On September 25, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors over the verbal objections of approaching 50 citizens, two California lawmakers and the written protests of more than 500 local residents gave JM Realty Group go-ahead to convert residential land in Bloomington into a warehouse. Just a little more than a month later, Earthjustice and the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice this week collectively took legal action against San Bernardino County, the board of supervisors and the developer over that approval.
On August 21, 2018, the county had scheduled a hearing before the board of supervisors with regard to JM Realty Group’s petition to convert the zoning on 17 acres of property located on the south side of Slover Avenue between Laurel Avenue and Locust Avenue in Bloomington adjoining Bloomington High School from residential to light industrial, amend the county’s general plan, approve a conditional use permit, and certify the final environmental impact report for and approve the construction of a 334,000 square foot warehouse project there. What had been the existing residential zoning in question allowed a maximum of two units per acre, and the move to change the zoning to allow a warehouse to be located on the project was opposed by 29 of those who were on hand to speak at the August 21 meeting, while nine members of the public, including the landowner, voiced support for allowing the project to proceed.
Because of a technical glitch in having provided notice of the hearing for the project, the matter was continued until the September 25 board meeting. Those members of the public who had weighed in at the August 21 meeting were not permitted to address the board at the second hearing. Another 22 people did come forward on September 25 to offer their comments, with four saying they were in favor of allowing the project to proceed and 18 inveighing against the project, referred to as the Slover Distribution Center. The vast majority of those speaking in favor of the project were members of the construction workers’ union. The two members of the state legislature representing Bloomington, California State Senator Connie Leyva and Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez-Reyes were present at the hearing and went on record as being opposed to the project.
Leyva, who was president of California Labor Federation for two decades before going into politics to become today the office holder in California’s 20th Senate District, noted the presence of a bevy of orange shirt-clad construction union members within the meeting chambers and that most of them were there in support of the project because the construction phase of the warehouse building will be a source of jobs for those in the construction industry. Nevertheless, she said she believed the project was ill-suited for the site the board of supervisors was considering. “Warehouses don’t themselves pollute,” Leyva told the board of supervisors. “It’s the trucks, the hundreds and hundreds of trucks that come in and out that pollute. I have had a hard time trying to figure out how this particular project will benefit the community. I, like all of you, took an oath to take care of all of the workers and all of the residents that you represent. I don’t see how this helps the residents who will live right behind this project. I don’t see how it helps the school children that will be within a thousand feet. Rezoning this property helps one person. It helps the developer. You might get some nice new sidewalks out of it. We might get a couple bushes, so it looks a little prettier. But who does this project really help? And why does it have to be built here? You have been working on this for three years and it is as if this is the only piece of property left in Bloomington, and there’s no place else to build this warehouse. There are plenty of other places that we could build this warehouse and build it with the project labor agreement so that my brothers and sisters in the labor movement will be able to do their job and continue their careers.”
Indicating she understood that Josie Gonzales, who represents Bloomington on the board of supervisors, was backing the developer, Leyva appealed to Gonzalez’s board colleagues to stand with Bloomington’s residents against the project. “I have spoken with Supervisor Gonzales, [who] I know… will be supporting the project,” Leyva said. “I’m asking that each and every one of the others of you – Mr. [James] Ramos, Mr. [Robert] Lovingood, Mr. [Curt] Hagman and Mrs. [Janice] Rutherford – to please vote no today on rezoning this piece of property from residential to commercial because I don’t see where it benefits the people that I took an oath to represent.”
47th District Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez-Reyes referenced the strong opposition of her constituents “to the Slover Distribution Project which is being proposed to be built right in their back yards. I have been presented with petitions signed by hundreds of community members objecting to the project. They tell me they bought their home for themselves and their families knowing the property behind their backyard was zoned residential, not industrial, not commercial. They, like the rest of us, want to be sure they do the best they can for the future of their family. Imagine their concern when they found out the owner of the property was now attempting to put a 344,000-square foot warehouse, the size of six football fields, less than 100 feet behind their backyard. The residents tell me that it is now clear the developers’ discussions have been with the elected officials rather than with the residents. As a constituent, I am deeply concerned about another warehouse that will necessarily add to the already overburdened diesel traffic in our communities. I’m concerned that residents bought their homes knowing that they were going to be next to a lot zoned residential, which is now being proposed for a change to industrial. It is clear in this instance that the property was purchased with clear knowledge that it was residential. There were no promises made that a warehouse could be built there. The owners have a desire to build something that is not allowed under the present zoning. It is now up to you to decide if this particular owner’s desires are more important to you than the desires of the residents. An aye vote for this project will set a precedent in the region which says it is okay for policymakers to disregard the voice of their constituents, that the only people who have a voice in policy in our community are those who have the resources to influence policy. Democracy is so much more than that.”
