Upland municipal officials, including city management and the city council, this week prevented the city’s treasurer from alerting the city’s 76,000 residents of the looming pension debt crisis that is threatening to bankrupt City Hall.
More than seven months after effectively moving to muzzle Larry Kinley, who in 2016 was elected to the treasurer’s post by an overwhelming 62.46 percent of the vote, the city council this week for the eighth straight month prevented him from providing the city’s residents with a notation of the amount of money the city’s taxpayers are on the hook for to keep retirement stipends flowing to former city employees. Simultaneously, the council stopped Kinley from making a written public disclosure of the dramatic escalation in those payments that will occur in future years when the city’s current workforce retires, depleting the city of the money it will need to deliver services and maintain infrastructure.
Because cities such as Upland generally create their year-to-year budgets on the basis of current operations without making any preparation or allowance for how accumulating costs will burden the city in future years, the future debt is referred to as an “unfunded liability.”
For two closely related reasons, city employees and elected city officials would prefer that the city’s residents ignore this unfunded pension liability. Kinley believes city officials’ efforts to downplay that troubling financial indicator is grossly irresponsible.
Kinley worked for Bank of America for 42 years, the last 15 of which he was a manager in the problem loan administration department dealing with borrowers with financial difficulties. After his retirement, Kinley in 2013 by chance heard that Standard and Poor’s Financial Services intended to downgrade the City of Upland’s credit rating. As an Upland resident, and indulging the interest and expertise he had cultivated professionally, he began looking into the situation involving his city, coming across as well an auditor’s opinion from the certified public accounting firm Mayer Hoffman and McCann from 2012 stating that there were serious questions with regard to the city’s solvency to the point that in a short while “it will be unable to continue as a going concern.”
Delving further into the matter, Kinley discerned that the major factor forcing the city closer and closer to the fiscal abyss was its pension debt, which was then, and is yet, growing at an alarming pace. Based on his analysis, Kinley determined that the pension debt escalation grew out of the consideration that the city for decades had made what he says were unjustifiably generous commitments to pay city employees retirement benefits which are in the cases of the city’s lower paid employees, three times what are provided to employees in the private sector, and in the case of the city’s higher paid employees, five, six and even seven times what is a standard retirement stipend in the private sector.
At that point, Kinley set about trying to calculate what the city’s unfunded pension liability was at that time. Based on data he obtained from the California Public Employees Retirement System, with which the City of Upland is contracted to deliver pensions to its employees, what Kinley found was that as of June 30, 2012, which at that point was the last date for which figures were available, the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liability for its safety [i.e., police and fire department] employees, current and future, calculated on an actuarial value of assets basis was $33,370,136 and calculated on a market value of assets basis was $54,213,809. Kinley further learned that as of June 30, 2012 the city of Upland’s unfunded pension liability for its miscellaneous [i.e., those other than policemen and firefighters] employees, current and future, calculated on an actuarial value of assets was $21,234,203 and calculated on a market value of assets basis was $34,780,257.
In this way, Kinley derived a $88,994,066 figure, using market value actuarial terms.
In 2016, when the city’s then-current treasurer, Dan Morgan, opted out of running for reelection as treasurer to instead seek a seat on the city council, Kinley tossed his hat into the ring, as did Stephen Dunn, who had departed as Upland city manager that year and had served in the role of Upland’s finance director prior to that. Campaigning on a platform that made reference to the unfunded pension liability while noting that Dunn was a pensioner drawing a $104,000 annual pension who therefore might not be sensitive to the need for pension reform, Kinley handily won the 2016 election for treasurer, capturing 16,625 votes or 62.46 percent to Dunn’s 9,992 votes or 37.54 percent. Kinley’s performance in that election made him the top vote-getter among all of the city’s elected officials, including the council members and the mayor.
In addition to carrying out the standard duties of the city’s treasurer, Kinley was resolved as well to see that he continued in his elected capacity to bring the same degree of focus to the unfunded pension liability issue as he had as a candidate. He saw this as part of an effort to get Upland’s citizenry to take up and embrace the concept of pension reform, such that the burden of paying for the hefty pensions would be transferred from the taxpayers and future taxpayers to the city’s employees, who would be called upon to up drastically their contribution toward sustaining the pension fund as a part of contract negotiations.
Each year, Kinley would recalculate the degree to which Upland’s unfunded pension liability would increase. He also kept an eye on how much, as a percentage of the budget, payments into the retirement pool consumed money from the city’s general fund. As treasurer, he approached other officials at City Hall, informing them that he wanted to kickstart the pension reform movement in Upland by having the city carve out for him an opportunity to weigh in, albeit briefly, during city council meetings, through a forum from which he could give a brief overview of the city’s financial picture, perhaps from a seat provided for him on the council dais. Marty Thouvenell, Upland’s former police chief, at the time Kinley came into office was serving as the city’s interim city manager. Thouvenell was originally supposed to remain in that capacity for only a brief interlude while a full-fledged city manager was being recruited, but as it turned out, he remained in that post for 18 months, a duration in place that was actually longer than the tenures of the two city managers who served before him and the two who served after him. When Kinley engaged with Thouvenell, who was a pensioner himself, and told him of his plans to spark pension reform from the bully pulpit within the council chambers as a co-equal with the rest of the city’s elected leadership, Thouvenell immediately let it be known that no one was interested in hearing Kinley prattle on about how the sky was falling and City Hall would be buried under an avalanche of pension debt. There would be no forum for him as city treasurer, Thouvenell told him.
If Kinley wanted to sound his dire warnings about the unfunded pension liability at those forums, he would not be given a platform to do so as city treasurer, but had to present a speaker card to the city clerk and make his presentation from the podium provided to members of the public. On those occasions when Kinley summoned up the dignity to do so, if his message did not contain itself to the three minutes allotted to public speakers, Mayor Debbie Stone, who had received 588 fewer votes for mayor than Kinley had received for treasurer in the 2016 election and who had heard as much about the city’s unfunded pension liability as she could stand, would shut off the microphone.
Kinley battled on, undercut at virtually every turn. He was able to score one significant and meaningful breakthrough, though it was grudgingly conceded to him. Using his status as city treasurer and the authority of his elected position, he arranged to have not only a reference to the unfunded pension liability made in the city’s comprehensive annual financial report, but a projection of where that liability stood as of June 30, the end of each fiscal year, based upon actuarials composed of the pensions being provided to the city’s retirees, their ages and current average life expectancy.
Last year, taking stock of the implication of his calculation that at the end of Fiscal Year 2018-19 as of June 30, 2019 that Upland’s unfunded pension liability had reached $112,039,675, up from $99,976,917 at the end of Fiscal Year 2017-18, Kinley felt it his duty to redouble his efforts to get the issue front and center before the residents of Upland. At the rate it is metastasizing, the runaway unfunded pension liability train by 2030 will monopolize 60 percent of the city’s general fund, meaning the city will be paying 60 cents out of every dollar it spends to pay people who are no longer working for the city. Desperate for a forum from which to project his alarm, Kinley set his sights on the monthly treasurer’s report that traditionally was posted publicly as part of the first city council meeting of each month. Treasurer’s reports are a relatively common document among municipalities, one which lays out what the city has over its history up until the present salted away in terms of its surpluses garnered from revenue in excess of its expenditures in current and past budgetary cycles, and delineates how and where that money is invested. Typically a treasurer’s report is current to approximately 60 days prior to its issuance, and it shows the amount of money the city has in investment funds, shared investment funds with other municipalities, interest-bearing bank accounts and change funds, securities, money market funds, government agency securities, corporate bonds and U.S. Treasury notes. Municipalities generally present their treasurer’s reports to the treasurer before they are made public, so that the treasurer can inspect and sign it. Figuring that the treasurer’s report is a listing of the net assets the city has, and further figuring that any indebtedness against those assets would impact the total amount of available savings, Kinley believed that the city’s outstanding debt would be properly listed on the treasurer’s report.
Realizing, however, that he was isolated on the issue in the city, Kinley decided against going out on a limb and simply altering the treasurer’s report from what was presented to him using his own authority. Instead, he sought backing for what he was going to do by going further up the governmental evolutionary chain, getting from state financial affairs experts clearance for what he planned to do.
“I called the state treasurer’s office to ask if there is something I can do to ensure I am able to fulfill my duties as I see them,” Kinley previously told the Sentinel. “I was handed over to one of their lawyers. The first question I was asked was ‘Who do you report to?’ I said, “Per the city’s organizational chart, I report to the citizens of Upland. That is the only line going to anyone above me. The lines from me or to me go down to the rest of the city staff.’ The lawyer’s comment was, ‘Therefore, since there is no one in the city with higher authority on financial issues than you, you are independent and you can add the information you deem relevant to the treasurer’s report.’”
Kinley next consulted the California Government Code relating to a municipality’s financial reports. California Government Code § 53646 requires and authorizes municipalities to carry out financial reporting no less frequently than quarterly. There is nothing in California Government Code § 53646 which expressly forbids a city treasurer from making mention of the city’s unfunded financial liabilities in a statement of investment policy, which, California Government Code § 53646 states, “the board [i.e., the city council] shall review and approve at a public meeting.”
Indeed, in subparagraph 3, California Government Code § 53646 reads, “The quarterly report shall include a statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its pool’s expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may, not be available.”
If questioned about what he was next going to do, Kinley was prepared to contend that the city’s unfunded pension liability has the potential for preventing the city from meeting future expenditure requirements.
Based on that, when the treasurer’s report was next given to him, Kinley took what he calculated would be the first incremental step. “What I wanted to do in the treasurer’s report was add a comment as the treasurer about the city’s pension liability, to see if I could get it in there,” Kinley told the Sentinel last year. “I wanted to provide both sides of the balance sheet, the net, if you will, which would include not just our assets but our liabilities.” He handwrote onto the treasurer’s report a note that showed his calculation of what the city’s unfunded liability was at that point.  Then he signed the report.
City Manager Rosemary Hoerning and Finance Officer Londa Bock-Helms were having none of that, however. Hoerning went to the city’s finance committee, consisting of Councilwoman Janice Elliott and Councilman Rudy Zuniga, Bock-Helms and Kinley, who has essentially been disenfranchised from it. The committee made a directed determination that the language Kinley was seeking to include should not be contained within the report. He was proffered a clean version of the report for his signature and his signature only.
“I told them that if they were going to erase my input, I just wouldn’t sign the report,” Kinley said. “And I didn’t.”
Thereafter, Hoerning and Bock-Helms changed the title of the treasurer’s report to the treasury report. They now sign it in lieu of Kinley.
The degree to which Hoerning and Bock-Helms are invested in the California Public Employees Retirement System perhaps explicates why both are so adamantly opposed to Kinley’s efforts to draw attention to the unfunded pension liability sword of Damocles hanging over all of Upland’s citizens’ heads, which might touch off a reform movement contrary to their personal interest. The California Public Employees Retirement System formula for someone in the position Hoerning holds calls for her highest annual salary times her number of years times the multiplicand of 2.5 percent. Earlier this year, the city council conferred upon Hoerning a three-year contract starting at $230,000.04 in salary before benefits annually. Thus, were Hoerning to retire today, she would be entitled to receive a pension of $184,000.03 annually for the remainder of her life, based upon $230,000.04 X 32 (years) X .025. If Hoerning serves out the full three years on her contract, she will then qualify for an annual pension of $201,250.03, based upon $230,000.04 X 35 (years) X.025. The California Public Employees Retirement System formula for someone in the position Bock-Helms holds calls for her highest annual salary times her number of years times the multiplicand of 2.25 percent. A calculation with regard to Bock-Helms’s eventual pension is less precise, given the relative dearth of publicly available information pertaining to her job history and future unknowns. Nevertheless, what is known is that Bock-Helms in 2016 was employed with the City of Murrietta with the title of finance manager, for which she was provided an annual salary before benefits of $113,725. She left Murrietta in 2017 to take a lesser position in Upland, bearing the title of finance officer, which entailed a salary reduction to $105,000 per year. This year, while yet holding the title of finance officer, she is being provided with a salary before benefits of $118,632.85. Bock-Helms is on a trajectory to promote in the relatively near term to the position of finance manager, and eventually, if she remains in Upland, to finance director, a post that now, if filled, would pay in the $150,000 range and would be likely to top out at $160,000 to $175,000 by the time Bock-Helms will be eligible for retirement. Thus, if she retires with 35 years as a municipal employee, she will likely be, at the very least, eligible for a pension of $126,000 per year, based upon $160,000 X 35 years X .0225, annually for the remainder of her life.
