Grand Terrace Cuts Half Its Employees & Redlands To Lay Off 10 Percent Of Staff

Seven weeks into the coronavirus crisis, brutal consequences have been or are about to be visited upon local governmental employees as what was previously assumed would be a robust economy at least until the end of the year is now heading toward a virtually unprecedented crash. Once-bright economic prospects have been undone by stay-at-home mandates and the shuttering of a significant portion of the state’s retail businesses.
Local governments are being hit with a triple-whammy. With retail sales down, sales tax revenue, a staple of government in California, is dwindling. Simultaneously, California’s unemployment rate has zoomed to 12.6 percent and Governor Gavin Newsom has predicted it will jump to 18 percent before the crisis hits its zenith, while others are sounding a more dire warning that it could reach 21 percent. To placate the masses of those ordered to stay home – those who are now filling out the unemployment rolls – and prevent them from rioting, essentially, the federal government is augmenting the maximum state unemployment stipend of $450 a week with $600, so that those on the dole are collecting a maximum combined payment of $1,050 on a weekly basis, which is in many cases more than those recipients would be making if they were actually working. Paradoxically, the beneficiaries of that largesse, by and large, are not spending it, or not spending most of it, in some measure at least because with all of the shops closed, the goods and services to purchase are not available, and because of uncertainty and fear. Rather, much of that money is being hoarded. In this way the reserves of big government – federal and state – are being drawn down. According to Governor Newsom, California has now paid out $10.6 billion in unemployment benefits to workers as a consequence of the coronavirus-related business shutdowns.
In practical terms, this means that local government – counties and cities and districts – will not likely be able to turn to the state or federal government to bail them out. This presages drastic belt-tightening, fiscal austerity that translates into either substantial salary and benefit reductions, or massive layoffs, or both.
Two of San Bernardino County’s municipal canaries in the mine are Grand Terrace and Redlands.
At the Wednesday May 6 Grand Terrace City Council meeting, City Manager Howard Duffy previewed the Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget for the diminutive city, together with the imposition of an immediate adjustment of the current 2019-21 budget which will draw to a close with the end of the fiscal year on June 30. He called his proposal  a “revenue enhancement and expenditure reduction plan.” Up front, Duffy said, his approach meant immediate “layoffs of city personnel.”
Duffy teamed with Assistant City Manager Cynthia Fortune in making the pitch to the city council.
According to a written report from Duffy presented to the council, “As the economy continued to linger with city facilities closed, the city could no longer continue to retain its current level of expense without it having a significant impact on its bottom line. It is projected that the City of Grand Terrace is facing an estimated $545,210 shortfall for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and a projected $1,116,387 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. The expenditure reduction plan was developed to surgically correct operational losses, deliver services within fiscal means and strategically address fiscal deficits. The expenditure reduction plan calls for the reduction in staff through layoffs.”
Grand Terrace, at 3.5 square miles, is the county’s smallest city in terms of geographical area and, with fewer than 13,000 residents, the third smallest of the county’s 24 incorporated municipalities in terms of population. Positioned, as its name implies, on high ground above the frontier with Riverside County on its south, above the I-215 Freeway and Colton to its west, above lower lying Colton and San Bernardino to its north and Colton’s Reche Canyon and the further lying Loma Linda wilderness to its east, Grand Terrace does not get a great deal of vehicular through-traffic from the commuters and travelers on the I-215 Freeway or the nearby I-10 Freeway, so the relatively sparse retail establishments within its city limits count Grand Terrace’s relatively limited population base as their primary clientele. Thus, in the best of times, Grand Terrace has but a modest sales tax revenue stream. Under the duress of the coronavirus shutdowns, its revenue is extremely anemic. In years past, the city had reduced itself to a bare bones staff. Already at just 12 current employees, the staff will be reduced by half to six, under Duffy’s proposal, and one of those remaining employees will go from full-time, at 40 hours, to part-time, at 20 hours.
Eliminating a management analyst, Fortune said, will provide the city with $10,430 savings this year and $90,690 in Fiscal Year 2020-21.
Dispensing with two maintenance workers, will save the city $7,410 in 2019-20 and  $77,090 next year, according to Fortune.
Fortune said that laying off the city’s executive assistant will save the city $9,965 in the current fiscal year and another $82,210 next year.
The termination of an office specialist will provide $5,350 savings right now and cut $44,995 from the expenditure side of the budget in 2020-21, she said.
Continuing to leave the department secretary position unfilled will save $12,730  through to the end of 2019-20 and save an outlay of $76,370 in 2020-21.
One of the city’s code enforcement officers, who also works in the capacity of an animal control officer and is now making $56,960 per year, will have his or her hours cut in half, such that the city will see a savings of $4,745 between this week and June 30 and a $28,480 discount from the 2020-21 budget.
In addition, the city is going to reclassify the city’s public works director position, held by Allen French, to that of senior engineer, reducing French’s income for the remainder of 2019-21 by $3,935 and by $23,610 in 2020-21.
Overall, the adjustments are to save the city $45,985 in the current fiscal year and $371,355 in Fiscal Year 2020-21.
The elimination of the positions will amount to “not quite two months savings” in the current budget, Fortune said, as those leaving will be paid through their current paycheck period and will be given “leave balances and any accrued time they have.”
Fortune said that she and Duffy had attempted to be judicious in the elimination of positions “to reduce everywhere we can as best as we can and still be able to provide services that we normally would to the community.”
Duffy said, “We wanted to move forward in the new fiscal year to get as much savings as we can.”
There will be no cuts to the $2.1 million contract the city has with the sheriff’s department for the provision of law enforcement services, Duffy said. He said that he had contacted the sheriff’s department to see if it would defer or postpone the increase in rates the sheriff’s department will impose to continue the contract. He said other cities that contract with the sheriff’s department, such as Rancho Cucamonga, had made similar overtures, and that Sheriff John McMahon had agreed to pass the inquiry on to the county board of supervisors to determine whether that request can be fulfilled.
The city is currently in a dialogue with the entities that provide other contract services to the city to see if they will be willing to accept a ten to 15 percent reduction in the rates the city is paying for those services, Duffy and Fortune indicated.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bill Hussey, seconded by both councilmen Jeff Allen and Doug Wilson, the city council voted unanimously to follow Duffy’s and Fortune’s recommendation to lay off one of the city’s two management analysts, two of the city’s four maintenance workers, two of the city’s four administrative support personnel and to unfund or defund the currently vacant secretary’s position, leaving the city with one office specialist, and to reduce one of the city’s two full time code enforcement officers from 40 hours to 20 hours.
Redlands, the county’s 11th largest city with its roughly 72,000 population, has been hit every bit as hard as Grand Terrace. With over 520 employees and a $75 million budget in Fiscal Year 2019-20, the city is sustaining an $8 million shortfall in the current spending cycle ending June 30.
According to City Manager Charles Duggan, the best prognostication is that the city will be hammered with a $15.7 million downturn in revenue in 2020-21.
The city has scheduled a specially-called budget examination and strategizing meeting for next week, on Tuesday, May 12.
Duggan has put together a very somber report for that meeting, what he titled the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Message. In it, he references, “an exceptionally challenging economic environment as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Financial  market volatility, record‐setting increases in the unemployment rate, and eroding consumer confidence from this unprecedented halt in economic activity have led to deteriorating revenue streams for all forms of government.”
The upshot?
It looks like 52 Redlands municipal workers will lose their jobs. At the same time 28 positions with the city that are vacant at the present time will remain unfilled.
Faced with the loss of more than ten percent of the flow of money into the city’s coffers, something must be done, Duggan said, and rather than drawing down the salaries of the entirety of those that work at the city, he is recommending that something on the order of ten percent of the city’s work force be handed pink slips.
“Without question, the economic impacts of COVID‐19 will profoundly change the structure of municipal government and the way the City of Redlands delivers services to its residents for many years to come,” Duggan said.