Ultimately, after public input and that of county staff as well as a brief statement by a representative of the developer, on a motion by Gonzales which was seconded by Rutherford, the board voted 4-to-1, with Ramos dissenting, to grant the zone change, amend the county’s general plan, approve a conditional use permit, certify the final environmental impact report and allow the warehouse project to proceed.
This week, San Francisco-based Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice filed a civil suit alleging the 292-page environmental impact report for the warehouse project was inadequate. By approving the project and signing off on the environmental impact report, the suit maintains, the members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors “prejudicially abused their discretion by certifying an environmental impact report that does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” As the plaintiff, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice is petitioning the court to void the final environmental report, withdraw all approvals of the project and prohibit the county from granting any further approvals for the project until an adequate environmental report is completed, resubmitted and adequately reviewed and considered by the board of supervisors.
County spokesman David Wert told the Sentinel, “The county hasn’t been served with or seen the lawsuit, so we can’t even confirm it exists. But assuming it does, and based upon what we’ve heard from reporters, the county’s response is that the county is confident the environmental impact report and the entire process complied with the California Environmental Quality Act and the board’s action was appropriate.”
Wert said, “Keep in mind that in these types of suits, the only question that can be posed is whether the process complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the only evidence allowed are the documents that were submitted to or created by the county during the process, including transcripts of public hearings. Also, there is nothing at stake for the county. The project applicant pays all legal costs and the burden is on them to defend the environmental impact report and other elements of the process. There would be no damages or other penalties assessed against the county or anyone else.”
–Mark Gutgueck

Gabriel Elliott, Adelanto’s former director of development services who was the fifth of seven city manager’s the city of Adelanto has employed over the last three years and nine months, filed suit against the city, its mayor and the current city manager on October 31, 2018.
Elliott was enthusiastically endorsed upon his hiring by Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr when he was elevated to the city’s top spot in August 2017, only to be suspended four months later and then languish on paid administrative leave for some eight months until he was ignominiously fired in July 2018. He alleges in the lawsuit filed Wednesday that because he resisted graft at City Hall including making reports of what he had seen and experienced to the FBI, he was retaliated against by both Kerr and Jessie Flores, who had been the city’s contract economic development director while Elliott was leading the city. Flores has now moved into Elliott’s top managerial post.

Gabriel Elliott

The events depicted in Elliott’s lawsuit occurred against the backdrop of a sustained three-and-a-half-year effort by a majority of the Adelanto City Council to transition the High Desert City of 35,000 onto a cannabis marketing-based economy, after a differently-comprised city council in June 2013 declared the city to be in a state of fiscal emergency. That declaration was considered to be a prelude to a filing for bankruptcy protection, which was narrowly avoided. After the November 2014 election in which Kerr along with John Woodard and Charles Glasper displaced, respectively, incumbents Mayor Cari Thomas and council members Steve Baisden and Charles Valvo, the newly formed ruling coalition of Kerr, Woodard and councilman Jermaine Wright with the on-again, off-again support of Glasper successfully sought to take advantage of the leeway in California law inherent in the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, that allowed for marijuana to be sold for medical purposes out of licensed dispensaries. With sales of marijuana banned everywhere else in San Bernardino County except in the City of Needles, the council majority maintained opening the city to the marijuana market would both boost the local economy and create a tax revenue stream for the city. With the move in 2016 to broaden legalized marijuana consumption beyond that for medical purposes to recreational application statewide with the proposal and then the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, the city council then moved to get Adelanto in on the ground floor of the societal acceptance of the use of marijuana as an intoxicant and intensify the economic benefit the city stood to reap. Simultaneously, however, there was indication that the frenzy among would-be cannabis entrepreneurs to secure operating licenses for such operations in Adelanto, which included the provision of substantial amounts of cash to the city’s decision-makers to induce them to approve and fast track those applicants’ project proposals, was corrupting the function of municipal government.