The city’s employee unions are among the heaviest contributors to the mayor and council members’ campaign funds. Advocates pushing finance reform in the city have suggested that the council members, individually and collectively, fear that their participation in efforts to reform the city employees’ pension system will result in the employees and their unions withdrawing their political support from the incumbents and bankrolling their opponents.
The slight to Kinley and the fashion in which city officials are seeking to prevent any heed being given to the ticking time bomb of Upland’s unfunded pension liability made its way into the public consciousness this week, prompting Councilman Zuniga at the Monday night council meeting at which the council was set to accept the treasury report, to say, “I’d like to ask the city manager or Londa Bock-Holms if they can explain why the city treasurer’s signature is not on the document and does it need to be on the document [i.e., the treasury report], and why the PERS [California Public Employees Retirement System] liability doesn’t show up on this document. I know why, but I would like it to be explained to the community.”
“So, this is the treasury report, and we provide this report to the treasurer, so he does get a copy of it,” Hoerning said. “In the past he, as the treasurer, has signed the report. However the reason for the signatures on the report is to certify the six items that are listed on the front of the report where the signatures are contained. It doesn’t require that the treasurer sign the report. However, when the treasurer was signing the report, he would alter it, so our finance officer, Londa Helms, would sign the report as it stands, which is just reflective of all of our treasury investments, and then the treasurer would make alterations to the report and then sign it. So, it didn’t have her concurrence with any corrections. The correction that he was making to the report is regarding the city’s unfunded liability position, which is included in part of our CAFER [comprehensive annual financial report] document, and is indicative of information that is not necessarily germane to this particular report. That is the reason why he has elected not to sign the report.”
Zuniga asked if it “is legal for the city manager to sign this report instead of the city treasurer?”
“Well, it doesn’t require that the city treasurer sign the report,” said Hoerning “I sign it as a matter of a second, so I’m reviewing the report that Londa has signed, so it has two official signatures on it.”
Hoerning said the treasurer’s report is an outline of how the city’s monetary reserves are being invested.
“Mr. Kinley has been notified that he can come up with his own type of report and produce it,” Zuniga said. “He can go in front of the council and let the community know what’s going on and how much is owed in this unfunded liability, and he refused to do so, correct?”
“That’s correct,” said Hoerning. “He always has an opportunity to speak or write a separate report and submit it to the city.”
“So there’s other ways he can push that communication of what’s unfunded in our city, but it doesn’t belong on this report,” said Zuniga. “This is an investment report. That’s all this one is.”
Councilman Bill Velto asked, “So, Mr. Kinley is shown this report, correct?”
“That’s correct,” said Hoerning.
“And Mr. Kinley is not required to sign the report, correct?” Velto asked.
“He’s not,” said Hoerning. “He’s given the opportunity to sign it, if he would like. In past practice the treasurer has signed the report, but they’ve signed the report without making corrections to the report or altering it.”
Hoerning said she was “not aware of past treasurers making changes to the reports.”
Velto asked, “The changes he chooses to make, are they inconsistent with his role?”
The question stymied Hoerning, who made an atypical five second pause in the cadence of her speech before answering, “They are inconsistent with this particular report. This is the investment report.”
During the evening’s public comment session, Marjorie Mikels told the council, “We are a general law city and we have a duly elected treasurer. His name is Larry Kinley. The people voted in a man with 40 years of banking experience.”
Mikels said that Mayor Debbie Stone had deliberately disenfranchised him.
“You never talk to him, Mayor Stone,” she said.
The council is overstepping its authority by preventing Kinley from carrying out his function as he deems appropriate, Mikels said.
“The government code gives him certain responsibilities,” Mikels, an attorney, said. “You have interfered and obstructed him in the performance of his duties as our elected treasurer. The city manager and someone called the finance manager signed off on the treasurer’s report. It’s illegal. You don’t want Mr. Kinley to disclose the truth about the unfunded pension benefit at this time that could bankrupt this city.”
-Mark Gutglueck

After a month of intransigence on a legal issue that was putting more than $1.2 million of federal money intended for community improvements coming to the City of Rialto this year in jeopardy and entailing the further risk of the city being forced to return hundreds of thousands of dollars it had received in the past and passed through to a nonprofit organization headed by her daughter, Rialto Mayor Deborah Robertson Tuesday night relented and recused herself from voting on the acceptance and distribution of Community Development Block Grants provided to the city by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Mayor Robertson violated the federal regulations pertaining to the provision and use of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Funds, according to the Los Angeles-based law firm of Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which was tasked to look into the controversy after city officials late last year took stock of the implication of Robertson having voted to provide a nonprofit corporation headed by her daughter over $200,000 in block grants entrusted by the federal government to the Rialto City Council for distribution over the last eight years.
Robertson, who has been mayor of the 103,440 population city since 2012 and is due to stand for reelection later this year, dug her heels in earlier this spring after questions emerged this past winter about her past votes as a member of the city council to approve Community Development Block Grant awards to the Bethune Center/Inland Empire National Council of Negro Women, of which she is herself a member and past president and which her daughter is currently the president. It was Robertson’s contention that since neither she nor her daughter were deriving any income from the nonprofit organization which provides services for at-risk youth and low-income to moderate-income families, that she did not have a financial conflict of interest which would preclude her from voting with regard to how the federal grants were to be distributed, even if the Bethune Center/Inland Empire National Council of Negro Women was one of the recipients of that money.
Former Rialto City Attorney Fred Galante, after learning that Robertson’s daughter, Milele Robertson, had been for nearly four years the president of the Bethune Center, which in addition to being a Community Development Block Grant recipient has also been extended rent free accommodations at a city-owned building, advised Robertson that she should refrain from voting on the awarding of the grant money to the organization her daughter heads. That advice was repeated by the interim city attorney, Eric Vail, who succeeded Galante, as well as a special counsel, Randall Keen of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, who was brought in by the city to advise it with regard to the thorny issue that grew out of the city’s provision of or passing through of public funds to an entity with a relationship to one of its elected decision-makers.
Mayor Robertson, however, obdurately refused to adhere to that advice, leading to a standoff in which the remaining members of the council, fearing reprisals from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would potentially include the federal government withdrawing all of its grant money from Rialto, cautiously delayed and then again postponed voting on the distribution of this year’s allotment of Community Development Block Grants, which included money earmarked for the Bethune Center. It was only after the council and city staff, exasperated at the mayor’s unwillingness to abstain, considered excising the Bethune Center from the list of grant money recipients and councilmen Ed Scott and Joe Baca, Jr. poignantly importuned her to step aside that Robertson agreed to forego voting on the matter.
On September 24, 2019, the Rialto City Council voted to retain the Riverside-based accounting firm of Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. to perform certain “independent auditing services” to augment Rialto’s “2018-19 Audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.” According to the letter of engagement for that assignment, the areas of review to be covered by Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. were issues relating to the city’s provision of post employment benefits and pensions to former employees and the impact those are having on the city’s financial situation, budgetary comparison schedules, the city’s financial statements, the combining of the city’s financial statements, municipal financial statistics and the “schedule of expenditures of federal awards.” In a side letter relating to that contract, it was stated, “An agreed upon procedures engagement is not designed to detect instances of fraud or noncompliance with laws or regulations; however, we will communicate to you any known and suspected fraud and noncompliance with laws or regulations affecting the city’s appropriations limit documents that come to our attention.”
Indeed, that is precisely what occurred.
Among the reams of financial documents Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. auditors pored over were those relating to grant funding received by the city, of which in the 2018-19 fiscal year, $38,475 in federal Community Development Block Grants was doled out at the discretion of the Rialto City Council to the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women.
Community Development Block Grants are a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development program in which federal money is provided to local communities, primarily cities, which can then utilize those funds as their political leadership deems fit insofar as they are applied toward the goals of providing affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. Community Development Block Grants are subject to less federal oversight than categorical grants. They are dispensed to projects and programs conducted locally at the direction of local authorities, which in the case of a city, is the city council. They are nevertheless subject to the provisions of federal law.
Milele Robertson, Mayor Robertson’s daughter, is the president of the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women, which offers what is described as job training services. Though the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women was formerly identified as being headquartered at 649 E. Foothill Boulevard in Rialto, it has been operating out of a city-owned building at 141 S. Riverside Avenue in Rialto for at least four years, having done so free of charge for that entire time.
Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc.’s accountants delineated the federal grant funding received by the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women, and traced out the blood relationship between Deborah Robertson and Milele Robertson. In its draft finding, which upon further refinement was incorporated into the 2018-19 Audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. referenced a member of the city council who had participated in providing the Community Development Block Grant funding to the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women without directly identifying the mayor, though the reference, by inference, was clear. “The member of the city’s governing body did not properly disclose or report the family relationship nor abstain from the selection and award of the agreement,” according to the language in Teaman, Ramirez and Smith’s finding.
After the report Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc. had generated to augment Rialto’s 2018-19 Audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was assimilated by city administrators, in particular Finance Director Jessica Brown, further examination of the circumstance revealed that since 2012, the year that Robertson became mayor, the Bethune Center-National Council of Negro Women had received over $200,000 in Community Development Block Grants distributed by the Rialto City Council.
On January 22, the city council adopted a resolution with little comment amending the city’s previous conflict of interest code.
On February 11, at its regularly-scheduled city council meeting, the council added to the nine items it was scheduled to discuss in closed session prior to the public portion of the meeting three items that needed to be gone over in the executive conference outside the scrutiny of the public, on one of which City Attorney Fred Galante intimated the mayor would need to abstain. After the council’s closed session discussions were concluded, Galante reported that the council had upon a 4-to-0 vote authorized City Manager Rod Foster to retain Manatt Phelps & Phillips to review and analyze any potential conflict issues as pertain to the mayor. The motion also contained a provision that Foster reassign the responsibility for the administration of the city’s Community Development Block Grants, California Proposition 47 funding and Homeless Emergency Aid Program grants to the deputy city manager and finance director in conjunction with the police department, removing those programs’ oversight from Community Services Director Perry Brents.
For nearly four months, as Manatt Phelps & Phillips looked into the matter, Galante and then his successor, Eric Vail, urged that the council exercise caution by having Robertson not take part in any discussion or voting with regard to the apportioning of the Community Development Block Grants, particularly if the Bethune Center was to be considered as a recipient or deemed a recipient. Earlier this month, a team of Manatt Phelps & Phillips attorneys, led by Randall Keen, generated a report on the matter.
According to Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Robertson’s past action with regard to the vectoring of Community Development Block Grant money to her daughter’s organization and her insistence that she is entitled to continue her involvement in that process put the city at risk of the Department of Housing and Urban Development withholding Community Development Block Grants from Rialto in the future or that an aggrieved citizen will bring a successful legal challenge that will impose on the city the hardship of having to rescind past actions, and refund the money it had received from the federal government, leading to incalculable complications for City Hall. What Robertson had done in the past and was threatening to continue to do, Manatt Phelps & Phillips said in its report dated June 9, is very likely a violation of California’s common law conflict of interest doctrine as well as a violation of the City of Rialto’s conflict of interest ordinance.