Continuing measures to limit the spread of the coronavirus, including social distancing requirements and closures of commercial venues, will perpetuate the loss of revenue well into the upcoming fiscal year, until such time as a vaccine against the cornoavirus is developed, he said.
“With revenues estimated at $69.5 million and expenditures planned initially for $85.2 million, a staggering shortfall of $15.7 million was identified,” Duggan’s report, which consistently refers to him in the third person, states. “In meeting this challenge, the city manager and executive staff have been left with little choice but to address the city’s structural budget issues head on and consider how the city can continue to deliver those essential services that residents and local businesses require.”
The city is in a difficult position, Duggan said, in that it faces economic demands brought on by hefty commitments to the city’s workforce that were to escalate the city’s outlays in the upcoming fiscal year by something under $6 million over what it will have shelled out at the close of this fiscal year on June 30.
For Fiscal 2020-21, Duggan said, “On the expenditures side, department requests for appropriations in the amount of $77.8 million were cumulatively $5.9 million higher when compared to the department’s current 12‐month estimates for expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019‐20. Some of this variance is due to increases in the amounts budgeted for services and supplies, but the vast majority of this increase is attributed to higher personnel costs in the form higher pension costs, a 3 percent across‐the‐board increase to non‐safety employees, and natural growth in compensation levels that takes place over time,” he said, referencing “merit increases, reclassifications, etc.”
Somewhat obliquely, Duggan then alluded to “the elimination of 38 full‐time positions and 42 part‐time positions.” Duggan noted that at present, of the 38 full-time assignments to be eliminated, 21 are filled. He indicated that of the 42 part-time posts the city will shed, 31 are currently occupied. Thus, he stated “21 full-time and 31 part-time” city employees will be laid off.
Duggan explained the process by which a game plan for dealing with the shortfall was developed.
“With the decreases in revenue described, a total of $69.5 million was estimated to be available for Fiscal Year 2020‐21,” his report states. “Total department requests for appropriations were submitted to the city manager in the amount of $77.8 million and a total of $7.4 million was allocated for required transfers out of the general fund for a total estimated use of funds in the amount of $85.2 million – an unprecedented gap of approximately $15.7 million. Confronting this challenge, departments were asked initially to reduce their budget requests, understanding the monumental task that lay ahead in addressing a $15.7 million shortfall. Suggestions were provided for retrenchment strategies and the departments returned with $4.2 million in spending reductions. In addition, as a mitigation effort, finance staff have increased revenue projections above presently forecasted levels by $1.5 million in the hope that the economy will rebound at a stronger and much faster rate. Additionally, transfers to the city’s liability fund from the general fund were reduced by $450,000. Further reductions to transfers out of the general fund were sought in an amount of $800,000. These modifications resulted in reducing the deficit to $8.8 million. Departments were then tasked with the objective of establishing a budget floor based on $8.8 million in reductions requested as a percent share of their payroll. Each department performed tremendous work to reimagine their operations and service capacities. Collectively, and at great cost, departments reduced their budgets even further by an additional $7.2 million toward the $8.8 million gap. These reductions saw severe, deep cuts in the form of position elimination of public safety & sworn staffing positions and other positions – and brought the projected deficit to $1.6 million.  At that time, and in assessing the municipal overburden such drastic and deep reductions would cause, the city manager sought to restore the most critical, essential positions throughout each department with the partial use of reserves. As a result, departments were able to restore roughly $3 million in funding to their operations.”
Duggan said he and his management team are doing their best to deal with a very tough situation. He acknowledged that the solution is not a comfortable one. Worse, he acknowledged, the draconian measures might still be inadequate to the task.
“These reductions will weigh heavily on departments’ capacity to provide service. Departments have been  impacted in substantial ways,” he said. “Recommendations from staff and decisions made as part of the Fiscal Year 2020‐21 budget process have been painful ones, with difficult decisions still left to be made. While city staff at every level work to provide the highest quality service to the public despite severe constraints, changes, such as those included in the Fiscal Year 2020‐21 proposed budget and those that may be required beyond, will not be achieved without profound reductions in the level of service to which residents and local businesses have been accustomed. This year, instead of efforts to present a budget balanced on recurring revenues, the city manager’s office is presenting a budget that strives to minimize service reductions to the community while making use of measured amounts of the general fund’s unassigned fund balance to counteract the immediate and devastating impacts on revenue from the COVID‐19 crisis. There remain many unknowns. As we consider the financial outlook for Fiscal Year 2021‐22 and 2022‐23, we are left with little choice but to address the city’s structural budget issues head on and consider how the city can continue to deliver those essential services that residents and local businesses require.  Despite cuts of more than 12 percent to each department, including the elimination of more than 38 full‐time positions and 42 part‐time positions  (21 filled full-time and 31 filled part-time), and the assumption that additional revenues of $1.5 million could be achieved as a result of a stronger‐than‐projected economic recovery, a $5.6 million estimated shortfall remains at June 30, 2021.”
The Redlands City Council is set to consider action that will be taken in response to the prolonged cash flow difficulty the city is experiencing during a specially-called meeting for 8:30 a.m. Tuesday May 12 in the council chamber at City Hall. Because of the social distancing mandated in reaction to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, the public will not be allowed to attend. According to City Clerk Jeanne Donaldson, “Following public health recommendations to limit public gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic, City Manager Charles M. Duggan Jr., acting as the City of Redlands emergency services director, has directed that city council meetings be closed to the public until further notice or until the current local state of emergency has been lifted. The council chamber will not be open to the public during the city council meeting. In order to have your public comment read into the public record at the meeting, members of the public are asked to submit comments up until 5 p.m. the day before the city council meeting by email at publiccomment@cityofredlands.org, through the public comment form on the city’s website at  https://www.cityofredlands.org/public-speaker-form, or written comments directly to the city clerk’s office at 35 Cajon Street.”
During the meeting, all of the city departments, including the city clerk, city attorney, city council, management services, development services, the library, the police department, the fire department, the facilities division, community services, municipal utilities and the engineering department will be afforded the opportunity to make a presentation with regard to what economies each has already proposed to make or has sustained, and appeal for being spared from further cuts.
A reckoning within local government in California has been looming on the horizon for some time. Salaries and benefits in most cities and counties are extremely high based on pay, perquisites and pensions provided for comparable work in the private sector, exacerbated by what public employees refer to as the “10-90 rule,” which holds that a significant number of public sector jobs are not demanding, such that “ten percent of the people working for government do ninety percent of the work.” Redlands is a particularly egregious example of that circumstance. Former Redlands City Councilman Jerry Bean, a captain of industry in the private sector who has owned or published six newspapers, previously openly remarked about what he termed the “municipal culture” at Redlands City Hall in which productivity did not match the outlay of taxpayer money to achieve it. Across the county, in Upland, former City Councilman Glenn Bozar lamented that local government in Southern California had become “a huge jobs program” which created “make work” assignments for a workforce too unskilled to be meaningfully or productively employed in the private sector. Bozar likened the majority of public employees to “a parasitic growth on the body politic.”
Of question is whether the Redlands City Council will on Tuesday suspend its members’ reception of a stipend for their work on the council, thereby assuming the symbolic moral authority to make further inroads in whittling down the size of municipal government in what has traditionally been one of San Bernardino County’s most affluent cities.
For the 22 incorporated cities and towns in San Bernardino County beyond Grand Terrace and Redlands, it is a matter of time before the fiscal reality of the economic contraction precipitated by the coronavirus crisis results in similar parings of their respective workforces.
Mark Gutglueck