Pointing out that the city’s normal protocols gave staff the authority to evaluate and approve project applications and determine their adherence to pre-set city standards and codes prior to authorization being given for those undertakings to proceed, Elliott’s suit relates that the city’s elected leadership sought, and often succeeded, in overstepping and misapplying its authority to prevent city staff from carrying out its due and legal assignments to regulate those businesses.
The suit states that “the City of Adelanto has a charter that vests the sole power over the administration of the city’s employees directly upon the city manager. The charter denotes that the mayor and the city council members shall have no direct or indirect control over the city’s employees. The charter further denotes that if there is a violation of the charter in this respect, said person violating the charter shall resign immediately and said violation is a misdemeanor offence.” Calling the interference by the mayor and members of the city council and Flores with the function of city staff concerning marijuana-related and cannabis-based business operations in the city “unlawful,” the lawsuit identifies Kerr and Flores explicitly as having interloped in Elliott’s function. The suit suggests, without directly indentifying them, that Councilman Jermaine Wright and Councilman John Woodard abetted Kerr and Flores in this action.
The suit references with substantial specificity an example of how very early in Elliott’s tenure as city manager the city’s elected leadership militated to facilitate the establishment of a marijuana cultivation facility in a way that was improper and of indefensible expense to the city’s taxpayers.
“On September 28, 2017, Jessie Flores, who was Mayor Richard Kerr’s agent and clandestine assistant and Mayor Kerr himself asked plaintiff to accompany them to the city’s corporation yard located in the city’s industrial area to meet with the potential buyers of this city facility that includes the city’s public works yard,” the lawsuit states. “Upon arriving and meeting all the parties, Flores asked Plaintiff to sign an agreement to sell the property to Mr. C.B. Nanda, who is a marijuana cultivator. The scheme was for C.B. Nanda to then sell the property to a group of marijuana cultivators at a substantially higher price. At the time, there had been no official city council approval for such a sale to take place. Plaintiff refused to allow the sale to go forward because after surveying the property, he realized the property included the city’s emergency operations center, which was part of a federal grant and the land was worth much more than the proposed sale price. Plaintiff also refused to allow the sale to go forward because he learned that Kerr and Flores had orchestrated the sale of the property below market value to benefit C.B. Nanda for which Flores and Kerr were set to receive financial kickbacks from the sale of the property. Plaintiff would not allow this illegal transaction to proceed. When Plaintiff challenged Kerr and Flores regarding the sale of the property, Kerr stated the sale of the property was to an agent of US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who would in exchange for the sale provide ‘protection’ to Adelanto from any federal raids of the marijuana cultivation and consumption industry within Adelanto.”
Elliott maintains in the suit that Kerr and Flores were betraying the city and its residents in favor of promoting the interests of marijuana entrepreneurs. “Defendants Kerr and Flores would constantly bypass plaintiff and directly told staff at all levels within the city to illegally waive fees for personal friends of Kerr and Flores for city services, threatened employees with their jobs, directed employees to do personal favors and perform services for them, etc.,” the suit states. “Plaintiff raised objections to these illegal practices.”
According to the suit, “Kerr and Flores were believed to be receiving bribes from the growing marijuana industry in the city. Kerr and Flores directed code enforcement officers to ‘stand down’ and prevented them from enforcing code violations against the numerous marijuana businesses operating in the city which were out of compliance with local ordinances. These actions were protested by plaintiff to defendants as illegal. On October 27, 2017, plaintiff went to the FBI to report Kerr and Flores’ illicit deal regarding the city’s public works yard and other violations of the law. After the meeting, plaintiff disclosed to employees with the City of Adelanto and members of the city council that he had met with the FBI regarding Kerr’s and Flores’ illegal activities. Plaintiff also reported to the FBI and others that Kerr, using his power and authority as Mayor, would frequently deposit donations into his wife’s alleged non-profit 501c account. In fact, Kerr’s wife’s account never attained non-profit status. Kerr would often solicit these donations from individuals and businesses who were doing business with the city, causing these individuals and businesses to feel ‘forced’ to donate in order to have Kerr ‘get things done’ in the city. Kerr used Flores to collect some of these monies for him. Kerr also received $30,000 from the then-city’s public works director, Don Woppler, and never returned, reported or accounted for the money in any fashion in violation of reporting requirements.”