The report stated, “In our opinion, the mayor’s participation in awarding or administering CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] funds to IE NCNW [Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women, Inc.] violates CDBG conflict of interest regulations. This is due to several factors – first, that her daughter is president of the organization; second, that the mayor herself is a member of the organization, and third, that the CDBG funding appears to constitute almost 50% of the organization’s total funding in the most recent filing. While it does not appear that either the mayor or her daughter have a financial interest in the grant, a published HUD [Housing and Urban Development] decision interpreting a similar regulation confirms that the HUD regulation is not limited to financial interests. The mayor’s interest and her daughter’s interest in the continuing success of the IE NCNW is sufficient to set up that conflict. The mayor’s previous actions could be deemed inadvertent by HUD, and HUD could consider as a mitigating factor that, as she has stated, she was unaware of and had not been advised about the regulation. However, there is also substantial risk that HUD could impose a variety of penalties on the city and/or on the mayor. If the mayor continues to refuse to recuse herself, this could weigh against any mitigating factors that HUD might consider.”
Prior to delivering its June 9 report, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, in the person of Keen, had in closed session conferences with the city council told officials the city should take steps to prevent Robertson from voting on any pass-through of grant money or any funds whatsoever to the Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women. In the June 9 report, the law firm stated, “We continue to strongly recommend that the mayor recuse herself from participation in any discussion or votes regarding allocation of funding to or agreements with IE NCNW. We further recommend that the mayor refrain from participating in the administration of any contracts or agreements with IE NCNW.”
The report stated, “It seems unlikely that the mayor will recuse herself, based upon communications from the mayor’s counsel. If the mayor refuses to recuse herself, we continue to recommend that the city council not approve CDBG funding for IE NCNW unless and until guidance has been received from HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] and the common law issue has been addressed.”
Sometime after Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, Inc.’s uncovering of the issues pertaining to the pass-through of CDBG money to the Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women and the resultant suggestions that the circumstances presented a potential conflict for Robertson such that she should desist from participating in any action relating to the Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women, Robertson conferred with her personal attorney, Allison R. Bracy of the law firm Collins, Collins, Muir and Stewart. Based upon reinforcement provided to her by Bracy, Robertson asserted that no actual conflict exists in the circumstance involving her daughter and the Bethune Center/ Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women.
At both its May 12 and May 26 meetings, the city council was set to vote on the distribution of $1,295,942 in Community Development Block Grants, consisting of the $1,214,285 the federal government has allotted to the city this year and $81,657 in funds unspent from 2019-2020.
Staff recommended that the block grants be utilized for public service activities, capital improvements and toward the administration costs of carrying out the public service and capital improvements.
Within the category of public service activities, city staff has earmarked for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of the Inland Empire’s school-based mentoring program $12,225; the City of Rialto’s senior services division $48,500; the City of Rialto Police Department’s PRIDE Platoon Boot Camp $35,000; Rialto Family Health Services’ veterans affairs assistance program $20,000; $21,000 for the Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino to provide legal assistance to Rialto residents; $40,417 for the National Council of Negro Women/Bethune Center to fund its young adults academic and pre-employment skills program; and $5,000 for the Rialto Child Assistance League’s child assistance program.
Staff’s recommendations for the capital activities in Rialto to be funded in 2020-21 using CDBG money are a $428,120 repayment of a Section 108 loan; earmarking for tenant improvements at the community center building $439,275; and a modest $3,548 for the city’s mobile home repair program.
To bankroll administration activities related to the Community Development Block Program program in 2020-21, city staff is calling for the city council to ratify spending $213,796 to cover staff time devoted to the program and funding the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board’s fair housing program with an infusion of $29,061.
In addition, the city is set to accept from the federal government $714,324 in CDBG-CV, funds, money specifically earmarked by the federal government to cover municipal costs for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
For the money to actually be applied to those purposes, the council must hold a hearing at which potentially adjusting those allotments is considered, a concurrence on the final amounts to be utilized is reached by the council and a majority vote on the provision of the funds is attained.
Though the finalized Manatt Phelps & Phillips report had yet to be delivered last month, Keen had given his recommendation that Robertson steer clear of voting with regard to the provision of money to the Bethune Center/Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women. Robertson, however, spurned that advice.
The city council, which was anxious to proceed with the ratification of the CDBG spending at both of its May meetings, found itself stymied by the mayor’s contention that she is eligible to participate in the votes. Hoping to resolve the issue, the council at its May 12 meeting postponed its vote on the matter. On May 26, however, the mayor was no less intransigent than previously. Though the council had hoped Robertson would relent and simply step aside and either not vote at all with regard to the CDBG distribution or permit the vote relating to the funding for the National Council of Negro Women/Bethune Center to be separated from the vote with regard to the remaining allotments so that she would not participate directly in approving it, she refused, insisting no conflict exists.
“I’m not recusing myself because I think that it is not right or equitable to penalize someone by leaving them out of something,” she asserted. “It’s just not due process, so I am going to sit here and I will oversee and preside. I will not recuse myself.”
In the defense that Bracy has constructed for Robertson, the central consideration is that there is no money for either Robertson or her daughter directly at stake in the vote. According to Bracy in an email she sent to Manatt Phelps & Phillips on June 3, she contacted a representative of the Housing and Urban Development Department, who indicated to her that “the facts presented did not trigger a conflict of interest but [the representative] wanted to confirm with [Housing and Urban Development’s] legal [counsel].”
Bracy told Manatt Phelps & Phillis she “reached out to the local HUD representative who then contacted the HUD legal department. They hope to advise before the next council meeting as to whether the facts presented trigger the conflict of interest provisions under 2 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 200.318 and more specifically under the CBDG conflict regulation found at 24 CFR 570.611.”
According to Manatt Phelps & Philips, its inquiry turned up information to support Robertson’s and Bracy’s contention that Robertson and her daughter have no financial interest in the National Council of Negro Women/Bethune Center.
The Manatt Phelps & Phillips report stated, “according to news reports, Milele Robertson is employed by CalTrans in a management position.” The report says Marlene Davis, the executive director of the National Council of Negro Women/Bethune Center since 2016, “stated in a telephone interview that Milele Robertson has not received any compensation from the organization. The organization’s Forms 990 for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2014 reflect that previous presidents (and other officers, including Milele Robertson) were not paid. The organization’s Forms 990 available on the IRS website for tax years 2016 (the year Milele Robertson became president) and 2017 are incomplete, and do not reflect the names of the organization’s officers and directors, or what, if any, compensation those persons received.” Further, according to the report, “Milele Robertson stated that the position of president is not paid.”
On April 6, when Manatt, Phelps & Phillips requested an interview with Mayor Robertson, Robertson said she would not speak with Keen or anyone from his firm. Subsequently, Bracy contacted Keen and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and, after initially stating the mayor would make herself available for an interview, then requested that the questions be submitted in writing. In her responses to the questions and responses to follow-up questions, Robertson provided her answers through Bracy. Neither Keen nor anyone at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips was afforded the opportunity to directly question Robertson. In her written responses, Mayor Robertson said she has been a member of Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women since 1988, and that she served as an unpaid vice president and president in the late 1990s and early 2000s. She said she is presently a “Legacy Life” member. Robertson further stated that she has no financial interest in Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women and has no financial relationship with anyone paid by Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women. In her written responses, Robertson said she was not “specifically” aware of the Community Development Block Grant conflict of interest regulation, but she understands conflict of interest standards “based on my years in public service and my long career working for the State.” Robertson did not, she wrote, receive any training or advice regarding the Community Development Block Grant conflict of interest regulation prior to the votes to approve CDBG funding allocations.
The report states, “Based on the facts as we understand them, it does not appear that the mayor or her daughter have a financial interest in any award of CDBG funds to IE NCNW, as neither person receives compensation from the organization. However, both the mayor’s daughter and the mayor likely have an ‘other interest in or a tangible personal benefit’ from an award to IE NCNW.”
The report states that “In fact, it seems difficult to argue that the president, including an unpaid president, of a nonprofit organization would not have any ‘tangible personal benefit’ form a funding agreement that apparently provides 50% of the organization’s annual funding. Any president of a nonprofit organization would seemingly receive a tangible personal benefit by obtaining this level of annual funding for the organization.”
The report continues, “This analysis extends directly to the mayor herself. In addition to the fact that the mayor’s ‘immediate family member’ is the president of the organization, the mayor herself is a long-term member of the organization. Any member of a nonprofit organization who is able to to secure funding for the organization that equals 50% of the organization’s annual funding would seemingly receive a ‘tangible personal benefit’ form funding agreements with that organization.”
The Manatt, Phelps & Phillips report cited a Housing and Urban Development decision involving what it said was “a very similar HUD conflict of interest regulation applicable to funding for a drug treatment program.” The Matter of Rodriguez resulted in the HUD Board of Contract Appeals finding there was “an actual conflict of interest,” the report said, “where Rodriguez, the contracting officer, had an unpaid leadership role with a nonprofit contract awardee.” In that case Abraham Rodriguez was the executive director of the Public Housing Authority of the City of Laredo. In his capacity as public housing authority chairman, Rodriguez participated in the housing authority entering into an agreement with a local nonprofit, Jobs for Progress of Southwest Texas, as an outside contractor to run some Housing and Urban Development programs for the benefit of Laredo Housing Authority residents, which was funded by Housing and Urban Development’s Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. Rodriguez was also the unpaid board chairman of Jobs for Progress of Southwest Texas.
Rodriguez ran afoul of a conflict of interest regulation similar in relevant respects to the one regulatiing CDBG funding, the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips report states. The report quoted that regulation: “No employee, officer or agent of the grantee or subgrantee shall participate in selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when: (i) The employee, officer, or agent of an … (iv) organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award.”
The principle in the Rodriguez case applies to Robertson in the matter involving the Inland Empire Section National Council of Negro Women, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips asserted.
“The situation in Rodriguez is very similar to the present one, where a contracting officer or official has dual loyalty to the public decision-making body and to the organization contracting to provide a service,” the report stated. “While in Rodriguez, it was the contracting officer himself who had the role with the nonprofit, as opposed to a family member, Milele Robertson’s role with the IE NCNW is imputed to the mayor, as an immediate family member, under the clear language of 2 CFR § 200.318. Here the mayor’s daughter has a leadership role with IE NCNW. The mayor herself is a member.” The report then borrows from the decision language in the Rodriguez case to apply it to the Robertson matter, stating, “Even though neither person stands to gain financially from the CDBG funding, their interest in ‘the continuing success of [IE NCNW] is sufficient to set up that conflict.’ ‘The public cannot feel comfortable with such a close relationship, even if there is no personal enrichment.’”
The report stated that if the Department of Housing and Urban Development comes after the city because of the conflict of interest involving the mayor and her daughter, the city might ask for special consideration by asserting that Robertson violated the conflict of interest code unknowingly, because she was previously insufficiently familiar with and not specifically aware of the regulations. Now that the matter has become a very public one in which the conflict has been pointed out to her, the report states, “The mayor’s recent refusal to recuse herself arguably cuts against any mitigation.”
Robertson has run afoul of California’s common law conflict of interest restriction and Rialto’s conflict of interest ordinance, the report maintained.
“California courts recognize a common law doctrine against conflicts of interest,” the report states. “The doctrine ‘strictly requires public officers (and employees) to avoid placing themselves in a position in which personal interest may come into conflict with their duty to the public.”
The report quotes the City of Rialto’s conflict of interest ordinance, which reads: “No officer or employee of the city shall have any financial interest in the transaction of business in connection with the purchase of goods and services for the city. No officer or employee of the city may contract with any person related to an officer or employee of the city by blood or marriage within the third degree for supplies, services or equipment, unless the purchase is by written competitive bid and the person related submits the lowest responsible bid. No officer or employee shall participate in the procurement or selection process when such officer or employee has a relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract under this chapter which would subject such officer or employee to the prohibition of California Government Code Section 87100 or Government Code Section 1090.”