Upland’s Use Of Crisis To Exclude Public From Its Deliberative Process Decried

By Brinda Sarathy
This past week, “freedom” protesters rallied in parts of Southern California and elsewhere, in defiance of state and county social distancing measures to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19.  Many protesters were tired of staying at home and asserted that the economic and social impacts of sheltering in place posed greater harms than the risk of infection, illness, and death by coronavirus.
There is no question that individual rights of free assembly are in tension with requirements to restrict our movement and mass gathering in public spaces. Medical experts rightly note that physical distancing serves as a bulwark to protect public health and, as a scientist and academic, I fully agree.
Yet, if the public is being asked to radically alter individual behaviors for the greater good, then we should commensurately expect our elected officials to not abuse the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to ram through development projects that many believe will harm other arenas of the public welfare over the long run. Unfortunately, some municipalities are doing just this: they are using the COVID-19 emergency as cover to fast track highly contested projects, skirt environmental regulations, and further benefit those already in positions of power and influence, and all without being fully accountable to their actual constituents.
Over the past month, in my own town of Upland (ostensibly the “City of Gracious Living”), I have witnessed COVID-19 restrictions being weaponized by a majority of elected officials and city staff to disallow in-person city council and planning commission meetings.  While it is imperative to disallow in-person attendance on the grounds of protecting public health, our elected officials should similarly pause decision-making around highly controversial developments, on the grounds of protecting democracy.
Instead, participation at Upland City Council and planning commission sessions are now mediated through Zoom calls and phone-in access for public comment. These remote sessions drastically blunt public participation and further diminish the accountability of our elected officials to their constituents.  Recently, via Zoom, the city council voted through the highly contested Bridge Development Project on Foothill Boulevard (the rumored tenant for which is Amazon). This project has seen major public outcry as residents have expressed legitimate concerns about its long-term negative impacts to quality of life, and increased levels of air pollution and traffic. Similarly, in another remote session, the majority of Upland City Council green-lit the Villa Serena development of 65 homes on a flood control channel, despite every single member of the public who called into the meeting opposing the proposal, and despite Upland’s own planning commission having voted down the project at an earlier, in-person pre-COVID-19 session.
Today, many members of our community are dealing with added child-care responsibilities, lost incomes, and heightened anxieties. How is it possible for concerned citizens and residents to stay on top of local government decision-making and to have a meaningful public voice, in these precarious times?  City officials should exercise prudence and place a moratorium on decision-making around highly controversial projects that have the potential to significantly impact the public good over the long-term. The COVID-19 crisis will eventually pass, and hopefully our individual actions and limitations on personal freedoms will have saved lives. In a similar spirit, our elected officials should look to protect democracy and preserve meaningful public engagement, rather than using this crisis to fast-track projects that may not benefit the greater good.
Brinda Sarathy, Ph.D. is a professor of environmental analysis and director of the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer College and an Upland Resident