The suit propounds that Elliott suffered as a consequence of his confrontation of Kerr and Flores. “Kerr and Flores learned about plaintiff’s meeting with the FBI,” the suit states. “After learning about plaintiff’s meeting with the FBI, Kerr and Flores began a campaign of harassment and retaliation against plaintiff to force him to quit or to play ball,” the lawsuit states. “Flores’ own self-interest in harassing and retaliating against plaintiff was to take over plaintiff’s job as city manager, even though he had absolutely no qualifications for the job. Flores always facilitated plaintiff’s harassment at the request of Kerr. Just days after learning about plaintiff’s meeting with the FBI, on November 8, 2017, at a regular city council meeting, Kerr requested then-City Attorney Ruben Duran place an item on the city council consent calendar agenda titled ‘Employee Performance Evaluation-City Manager.’ This act was in direct retaliation for plaintiff’s visit to the FBI on October 27, 2017 and for plaintiff’s refusal to go along with the sale of the city’s public works yard and for plaintiff complaining about illegal activities within the City of Adelanto. Kerr, Flores and at least another council member agreed in advance of any official meeting to place plaintiff’s performance evaluation on the agenda in violation of the Brown Act. To further embarrass and harass plaintiff, Kerr then had plaintiff’s performance evaluation carried over from one city council meeting to another city council meeting so that plaintiff could remain in fear of losing his job and having a negative connotation to his reputation.”
According to the suit, “After Kerr and Flores were unable to obtain support from members of the city council to dismiss plaintiff, Kerr and Flores solicited the former secretary to the city council and to the city manager, Rachel Suraci, to perjure herself in an affidavit that plaintiff tried to kiss her while she was alone with him in his office. Kerr also solicited another woman to file false complaints about plaintiff stating that he harassed her by repeatedly asking her to lunch and dinner and a third woman to file a complaint against plaintiff to claim that he forced her into his car and drove her to his home. The complaints were immediately sent to the local newspaper. Making the complaints public were Kerr’s and Flores’ efforts to retaliate against and to humiliate plaintiff and to force him to resign.
Thereafter, the city conducted a ‘sham’ investigation into the alleged claims of ‘sexual harassment’ against plaintiff. The investigation was concluded in December 2017, but the city refused to release its findings until July 2018. Even after the so-called investigation was concluded, plaintiff was left on administrative leave for months for absolutely no reason other than to harass and humiliate him.” According to the suit, “While on administrative leave, plaintiff’s office was ransacked, and his personal and private property was removed, further indicating the orchestration of the investigation. Furthermore, as early as December 23, 2017, Flores told his friends and other city clients that Elliot ‘was not coming back.’ The city terminated plaintiff’s contract on July 11, 2018, with cause, claiming the findings in the report as the reason for the termination. In fact, the investigation was a sham, had no factual basis, and calls into question whatever the investigator did to reach a pre-determined conclusion while claiming an attorney-work protected privilege to justify keeping the investigation confidential.” The lawsuit states, “After plaintiff’s termination, he was replaced by Mr. Flores as the city manager as planned months before. Mr. Flores had no qualifications for the position of the city manager and is paid less than plaintiff. Mr. Flores is an alcoholic who used to work for former disgraced San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Bill Postmus as his driver and later as a gardener. Mr. Flores is a Hispanic male younger than plaintiff in age.”
According to the suit, “Plaintiff on numerous occasions reported to his superiors as well as to the FBI that Mayor Kerr, Flores and others were engaging in illegal activity in violation of the city charter as well as various federal state and local laws and regulations. Plaintiff refused to engage in activities that would result in violations of local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Defendants’ managers, officers, and directors retaliated against plaintiff because he reported illegal practices and refused to engage in illegal activities even though he was instructed to do so. After plaintiff reported and refused to engage in the illegal activities, defendants, through their officers and managers, began to search for and dredge up reasons to terminate plaintiff. This retaliation eventually led to plaintiff’s ultimate termination in July 2018. Defendants’ wrongful conduct described above caused plaintiff to suffer ongoing injuries, including but not limited to, lost income and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort; all according to proof at trial.”