Conceding that neither the first nor third sentence of the ordinance applies to Robertson’s case, the report stated that, “With respect to the second sentence, the mayor is undoubtedly a city ‘officer.’ As a city officer, she may not ‘contract’ in the specified circumstances. The ordinance does not define what ‘to contract’ means, but it would be more than reasonable to conclude that with respect to city officers, it includes discussion, votes on agreements, and signing agreements on behalf of the city – all of which the mayor has done with respect to the IE NCNW agreements.”
Robertson and her attorney were tempting fate by insisting that she can vote with impunity on the pass-through of Community Development Block Grant money to the nonprofit her daughter heads, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips asserted.
“The mayor’s counsel has submitted ‘public comments’ to the city council in which she has argued that the CDBG regulation only applies to financial interest because California law only addresses financial conflicts of interest,” the report stated. “This is clearly wrong. The regulation itself does not say this. There are no HUD or court decisions to support this argument.”
In its conclusion, the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips report stated, “Mayor Robertson likely has a conflict of interest with regard to funding decisions for the IE NCNW under a combination of federal, state and local laws and regulations. Because we have not identified any evidence that the mayor has a financial interest in her daughter, Milele Robertson, or that Milele Robertson is a source of income to Mayor Robertson, the mayor likely does not have a conflict under California’s strict statutory conflict of interest provisions. However, she does have an actual or apparent common law conflict of interest. In addition, we believe her involvement in the approval, execution, and oversight of the agreements related to federal CDBG and state Proposition 47 funds is a violation of relevant federal and state conflict of interest statutes and regulations governing those programs. Finally, the mayor’s participation arguably violates the City of Rialto’s conflict of interest ordinance. We therefore recommend that the mayor recuse herself from all discussion and votes related to the IE NCNW and/or Bethune Center.”
When the city council convened on Tuesday, June 9, Robertson repeatedly made assertions that she had no intention of recusing herself.
Eric Vail, Rialto’s interim city attorney, said that during that portion of the city council’s closed session prior to the meeting from which Robertson was excluded, “The council decided to release the [Manatt, Phelps & Phillips] report publicly and provided the mayor a copy of the report. The council decided to pursue further guidance from HUD with regard to potential conflict, has decided to pursue further guidance form the California Attorney General with regard to the potential conflict, and special counsel has recommended that the mayor recuse herself form any action having to do with NCNW or Bethune. We understand on the advice of mayor’s counsel she will not be recusing herself on those items, and special counsel recommends in that event that the council not take any action with regard to any grant of money or otherwise with regard to NCNW or Bethune.”
Thereafter, Robertson said, “I will not recuse myself from it. Council can continue to do whatever they want to do, but I will not recuse myself from it.”
Robertson leveled criticism at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, conveying that the law firm was misapplying or misinterpreting the law in an effort to curtail her function as mayor. She suggested that the only basis for determining a conflict of interest existed would involve her having made a vote to enrich herself, which she said she had not done.
“I think the recommendations are kind of amazing that I’ve seen so far,” she said. “The items that were presented [by her attorney] for special counsel to look at, I think it has been clearly stated, and maybe I’m misstating it, that there was no financial interest that was determined.”
An impromptu debate of sorts between Keen and the mayor ensued which included a discussion of the distinction between common law and statutory law.
Keen propounded, “Federal regulation is not limited to just financial interest. It covers financial and other interests.” Keen said California conflict of interest law had been codified into statutory law, including two sections “that regulate financial interest and a common law which regulates other interests.”
Robertson suggested that under federal law, an exception had been carved out for nonprofits. “Doesn’t it address nonprofit organizations and exceptions within?” she asked. “Isn’t there some section within the federal law that speaks clearly to that nonprofit relationships are exempt?”
“Madam Mayor, we did not find anything like that,” Keen responded. “Your counsel sent us several things she wanted us to look at, and none of them were applicable to this situation.”
Robertson suggested that Keen and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips predicating its finding of a conflict on common law was legally dubious. She suggested that the only law that could be applied to her situation was statutory law, and that once an area of the law was covered by a statute, the common law that preceded it was no longer applicable.
Keen responded, saying, “The legislature can abrogate common law by enacting statutes, and with the common law conflict of interest, they did enact two statutes with respect to financial interests but they did not abrogate the common law with respect to other interests, and it still remains in effect.”
At that point, Robertson asserted that there was no strictly defined precedent in case law to establish her matter was yet subject to common law, since the only defined law within California’s statutes pertaining to conflicts of interest hinged on a financial conflict of interest. She indicated she was willing to roll the dice by having the California Attorney General’s Office or a court consider the matter.
She said that they “might as well take it all the way to the state, because I think some people will disagree.”
Keen then suggested that if Robertson was going to insist on voting with regard to apportioning the Community Development Block Grants, that the allotment for Bethune be removed from the motion “so that we preserve the fact that you don’t violate the conflict of interest regulation.”
Councilman Ed Scott endeavored to persuade Robertson to gracefully stand down from participating in the action, saying, “I’m ready to move forward with this tonight, and I’m ready to award all this money that is earmarked here, including Bethune, but there’s an issue with a potential conflict, and I’d like to plead with you to please recuse yourself so we can move forward and attempt to get a vote to approve all of these dollars and then let’s get an opinion from HUD, the Attorney General, whoever we need to get an opinion from, whether there’s actually a conflict or not, and if there’s not, we’re great, and if there is, then we’ll restructure our system so as not to compromise you or us. I’m asking you tonight to please recuse yourself. I know that Bethune does a great job. I know they need this money. I’ve always supported Bethune. I think this whole council has. I’m asking you to recuse yourself and let us move forward with this item in its entirety.”
Thereafter, Robertson yet expressed dismay over the city council and city staff having forced the issue by retaining Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to delve into the conflict issue. “We jumped to getting special counsel to investigate something before we even did the administrative process,” she said. “That is why I’m sitting here refusing to recuse, unless people are treated equally.” She seemed to suggest that she was concerned that the Bethune Center was going to be penalized by the council and the city because of the circumstance connecting her and her daughter to that organization. “There has been given a real negative opinion of presence or feeling to the community that they’ve done something wrong when they have complied every year,” she said. By her remarks she conveyed that she wanted to make sure that the Bethune Center received the funding recommended by staff.
She further expressed bitterness at the investigation targeting her and what it implied. “It has been an amazing Gestapo-type of investigation to the point that this special counsel finally comes up at this date with a common law,” she said. “I’d like to let you [explain], the four council [members] who started this, who chose to go to closed session without even giving me the courtesy of explaining what was of concern before you leaped to go get special counsel, which is not a mere small line expenditure. I’ll recuse and I’ll let you guys legislate.” She said that first, however, “I want to know why we put certain things into this report that has nothing to do with the general business of the allocation and disbursement of the Community Development Block Grant dollars.”
After Robertson expressed her displeasure at what the council had done to her by subjecting her and the city to the investigation by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Councilman Joe Baca, Jr., without dwelling on the circumstance that had necessitated the investigation, instead sought to fence mend, and used the suggestion that the council without Robertson voting would approve the full range of grant allotments as recommended by city staff, including the funding for the Inland Empire Section of the National Council of Negro Women, as an inducement to get Robertson to abstain from the vote.
Baca said he was in support of the city providing the pass-through funding to sustain the Bethune Center, and he suggested that if she did not recuse herself, the city would risk losing CDBG funding all the way around.
“Madam Mayor, I too plead to you if you could just recuse, I’m in full support of it,” Baca said. “I just don’t want to jeopardize them. If we hoard it [hang onto the Community Development Block Grant money without spending it], at some time it gets taken away.”
Immediately after Baca spoke, Robertson said, “Then I will agree to recuse myself, and I will turn the gavel over to the mayor pro tem. I will not cast a vote one way or another.”
From that point on, Councilman Ed Scott, in his role as mayor pro tem, chaired the hearing with regard to the Community Development Block Grant funding apportionment. After members of the public present who wanted to address the council spoke, recorded phone messages from residents relating to the funding were played aloud and City Clerk Barbara McGee read into the record letters and emails from city residents pertaining to the issue. Scott, Baca, Councilman Rafael Trujillo and Councilman Andy Carrizales then voted unanimously to approve the distribution of the Community Development Block Grant money as recommended by city staff and the city’s consultants on the matter, Frank Perez and Rudy Muñoz. That apportionment included the $40,417 for the National Council of Negro Women/Bethune Center to fund its young adults academic and pre-employment skills program.
-Mark Gutglueck

The strategy of sending 693 elderly or otherwise at-risk inmates at Chino’s California Institution for Men to other penal institutions in the state was halted late last week after that ploy was partially actuated. The transfers were curtailed after it turned out that some of those prisoners sent elsewhere were recently determined to have tested positive with the coronavirus contagion. The hold on prisoners in Chino was extended indefinitely early this week.
The planned unprecedented exodus of the nearly 700 prisoners from the Chino Institution for Men (CIM) came about because that medium security facility proved to be in late April and well into May the hot spot in the state prison system for COVID-19 outbreaks, as it led at that time all other prisons in the dubious distinction of the highest numbers of infected inmates and staff. It has since been passed in that regard by Chuckawalla State Prison in Blythe and Avenal State Prison in Kings County. More alarming was that as of June 4, Chino was the only California State Prison having registered any coronavirus deaths, and that number came in at 12.
As of earlier this week, CIM had 513 inmates who had tested positive for the malady, and the death toll from the condition reached 13. There had been no other deaths caused by the virus elsewhere in the state correctional system.
An effort to make sure that those inmates departing from the California Institution for Men were virus-free was made; nevertheless, the testing for that purpose had been done on a majority of those prisoners roughly two weeks before officials began sending them to other prisons.
It was believed that a safe landing spot for them would be San Quentin Prison, where until two weeks ago there had been no confirmed cases of the disease. Soon after the first batch of men arrived at the facility located on the San Francisco Bay and where California’s only execution chamber is located, it was ascertained that some of them were in fact infected.
According to medical authorities, the incubation period before symptoms of COVID-19 will manifest can be up to 14 days.
California State Corrections officials had completed the transfer of 194, or just under 28 percent, of the 693 inmates that were scheduled to be moved out of the Chino prison, and were on the verge of dispatching the next installment of 125 men to various facilities in the Golden State when it was learned that 16 of those 194 had come down with the condition. A halt was immediately imposed on the transfer plan.
According to the best information available to the Sentinel, some of the infected prisoners from the California Institution of Men went to San Quentin and at least one went to Corcoran State Prison.
It was suggested, though not explicitly stated, that the spread of the coronavirus into San Quentin came about exclusively because of the transfers from CIM.
Attorneys from the Prison Law Office, who have been advocating on behalf of inmates throughout the state and who had pushed for the state to take measures to protect vulnerable inmates from the potentially deadly disease, said in a June 8 federal court filing that “Not surprisingly, some of those people tested positive after their arrival at the new prisons. Unfortunately, San Quentin, which was previously a COVID-free prison, now has COVID-positive inmates.”
As of yesterday, all staff who had contact with the inmates during the transfer were to be tested for COVID-19 in compliance with an order by Federal Judge Jon S. Tigar.
When lawyers with the Prison Law Office sought to have those prisoners deemed most vulnerable at CIM moved out of that facility because of an outbreak in one of the housing units, attorneys for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation said doing so was not advisable because it might spread the virus into the population of the prisons where they were to be transferred. The state relented, however, with regard to the elderly inmates and those with conditions that might make them vulnerable to the disease after testing revealed that all of the housing units at CIM had inmates who had contracted the disease.
