-space property to housing simply to increase density.

Any proposal involving Sierra La Verne or another major property should undergo a thorough public process and analysis of traffic, infrastructure, environmental impacts, open space, surrounding neighborhoods, and existing land-use protections. Residents deserve a meaningful voice before a major change in land use occurs.

I am open to evaluating Clean Power Alliance or other alternatives, but I would want to see clear evidence of the costs, benefits, rate impacts, reliability, and ability of residents to choose before committing La Verne.

My standard would be simple: does it provide meaningful value to our residents? We should not change providers simply because another program exists. Any proposal should demonstrate that it can provide competitive rates, reliable service, consumer protections, and long-term value.

Water must remain safe and reliable, but affordability matters, particularly for seniors and residents on fixed incomes. I support examining legally permissible assistance programs, payment options, conservation assistance, and other ways to reduce the impact on vulnerable residents.

I also believe new development should pay its fair share of infrastructure impacts and that the City should continue seeking grants and outside funding for major water-system improvements whenever possible rather than placing the entire burden on existing ratepayers.

I believe government should first prioritize essential services: public safety, infrastructure, water, parks, and the services residents depend upon.

Before increasing the burden on residents, we should examine expenditures, pursue grants and outside funding, encourage economic development, strengthen our commercial tax base, responsibly manage reserves, and make long-term financial decisions rather than short-term fixes.

Fiscal responsibility is not simply cutting spending. It is making sure every taxpayer dollar is used effectively and planning ahead so today’s decisions do not become tomorrow’s financial problems.

Yes, I believe residents should have representatives who are accountable and accessible to them. Our current district system gives neighborhoods a direct representative on the City Council while every Councilmember still has a responsibility to make decisions in the best interest of the entire City.

Any significant change to our election system would need to comply with state and federal law and should include meaningful public participation. My focus is making the system we have work well for residents and ensuring District 3 has a strong voice at City Hall.

The 2028 Olympics represent an opportunity for the entire region, including La Verne. With our location, universities, businesses, transportation connections, and proximity to major venues and destinations, we should be looking now at opportunities for tourism, economic activity, public safety coordination, transportation, and community events.

I want La Verne prepared to benefit economically from the Games while ensuring that increased regional activity does not negatively affect our residents. Preparation should begin well before 2028.

Coyotes are a regional wildlife issue that requires education, prevention, reporting, and coordinated management. I support stronger public education about feeding wildlife, securing trash and pet food, protecting small animals, removing attractants, and appropriate hazing techniques.

The City should also track encounters and aggressive behavior so we can identify patterns and coordinate with appropriate wildlife agencies when intervention is warranted. Our approach should be based on public safety, science, and responsible wildlife management

Repairs should be ongoing with the Public Works Department identifying them on a routine basis. When identified, the city should react immediately to reduce further possible damage and/or injury to residents. The city has an annual budget as well as a Capital Improvement Program reserve for street repair and routine maintenance in addition to reviewing all state and federal grants that might be available. They need to stick to that versus delayed spending for other uses.

Yes, with conditions. All citizens should be able to “get around town safely.” Due to our city's location, we are a city of autos. Bikes lanes must consider the safety of ALL persons. We cannot eliminate auto lanes just to add bike lanes. In some cases this causes safety issues versus reducing them. I believe there are services to assist the disabled and would like to review those to see if they can be improved and/or expanded. Safety should be our main concern, to autos, bikes, walkers and especially our children. Bus service should be coordinated with the Foothill Transit as they are the main provider.

Seems to be a repeat of Question 2. The city has the stats regarding where there are critical issues. The biggest threat to children's safety are autos. Parents also need to teach their children to be extremely cautious. I would invite parents to a city annual “pre return to school” safety meeting to hear where they believe the critical issues are versus just having the Council announce “be careful” statement during a council meeting.

The short answer is NO. But “Would you ever” is a loaded question. I have supported our Police and Fire since I moved here in 1983. I still do. I believe that having our own PD and FD helps make La Verne the great city it is. We have a financial crisis looming and will have to make tough decisions as to all city services. But I believe having our own PD and FD should be our highest priorities.

I would have the council members individually meet routinely with members of the association to hear directly from them (within legal limits). Our firefighters are a great group. I know they love it here. BUT meeting with our city manager has not been productive. I have seen the highs and lows of the past city manager destroy the great relationship the FD has had. The recent MOU “interpretation” is a great example. Pay them based on the existing agreement. If the city doesn't like the current agreement they can re-negotiate this November when the agreement is up. I believe having the Council wash their hands is a terrible error on their part. The City Organization chart says Citizens FIRST, Council SECOND and reports to Citizens and the City Management team, THIRD reports to the Council.

Yes, again with conditions. Do the Police support this? Is it truly helpful or just a current headline? Does it work? I would talk with our Police and want to hear their view. Who would pay? Adding an additional layer of cost (and danger) is not a great solution.

Yes, If the Police say they need it, yes. Proactive community policing seems to work. I like to see our Police on patrol. This again is a Police question as they are the experts. I would sit down with LV Police leadership to get their take on this. Big question, with our looming financial issues, what is the cost?

I feel sorry for anyone that is homeless. If they really want assistance, I would use every available resource. Again, I would ask the Police and Fire what effect they are seeing on our city. I see the increase and hear that LA City will push many out to suburbs via the Metro. What will be the effect on La Verne? I have seen chronic homeless in our city and many of them do not want help. That is a lifestyle choice. We offer compassion and assistance where available. BUT our citizens should feel safe in our own city that we love. Sleeping on our sidewalks, in our parks and neighborhoods should not be allowed. Safety first!!