Elliott is represented by Tristan Pelayes, a former Adelanto mayor. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
Michael Stevens, the City of Adelanto’s official spokesman, told the Sentinel in the mid-afternoon on Thursday, “As of yesterday we had not been served with a copy of the lawsuit; I’ve not heard from our city manager or human resources as to whether we have today or not. But as you might know, we don’t comment on pending litigation, so I imagine that will be the response even if we have been served.”
Former City Attorney Ruben Duran said, “The allegations in the complaint related to my alleged conduct, action or inaction are utterly without merit, completely untrue and outrageous. Moreover, I am bound by the attorney-client privilege not to disclose the details or content of any communications with or on behalf of my client, and I would never discuss any meetings or interactions with federal law enforcement unless authorized to do so.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Thunderstorms in the Mojave Desert that occurred from October 12 through October 14 wreaked havoc that has continued to impact the communities of Flamingo Heights, Hidden River, Joshua Tree, Landers, Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley and surrounding areas.
On Wednesday, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors convened a special meeting to ratify a proclamation of a local emergency relating to those areas, and committed more than $5 million toward redressing the major elements of the damage.
According to the county’s chief executive officer, Gary McBride, “Due to extreme drought conditions throughout the county, this storm system caused dangerous flash flooding, erosion and substantial mud and debris flows resulting in a need for emergency protective measures including emergency repairs and detours. On October 14, 2018, the San Bernardino County Operational Area, which coordinates emergency management provisions within the county, began the complex process of assessing the effects of the storm event. The storm saturated the ground causing flash flooding that resulted in damage to roads and homes. The damage assessment process was complicated due to inaccessibility and remoteness of some roads. Preliminary damage estimates to date for the roads within the county are approximately $5.3 million. This amount includes damage to the public systems, road damages, and debris removal. In addition, 100 homes with damage from the flash flooding and storms have been identified. This local emergency proclamation allows the county to seek potential federal and state reimbursement for the costs of damages and debris removal.”
McBride continued, “Currently, the roads damaged by the storm are clear and passable; however, limited funds are available to continue repairs or restore the roads to their previous condition. In the case of the county’s special districts division, work has stopped in the affected district, Landers R-15, due to the depletion of available reserves. On October 26, 2018, the assistant executive officer for human services, while serving as the director of emergency services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency from this storm.”
McBride told the board that “approval of this item will ratify the action taken by the assistant executive officer for human services and continue the [declaration of] local emergency, as conditions that threaten the safety of persons and property may still exist. Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the board shall review the need for continuing the local [state of] emergency at least once every 30 days until the board terminates the local emergency.”
–Mark Gutglueck

Mudslinging and out-and-out misrepresentation in American politics are nearly as old as the Republic itself. So vitriolic and personal were the attacks on him while he was residing in the White House that Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. president, at one point lamented the freedom of the press and freedom of speech that he and the other fathers of the country had ensured would be the right of all Americans when they layered the First Amendment into U.S. Constitution. Despite the attacks and indignities he had to weather, Jefferson survived them and he was reelected to a second term. Since the time of Jefferson, succeeding generations of elected officials and candidates for elected offices, high and low, have learned how contentious the entire political process is. Holding, or seeking, public office is not advised for those with thin skin who take offense at being maligned, often in the most unfair of ways, or being lied about in general. All, or nearly all, of those who enter into the realm of politics understand that such prevarication and meanspiritedness on the part of their opponents or their opponents’ campaigns is par for the course and something they simply resign themselves to as the cost of doing political business.
In this year’s race in the City of San Bernardino’s 1st Ward, both candidates, Gil Botello and Theodore Sanchez, have taken umbrage over what they maintain are bald-faced lies emanating from the opposition camp. Indeed, Botello maintains the rough and tumble of politics has gotten too rough, and he wants Sanchez to pay him for that. That is, Botello has filed a lawsuit against Sanchez, alleging libel, slander and defamation for doing one of the things that politicians do, which is, essentially, to libel, slander and defame their opponents.