It now appears that what the lawyers for the state warned of has now come to pass. State prison officials are scrambling at this point to find a solution to the dilemma.
-Mark Gutglueck

The City of Chino Hills is leading the charge in seeking to convince county officials to institute a superseding ordinance that will prohibit the county’s homeowners from establishing restaurants on their premises.
The city council last week authorized Mayor Art Bennett to sign a letter prepared by city staff and addressed to Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman opposing the operation of home-based restaurants, which were legalized under Assembly Bill 626, which went into effect on January 1, 2019.
California Assembly Bill 626, authored by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia and known as the Homemade Food Act, was signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown on Sept 18, 2018. Under it, residents of single family homes can operate what are referred to as microenterprise home kitchens, which can earn up to $50,000 in revenue per year by cooking meals or items at their homes’ kitchens. Meal sales are capped at 30 meals per day, or 60 meals per week
So-called homecooks must obtain California food handler card certification, which can be obtained through completing online training and passing a test. Kitchens must pass an on-site inspection in order to be permitted. Under AB 626, prepared food can be picked up or sent out, as well as consumed at the home.
Chino Hills wants the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, led by Hagman, to forbid the operation of home public kitchens everywhere in the county. Hagman is a former Chino Hills Mayor.
The county asked its public health department to look into the issues relating to home kitchens late last year. With the advent of the coronavirus crisis, that action was put on hold, as such operations were shuttered by a public health order.
If the county assents to the applicability of AB 626, or authorizes it and its provisions, all cities within the county will have to allow such operations.
The letter reads, “The City of Chino Hills is writing to oppose authorization of ‘microenterprise home kitchen operations’ within the county. MEHKOs [microenterprise home kitchen operations] would allow an individual to operate a restaurant in their [sic] private home. Although we strongly support our home based businesses, MEHKOs would present new and potential serious health risks to the public and create new enforcement challenges for our staff. MEHKOs would also compete with our many small existing restaurants and could impact those existing businesses as well as the vitality of the commercial centers in which they are located.”
The letter continues, “MEHKOs were authorized by by Assembly Bill AB 626 which was signed into law on September 18, 2018, and became effective January 1, 2019. The new law gives the local environmental health agencies ‘full discretion to authorize the MEHKOs in their jurisdictions. For Chino Hills, the SBCPHD [county public health department] is our environmental health agency. Consequently, if the county allows MEHKOs the City of Chino Hills Hills must also allow them. As a MEHKO, a home restaurant would be allowed one employee in addition to family and household members. Each MEHKO could serve up to 30 meals a day or 60 meals a week, and generate up to $50,000 in gross sales a year. Food could be consumed at a home, picked up or delivered. MEHKOs also would be exempt from several health and safety rules placed on traditional restaurants, including having a letter grade card in the window, as wells as a handwashing sink and other equipment and sanitation requirements. Home kitchens can only be inspected once a year and by appointment only, unlike the typical unannounced visits to restaurants from health inspectors.”
The letter further states, “The MEHKO law is broadly written and would allow home restaurants in multifamily and accessory dwelling units. With the latest state requirements allowing two accessory dwelling units on single family lots, there could be three MEHKOs with a single family property. The city’s ability to regulate or monitor MEHKOs would be limited code-enforcement violations if neighbors complain about odors, traffic, parking or noise. All the concerns noted are exacerbated by the current COVID-19 crisis. We now know more than ever the importance of good public health, and we know how devastating closures of existing small businesses and restaurants is to our economy.”
The letter concludes, “For these many reasons, the City of Chino Hills respectfully requests that the San Bernardino Board of Directors does not authorize MEHKOS within our county.”
David Torres, who this and last year operated a popular home-based business on Pacific Avenue in San Bernardino which did a booming business on Friday and Saturday nights until the issuance of the public health order in March, told the Sentinel he does not want the county to prevent him from serving his customers. “Especially right now during pandemic,” he said. “This is the only way we can make money.”
Now that health department order has been lifted, Torres is back in business. He has been in compliance with all regulations and uses common sense in maintaining a sanitary operation, he said.
Seated at a table set up in his front yard, Torres told the Sentinel, “I got my permit from the city.”
-Mark Gutglueck

On Thursday, June 11, the West Valley Water District (WVWD) received a document from the State Controller’s Office outlining shortfalls in controls for operations, financial reports, assets and proper use of public funds from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018.
“Prior to the release of the report, the new administration worked with the State Controller’s Office to conduct the report and correct many of the issues detailed in the controller’s report,” said the district’s official spokesman, Naseem Farooqi. “Since December 19, 2019, WVWD worked extensively with a number of independent and nationally-recognized firms and organizations, including Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and the Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF), to help improve and conduct unbiased investigations and assessments of the WVWD operations. Many of these efforts led to the organization receiving the Special District Leadership Foundation’s District Transparency Certificate of Excellence, which was also announced earlier today. The award recognizes outstanding efforts to promote transparency and good governance.”
West Valley Water District Board President Channing Hawkins was upbeat, emphasizing the SDLF’s recognition over the criticisms contained in the State Controller’s audit.
“Our future is certainly much brighter, but there is still so much more to do,” said Hawkins. “This report represents a very dark time for the water district, but I’ve heard our community loud and clear and that is why we’re making significant improvements. From day one, since I was sworn in in December 2019, the West Valley Water District has taken swift and decisive action to increase accountability and transparency for our ratepayers.”
Chief Financial Officer Rickey S. Manbahal, MPA, stated, “Our water district has seen its turning point to ensuring financial responsibility and accountability. We are taking all the necessary steps to ensure ratepayer funds are invested responsibly. As directed by the board, I will hold our board, management and staff accountable for their actions because it’s what our ratepayers deserve.”
The California Controller’s Office used the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book), established by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, to assess various aspects of the water district’s previous internal control system from fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The Green Book outlines fundamental components, principles and attributes of effective internal control systems. Since 2020, the West Valley Water District (WVWD) worked with the State of California and other independent firms and organizations to identify and address these shortfalls.
In its first finding, the California Controller’s Office determined that district officials overrode the established process for hiring and promoting employees.
Well prior to the California Controller’s Office’ reaching its conclusions, on December 19, 2019, the WVWD Board of Directors voted to halt all hiring due to suspected irregularities.
On January 16, 2020, the board hired an interim human resources and risk manager, Martin Piñon. During that meeting, the board unanimously approved a temporary hiring freeze resolution.
On January 16, 2020, the board informed the public that Mr. Piñon will manage all recruitments, internal transfers, promotions, salary changes and performance evaluations until new policies and procedures are implemented.
On January 16, 2020, the board ordered all documentation related to the recruitment process be retained in the human resources department.
In its second finding, the California Controller’s Office determined a costly board meeting was held outside of district boundaries.
On April 16, 2020, the board decided to cancel future meetings of this magnitude and is currently researching options that will provide the same or greater results within district boundaries.
In its third finding, the California Controller’s Office determined the district paid directors questionable compensation for meetings. Moreover, in its fourth finding, the California Controller’s Office determined the district incurred expenditures that are excessive and questionable, and lacked proper approval.
On March 5, 2020, President Hawkins introduced a directive that board members and employees must complete expense reimbursement forms with receipts attached for all travel, conference, meals, expenses, etc. and submit them to the chief financial officer for reimbursement.
Hawkins further instructed that board members must attach a meeting agenda to each reimbursement or stipend form for every meeting for which they request reimbursement.
On March 5, 2020, Hawkins also put in place a requirement that employees must attach receipts to each expense reimbursement form, which includes all incurred expenses, including credit card purchases. These forms must be submitted to the accounting department on a monthly basis.
The CFO has been tasked to prepare new travel and reimbursement policies and a new reimbursement request form that requires supporting documents for all reimbursement requests.
The CFO, human resources director and legal counsel will develop a new reimbursement policy for board of directors’ paid long-term care.
In its fifth finding, the California Controller’s Office determined the district’s credit card practices are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse.
On March 5, 2020, the board stipulated that the purchasing department and all purchasing functions will report to the CFO, and board members and employees must complete expense reimbursement forms with receipts attached for all travel, conference, meals, expenses, etc. and submit them to the CFO for reimbursement.
In its sixth finding, the California Controller’s Office determined the district incurred expenditures that are excessive and questionable, and lacked proper approval.
On December 19, 2019, Board President Hawkins called a special meeting for January 9, 2020 to review professional services contracts.
The board reviewed all of the district’s professional contracts on January 9 and January 25, 2020.
On March 5, 2020, the board approved an agreement with a certified public accounting firm to prepare a new manual that includes new accounting and purchasing policies and procedures.
In its seventh finding, the California Controller’s Office determined employees might not have been paid correctly because of inaccurate timesheets and excessive paid holidays.
This finding was based on the district’s earlier practice of processing timesheets manually, which was conducive to human error. Since then, WVWD implemented an electronic time entry and management approval process, which corrects inaccurate timesheets and excessive pay.
On March 5, 2020, the board approved an agreement with a certified public accounting firm to prepare a new manual, which includes new accounting, purchasing, time-entry and payroll policies and procedures.
Flex-time holiday excessive pay is a result of the addition of a 4/10 schedule. This schedule is designed to pay an employee for holiday pay based on his/her work schedule. If an employee is on the 4/10 schedule, he/she is paid 10 hours for district observed holidays instead of 8 hours. This policy was changed under the new human resources policies.
In its ninth finding, the California Controller’s Office determined high turnover and lack of consistent leadership have hindered operational stability.
On December 19, 2019, the board ordered the general manager to halt all hiring until a resolution is adopted.
The hiring of Martin Piñon on January 16. 2020 into the interim human resources and risk manager position was intended to in part redress the turnover issue. During that meeting, the board unanimously approved a temporary hiring freeze resolution.
On January 16, 2020, the board gave Piñon authority to manage all recruitments, internal transfers, promotions, salary changes and performance evaluations until new policies and procedures are implemented.
On January 16, 2020, the board ordered all documentation related to the recruitment process be retained in the human resources department.
In its tenth finding, the California Controller’s Office determined that the district’s directors did not complete required ethics training.
On June 6, 2020, WVWD announced that it obtained a District Transparency Certificate of Excellence via the Special District Leadership Foundation, which requires all board members to complete ethics training and submit a certificate of completion to the foundation.

FBN 20200004249
The following person is doing business as: MARWELL 1094 N. WABASH AVENUE REDLANDS, CA 92374 MARWELL CORPORATION 1094 N. WABASH AVENUE REDLANDS, CA 92374 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION C3281898
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 139 MENTONE, CA 92359
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/ KATHY POWELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/05/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/08/2010
County Clerk, Deputy 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 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FBN 20200004501
The following person is doing business as: BEYOND BELLA SKIN CARE 10601 CHURCH ST. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 GINA L SMITH 542 E BONNIE BRAE CT. ONTARIO, CA 91764
Mailing Address: 542 E BONNIE BRAE CT. ONTARIO, CA 91764-1803
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/ GINA SMITH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/13/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/27/2020
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
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 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FBN 20200004534
The following person is doing business as: SACRED 485 DIAMOND CT APT D UPLAND, CA 91786 ALEXIS V LOVE 485 DIAMOND CT APT D UPLAND, CA 91786
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/ ALEXIS V LOVE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/14/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004144
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Bishay Group AVPM CA2LP;AVPM CA LP Bishay Group.; Bishay Group; All Valued Pet Meds, AVPM; Advanced Veterinary Pet Med, AVPM, 448 S Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92408, General Dog & Cat Veterinary Hospital, 456 S. Arrowhead Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92408
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/ George Bishay
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/29/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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).
5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/5/20, 6/12/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004446
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Essential Garbs, 2490 Kendall Drive, 105F, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Stephanie N. Griffin, 2490 Kendall Drive 105F, San Bernardino, CA 92407
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/ Stephanie Griffin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/11/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 5/6/20
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).