Having Condemned Cronyism To Get Into Office, Hawkins Now Hiring His Own Associates

Fresh from having gotten out from under what was perhaps the most controversial of a string or highly questionable hirings widely criticized or perceived as political patronage, the West Valley Water District this week entered into yet another arrangement by which an individual was given work, this time by means of a contract, to supply a service which seemingly bears no relationship to the district’s underlying function.
As a relatively obscure governmental entity with the limited charter of providing water to some 82,000 customers, households or businesses in Bloomington, Colton, Fontana and Rialto, as well as unincorporated areas in San Bernardino County and Jurupa Valley in Riverside County, the West Valley Water District functioned for the better part of its then-63-year existence in relative obscurity until the 2015 retirement of longtime general manager Butch Araiza. Araiza then vied unsuccessfully in the 2015 board election, after which the district descended into a state of instability which featured firings and recriminations, infighting and power struggles at the managerial and political levels that have been chaotic and bitter with only brief respite.
In the midst of those power struggles and at least partially as a result of them, the opposing factions on the board, which did not fully manifest until 2018, have sought to install their respective political allies into positions of authority within the district’s staff to assist them in their successive stabs for control.
The district’s employment of personnel focused on politics who were inadequate to the task of water service operations created further dysfunction within the district, exacerbating an already deteriorating situation.
Shortly after his 2017 election to the board, Michael Taylor, who was previously the police chief of Baldwin Park and would shortly thereafter be rehired to that assignment, with the support of the majority of the board with whom he was then on good terms, wangled the hirings of Robert Tafoya, the city attorney for Baldwin Park, as the district’s general counsel; the hiring of Baldwin Park City Councilman Richard Pacheco as assistant general manager with the district; and the hiring of Clarence Mansell, a journeyman water operations professional who had previous experience in Rialto and elsewhere in Southern California and with whom Taylor was acquainted, as the district’s general manager. Subsequently, when the district had divided into two warring camps led by Taylor on one side and Director Clifford Young on the other, the district hired Jeremiah Brosowske to serve as yet another assistant general manager. Brosowske boasted a résumé as a political operative, having worked on numerous political campaigns and then having acceded to the position of executive director of the San Bernardino County Central Committee, thereafter garnering first an appointment, and then election, to the Hesperia City Council. Brosowske, however, had no experience, no training, held no certificates or licenses, and possessed no expertise in water operations or public agency administration or management.
While both Mansell and Tafoya filled roles in which they had to function visibly, there was virtually no dispute that Pacheco and Brosowske had been given sinecures.
A sinecure is defined as a position requiring little or no work but giving the holder status or financial benefit.
Both Pacheco and Brosowske had each been provided with contracts to serve in their respective assistant general manager positions at an annual salary of $189,592 along with benefits and add-ons valued at over $62,000 per year.
Upon their initial hirings, both Pacheco and Brosowske had been given the official title of assistant manager for external affairs, which essentially related to overseeing the district’s communications function. Pacheco was moved into a so-called “operational” assistant manager’s post to make way for Brosowske.
Pacheco rarely showed up at the West Valley District Office, located at 855 W. Base Line Road in Rialto.
Many considered the external affairs management position to be absolutely superfluous, as Mansell, in his general manager capacity, is authorized to make official statements on behalf of the district, and the district already had in place a public affairs manager, Naseem Farooqi, as well as a crew of customer service representatives.
With the advent of the 2019 election season, the public was given a demonstration of how it was that Brosowske’s hiring was a patently political one. He was put to work supporting the reelection candidacies of board members Don Olinger and Kyle Crowther, both of whom had hewed to the Taylor side of the political divide in the district, and he also worked to oppose the reelection of Greg Young, who had sided with Clifford Young in the district power struggle. Vying against Olinger was a relative newcomer on the Rialto political scene, Channing Hawkins, who was presenting himself as a reform candidate intent on eliminating the untoward political machinations and cronyism that were overriding the district’s function, and Hawkins vowed a return to a focus on simply delivering quality water at an affordable rate to the district’s customers.
Meanwhile, Taylor was working assiduously to prevent Hawkins from being able to sell himself to the voters, and he expended $22,620.48 from his own campaign fund to support Olinger throughout the campaign.
Ultimately in November, Young and Crowther achieved reelection. Hawkins ousted Olinger, which seemed to presage a dynamic political shift on the board in which Taylor would no longer be in ascendancy and Clifford Young, who is no blood relation to Greg Young, would likely move into a position of relative primacy. Just two days after the November 5 election, even before Hawkins had been sworn in as the district board’s newest member, Pacheco departed, taking with him nine months of salary as a severance, equal to $142,194, pursuant to a separation agreement worked out for him by Tafoya. The assumption was that shortly after Hawkins came onto the board, the reforms he had been calling for during the election would be actuated, and that the political patronage in the district would come to an end and all, or virtually all, of the remaining individuals associated with Taylor who had been provided with sinecures at the district or were otherwise put into positions of authority there because of connections with him – Mansell, Tafoya and Brosowske – would no longer be employed at West Valley.
In an adroit political move, however, Taylor succeeded in offering Hawkins an olive branch, arranging to nominate him to serve as board president almost immediately after his December 5 swearing in, a move that succeeded. Hawkins’ ascendancy to the position of board president ameliorated his attitude toward Taylor, while dimming, at least somewhat, Hawkins’ reform fervor, leaving, for the time being, Mansell, Tafoya and Brosowske in place.
Nevertheless, Hawkins, less than two weeks after he was in office, quietly and without involving the other board members, directed Mansell to retain the public relations firm of ChamberlaynePR, owned by Charles Chamberlayne, to undertake certain communications services for the district. The initial installment of that contract, as awarded by Mansell using his authority to enter into contracts or make expenditures of $25,000 or less without board approval, committed to paying ChamberlaynePR $23,000 before the board revisited the matter to determine if the contract should be extended.
Charles Chamberlayne had been one of Hawkins acquaintances while both were attending Howard University in Washington, D.C. in the early 2000s. Chamberlayne had also assisted Hawkins in his campaign.
An assignment Chamberlayne was tasked with was to coordinate the district’s communications, an assignment that took on greater meaning a few months later when the district was obliged to make a cogent response to the coronavirus crisis. Hawkins had also arranged to have Charles Chamberlayne make an assessment of the district’s communication function, what was referred to as its “external affairs.” Of concern was that despite the degree redundancy in terms of the district’s communications functions, no clear message was reaching the public.
On April 16 at the West Valley Water District board meeting, Chamberlayne returned his evaluation, which was highly critical of both Mansell and Brosowske.
Chamberlayne’s report noted that “The West Valley Water District is in constant disarray, shrouded in a mass of unflattering news reports, seemingly dysfunctional communications resources and abysmal media responses.” While conceding that some of the district’s difficulty stemmed from “unnecessary prior political infighting and mismanagement from organization leadership,” Chamberlayne stated that “We find grave issues extending from problematic leadership on the part of the general manager [Mansell] and assistant general manager [Brosowske].”
Of Browsowske in particular, Chamberlayne said he “seems to lack many of the necessary skills and experience to run the department.” Brosowske, Chamberlayne opined, was short on “management and public affairs/relations, advocacy, writing and editing skills and experience,” which Chamberlayne said “contributes to overall sub par communications performances and execution.”
Before the board had been briefed on the external affairs report, read it or fully digested it, Brosowske, seeing what was coming, submitted a separation agreement, which the board, in a 4-to-1 vote with Director Greg Young abstaining, accepted. Under the terms of that agreement, Brosowske was provided with a severance package of $154,884.80, which included nine months salary and a $5,000 tuition reimbursement for classes he was taking with regard to water operations to bring him up to speed on issues the district dealt with. Thus, for the slightly more than eleven months he was with the district, Brosowske, who had been deemed inadequate to the position he held, received $389,542.72 in total compensation.
While some credited Hawkins with having been able coordinate Brosowske’s departure, albeit at some expense, he thereafter offset at least some of the good will he had accrued by arranging to have the district extend a contract to Chamberlayne’s firm, ChaberlaynePR to provide further consulting services to the district beyond which it had already provided.
After the initial $23,000 retainer paid to ChamberlaynePR in December, the board approved another $25,000 for ChamberlaynePR on April 2.
This week, the board considered, and then approved, a $150,000 consulting agreement with ChamberlaynePR for what was described as “issues management and crisis communications.”
While district officials sought to defend the outlay as one that had been committed to after bids were sought for the work, the consultancy arrangement drew fire on multiple score. The bidding consisted of a “request for qualifications” having been posted on the website planetbids.com on April 24 with a May 4 submission deadline. That summoned two responses, one from ChamberlaynePR for a minimum of $90,000 and another for $502,800 from Mercury Public Affairs, LLC of Los Angeles. The board accepted making a $150,000 commitment with ChamberlaynePR to provide its trademark public relations service.
Some have questioned what need the district would have to engage in public relations if it simply carried out the business it is chartered to do, and delivered water to its customers.
The district has now approved three payments totaling $198,000 to ChamberlaynePR in less than five months, essentially to provide communications services that many consider to be redundant or unnecessary. Simultaneously, given Charles Chamberlayne’s prior and ongoing relationship with Hawkins, including promoting Hawkins’ campaign for the board last fall, there is a growing perception that the widespread cronyism Hawkins made an issue of when he was running for office has not been eradicated but is persisting with different players aligned now with him rather than Taylor.
The San Bernardino Sun, the daily newspaper with the largest circulation within the jurisdictional confines of the West Valley Water District, was referenced in Chamberlayne’s report delivered to the board on April 16 as having engaged in an “unrelenting cycle of unfavorable media inquiries and reports.”
Ironically, providing ChamberlaynePR with the contract last night appears to have created the precise type of controversy and negative perception the firm was hired to head off. In an article bearing today’s May 8 dateline authored by Joe Nelson, the Sun reported on the action by the West Valley Water Board Thursday night providing the $150,000 contract to ChamberlaynePR. The article at one point stated, “Hawkins has come under fire recently for allegedly perpetuating a longstanding pattern of rampant cronyism at the district.”
-Mark Gutglueck