In this case, Botello claims that Sanchez’s characterization of him as a criminal, which Sanchez maintains grew out of Botello’s 2002 arrest, and that Sanchez calling him a deadbeat, which Sanchez says is a logical interpretation of Botello having declared bankruptcy nine years ago, are outright falsehoods, and that Sanchez knew them to be such.
Sanchez, or more correctly the Committee to Elect Theodore Sanchez, indeed made those claims about Botello in a mailer sent to a cross section of District 1 voters. The upshot of the mailer was that Botello’s assertion that he had experience Sanchez did not possess which qualified him to hold office boiled down to a half-truth. Botello had, Sanchez conceded, experience he did not possess. It was just that Botello’s experience was “The wrong experience for city council,” ac-cording to the mailer. That experience consisted of, Sanchez said, getting arrested and charged criminally 16 years ago and then stiffing his creditors for $7,472 in 2009.
Botello contends none of that is true. In the immediate aftermath of the mailer landing in District 1 voters’ mailboxes, he quickly moved to counter the tactic by addressing the “mistruths” in the mailer with a letter to voters and a cease and desist letter to Sanchez. Sanchez persisted with the mailers. Accordingly, it is Botello’s position that Sanchez with reckless disregard proceeded with propounding false insinuations about him throughout the district. Those falsehoods have spread beyond the district, damaging Botello’s reputation in venues outside the immediate election campaign, according to Botello’s attorney, Vincent Miller.
On October 24 Miller filed suit in San Bernardino County Superior Court on behalf of Botello, asserting the mailer falsely depicted his client as “a criminal,” which has no basis in fact. The mailer falsely, maliciously and purposefully alleged Botello “had been arrested, was subject to a court case and prosecution by the district attorney” when Sanchez and his campaign knew those allegations to be false, according to Miller. Furthermore, Botello had been subjected to the oblo-quy of being represented as “a deadbeat crook and cheat who can’t be trusted.” There is no sub-stance or truth to the mailer’s representations, according to the lawsuit, and that falsehood is demonstrated by the fact that the mailer used fabricated or inapplicable case numbers in repre-senting that there was a criminal filing against Botello. The suit specifies $500,000 in damages. A trial setting conference on the matter has been set for April 22 in Department S-25.
According to Sanchez, Botello, or someone with his exact name, was in fact arrested and charged criminally in 2002. In the intervening 16 years, Sanchez suggested, Botello had his record expunged and the court file pertaining to the matter sealed. Moreover, the basis for alleging Botello skipped out on those he owed money to consists of his 2009 filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. While Botello and Miller concede there was a bankruptcy filing that occurred at the height of the financial meltdown during the lingering recession that began in late 2007 and temporarily left Botello unemployed, Botello formulated an exit plan by which he liquidated a portion of his assets and freed up capital to catch up on and extinguish all of his debts before exiting bankruptcy without defaulting permanently on any of his loans. It is absolutely untrue that Botello has been arrested or has a criminal record of any sort, according to Miller.
Meanwhile, Sanchez and his campaign have set about drafting a lawsuit of their own in which they will contend that with their misuse of the legal process, they are violating Sanchez’s free speech rights.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has rescinded the quarantine placed on hundreds of properties in north Chino, Ontario, Montclair, and Pomona that was brought on as result of an outbreak of Newcastle disease.
Newcastle disease, which resulted in the extermination of millions of chickens in San Bernardino County in the 1970s, reappeared in the region in May. State agricultural officials, concerned that the scattered manifestation of the condition was a harbinger of a potential repeat of what occurred more than four decades ago, were obliged to impose the quarantine, by which residents and especially poultry farmers and egg ranchers at the west end of San Bernardino County and one property on the extreme east side Los Angeles County area were prohibited from removing their birds from their properties or bringing any further fowl into the area. On 35 of the properties, consisting primarily of farms which featured ornamental or display birds such as peacocks, euthanizations occurred over the last five-and-a-half months after 150 such birds tested positive for Newcastle. Some 34,000 birds have been euthanized since the outbreak was first spotted. Locally, the outbreak is confined to the 35 properties between Mission Boulevard, the Pomona Freeway, Garey Avenue and Mountain Avenue.