5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/5/20, 6/12/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004071
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Chris Armen; Chris Armen Real Estate and Finance, 8439 White Oak Ave Ste 102, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Armen C. Bagdasarian, 13126 Baxter Springs Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
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/ Armen Bagdasarian
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/24/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 3/10/14
County Clerk, s/ A9730
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).
5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/5/20, 6/12/20
FBN 20200003990
The following person is doing business as: ONTARIO SMOG CHECK 10565 LIMONITE AVENUE SUITE 5 MIRA LOMA, CA 91752 EMISSION WORLD LLC 1310 S RIVERSIDE AVE SUITE 3F-#133 RIALTO, CA 92376
Mailing Address: 630 W RIALTO AVE UNIT B8 RIALTO CA 92376
CA CORPORATION 2020006510234
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
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/ BENJAMIN A LIZAMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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 5/15, 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FBN 20200003991
The following person is doing business as: RIALTO SMOG CHECK 630 W RIALTO AVE UNIT B7 RIALTO CA 92376 EMISSION WORLD LLC 1310 S RIVERSIDE AVE SUITE 3F-#133 RIALTO, CA 92376
Mailing Address: 630 W RIALTO AVE UNIT B8 RIALTO CA 92376
CA CORPORATION 2020006510234
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
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/ BENJAMIN A LIZAMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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 5/15, 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FBN 20200003985
The following person is doing business as: THE NORTH SHORE INN 2402 LAKE DRIVE CRESTLINE, CA 92325 SANT&T INVESTMENT INC 129 4TH ST EUREKA, CA 95501
Mailing Address: 19 FALLING LEAF CIR POMONA, CA 91766
CA CORPORATION C4250631
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/ SAYED FARID UDDIN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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 5/15, 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.
FBN 20200004086
The following person is doing business as: LGI PLUMBING & DRAIN CLEANING 540 N. CENTRAL AVE #5102 UPLAND, CA 91786 FELTON R LEAGONS 540 N. CENTRAL AVE #5102 UPLAND, CA 91786
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/ FELTON R LEAGONS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
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 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.

FBN 20200004294
The following person is doing business as: STRATTON BAIL BONDS
6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346 MICHAEL GUTIERREZ 6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346 [and] NANCY LOZANO 6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
Mailing Address: 31 W CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92701
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
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/ MICHAEL GUTIERREZ
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: 04/28/2020
County Clerk, Deputy C9754
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 05/29, 06/05, 6/12 & 6/19, 2020.

FBN 20200004319
The following person is doing business as: THE CUT SHOT 9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 TWILA KNIGHT POULIOT 9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 [and] MATTHEW R POULIOT    9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
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/ TWILA KNIGHT POULIOT
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: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy A8608
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 5/29/20, 6/05/20, 6/12/20 & 6/19/20.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004235
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Line Network, 16277 Montgomery Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Keytonn Alonso, 16277 Montgomery 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/ Keytonn Alonso
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/1/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ A8608
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 5/29/20, 6/5/20, 6/12/20, 6/19/20
FBN 20200004868
The following person is doing business as: MOSAIC SUITES 948 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. #938 SUITE 129 ONTARIO, CA 01762 JUDITH P. ZAMORA 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
Mailing Address: 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ MICHAEL GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/27/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/26/2020
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 6/05, 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004987
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Willy’s Speed Shop, 6905 Palm Ave, Highland, CA 92346, Mailing Address: PO BOX 930, Highland. CA 92346, Kenneth M. Brana, Socal Engineering, CA 6909 Center St, Highland, CA 92346
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
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/ Kenneth Brana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/1/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
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 6/5/20, 6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
NO. PROPS 2000267
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARIA D. PARRA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARIA D. PARRA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 14, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM
NO. PROPS 2000282
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM aka MARIA PUTNAM
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9:00 a.m. on JULY 23, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOHN JULIAN KELLY
NO. PROPS 2000288
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOHN JULIAN KELLY aka JOHN J. KELLY aka JACK KELLY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AUDREY RACHEL KELLY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AUDREY RACHEL KELLY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 21, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
VIVIAN A. DIXON
NO. PROPS 2000298
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VIVIAN A. DIXON aka VIVIAN ANN DIXON aka VIVIAN A. BROOKS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 16, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004595
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rodriguez Courier Services, 1473 Randy St, D, Upland, CA 91786, Jose R. Rodriguez, 1473 Randy St. #D, Upland, CA 91786,
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/ Jose R Rodriguez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/23/15
County Clerk, s/ D5511
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).
6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20

Clicking on the blue portal below will download for you the June 5 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 06-05-20

By Mark Gutglueck
Two months after the Upland City Council gave go-ahead to Bridge Development’s controversial Amazon distribution center project on the city’s west end, the two planning commissioners who stood by their recommendations against proceeding with the project are being removed from their posts.
One of those commissioners also went on record as being opposed to the high density Plaza Serena housing project that lies within the footprint of land designated for flood control purposes on the city’s east side. The Plaza Serena project was also ultimately approved by the city council.
City officials have not acknowledged that the votes commissioners Alexander Novikov and Yvette Walker cast against the Amazon project had anything to do with their being bounced from the panel that deals with the evaluation of development proposals and determining their consistency with the land use standards in the City of Gracious Living. Nevertheless, there were unmistakable signs that Novikov and Walker had shown themselves to be out of step with City Hall’s recently-evolved imperative toward facilitating any substantive proposals that can be construed as representing economic development in the city. Novikov’s vote against Frontier Homes’ Plaza Serena development project east of Campus Avenue and north of 15th Street further put him out of sync with City Hall.
Walker, whose appointment to the planning commission was made in 2016 after her nomination by then-Mayor Ray Musser, jeopardized the support she formerly had from developmental interests intent on aggressive growth in the city when she opposed the Amazon distribution center.
In the 1970s, the demise of Upland as an agricultural wonderland began in earnest, as the first of what eventually proved to be dozens of large-scale citrus groves that had existed in the city for upwards of 50, 60 and 70 years were leveled to make way for conversion of those properties to residential subdivisions. That aggressive development continued into the 1980s under the guidance of city council members including Dina Hunter, Frank Carpenter, Frank Hoover, Robert Nolan and Al Canestro along with mayors John McCarthy, Richard Anderson and Nolan after he acceded to that position. In the 1990s as most of the developable properties in Upland had been consumed, the building frenzy abated somewhat, with the developmental focus transitioning in the later part of that decade and then in the 2000s to the more problematic previously unimproved properties on the city’s periphery that required considerable additions of infrastructure. Infill development on smaller size parcels at that point intensified within the city’s existing neighborhoods and commercial/industrial districts.
For roughly ten years beginning with the economic downturn of 2007, there was only sporadic interest in undertaking development in Upland. With the emergence from the lingering nationwide, state, regional and local recession in 2014, the freeing up of financing resulted in more and more project applications being filed at the city’s planning counter. Simultaneously, city management found itself under the gun to augment the city’s revenue stream because of the gradual drawdown in available city revenues and increasing city operational costs, including ones brought on by escalating pension commitments as more and more long term city employees retired. A casualty in all of this was the integrity of the city’s community development, planning and building and safety functions, as the development services director, city planner and associate planners no longer conceived of their assignments as calling for them to make a straightforward and thorough assessment of each project proposal filed at the planning counter so that thereafter the planning commission and then the city council could fairly assess whether the project should be allowed to proceed. Rather, they saw their jobs as ones which called for them to present a case for allowing such projects to achieve fruition. In this way, the intent of senior staff was that no exhaustive evaluation of the projects under consideration be given, but that the city’s consent for the plans was to be provided automatically, followed by a one-sided analysis that justified the approval.
That such an orientation was the new order in Upland was apparent from the manner in which the city began shying away from requiring that environmental impact reports be undertaken for the projects submitted to City Hall, allowing instead for what is referred to as a mitigated negative declaration to suffice as the environmental certification of those projects. Mitigated negative declarations are a finding by a governmental jurisdiction’s decision-making body that any negative environmental impacts of a project or proposed project are offset by the conditions of approval for that undertaking. Not only is a mitigated negative declaration significantly less expensive than carrying out a full-blown environmental impact report, it is far less exhaustive in delineating what impacts the project will have, thereby decreasing the likelihood that an objectionable element of the project will be noted and brought to the attention of the community and its citizens. This greatly reduces the potential that protest over those impacts will derail the project or prevent its approval.
In early 2018, representatives of Bridge Development Partners quietly began discussions with the City of Upland relating to the development of a distribution center for on-line retail giant Amazon on a 50-acre property owned by the Bongiovanni Family Trust north of Foothill Boulevard and south of Cable Airport eastward of the northern terminus of Central Avenue. In June 2019, the project was officially previewed to the Upland community as a three building complex with 977,000 square feet under roof. After objections to the scope of the proposal manifested, the tentative site plan was modified several times until in October 2019 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 draft 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. While the 37-day review period for that document was yet ongoing, on Thursday, January 9, 2020 the Upland City Council, the Upland Planning Commission and the Upland Airport Land Use Committee held a joint workshop at City Hall to carry out a discussion of the draft initial study and draft mitigated negative declaration for the project. The vast majority of the public attending the meeting who addressed the city council and planning commission indicated opposition to the project.
After feedback from the public was accepted in conjunction with the processing of the mitigated negative declaration, which some residents said was marred by the failure to post all of the public input and commentary submitted to the city, the planning commission met on February 12 to consider the project. Commissioner Alexander Novikov, who because of prior business commitments was out of town, was therefore absent from that evening’s irregularly-scheduled meeting. Thus, five of the commission’s then-current six members – Chairwoman Robin Aspinall, Carolyn Anderson, Vice Chairman Gary Schwary, Linden Brouse and Yvette Walker – were present. On a key issue relating to the project, its environmental certification, the panel voted 4-to-1, with Walker dissenting, to ratify the mitigated negative declaration for the project, making what was essentially a finding that any untoward environmental impacts would be offset by the conditions of approval imposed on the project. On a second primary issue relating to the project, consideration of its site plan, a motion to reject it was made, garnering the support of commissioners Schwary, Walker and Brouse. Aspinall and Anderson dissented in that vote.
The commission’s vote was a non-binding one, but which served as the primary recommendation to the city council with regard to the project. Over the next two weeks, the commission’s members were subjected to a withering round of intense lobbying by project proponents. The Sentinel is informed that city staff members also expressed disappointment and criticism of the planning commission’s February 12 vote against the project.
On February 26, the commission made an unprecedented reconsideration of the project, and then took a do-over vote to rescind the February 12 decision that had rejected the site plan. With Novikov present, the commission reconsidered the matter, at which point Novikov joined with Walker in registering opposition to the site plan, while Schwary and Brouse reversed themselves from their February 12 votes, resulting in a 4-to-2 recommendation that the city council approve the project’s site plan.
On April 1, the city council, during a meeting from which the public was excluded because of concerns about the COVID-19 contagion, took up consideration of the project, giving it approval on the crucial issues of its environmental certification through a mitigated negative declaration and passage of its site plan, both on 4-to-1 votes, with Councilwoman Janice Elliott dissenting. The full council then voted unanimously to approve a development agreement relating to the project, by which Bridge Development agreed to make up for the consideration that Amazon, as an on-line retailer, would not generate sales tax revenue to the city. That agreement called for a series of payments totaling $16 million over the first 20 years of the distribution center’s operations.
The fashion in which the planning commission was cozened and browbeaten into changing its recommendation and to thereby depart from acting as an independent evaluating body foretold a dynamic shift in the integrity of the city’s planning process. As a result, the political will and reach of the city council, which appeared to be intent on approving the project well prior to the public hearing process and its scheduled consideration of the project proposal, was exposed as the driving factor in the values embodied at City Hall.