May 8 Legal Notices

FBN 20200003072
The following person is doing business as: DANIEL’S MOBILE REPAIR 18411 VALLEY BLVD SPC 64 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; DANIEL’S MOBILE REPAIR, INC. 18411 VALLEY BLVD SPC 64 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS D. GODINEZ RAMOS, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/05/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 03/20/2020, 03/27/2020, 04/03/2020, 04/10/2020 CNBB12202001IR
FBN 20200002823
The following person is doing business as: NEW ENGLAND DWELLING 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA KADESHA P ENGLAND 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Kadeshaa England
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/03/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/20/20, 3/27/20, 4/3/20, & 4/10/20
Corrected: 4/17/20, 4/24/20, 5/01/20 & 5/08/20
FBN 202000003925
The following person is doing business as: JJ GRILL; 59 MILLIKEN AVE., SUITE #101, ONTARIO, CA 91761; BJ SOFT INC., 59 MILLIKEN AVE., SUITE #101, ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APRIL 01, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BAESAENG LEE, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/17/2020, 04/24/2020, 05/01/2020, 05/08/2020 CNBB16202001MT

FBN 20200003924
The following person is doing business as: G AND E TRUCK REPAI; 250 NORTH LINDEN AVE., SPACE 76, RIALTO, CA 92376 JOSE A. EUSEBIO, 250 NORTH LINDEN AVE., SPCAE 76, RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE ARMANDO EUSEBIO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/17/2020, 04/24/2020, 05/01/2020, 05/08/2020 CNBB16202002MT
FBN 20200003923
The following person is doing business as: SUNRISE CONTRACTORS; 219 S. RIVERIDE AVE., #184, RIALTO, CA 92376; MARCOS DIAZ CORTES, JR; 219 S, RIVERISE AVE #184, RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 12/28/2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARCOS DIAZ CORTES, JR; OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/17/2020, 04/24/2020, 05/01/2020, 05/08/2020 CNBB16202003MT
FBN 20200003921
The following person is doing business as: BEACH TO HILLS HOMES; 15931 JANINE DR., WHITTIER, CA 90603; SHANNON BROWN REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC; 15931 JANINE DR, WHITTIER, CA 90603
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT. 18, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SHANNON COLETTE BROWN, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/17/2020, 04/24/2020, 05/01/2020, 05/08/2020 CNBB16202004EM

FBN 20200003922 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: TEAM FREIGHT TRANSPORT; 15222 LILAC ST., HESPERIA, CA 92345; HUMBERTO C. JOVEL; 15222 LILAC ST., HESPERIA, CA 92345, JOSE A. RAMIREZ, 15222 LILAC ST., HESPERIA, CA 92345 The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 09/202017. Original File#FBN20170010680
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HUMBERTO C. JOVEL, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/17/2020, 04/24/2020, 05/01/2020, 05/08/2020 CNBB16202005EM

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200003735
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Vanevenhoven Real Estate & Investments Group; The V-Team; The Vanevenhoven Team; The VTeam; Vanevenhoven Group; Vanevenhoven Investments Group, 8885 Haven Ave, Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Mailing Address: 8885 Haven Ave, Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, RJ Realty Group, Inc., 8885 Haven Ave, Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Vance Vanevenhoven
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/31/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/01/16
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
4/24/20, 5/1/20, 5/8/20, 5/15/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
#20200003803
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: PALO SOLO TRANS 7607 VIOLA CT FONTANA, CA 92336
ARNULFO PINON 7607 VIOLA CT FONTANA, CA 92336
Mailing Address: 7607 VIOLA CT FONTANA, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Anulfo Pinon
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/03/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 09/12/2003
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
4/24/20, 5/1/20, 5/8/20, 5/15/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200002642
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Addashield; Checkthedocs; Documinute; B. Compliant, 215 N 2nd Avenue Suite B, Upland, CA 91786, 154A West Foothill Blvd Suite 281, Upland, CA 91786, B. Compliant Inc, 215 N 2nd Ave. Ste B, Upland, CA 91786
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Gregory A. Bushnell
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/27/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/1/2017
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
3/27/20, 4/3/20, 4/10/20, 4/17/20
Corrected on: 5/1/20, 5/8/20, 5/15/20, 5/22/20

FBN 2020000—-
The following person is doing business as: PANTHEON COFFEE ROASTERS
4070 MISSION BOULEVARD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ARCHER CONSORTIA 4070 MISSION BOULEVARD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ PAVAN MAKKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 05/01, 05/08, 05/15, & 05/22, 2020.
FBN 2020000—-
The following person is doing business as: AVATAR COFFEE ROASTERS
4070 MISSION BOULEVARD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ARCHER CONSORTIA 4070 MISSION BOULEVARD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ PAVAN MAKKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 05/01, 05/08, 05/15, & 05/22, 2020.

FBN 2020000—-
The following person is doing business as: ARROWHEAD ACCOMMODATIONS 28051 STATE HIGHWAY 189/LAKES EDGE ROAD LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 92352
HERMINE MURRA-LEVINS P.O. BOX 128 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CALIFO 92352
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 128 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CALIF 92352
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ HERMINE MURRA-LEVINS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/ /2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 08/25/2017
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 05/08, 05/15, 05/20 & 05/29, 2020.
FBN 20200004323
The following person is doing business as: SIMPLE MORTGAGE 5603 GARIBALDI WAY FONTANA, CALIF 92336 SAFE INVESTMENT REALTY GROUP 5603 GARIBALDI WAY FONTANA, CALIFO 92336
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ AKXELEM TEJEDA PATZAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/06/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/03/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 05/08, 05/15, 05/20 & 05/29, 2020.

FBN 20200004241
The following person is doing business as: NOTARIZE DOCS 4 U [and] MOSLEY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 721 N SAN ANTONIO AVENUE UPLAND, CALIF 91786
DOAQUIN MOSLEY 721 NORTH SAN ANTONIO AVENUE UPLAND, CA 91786
Mailing Address: 333 E ARROW HIGHWAY, #1107 UPLAND, CA 91785
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DOAQUIN MOSLEY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/01/20, 5/08/20, 5/15/20 & 5/22/20.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004162

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lean & Greens, 7410 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: 7410 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Danny M. Cortines, 7410 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Danny M Cortines
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: Jan 01, 2020
County Clerk, s/ V0956
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino county Sentinel on 5/8/20, 5/15/20, 5/22/20, 5/29/20