No birds on commercial farms, such as ones where chickens are kept for egg production, have been slaughtered, though some 800 properties where birds are known to be present were among those under quarantine.
Newcastle disease is a highly contagious viral bird disease affecting many domestic and wild avian species. While it is transmissible to humans, it manifests in relatively mild forms of conjunctivitis, also known as pink eye, and influenza-like symptoms, seeming to pose no other significant hazard to human health.
Newcastle’s effects are most notable in domestic poultry due to their high susceptibility and the potential for widespread infestation on the poultry industry.
Newcastle typically results in swelling around a bird’s eyes, a purplish swelling of the wattle and comb, a large amount of fluid coming from the beak and nasal areas, a twisting of the neck and head, loss of appetite, green diarrhea, and sudden death. No treatment for Newcastle exists.
Transmission occurs by exposure to fecal and other excretions from infected birds, contact with contaminated food and water, as well as through human interaction as when a person moves infected birds, equipment or feed or by coming into contact with unaffected birds while wearing the same clothing or shoes worn when that person had contact with infected areas.
Residents at those 35 properties where the exterminations were carried out are under order to not bring in any new birds onto them for 120 days from the time their birds were euthanized. The virus may potentially linger for multiple weeks in the area where any infected birds were located.
Agriculture officials were recently in Chino to provide informational briefings to chicken ranch owners and farmers. Ranchers have been told that if the number of birds infected reaches what agricultural and public health authorities deem a critical tipping point, blanket euthanizations of commercial flocks where birds have yet to test positive for the virus will be ordered to arrest the spread of the disease, which can occur extremely rapidly.

While the City of Adelanto is now employing its fourth city manager in less than a year, Redlands last month put its city manager on paid administrative leave and Upland’s city manager has elected to leave that city’s employ as of today after just ten months on the job, the City of Chino Hills recently took action to keep its city manager in place for the foreseeable future.
The Chino Hills City Council recently took action to zoom Chino Hills City Manager Rad Bartlam’s salary upward from $243,519 to $260,858 per year, effective two months ago. On top of that Bartlam will continue to receive roughly $55,000 in other pay on top of his salary together with $122,000 in annual benefits for a total compensation package of approximately $437,858 over the next year. He is also due to be provided with a $7,598 salary increase in September 2019, raising his annual total compensation to $445,456 at that point.
In addition the city has granted Bartlam the further perquisite of being able to cash out 50 percent of his unused sick time upon the date of his retirement. Bartlam is provided with 96 hours of sick pay – equal to 12 working days – per year.
Bartlam was hired as Chino Hills’ fourth city manager in January 2014, and took the reins at City Hall on February 10, 2014.
He was previously the city manager for the City of Lodi, a position he had held from May 2010 to January 2014. He served as Lodi’s community development director from March 1996 to April 2005. In that role he was key to the city’s downtown core renovation. Between 2005 and 2010, Bartlam was engaged as a land use professional in the private sector.
He began his municipal career at the City of Baldwin Park in 1981. He gained additional experience at the City of Glendora and the City of Simi Valley. He took on progressively more challenging and responsible assignments within the field of community development at the City of Pomona as the development services manager. He spent seven years as the city planner with the City of Brea and worked extensively on the “Brea Downtown” redevelopment project.
Konradt holds a bachelor of science degree in urban and regional planning, and a minor in public administration from California State Polytechnic University at Pomona.

Pepe’s Towing Service, which over the last decade has been repeatedly frustrated in its effort to obtain a position on the City of San Bernardino’s towing rotation, on October 24, 2018 filed a federal lawsuit against the city and 13 individual defendants affiliated with it.
Each of the defendants are currently elected city officials and/or current or former city employees. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges the defendants violated the company’s rights of free speech and equal protection in the course of rejecting Pepe’s efforts to contract with the city to handle police and code enforcement towing duties.
Among the individual defendants are City Councilmember John Valdivia and Mayor R. Carey Davis, both presently running for Mayor on November 6.