Late last year, Upland’s community development and planning divisions had taken up another proposal, this one pertaining to a residential subdivision development on the city’s east side within the Foothill Knolls neighborhood. City officials placed before the planning commission a plan by Frontier Homes, owned by James Previti, Jr., to construct the Villa Serena project, 65 single family detached residential units on 9.2-acres that lie within the footprint of the 15th Street Flood Water Detention Basin. The project was represented to the commission by city staff as fitting within what remains as some of the last open space at the north end of Upland’s long-existing Foothill Knolls neighborhood. From shortly after Frontier Home’s initial filing with regard to the project in July 2018 there were objections to it, primarily relating to the density it entails being inconsistent with its surroundings, that the two-story nature of the homes would interfere with both the privacy and mountain vistas of the existing homes to the south and the intensification of traffic circulation problems it will create. In short, the area’s residents considered the densely-packed multistory homes to be an architectural misfit with the knolls.
An overarching issue was that the project is to be located on land intended for flood alleviation. That 20.3-acre property had been obtained some two decades ago by the Colonies Partners, headed by Dan Richards and Jeff Burum, to serve as an intrinsic element of an elaborate flood control network to serve as a repository for water that would be channeled away from the Colonies at San Antonio subdivision to the north. In 2002, the city had entered into a development agreement with the Colonies Partners allowing the development of the Colonies at San Antonio Project, which included an agreement that entailed the city paying the Colonies Partners $5 million as the city’s fair share cost for increasing the capacity of various streets and the capacity of the city’s storm drains and sewer facilities, including having the city use the 20.3 acres near 15th Street as a flood water basin. In 2003, the city, at that point strapped for cash, voted to modify the agreement with the Colonies Partners by paying Richards’ and Burum’s company $1.5 million and making up the remaining $3.5 million it had agreed to pay by granting the Colonies Partners a 10-year term for their first right of refusal to explore and identify a potential project in the area before the 15th Street Basin property was dedicated to public use. The city council extended the Colonies Partners’ first right of refusal after the ten year period had passed. Rather than develop the property itself, the Colonies Partners offered Previti the opportunity to develop the property. He came up with the Villa Serena project, for which the Upland Planning Commission thrice held hearings, continuing its initial hearing on December 11, 2019, when the majority of the Foothill Knolls residents addressing the proposal opposed it, to its next meeting on January 22, 2020, at which point the commission voted 3-to-2, based upon a motion worded by Commissioner Gary Schwary, to recommend to the city council that it deny approval of the project. Schwary and commissioners Linden Brouse and Alexander Novikov went on record as being against the project and commissioners Robin Aspinall and Yvette Walker voted in favor of it. The commission then took up the project as an issue once more, at its February 25, 2020 meeting. On this occasion, all six of the commission’s members were present, including the previously absent Carolyn Anderson. The resultant vote to recommend to the city council that it deny the applicant permission to proceed registered at 4-to-2. Of note was that Commissioner Aspinall, who had previously voted in favor of the development plan, reversed herself, this time joining with her colleagues Anderson, Brouse and Novikov in opposing the project. However, Schwary, who the previous month had made the motion to advise the city council against allowing the project to proceed, reversed himself, joining with Walker in endorsing Frontier Homes’ proposal for the development of the property.
City staff continued to militate heavily in favor of the project.
For many in the community, Schwary’s reversal of his votes that were initially against two highly controversial projects to ones in favor of them intensified questions about the independence of the planning commission and the influence being brought to bear on it.
On Monday, April 13, after Development Services Director Robert Dalquest and Joshua Winter, the city’s planner on the project, gave an overview of the project proposal and Andrew Winterstrom of Frontier Homes also fielded questions from the council relating to the project, 22 Upland residents, most of whom live in the immediate environs of the project, addressed the council by teleconference, as the meeting was not open to the public. All 22 expressed opposition to the project. Thereafter, the council voted 4-to-1 to approve a motion by Councilman Ricky Felix seconded by Councilman Bill Velto to approve the residential specific plan, accede to a general plan amendment and parallel zone change, and then certify the mitigated negative declaration, tentative tract map and design review for the project. Councilwoman Elliott dissented from the majority in the vote.
Jeff Burum was a political sponsor of Felix’s successful 2018 campaign for city council as well as Walker’s unsuccessful council campaign that same year. Burum has publicly stated he is committed to advancing Velto’s electioneering effort later this year, whether Velto seeks to remain as a councilman or instead seek the mayoralty.
Walker and Novikov’s dissenting votes on the Amazon project apparently caught the attention of the city council
Yvette Walker was appointed to the planning commission in 2016, taking up her position thereon in July of that year. Under the city’s tradition, members of the panel are routinely reappointed to a second term, provided they are amenable to remaining and their service has been demonstrated as satisfactory. Generally, members remain for no more than two terms, though there have been some exceptions to this pattern. A member’s reappointment past two terms requires no fewer than four votes of the council.
Novikov was among 14 applicants for the position considered in early 2019 when then-Commissioner Bill Velto was obliged to resign after he was elevated to the city council to fill the gap that had been created when Janice Elliott, who had been elected to an at-large council position in 2016 was elected in 2018 to the city’s newly created Second District council position.
Novikov, a Russian who had worked for the government in his native country before emigrating to the United States and becoming a naturalized citizen, now runs a dance academy locally. On the commission, he developed a reputation for exacting analysis of the projects being considered, and for his ability and willingness to network with those with specific areas of expertise relating to issues pertinent to the various proposals, such as economists, land use specialists, scientists and environmental experts including those he had contact with at the UCLA Anderson School of Management where he is currently working on a postgraduate degree, to help inform his decisions and those of his commission colleagues.
Walker, it turns out, had assumed that she would automatically be considered for reappointment when her term expires at the end of this month. Novikov in January had applied to be considered for reappointment when the term to which Velto was reappointed in 2016 and which he was completing expires at the end of this month. On Wednesday, however, both Novikov and Walker were contacted by Planning Commission Chairwoman Robin Aspinall, who provided each with the courtesy of knowing, before they read it in the city council agenda for June 8 that was posted late Wednesday, that the council would be appointing Thomas Grahn and Lorraine Kindred to replace them on the commission.
In Upland, there is no precedence for terminating a commissioner’s tenure after serving a fraction of a term, as is the case with Novikov.
To Novikov, the heads-up provided to him by Aspinall was unexpected. Following his reapplication in January, he had heard nothing. He indicates now that because he had not been contacted for a re-interview by the appointment committee, he had been lulled into a certain degree of complacency, essentially an expectation that he was going to be reappointed.
“I asked the city clerk and [Planning Commission] Vice Chairman [Gary] Schwary about exactly what I have to do to reapply,” Novikov told the Sentinel on Thursday. “I did what they instructed me to do. All of this time, they never came back to me. I assumed my name would come up in the application process and they would talk to me about my plans, interview me, and they would bring my name up in the council meeting when the appointments or reappointments for the next term are made. Yesterday [Wednesday, June 3], I got a call from Chairwoman Aspinall. She told me, ‘I want you to know that what you are going to see on the agenda is your term is up and they decided not to reappoint anyone.’ She said that it might be as a result of the political situation. She didn’t say whether that meant in the country or in the city, because of the COVID-19 matter or the protests [relating to the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week].”
Aspinall did not mention the Bridge Development Partners project vote, but Novikov said he had an “understanding” that his decision on that matter had played a part in his departure.
His conclusion that his opposition to the Bridge project was the deciding factor in his not getting the reappointment follows logically from a multitude of indicators, Novikov said. “I believe that is what happened,” he said. “Of course, no one will directly tell me that. I did talk to some of the people with the city, and they would not use those words, but I can read people well. For me, it was pretty clear in this process there were many people who had differing views. There were good things about the project. I would not say I was absolutely against it. It had some positive things, ones that I felt were good, but I saw more negative things that made me make the decision I did. I heard from people who felt the same way I did. There were people in the city who did not approve of the project absolutely. There were other people supporting the project, and there was, of course, strong support of it from the project’s proponents. All that the planning commission does is make a recommendation. We did not make the final decision. But I took seriously looking at the project, and I did my best from all the information I had.”
Novikov said he went so far as touching base with his professors at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management to get their perspectives. One of those, an Upland resident, had enumerated a number of points against the project, he said. He said he and others had come to a consensus that an environmental impact report for the project was called for, and that certifying the project with a mitigated negative declaration was insufficient. He said an economist at UCLA had guided him in evaluating the development agreement with Bridge Development Partners for the project, one which called for delivering $16 million in fees to the city over the course of the first 20 years of Amazon’s operations at the facility, including $460,000 per year in so-called in-lieu of sales tax fees to make up for the consideration that Amazon as an on-line retailer will not collect sales tax on its sales, thus depriving the city of any sales tax revenue. While the $460,000 per year to be initially collected would prove roughly equivalent to the sales tax revenue the city might make off of a comparatively-sized retail operation, Novikov said the economist told him, as the years go by the development agreement would become less and less advantageous to the city. “The city never provided a full financial model for this,” Novikov said. “When I figured in the eight percent cost of capital, the net present value of the revenue from this project is worth significantly less than half of what is projected, meaning the total amount of the payments over the 20 years will actually be worth $4.5 million in today’s money, given inflationary and other factors. That is just one of the things that I believe made this a project the city should not have approved.”
Novikov said, “I feel I was punished for the way I voted, but they will never admit that.”
Novikov said he did not know, exactly, how to interpret that his application for reappointment was never considered. On one hand, he said, his being bypassed may have been deliberate. Nevertheless, he said, it might have been a mix-up.
“The chairwoman [Aspinall] said she had never seen my application,” Novikov said. “They will probably say the application got lost.” He said, he wanted to hear directly from Mayor Debbie Stone what had occurred. “If I could talk to Debbie, I would like to ask her to explain what really happened and why they didn’t invite me for the interview process.”
Under the city’s protocol, the mayor makes the nomination of the commission’s members, based upon an evaluation of the applications and the interviews, which are done by the mayor, the mayor pro tem and the community development director. As of the beginning of this month, former Mayor Pro Tem Ricky Felix is no longer on the council, having resigned to move to Utah. The community development director is Robert Dahlquest, who was strongly in favor of both the Amazon and Plaza Serena projects. Likewise, Stone and Felix had voted to approve those plans. The remainder of the city council will vote on Monday night on whether to ratify the mayor’s selections for the commission.
Novikov said he was “disappointed” that the city waited until after its selection of Grahn and Kindred to contact him, which he said prevented him from knowing that he wasn’t being considered. If he had been informed earlier, he said, he could have told them that he had in fact applied for reappointment.
“They decided to give me a call two or three hours before the agenda came out,” he said. “All that time, there was nothing said to me.”
He said it was hard for him to believe that city officials did not know he was enthusiastic about serving on the commission and was looking forward to remaining as one of its members for a full term beyond the year he has now served.
“When they approved me to serve on the planning commission in this country where I was not born, I was very proud, very proud to live in this country where they value you for your skills and do not judge you for what you think,” he said, emphasizing that he made an effort to show how much he appreciated the honor of the appointment. “I missed only one meeting, which happened because it was a specially-scheduled one and I had a prior business commitment I could not break,” he said. “I attended all the workshops.”
He was reluctant to make any criticism of the city, its elected officials, personnel or its operations, but permitted himself to say that he felt there was some degree of shortcoming in terms of the city’s “organization.” He also remarked that he thought the city could have been more up front in the way it moved him off the commission.
“I haven’t heard anything from Debbie, herself,” he said. “I’m left not knowing. The way this happened, I’m left thinking that maybe I hadn’t done enough. It would at least make me feel at peace if I knew what I had not done right or if the city had some other criticism, which I could learn from. Yesterday, my wings got cut. The whole night I couldn’t sleep. Before I had dreams about what I was going to do. Those dreams are over. It is unfortunate what I experienced. In Russia, I worked for the government and that was the same in a lot of ways to what I experienced here. It feels it wasn’t quite frank or straightforward. It should be open and transparent, in my opinion. The chairwoman in the phone call was saying what she did, and she was was trying to comfort me.”