Measure Reducing Supervisors’ Compensation To $60K Sent To November Ballot

It appears that a measure which would, if passed, reduce the compensation of each of the members of the board of supervisors to $5,000 per month has qualified for the November ballot.
The Red Brennan Group last year began circulating a petition to force the referendum, gathering 75,132 signatures which were affixed to copies of the petition. Those documents, consisting of 10,121 pages, were handed over to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office on March 20.
According to Registrar of Voters Bob Page, a “3% random sample,” of the signatures, consisting of 2,255, were examined. Of those, 1,840 were found to be the valid signatures of registered county voters and 415 were what Page deemed “insufficient.” He found among the valid signatures one duplicate. Thus, he projected, were the full 75,132 signatures to be examined, 60,228 would be determined to be valid. The three percent sampling standard can be used to certify an initiative petition drive, Page indicated, if the sampling projection shows that more than 110 percent of the required number of voter signatures have been attained. The 60,228 signatures is equal to 112.1 percent of the 53,725 signatures needed to qualify the initiative. “Therefore,” Page said, “the petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified electors needed and based thereon is deemed sufficient.”
The Red Brennan Group, which is named after the late government reform advocate who qualified a similar initiative for the ballot in 2012, in 2017 undertook petition drives to qualify two countywide initiatives, one aimed at reducing members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to part time status and imposing on that panel’s members a commensurate reduction in pay, and another more comprehensive measure dubbed the “Leadership Accountability Initiative.”
That measure called for reversing the county’s 2010 move which changed the title and authority of the county chief administrative officer to the county chief executive officer, which had also conferred on the post higher pay. The Leadership Accountability Initiative eliminated the chief executive officer post and reestablished the county administrator position, pegged compensation of elected officials – supervisors, sheriff, district attorney, treasurer/auditor/controller and assessor – to a multiple of the median family income in the region, and eliminated further accrual of retirement benefits by elected officials. The initiative further sought to restrict bloat within the county’s governmental structure by placing a per capita limit on the number of county employees. It also required the supervisors to use every legal means available to ensure county government employee pay and benefits were equal to private industry pay and benefits in the San Bernardino County jurisdiction.
After the initiative proposals were submitted in 2017 to the county’s stable of in-house lawyers, known as the office of county counsel, the county sued the initiatives’ proponents, claiming the initiatives violated the California Constitution, the current legal authority of the supervisors, and the single subject rule for initiatives. In its lawsuit, the county contended it therefore should not be required to complete its ministerial duty of providing a ballot title and summary for the initiative proposals.
At that point, the Red Brennan Group postponed its efforts, consulting with legal authorities before proceeding. Following that legal guidance, the group is now moving ahead, having narrowly drawn a series of separate reform proposals, each limited in scope so that it cannot be challenged as violating the single subject rule for initiatives. The pay reduction initiative is the first salvo in a series of reform measures the group intends to proceed with.
The language of the initiative states: “The total compensation of each member of the board of supervisors shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month, which amount shall include the actual cost to the county of all benefits of whatever kind or nature including but not limited to salary, allowances, credit cards, health insurance, life insurance, leave, retirement, memberships, portable communications devices, and vehicle allowances. This compensation shall be in full compensation for all services by the respective member of the board of supervisors.”
Now that the petition has been found to be sufficient, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9115(f), the registrar of voters will present the certificate of initiative petition to the board of supervisors at its May 19, 2020 meeting, at which point it is anticipated the board will acquiesce in the matter being slated for a vote in November.
-Mark Gutglueck

Fourth Claim Against SB Mayor Details More & Deeper Depredations

The fourth of five current and former employees within San Benardino Mayor John Valdivia’s office who maintain they were mistreated by him while serving in  their official capacities has filed a claim against the city.
The claim for damages filed by Valdivia’s former legislative field representative, Jackie Aboud, intimates more directly than the claims of the two other women whose filings preceded hers that Valdivia expected her to have sex with him as a condition of her employment.
Valdivia, who previously served as councilman in San Bernardino’s Third Ward, was elected mayor in 2018, defeating then-incumbent Carey Davis. He came into office as the first mayor elected under the city’s new charter, which was passed by the city’s voters in 2016, replacing the governmental model the city had functioned under for more than 11 decades. The city’s former charter, put in place in 1905, provided the mayor with no vote on the council but did give him/her veto power over any 4-to-3 or 3-to-2 votes, which in practicality gave him/her two votes; it instilled in him/her tie-breaking authority when a council vote deadlocked; he/she presided over the council meetings and thus controlled the ebb-and-flow of discussion and debate, with the power to recognize or ignore the members of the council as he/she willed; and with the city manager he/she had authority to hire and fire city personnel. This combination of political power and administrative reach rendered the mayor, essentially, a co-regent of the city. The 2016 charter revision ended the strong mayor form of government by removing the mayor’s administrative authority, specifically his/her ability to extend employment opportunities to those he/she wished or to, alternately, terminate staff at his/her discretion.
Valdivia came into office, yearning for the power that had been taken away from the position before he was elected to it. One advantage he initially possessed was his political sway. Newly elected with him in the 2018 contests in which he had ousted incumbent Mayor Carey Davis were Ted Sanchez in the First Ward and Sandra Ibarra in the Second Ward. He had supported both in their maiden electoral efforts, and was able to count on their votes with regard to the initiatives he championed. He had previously established a close political alliance with incumbent Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard and had a good working relationship with Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel. When a special election was held in May to fill the position he had vacated in the Third Ward to move into the mayor’s slot, the voters had chosen his handpicked successor, Juan Figueroa. The only two members of the council at odds with him were Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill. Shorett and Mulvihill, at that time, had insufficient political muscle to obstruct his control of the council.
To reconstruct the mayor’s dominance of City Hall, Valdivia upon assuming office at once set about beefing up the mayor’s staff. After the mayoral gavel was handed over to him by Davis, the only employee answerable directly to him in the city’s organizational chart was his chief of staff. With the assistance the individual he chose to fill that position, Bill Essayli, Valdivia sought to create for himself a support staff of nine. After some initial resistance on the part of Shorett, Mulvihill and Nickel to the concept of empowering the mayor’s office,  Valdivia ultimately prevailed, and by September of last year he had gone two thirds of the way toward reaching his staffing goal. All told, his office boasted a chief of staff, a constituent/customer service representative, an assistant, a full-time field representatives, a part-time field representative, and a paid intern, in addition to a secretary that served both him and the city council.
Ironically, the addition of staff into the mayor’s office that was done with the intention of extending Valdivia’s power has now redounded in such a way that those employees, with each of their stories compounding on those of one another, represent a very real threat to Valdivia being able to remain in office or continue his political career in any fashion.
On January 29 of this year, two city employees, Mirna Cisneros, who had been working in Valdivia’s office as a customer/constituent service representative since relatively early in his tenure as mayor, and Karen Cervantes, who had worked as his special assistant since September, resigned. They said they had been subjected to abusive behavior by the mayor, including being subjected to insults and sexually-tinged innuendo, sexual harassment and advances, and that they endured a hostile work environment along with a string of humiliations after rejecting those advances.
Cisneros and Cervantes are represented by attorney Tristan Pelayes, who guided them in their efforts during their latter stage of employment with the city to be moved into positions outside the mayor’s office. When the city demonstrated it was not amenable to placing them elsewhere, they resigned and a little more than two weeks later, on February 13, filed claims against the city.
In short order, it was revealed that Pelayes was representing three other city employees working within Valdivia’s office, as well as a city commissioner who had similarly been subjected to abusive treatment by the mayor. Those clients were two other woman, Jackie Aboud, who had served as Valdivia’s field representative for nearly ten months, and Alissa Payne, whom Valdivia had nominated to serve on the city’s Arts and Historical Preservation Commission and the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission. The others were Don Smith, who had worked on Valdivia’s campaign for mayor and was subsequently hired by the city to serve as Valdivia’s part time field representative, and Matt Brown, Valdivia’s chief of staff who has been serving in that capacity since August 2019, roughly a month after Essayli had resigned.
Last Month, Smith, who yet works as Valdivia’s legislative field representative, filed a claim against Valdivia and the city, saying he has been subjected to abusive behavior by the mayor, was ordered to engage in illegal activity and was “constructively demoted” and ostracized by the city’s management when he did not go along with Valdivia’s inappropriate and illegal orders.
This week, on April 28, Aboud filed a claim, saying she was abused and ridiculed while working as Valdivia’s legislative field representative, and that he had subjected her repeatedly to vulgarisms and sexual comments, pressured her to have a sexual relationship with him and then retaliated against her by firing her when she refused to do so and reported his treatment of her to city officials.
Aboud worked for the city from April 24, 2019 until she was fired on January 6, 2020. Throughout that time, according to her claim, she was subjected to “pervasive and severe offensive and/or graphic sexual comments, such as sexually suggestive language and gestures, unwelcomed profanity, sexual comments and behavior, racist comments, and a hostile work environment on an almost daily basis. Claimant was also retaliated against by Valdivia for not engaging in a sexual relationship with him and for reporting Valdivia’s behavior to her supervisors and [the] human resources [department].” According to the claim, “on at least three separate occasions during claimant’s employment, Valdivia told her that she needed to ‘develop a personal relationship’ with him and that she also needed to spend more time with him ‘outside of work.’ He also threatened her that she was ‘replaceable,’ and he would ‘terminate’ her if she did not develop this ‘personal relationship’ with him. Valdivia’s intention for compelling claimant to develop a personal relationship with him was to date claimant and advance Valdivia’s sexual desires on claimant. From Valdivia’s multiple inappropriate interactions, he conveyed to claimant, based on his words and/or conduct, that her terms of employment and/or the favorable working conditions depended on the acceptance of his sexual advances towards her.”
According to the claim, when Aboud did not respond positively to Valdivia’s advances, “he became enraged every time and ridiculed, insulted, and created a hostile work environment for claimant by stripping her from her assignments, denying her training, creating unreasonable demands upon her, changing his expectations of her without giving her any notice and giving her instructions for tasks and then when claimant followed his instructions he would deny them and contradict himself simply to blame and ridicule claimant.”
Her claim states that  “On or about November 14, 2019, Valdivia scheduled a meeting with claimant. Valdivia wanted to discuss how he wanted claimant to learn more about his ‘personal needs.’  From claimant’s perspective, personal needs of Valdivia meant having sex with him.”
According to Aboud, Valdivia “treated her co-workers in the same manner, especially females when it came to inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature and male co-workers when it came to hostile work environment.”
Cisneros’s claim touches on illegal activity by Valdivia, most particularly his failure to properly report donations or gifts, as is required of elected and government officials, as well as his active efforts to misreport or hide his use of public funds, or misspend or misapply public funds or resources. Smith’s claim is far more thorough in this regard, outlining, and in some cases, detailing, what appears to be or comes across as instances of bribery.
Aboud’s claim, while less intensely steeped in pointing out graft, nevertheless alludes to corruptions of Valdivia’s power and authority, which included his efforts to provide city services to those residents in the sections of the city that supported him and to deny those services in those areas where the majority of votes went to his opponent.
Much of Aboud’s function as the mayor’s legislative field representative consisted of engaging in so-called “citizen relationship management” encounters with city residents, gleaning from those interactions issues or problems that City Hall, and in particular the mayor, should address. According to Aboud’s claim, Valdivia instructed her to ignore or not file reports with regard to her citizen relationship management encounters with residents of the Fourth and Seventh Wards, where his council rivals Shorett and Mulvihill are councilmen and where he received fewer votes in 2018 than did Davis.
Valdivia, who is a Republican, also instructed Aboud to remove all photos of Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez-Reyes  from his social media page. Gomez-Reyes is a Democrat.
On one occasion according to the claim, when Aboud was talking to the mayor and said she valued her job as his representative because it afforded her the opportunity “to work with the residents of San Bernardino at a grassroots level, so she was able to see the tangible impact made on residents and to bring good change to the city,” Valdivia “told her that she was not there to serve the people of San Bernardino, that she was only there to serve him and ‘his needs.’”
According to her claim, when Aboud turned to city officials for help in what she was experiencing with Valdivia, they were unable to do so because of their unwillingness to deal with someone in his position of authority.
In August 2019, Aboud met with Michelle Webb, an employee of the city’s human resources department, the claim states. After Aboud told Webb about her encounters with Valdivia and specific things he had said and done to her, including the sexual harassment, “Webb confirmed that Valdivia’s behavior was improper, but that claimant should beware of Valdivia’s actions ‘once [the] human resources [department] notified him of the complaints,’ because he could retaliate without repercussion. Claimant was not given any further guidance,” according to the claim. The claim said that Aboud met with Webb a bit less than two months later “and reported Valdivia’s actions and the fact that things were getting worse. Webb advised claimant to speak with someone else because she herself was ‘not able to take on issues like these’ because she was new. Webb advised claimant to wait until she had put in her notice to leave the position to file the claim with [the] human resources [department] because of Valdivia’s likelihood of retaliating against claimant.”
Valdivia’s positioning is weakening. The alliances he once had with Sanchez, Ibarra and Nickel have deteriorated, in the cases of Sanchez and Ibarra to the point of hostility. His sole remaining support on the council consists of Richard and Figueroa. Richard, in some measure because of her affiliation with Valdivia, was defeated for reelection in March, making her a lame duck who will leave office in December.
The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, which employs Thomas Rice, who serves as San Bernardino’s city attorney, and Sonya Carvalho, who serves as San Bernardino deputy city attorney, had previously sought to protect Valdivia, believing that he still controlled a majority of the council’s members. As the scandal surrounding Valdivia escalated, Best Best & Krieger brought in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to do an “independent investigation,” which in reality had its parameters dictated by Best Best & Krieger. Rice and Carvalho have in the last month-and-a-half come to recognize that Valdivia no longer holds sway over a council majority, and thus cannot effectively act to remove Best Best & Krieger as the city’s contract city attorney if he becomes displeased with its service. Thus, the firm has signaled Liebert Cassidy Whitmore that it can proceed with a legitimate investigation. That Liebert Cassidy Whitmore will return with findings that will politically cripple Valdivia even further than he is already damaged is a foregone conclusion. Of question, however, is how thoroughly Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, which has a reputation for politically shaving its investigative findings to protect governmental establishment figures, will explore the issues of graft which have become exposed since Cisneros and Cervantes went public after their resignations, and which have been enlarged on in considerable depth by Smith’s claim.
Valdivia did not respond to the Sentinel’s offer to provide his version of events.
-Mark Gutglueck