The other individual defendants include current councilmembers, the city manager, the city attorney, the police chief, and several other current and former city employees.
For years, the City of San Bernardino has rejected expanding its towing rotation beyond the group of six towing contractors that presently have a franchise. Pepe’s Towing Service’s owner and president Manny Acosta has been leading the effort to get the city to reopen the request for proposal process to new qualified tow companies. According to William Dance, one of the attorneys representing Pepe’s Towing, “To stymie Mr. Acosta’s effort, in 2005, the city instituted a new requirement, mandating that new city tow contractors have outdoor storage of at least 65,000 square feet. Four of the six present city towing contractors do not meet this requirement. It should be noted that this requirement affects only new tow contractors that contract with the city. The new requirement appeared to be a needless disqualifier for any new competition. The city did not apply this 65,000 square foot requirement to the existing tow contractors, just new ones that may apply, thereby grandfathering an exemption to the storage space requirement for existing tow contractors. It should further be noted that one of the two complying tow contractors recently merged with another, non-contracting towing company to garner a combined, partially unpaved outdoor storage space of 65,000 square feet, achieving numerical compliance. This new 65,000 square foot requirement forced any new tow contractors to compete on an uneven playing field with existing tow contractors and was apparently designed to ensure that no new towing companies could qualify as city tow contractors.”
In addition, Pepe’s alleges in the complaint that all six current tow contractors fail to comply with many key contract terms, including the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. It is further alleged against the City of San Bernardino that the city retaliated against Pepe’s when Acosta brought these breaches of contract to public attention.
Pepe’s Towing Service seeks reconsideration of the decision not to reopen the bidding process, and of its application, and to enforce strict scrutiny of the contract terms and compliance upon existing tow contractors. The complaint also seeks to abolish the 65,000 square foot requirement made applicable only to those who seek to qualify in the future for new towing contracts. The suit seeks to have Pepe’s Towing to be evaluated in the bidding process on the same terms as all the current authorized tow contractors. The suit is Pepe’s, Inc. v. City of San Bernardino et al., 5:18-cv-2277 DDP (SPx). Pepe’s Towing Service is represented in the suit by the law firm Tucker Ellis LLP. Carmen A. Trutanich, the former city attorney of the City of Los Angeles is the lead attorney handling the litigation. Pepe’s towing previously retained Jim Penman, San Bernardino’s former city attorney, to represent it in its petition to the city council to enter the towing rotation.

Cooper’s popcornflower is a species of flowering plant in the borage family, referred to scientifically as Plagiobothrys collinus var. ursinus.
Native to California, Arizona, and the Mexican state of Baja California, it can be found in many types of habitats, including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, valley grassland, and open areas of oak woodland. In San Bernardino County it occurs generally at elevations of between 3,400 feet and 7,400 feet. An endicot angiosperm, Plagiobothrys collinus is an annual herb growing in turf-like patches or tufts. It boasts a spreading or erect stem that is usually 3.9 inches-to-15.7 inches in length, with hairs that are generally coarse.
The leaves along the stem are tapered at the base and broadly rounded at the end and two-fifths of an inch to an inch-and-a-half long, the lower ones oppositely arranged and the upper ones alternate. The herbage is coated in fine and rough hairs.
The inflorescence of the Cooper’s popcornflower is a long, widely spaced series of tiny flowers, each with a five-lobed white corolla no more than 7 millimeters wide, sometimes as small as one millimeter. The white corollas exist in tight coiled clusters referred to by botanists as scorpioid cymes. The bloom period is February through May. The fruit is a minute nutlet with angular cross-ribs visible in magnification. The flower clusters of plagiobothrys collonus approximate from a distance the appearance of popped grains of corn. Botanists refer to this as an exploded endosperm. The resemblance to popcorn is particularly pronounced when the plant is spread out and low growing.
The plant does well in sandy or gravelly granite-based soils and open conifer forests.
Plagiobothrys species have been known to accumulate free nitrates in quantities capable of causing death or distress in cattle that feed upon them. A rich purple dye or stain is contained in the root and stems of the plagiobothrys species in general.
From Vascular Plants of Upper Newport Bay, Wayne P. Armstrong’s Desert Naturalist, Wikipedia, https://plants.usda.gov and http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/