It was at that point, when Aspinall indicated that he had not been considered for reappointment and that she had not seen an application from him that Novikov informed her he had applied. Aspinall then told him she would, he said, “let them know you want to be considered.”
This temporarily revived in him hope that he might remain on the commission, Novikov said, but that giddy confidence passed when he considered that if that were to occur he would be in the position of interrupting the others who have been chosen.
“I think they have already let other people know they are to be appointed,” he said. “So, where am I really, right now? They probably will appoint those people on Monday. I’m not sure what my situation is, right now. They will take my place, most probably.”
One year on the commission was way too short of a time, he said, from multiple perspectives, including that he was beginning to show his value to the city after getting acclimated. “I was learning how things are done,” he said. “I started serving in June, so I have really been here only about a year. They and I invested time and money in me and it was only when I was getting more comfortable and understanding everything that they are just discharging me.”
Novikov said, “I wish they would have considered me so I could serve more time, so I could have served another four years, but I don’t want to create any drama. Maybe there will be drama anyway.” Despite his desire for more and his disappointment, Novikov said, “I will be forever thankful for the opportunity I was given. I am thankful for the chance to have been a member of the planning commission and to have been a part of the city and an important part of the community.”
Walker was not available for comment.
Anticipated commission appointee Thomas Grahn currently works in the planning department with the City of Ontario and formerly was employed in the Rancho Cucamonga and Redlands planning departments.
The other commission replacement to be considered Monday night, Lorraine Kindred, is the vice president for public affairs with National CORE, a development company specializing in low-income to moderate-income housing, of which Jeff Burum is president of the board and James Previti is a board member. She has 25 years experience in the real estate industry, and was formerly the chairwoman of the Upland Chamber of Commerce. She was also president of the Pomona Valley Chapter of Executive Women International and is on the board of the Upland YMCA and the Baldy View Chapter of the Building Industry Association.
The City of Upland is facing legal challenges from its residents with regard to both  Bridge Development’s Amazon and the Plaza Serena projects.
Upland Community First has filed a writ of mandamus with regard to the Bridge project. It includes a petition for an injunction against the project proceeding.
The Friends of Upland Wetlands is pursuing a lawsuit against the city relating to its approval of the Plaza Serena project, including the filing of a writ of mandamus and a petition for an injunction to halt the project.

There has been some limited reference to a health challenge being the reason why Victorville Councilwoman Rita Ramirez has been physically absent from council meetings much of this year, and speculation about that topic has intensified as she has participated in those forums remotely over the last several months. The Sentinel learned only recently how serious of a medical crisis the mayor pro tem had.
Earlier this year, Dr. Ramirez underwent three stages of surgical amputations. Her left foot and lower portion of her leg are now gone.
Dr. Ramirez said, “In December, as I was walking to my car, I fell. I didn’t see a bruise. It was not bleeding. Sometime after the first of January, it was obvious I needed medical care. The bruising was internal. By the Thursday of the next week, the middle toe on my left foot was gangrenous. I was admitted to the hospital. First, I lost the middle toe, then my foot and then the lower leg. I was in the hospital from January until April.”
The onset of Dr. Ramirez’s ordeal came just as the 2020 Primary election season was warming up. She had entered into the race for First District supervisor, a position from which the incumbent, Robert Lovingood, had announced his intention to retire. “I had filed to run and then I fell in December,” she said. Vying with Ramirez to replace Lovingood was Paul Cook, who is currently the incumbent 8th California Congressional District congressman; Adelanto Councilwoman Stevevonna Evans; and Marcelino Garza. “I didn’t want to make use of what had happened to me when I was running for supervisor,” she said. Without raising money or campaigning, she was yet able to finish second in a field of four.
While the election was pending, things were touch and go for Dr. Ramirez. “I didn’t want my leg amputated,” she said. “They wanted to cut my leg. I said, ‘You are not going to touch my leg.’ The doctors conferred with me, and I said I will make the final decision. The mayor [Gloria Garcia] told me I was gutsy.”
Ultimately, Dr. Ramirez said, “It was a choice of life vs death. I took life. I have been blessed because I am alive. I was very resistant to the idea. I had three operations, first the toe, then my foot and now the lower leg. I had six blood transfusions. Six different times they took fluid out of my lungs.”
She was laudatory of the care provided to her by Kaiser Permanente.
“I’m just very blessed,” she said. “Kaiser helped me immensely. It has been remarkable in that I never had any fever or pain in my foot. I have been pinched, prodded and punctured constantly everywhere else. I feel like a pincushion. I’m fine, except I have lost my foot. Thank God, I live in America! I had a wonderful core of medical professionals at Kaiser. The only difficulty I had with them was when some of them referred to my leg as a stump. I had to tell them to quit referring to a part of my body like I was a tree. I am grateful to my friends and family members. I did not want to lose my leg. I did not want it cut off, but I had to be reasonable.”
“The trauma, or major trauma,” Ramirez said, “is over. I came through the surgeries. I did lose 20 pounds. I’ve lost much of my appetite. I’m getting it back but I still want to eat only certain foods. It has to do with the medication. I’m feeling well, in spite of everything. I lost my leg but I am still a whole person. I am still a human being, and that is how I will remain, no matter what part of my body is lost. Now I can see how veterans feel when people do not want to understand them as human beings. All of this makes you no less human than before.”
Dr. Ramirez said, “I was able to finally come home in April. I did go to rehabilitation in order to be able to walk. I had to learn to walk. I was under care at a small hospital in Reche Canyon. Fifteen people there tested positive for coronavirus, and then one of them died. My son heard about it and he called and said, ‘Mom, I’m going to get you out of there.’ He brought me to our family home in 29 Palms where I have been recovering ever since. I have told very few people about this.”
A degree of normalcy is returning to her existence, and she recognizes she has a way to go.
“I will be returning to Victorville as soon as I can, which means as soon as the wound is healed,” she said. “I need to learn to walk on one foot. The wound is still open and bleeding. I still cannot go outside beyond the sidewalk because it is not good for me to get sand in the wound. I hope to be able to stand on two legs. I understand I will be living a part of my life in a wheelchair and will need some form of help for the rest of my life. I can accept that.”
Dr. Ramirez said, “At our family home, I am able to find my way from room to room, from my bedroom to the living room to the kitchen. There are some hurdles. At doorways, someone has to pick up the wheelchair to get over the partition. I still can’t get out into the garage. When I go outside, I have to stay on the cement, the sidewalk, to avoid hurting myself. It is a learning experience. It is a different life, but it is still a life.”
While she was yet dealing with the gangrene issue, she had to dodge the same health threat everyone else was up against, she said. “I was in a very vulnerable state,” she stated. “I have been tested for COVID-19 three times. I have been negative. I am still quarantined pretty much. I have contact with my sons and family. That’s about it. I have to have people cook for me. It is hard on me because I am so independent.”
“No one is an island,” Dr. Ramirez said. “It makes a difference when you have support. I am very grateful to [Mayor] Gloria [Garcia] and the city manager [Keith Metzler], [Councilwoman] Blanca [Gomez] and Mr. [Councilman James] Cox, and [Councilwoman] Debra [Jones] for caring about me and providing support, so I can continue to participate as a member of the council. I am committed to remaining in office for as long as the voters will have me.”
Ramirez said, “I was asked if I was going to quit. I said, ‘Heck, no!’ Number one, I have two years left still in my term, so I’m hoping my health will continue to get stronger and better. As far as I’m concerned, Victorville’s voters and residents are living a life with a bright future in the High Desert,” she said, but she believes their lives can be better and she wants to bring attention to the diverse interests they have and make sure that their needs are met. “They need certain things, and I will always be their advocate for a better life,” she said.
Ramirez said, “I want to be every bit as energetic and even more so in my second two years on the Victorville City Council and potentially beyond as I was in my first two years. People look at me like I’m crazy, but I consider it to be my serious mission to bring businesses to the High Desert. To do that, we need education. I want to bring a new state university. To attract businesses, we need to have more professional people. I believe the Southern California Logistics Airport should become an international passenger airport. We have two runways that can handle 747 and 757 aircraft,” she said. “In Victorville, 52 percent of our population is Latino, and they can communicate in the Spanish language. We should be bringing tourists in from Mexico and South America. We have the airport. We can provide hospitality.”
Ramirez continued, “While I’ve been on the council, there have been people who have complained about off-road vehicles and motorcyclists driving behind their houses and yards. I think we need to create places where people can enjoy themselves without bothering others. Victorville is a desert area and people should be able to go to a park where they can barbecue and ride their bikes. We need to provide safe places for that. I believe in enhancing the quality of life. I think we should make the golf course greener, with landscaping and gardens. Those are the things that make life rich and worth living. Plus, I want to make sure that Victorville gets a boys and girls club. Leadership skills can be learned.”
Ramirez carried on. “We need to rejuvenate downtown,” she said. “What is happening there is resulting in the loss of economic opportunity and income, both to the residents and the city. I am all for celebrating our downtown. In other communities in the county – Yucaipa, Glen Helen, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Chino – there are places where people can go and play soccer and baseball, volleyball, tennis, football, places where there are artists and music, and playgrounds for children, places where a family can go out and walk. We have older parts of the city that could be renovated into a large scale park. We should make it so it’s easy for our residents to enjoy life. As mayor pro tem, I want to lead an effort to bring that to Victorville.”
Where there is a will, there exists means, said Dr. Ramirez. “There is no reason why these things can’t be, unless you accept that it can’t be done,” she said. “God put me on this earth to help people. That is what I want to do as part of the city council, to the best of my ability.”
This latest challenge is a physical one, she said, which is probably far less restrictive than the boundaries which she and others placed on herself years ago. When she was young, she had accepted the limitations put on her, Dr. Ramirez said. “I told my high school counselor I wanted to be a civil engineer,” Ramirez said. “She told me that wasn’t going to happen. She said I could be secretary, a nurse or a teacher.” This was daunting, Ramirez said. “I was 17 years old and I hated kids, and I fainted at the sight of blood.” She set aside the dream of becoming an engineer, and she ended up teaching junior high. Eventually she moved on to being a college professor.
Her horizon has widened, and now she is a retired college professor of 38 years involved in politics, she pointed out. She missed out on getting elected First District supervisor on March 3, perhaps because, she said, her medical condition prevented her from getting out and campaigning. “I know I was a far better candidate and more suited for the job than Paul Cook,” she said of the victor in that race. “I was going to start my campaign in January, but I ended up in the hospital.”
The primary path to enrichment and self actuation, Dr. Ramirez said, is “scholarship. Young people and all of us have the right to be educated. If you don’t have education, it is hard to find your proper and best place in the workforce, and people control you. If you don’t have a trained mind, that is the same thing as being a slave. I will fight for everyone to be able to go to school for as long as they are interested in learning. That is a basic right.”
When it was remarked that losing her foot and lower leg was a tough break, Dr. Ramirez said, “No, I have been lucky. I could have died. Sometimes your fate is destiny. I will do my best with what I have. I am very satisfied with what I have. You can’t win them all. Whatever I do, I do it to the best of my ability. I will be returning to Victorville and will be working with Mayor Garcia and the rest of the council in doing the job, not focusing on my personal needs. That should have nothing to do with your role as a public official. If someone feels otherwise, then that is a politician who puts himself before what he is responsible for and that is when you get into trouble. As a politician, you are a public servant. That is, you have been elected to serve the people, not yourself. Thank you to everyone who prayed for my recovery, and thank you to those who voted for me. God bless you all.”
-Mark Gutglueck