 

Upland Residents Hit Back Against Amazon Facility Approval With Writ Of Mandate

A writ of mandamus is being prepared by an attorney working on behalf of a recently-formed citizens group to force the City of Upland to revisit its environmental certification of the controversial Bridge Point development proposal and rescind the approval of that project based upon flaws in that certification as well as what those citizens maintain was an inadequate public hearing process for the undertaking, the Sentinel has learned.
Beginning in early 2018, Bridge Development Partners initiated backroom discussions with planning division employees and senior management with the City of Upland with regard to a massive distribution facility for on-line retail giant Amazon.
In June 2019, during a so-called workshop involving city officials and Bridge Development Partners, the project was previewed as a proposal for a three-building warehouse complex involving 977,000 square feet under roof. Over the next several months, as objections to the scope of the proposal manifested, the tentative site plan was modified several times until in October, a revamped conception of the project was presented, one that was reduced to a single structure of 276,250 square feet. When the environmental review documentation for the project was posted on December 16, 2019, it came in the form of a negative mitigated declaration as opposed to an environmental impact report. In that documentation, the project was shown as a 201,096-square-foot distribution center to be located north of Foothill and south of Cable Airport. After feedback from the public was accepted in conjunction with the processing of the negative mitigated declaration, which some residents said was marred by the city’s failure to post all of the public input and commentary submitted with respect to it, the planning commission, with Commissioner Alerxander Novikov absent, met on February 12 to consider the project. A total of 57 people, 33 of them Upland residents, addressed the commission with regard to the project during the five-hour meeting. Thirty of those residents expressed opposition to the project, while three voiced support of it. The majority of the 24 others who went on record, consisting of construction workers, representatives of the construction industry, construction union members or others who had a financial interest in the proposal proceeding, expressed project support.
Preparatory to its other votes, the planning commission first took up whether the Bridge Point project was compatible from a land use standpoint with the city’s Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On that item, Airport Land Use Committee members Ronald Campbell and Howard Bunte participated in the decision, which ended with a unanimous 7-0 finding that the project was in keeping with the plan’s parameters.
Thereafter, the five present members of the planning commission voted 4-to-1, with Commissioner Yvette Walker dissenting, to recommend that the city council accept the environmental certification for the project, in the form of a mitigated negative declaration; 4-to-1, with Walker dissenting, to recommend that the city council approve a lot line adjustment for the project; and 3- to-2, with Walker and Commissioner Gary Schwary in opposition, to recommend approval of the development agreement. The most significant vote of the evening was a 3-to-2 vote to recommend that the city council reject the site plan, with Schwary, Walker and Commissioner Linden Brouse prevailing and commissioners Robin Aspinall and Carolyn Anderson dissenting.
Thereafter, the members of the commission were subjected to considerable pressure by lobbyists working on behalf of Bridge Development Partners and other advocates for the project. A fortnight after its first February meeting, the planning commission convened on February 26. Without any notice to the public that it was going to reconsider the matter, the panel that night took up its already concluded recommendation against acceptance of the site plan. In a vote unprecedented in Upland history, the planning commission reversed itself, with Brouse and Scwhary changing their advocacy that the city council reject the proposed physical form of the project to an endorsement of the proposal, such that the commission’s final vote on the matter, including the participation of the at-that-point present Novikov, was a 4-to-2 endorsement of the site plan, with Aspinal, Anderson, Schwary and Brouse prevailing over Walker and Novikov.
Well established at that point was the Bridge Point project was a controversial one.
As March dawned, Bridge Development Partners was engaged in a full-court press to expedite the final approval for the project, hopeful that ground for the distribution center could broken by mid-spring, such that the project, or a significant portion of it, could be completed and ready for occupancy by late October or November, in time for Amazon to be operating from the facility during the 2020 Christmas shopping season. Prior to the city council considering the project in the forum of a public hearing, city staff recommended that Bridge be facilitated in achieving its goal, and comments by members of the city council indicated that the project was one that was viewed favorably.
Before March had run its course, the COVID-19 health crisis descended across the nation and California, and with it mandates on social distancing and restrictions on public gatherings. Accompanying the precautions against the rampant spread of the virus was the prospect that any construction activity would be delayed for several months. With the number of Upland residents opposed to the project burgeoning, City Hall found itself inundated with citizen requests that the council postpone its consideration of the project until the ban on traditional public hearings was lifted so the council could be presented with, and take stock of, the various perspectives on the development proposal before passing judgment on it. The council at one point was purposed to hold a public hearing to consider the project and potentially vote with regard to whether it should be allowed to proceed at its March 23 regularly scheduled meeting, the first convocation of the council at which the traditional open meeting format for such events was suspended.
Given the public discomfiture the concept of holding a non-public meeting provoked, city officials canceled the hearing. Pressured by Bridge Development Partners, city officials in short order called for holding a special meeting on April 1 at which the sole order of business would be for the council to consider staff’s recommendation to proceed with the project.
At the March 23 meeting and again at a specially called March 31 meeting to consider city action in the face of the coronavirus crisis, there was an outpouring of public sentiment against considering the project in any sort of forum in which the public’s ability to participate was limited, which was matched by similar expressions from council members Bill Velto and Janice Elliott. Those requests did not avail from the full council any action to postpone the consideration of the project.
At the specially-called April 1 meeting, Mayor Debbie Stone officiated over the proceedings from her office at City Hall and the four council members participated by means of a remote video/audio hook-up from their homes, with city staff present electronically. The public was not granted physical access to the meeting. Those residents/members of the public who did participate, did so telephonically and without an opportunity to make any sort of visual displays.
At the video conference meeting, the council ultimately voted 5-to-0 to accept a lot line adjustment for the project site and 5-to-0 to accept a development agreement with Bridge Development Partners that committed the company to providing the city with $17 million in fees, much of it intended as money provided in lieu of sales tax to make up for the consideration that Amazon’s internet sales model does not entail the collection of sales tax as normally occurs from businesses retailing merchandise.
The council also voted 4-to-1 with Councilwoman Elliott dissenting, in regard to the issues critical to the approval of the project, those being accepting the mitigated negative declaration for the project and the approval of the project’s site plan.
The vote provided Bridge Development Partners with an entitlement to proceed, putting the ball into the court of the project’s opponents to take legal action if they were to follow through on their stated determination to prevent the project from going forward.
And indeed, over the two weeks following the meeting, a group of residents rallied and launched an entity, Upland Community First, which, the Sentinel has learned, retained attorney Cory Briggs to represent it.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, those with standing can contest the approval of a project, but must do so within thirty days of the approving agency recording a document known as a “notice of determination,” which in most cases is filed within a week after the vote giving the project approval.
There was a lack of clarity, at that point, as to whether the current state of affairs with regard to the suspension of court activity in the State of California extended that deadline. On April 22, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an order that suspended for 60 days the public filing requirements relating to the California Environmental Quality Act. By earlier this week, Briggs had assembled a draft petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which cited both the California Environmental Quality Act, California’s Public Resources Code, California’s Planning and Zoning Law, and the Upland Municipal Code.
In the draft writ, Briggs contends that those making the petition – the members of Upland Community First – as well as other members of the Upland community opposed to the project had their fair hearing and due process rights violated.
“As a result of stay-at-home orders related to COVID-19, the city council meeting on the project occurred via teleconference despite one city councilwoman’s motion to delay the meeting (which was rejected by the other councilmembers) to encourage full public participation,” the draft writ of mandate states. “The decision to conduct the meeting by teleconference, along with respondent’s actions leading up to the meeting, deprived the public of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the project. The notice of public hearing for the project informs the public that anyone who wishes to comment on the project ‘may do so in writing between the date of this notice and the public hearing; or, may appear and be heard at [Upland City Hall].’ There is nothing in the notice regarding meeting by teleconference. Contrary to the notice, the public was unable to attend the meeting, as it was held by teleconference. In order to comment on the project, any member of the public had to register two hours in advance by sending an email to respondent’s city clerk containing the subject line ‘public comment,’ including the caller’s name and telephone number so that the caller could be telephoned when it was his or her turn to speak at the meeting. Among other things, people who registered to comment on the project were never telephoned to comment; the teleconference connection was choppy and participants’ comments cut in and out during the meeting; and at least one person who wanted to provide visual aids regarding the project’s traffic impacts was not given the opportunity to do so. The decision to hold the meeting by teleconference assumed that everyone who opposed the project had telephone or internet service to participate in the meeting, when in fact at least one person who would have participated in person was precluded from doing so based on the technological barriers imposed by respondents. The decision to hold the meeting in the midst of a pandemic ensured significantly decreased public participation, which is at odds with the well-established public policy of full government transparency and citizen participation in government decision-making. Petitioner’s fair hearing and due process rights were violated as a result of respondent’s failure to provide a fair hearing on the project.”
The draft writ of mandate asserts that the defects plaguing the project approval went beyond the manner in which the public was unable to fully weigh in with regard to its perspective on its impacts on the community to the actual impacts of the project themselves and what the writ characterizes as the incomplete documentation of those impacts and the inadequate safeguards against them, based on the use of a mitigated negative declaration for the project as opposed to a full-blown environmental impact report.
“Whenever a project proposed to be carried out or approved by a lead agency has the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact, the California Environmental Quality Act prohibits the agency from relying on a negative declaration,” the draft writ of mandate states. “Instead, the California Environmental Quality Act requires the preparation of an environmental impact report to identify and analyze the significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-term impacts, providing decision-makers with enough information to enable them to make an informed decision with full knowledge of the likely consequences of their actions, and providing members of the public with enough information to participate meaningfully in the project’s approval and environmental-review process. The California Environmental Quality Act also requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act further requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze all reasonable mitigation measures for a proposed project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. An environmental impact report must be prepared for a proposed project if there is a fair argument, supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, that the project may have an adverse environmental impact; stated another way, a negative declaration may not be used unless the lead agency determines with certainty that there is no potential for the project to have an adverse environmental impact.”
The draft writ of mandate continues, “There is a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental impacts. By way of example and without limitation, the administrative record is replete with evidence that the project will result in significant traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, among other environmental impacts. The project will also result in cumulative impacts unaccounted for in the mitigated negative declaration. The project’s significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment give rise to respondent’s legal obligation to prepare an environmental impact report. Respondent’s failure to prepare an environmental impact report is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.”
In seeking to convince the city council to deny the project approval, several city residents at the April 1 meeting had dwelt upon the consideration that the zoning at the project site, located north of Foothill Boulevard sightly to the east of Central Avenue, is for mixed commercial industrial use, which they asserted is incompatible with a distribution facility. The only property in the city zoned for such use, they said, was south of Foothill Boulevard.
The draft writ of mandate states, “The California Planning and Zoning Law prohibits the approval of any project that is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans and their components. The project authorizes land uses and activities that are in some ways inconsistent with the general and specific plans and their components. As a result of respondent’s violation of the California Planning and Zoning Law, petitioner, its members, and the general public have been harmed insofar as respondent has approved a project that is inconsistent with the land-use rules designed to protect the public from harmful development.”
Also, according to the draft writ of mandate, “The project violates the Upland Municipal Code. The Upland Municipal Code permits the approval of a development agreement only if it will provide clear and substantial benefits to the city and its residents. The project’s development agreement authorizes land uses and activities that are in some ways inconsistent with the requirements of the Upland Municipal Code. Respondent failed to make the findings required to support approval of the project’s development agreement. Respondent has approved a project that is inconsistent with the land-use rules designed to protect the public from harmful development.”
The draft writ of mandate calls upon the court to render a judgment or order determining or declaring that the city failed to fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and other applicable laws as they relate to the project such that the approval given to the project at the April 1 meeting is rendered null and void.
-Mark Gutglueck