See all the above. I believe the Police and Fire Chiefs should report to the Council versus the city manager. The CITIZENS are at the top of the Organization chart. We are a small, bedroom community. We need to support our Police and that comes through transparent dialog. Our officers are held to high professional standards and our citizens should always know that we are hearing the absolute truth regardless of the “good, bad or ugly.” Training and citizen interaction are the best way to continue to build that Trust.

Short answer is NO. While there is current controversy, these systems have helped keep our city very safe. The system is not the problem, the problems seem to stem from misuse by humans. When solid safeguards are in place, these are VERY effective crime fighting (and solving) systems.

La Verne has to comply with state law. BUT we should understand that this is a small bedroom community and that is how the vast majority of our citizens want to keep it. We have very limited space for housing development and need to CAREFULLY examine the impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Amherst being a great example. The original plans were for a smaller community yet when finished it was larger and has created a huge negative impact to the existing neighborhoods. Existing zoning should matter. Allowing outside developers to get re-zoning approval from the city should not happen. ONLY developments that fit with the current zoning and neighborhoods should be considered.

Sales tax is one of our 2 major revenue sources. Restaurants and other tax generating businesses should be our top priority. Gyms and even grocery stores are great but offer limited tax revenue. The city should have a dedicated Director to recruit larger, tax generating stores to our city. Citizens then need to support them. Streamlining the permit process and assigning a “project manager” to all new business permits seems like a good idea. Bringing a business view versus the “same old thing” makes sense. Sell the project, support the project and promote the project will make a big difference.

I do not think adding hundreds of homes on this site is feasible. This area is already affected by the Amherst project and the development on the old nursery land. Traffic is terrible. Parking will be a mess. Adding a new stop sign is proposed but all it takes is a quick drive down Fruit Ave tells anyone what a mess that would be. Besides, I have yet to have the phrase “affordable housing” defined as to cost. Other projects in the city (Corner of White and 1st) converted to condos vs. rent and I am told the current residents still have not heard a dollar figure to define “affordable.” These seem to be just words outside developers use to get these projects passed. Keep the gym (with parking), develop a small number of single family houses with lots of open space to keep the feeling of a great neighborhood.

NO! And per your question, there are no other golf course properties in this city that I am aware of. Do you know of one? This area is a designated Agricultural NOT housing and is unfit for building homes. Years ago, Lewis homes told me that directly when the “swap” with Marshall Canyon GC was being discussed. It is no more buildable today. Another example of an outside developer who wants to destroy our great city. This would also post a serious safety issue to all who live in North La Verne in any emergency. Imagine trying to escape a fire evacuation today and add 600 new residences. A firm NO!!

Yes, with more information. I'm concerned that SCE always protects their revenue stream. For years the state promoted Solar yet now SCE has a “grid charge” based on reduced revenue. Will they do the same with the Clean Power Alliance? I don't know. This has to be studied by our unbiased Public Utilities Department to give us a true and transparent answer. NOT another outside consultant but our own Public Works Director.

I was appointed to the Water Rate Committee and voted against the massive increase proposed by the committee. It was a 3-2 vote to approve. I suggested the least costly increase rate as I heard how it would affect MANY of our citizens, not just the “seniors and other residents who are struggling.” Doubling our water rates in a year and a half affects ALL residents. Now I hear from MANY residents how shocked they are when receiving their new bills. Another 15% coming next July. I am not a fan of government subsidies but I think there has to be a way to assist those that just can't afford these increases. When elected in November I pledge to review these increases to see how we can possibly lower future increases. The current council voted for it, a new council can vote against it.

Fund the core responsibilities: Police, Fire, Water, Sewer and ALL essential services. I propose a line item review of our budget. I will ask for an in depth audit to see where OUR money is and how it has been spent. I will also request a total review of all contracts over $75,000,00 annually as per city recommendations. I will demand immediate bids for the 35+ year, NO BID contract with our city attorney and our 30+ year no bid contract to RKA for engineer services. Even the State of California says contracts should be bid every 5 years at the maximum. The city and current council fights hard to keep these NO BID agreements. WHY? Raising fees and taxes to our citizens should not be the first response.

Yes. Currently only 20% of voters can vote in their district every 4 years. That is IF someone runs against an incumbent, otherwise you can't vote at all. District voting was designed to bring MORE people into the system yet it has done just the opposite. 2 years ago, no one ran against the 2 incumbents therefore the city cancelled the election not even allowing a write in campaign. 5 districts gerrymandered to allow the sitting council members to retain their districts. That is just plain wrong. We are a small city of 32,000 + residents. Everyone should be allowed to voice their choice for ALL leadership every 2 years. YES on at-large voting!!

La Verne is not an Olympic host city, yet the Pomona Fairgrounds will host various events. We should expect a spike in visitors. We have no hotels but should see an increase to visits to our local restaurants which will help all of them and us. Expect additional traffic which will tax our police. With people, we should expect an increase in emergency requests to our Fire Dept. This should be closely monitored. When elected I will ensure that La Verne is in direct contact with LA28.

Coyotes are a SoCal issue. Many people say that we are in their original environment. That being said, we need to remember that these are predators. We need to protect our precious children, our domestic pets and ourselves. We have all probably seen them in close proximity. Be careful. If they are just “passing through” let them be. We should all monitor their behavior as to anything threatening. Continuing education regarding sightings, securing trash, removing outdoor pet food, etc. should be routinely posted by the city. Any aggression should be dealt with immediately. They are part of our community but our safety should always come first.