Adelanto Hemorrhaging Red Ink In Payments To Lawyers

The City of Adelanto is being eaten alive by attorney fees it is paying out to defend itself against lawsuits brought against it by both former and current employees.
In the last payment register ratified by the city council  – that is payments made over a two week period this month –  $135,547.04 in checks were cut to lawyers.
That is merely the latest of the city’s outlays in this regard, as the city has been plagued with a glut of lawsuits since about midway in the administration of the immediate former mayor, Richard Kerr. And there is little prospect those steep payments will end anytime soon.
Following the election of 2014, in which Mayor Kerr and councilmen John Woodard and Charley Glasper were elected in a clean sweep that saw then-Mayor Kari Thomas and then-councilmen Steve Baisden and Charles Valvo ousted, Kerr and Woodard joined forces with Councilman Jermaine Wright in an initial effort to permit the indoor cultivation of medical marijuana to take place in the city’s industrial zone. Their stated rationale was that the city, which was in extremely poor financial shape, could rejuvenate itself economically by such a move. That represented a deviation from past policy, which matched that of nearly all of the municipalities in San Bernardino County, which was to resist any involvement with the commercial availability of cannabis or cannabis products, even though the use of marijuana for medical purposes had been legal in California in the aftermath of the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act. While some city employees were philosophically and ideologically opposed to the direction Kerr, Woodard and Wright were purposed to take the city in, some or even most were willing to support their agenda, insofar as they were assured the city was working within the parameters of the law. Over time, however, evidence emerged that Wright, Woodard and Kerr were involved in helping applicants for the cultivation businesses cut corners with regard to the permitting, licensing, inspection, operations and standards for those businesses. It also became evident that those business proponents were providing inducements to the trio in return for their efforts to prevent city staff from applying straightforward planning, land use and regulatory requirements to those proposals and businesses. In time, Kerr, Woodard and Wright dropped all pretense of being interested only in seeing cultivation enterprises flourish and they pushed ahead with allowing, first, medical marijuana dispensaries to be able set up shop in the city and then, even before the passage of 2016’s Proposition 64, allowing the city to move to the forefront of selling marijuana for recreational purposes, that is, allowing the drug to be used not for its medical but rather its intoxicative effect. Thus, some high ranking and mid-level city employees decided to leave or were pushed out from their posts, and they elected to simply move on. These included longtime City Manager Jim Hart, former City Engineer/Public Works Director/interim City Manager Tom Thornton, former City Attorney Todd Litfin, former City Attorney Julia Sylva, former City Attorney Curtis Wright, former City Attorney Ruben Duran, former interim City Manager Brad Letner, and former contract City Engineer Wilson So.
While Kerr, Woodard and Wright were pushing their agenda, some city employees pushed back, refusing to suspend the city’s planning, inspection or enforcement standards when it came to the cannabis-related businesses that Kerr, Woodard and Wright had put such a high priority upon facilitating.
Kerr, Woodard and Wright deemed such resistance to be insubordination, and had several of those employees suspended, fired or suspended and then fired. Even after Jermaine Wright was arrested by the FBI in November 2017 for taking a bribe in exchange for agreeing to prevent an applicant for a marijuana distribution business from being closely monitored and regulated by the city’s code enforcement division, Kerr and Woodard did not desist, pressing staff harder and harder to accommodate those seeking licensing by suspending the regulations and oversight the city was supposed to engage in as part of the approval and licensing processes. This entailed further reprisals against city employees when they continued to resist the mayor’s and councilman’s directions.
Ultimately, Kerr and Woodard were voted out of office as the scandal relating to what was perceived to be their graft-ridden relationships with the cannabis industry became too pronounced for the city’s residents to ignore.
More than a year after Kerr and Woodard left office, the city is still dealing with the unjustifiable termination lawsuits filed by the city employees they had fired.
Of note is that the city has probably spent more money in defending against the lawsuits than it would have shelled out if it had merely settled with those individuals who have taken it to court.
After spending a considerable amount of money in defending itself, the city ultimately settled cases or claims brought by Information Technology Specialist Adam Watkins for $145,000, Information Technology Specialist Ben Pina for $125,000, Jose Figueroa, a laborer in the city’s public works division, for $75,000, Ibrahim Abduld for $55,000 and specialized Code Enforcement Officer Derek Stevens for $30,000. The city in February 2019 agreed to pay the High Desert Mavericks $3.8 million for evicting the team from the city’s stadium, action championed by Kerr.
A report unverified by the Sentinel is that the legal action Watkins and Pina were engaged in grew out of their having been disciplined by the city when they cooperated with the FBI in providing videos of city council meetings to the FBI.
At present, former City Manager/City Clerk Cindy Herrera, former City Manager Gabriel Elliott, former Public Works Superintendent Nan Moore, former Conservation Specialist Belen Cordero, former Senior Planner Mark De Manincor, former information technology division employee Adam Watkins, former Public Safety Manager Steve Peltier, former code enforcement officers Apolonio Gutierrez and Gregory Stephen Watkins, furloughed code enforcement division employee Amber Tisdale and still-employed Code Enforcement Officer Roman Edward De La Torre yet have cases pending against the city.
It appears that the law firm of Jackson Lewis LLC  routinely receives monthly payments averaging between $15,000 and $30,000 to do work relating to the lawsuits brought by De Manincor, Cordero, Moore and Borja.
In 2017, Jackson Lewis was paid $ 78,794.01 by the city. In 2018, Jackson Lewis was paid $180,810.54 by the city. In 2019, Jackson Lewis was paid $217,341.30. So far, in 2020, through April, Jackson Lewis has been paid $154,347.12. Since 2017, Jackson Lewis has been paid $631,292.97.
Nancy Doumanian, who is representing the city with regard to legal actions brought against it by several of its employees and former employees, was paid $15,525.27 in February 2020,  $57,196.37 in March 2020 and $78,040.26 in April 2020 for a total of $150,761.90 so far this year.
The city has paid the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, and Gibson $1,916 in 2020.
The City of Adelanto has also paid the Tous Law Group $72,000 for service relating to workers compensation litigation.
The city paid the law firm of Winston & Strawn $86,516.14 in 2017 and $112,741.50 in 2018.
Adelanto paid the law firm of Ecoff, Campain and Tiles $5,287.81 in 2017;  $74,264.27 in 2018; $12,615.82 in 2019 and $91.87 this year for a total $92,159.77.
Though Rutan & Tucker has not supplied Adelanto with city attorney services in years, the city has has continued to pay the firm relatively nominal fees, including $5,701 in 2017,  $2,348.50 in 2018, $2,587 in 2019 and it has made payments of $760, $760, $885.50 and $616 to it this year.
Last year the city paid the law office of Gregory Dion $7,110.
The city also paid Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. $34,580 in 2017 and $50,525 in 2019.
Curiously, after coming to its $3.8 settlement agreement with the High Desert Mavericks, the city has continued to pay Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O’Neill, the firm it used to represent it in the lawsuit against the Mavericks, $71,836.69 in April 2019, $101,536.77 in June 2019, one payment of $71,796.03 in October 2019 and another payment of $77,699.50 in October 2019, $71,087.66 in November 2019, one payment of $48,735.33 in March 2020, a second payment of $76,496.79 in March 2020, a third payment of $58,296 in March 2020, a fourth payment of $34,984.44 in March 2020, a fifth payment of $64,671.81 in March 2020 and $48,735.33 in April 2020.
The city paid the law firm of Lozano Smith LLP $8,448.90 in April 2019, $3,520.94 in June 2019, $675 in October 2019, a second payment of $2,243 in October 2019, a third payment of $2,343 in October 2019, a payment of $6,141.50 in November 2019, and payments of $1,121, $7,472.66, $737.50 and $236 in March 2020.
The city paid MMJ Solutions Investigations Services $4,559.47 in November 2019 and has paid that firm $4,009.65 this year.
The city paid the law firm of Zweiback Fiset & Coleman $6,142.50 in April 2019, $7,675 in June 2019, $282.06 in October 2019 and a second payment of $2,800 in October 2019.
The city paid the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore $16,008 this and last year.
The city has paid the law firm of Filarsky & Watt $480 in April 2019 and made three other payments to the firm this year of $531.51, $441.18 and $160.
The city paid the investigative firm of Garon Wyatt $8,032.35 in April 2019.
The city also paid the GIC Corp. $4,794.61.
The money being laid out to secure lawyers in the face of the lawsuits is being paid in addition to, and actually in spite of, the monetary settlements the city most assuredly will eventually need to make in many, more likely most and perhaps even all of the cases.
-Mark Gutglueck

Second Yucca Valley Athletic Coach Leaving

For the third time in three months, the head coach of a major sport at Yucca Valley High School has made a precipitous departure from his assignment.
John Stewart, who earlier in the academic 2019-20 year guided the Trojans to their first gridiron victory over rival Twentynine Palms High School in 15 years, announced on Monday he was departing from Yucca Valley to take what he referred to as his “dream job” coaching at Big Bear High School.
2019 had been Stewart’s first year as the Trojan’s football coach. He had done an exemplary job, leading the team to an overall 7-4 record and a Desert Valley League Championship last fall, and into the California Interscholastic Federation playoffs. It was widely thought that he would remain in place for some time to come.
Stewart had previously been the head coach at Victor Valley High School in Victorville and Silver High School in Yermo prior to that.
He reportedly told Yucca Valley High School Principal Justin Monical that he was leaving for Big Bear both because of what he felt the mountain community offered and because he did not consider Yucca Valley to be a “good fit” for his family.
Unstated was the contretemps in the Yucca Valley High School athletics program, most prominently the way Jay Stepp was removed from his position as head coach for the track and field team at Yucca Valley High School in February after he had been in that position for 27 years.
Stepp had gotten crosswise with Monical and the Morongo Unified School District over his objection to Holly Brimhall remaining as his assistant coach. Stepp maintained that Holly Brimhall undercut his authority as coach with several of his athletes. There were familial issues involved. Loryn Brimhall, a junior this year, is a distance runner for the Trojans who did not have much of a chance to compete this year because the coronavirus crisis brought an early end to the track and field season. She had several near record-breaking times in the 1600 meters and 800 meters events last year. Brad Brimhall had been the Trojans’ baseball coach. When differences developed between Stepp and Holly Brimhall, Brad Brimhall had taken the side of Holly Brimhall, and several emails from him, described variously as “unfortunate” or “ill-conceived” and “tartly-worded” became public. He was terminated as baseball coach on what was said to be an unrelated matter relating to his discipline of a player in early February. Stewart was brought in to replace him.
-Mark Gutglueck