San Gabriel Sun_5/8/2023

Black bear captured, radio-collared in Santa Monica Mountains PG 31

L.A. Care, Health Net spending $114M to help county’s homeless crisis

By City News Service

Clarence Thomas had a child in private school. Harlan Crow paid the tuition.

This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prizewinning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Series: Friends of the Court

Clarence Thomas’ Beneficial Friendship With a GOP Megadonor

L.A. Care Health Plan and Health Net Wednesday announced an investment of approximately $114 million over five years to help address the homelessness crisis by securing more housing units in the private rental market.

The money will bolster the county’s efforts to secure leases on as many as 1,900 housing units and pay for vacancy coverage, damage repair, trash services, greenspace, maintenance and pest control.

It will also help the county identify people experiencing homelessness who require assistance with daily living, to move into permanent housing.

Each year, the county receives permanent and timelimited housing vouchers through a combination of local, state and federal funding. A recent study by Abt Associates in partnership with the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation found that only 65% of people issued a voucher are able to lease a unit, a process that took an average of 122 days, which was the report said was due to L.A.’s “tight” rental market and alleged landlord discrimination against voucher holders, many of whom are people of color.

“When people experiencing homelessness try to use their rental vouchers in the private housing market, they often contend with unaffordable rent, tough competition, and historic and systemic housing discrimination,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “We’ve entered into this collaboration with L.A. Care and Health Net during a moment of urgency, but it will expand our housing portfolio over the long term and maximize the use of federal and local rental vouchers to bring people indoors.”

The investment will enable the county to create assessment teams that will visit shelters and other interim housing sites to identify people with ADL needs, as well as connecting them with caregiver help in interim or permanent housing.

“Housing is critical for good health. This collaboration will help address housing inequities, which have resulted

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin, was far from home. For the previous decade, he had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”

Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martin’s tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica.

“Harlan picked up the tab,” said Grimwood, who got to know Crow and the Thomases and had access to school financial infor-

mation through his work as an administrator.

Before and after his time at Hidden Lake, Martin attended a second boarding school, Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia. “Harlan said he was paying for the tuition at RandolphMacon Academy as well,” Grimwood said, recalling a conversation he had with

Crow during a visit to the billionaire’s Adirondacks estate.

ProPublica interviewed Martin, his former classmates and former staff at both schools. The exact total Crow paid for Martin’s education over the years remains unclear. If he paid for all four years at the two schools, the price tag could have exceeded $150,000,

according to public records of tuition rates at the schools.

Thomas did not report the tuition payments from Crow on his annual financial disclosures. Several years earlier, Thomas disclosed a gift of $5,000 for Martin’s education

LASD sergeant’s suit claiming retaliation by Villanueva to proceed

By Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica

Photo courtesy of Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative

Photo courtesy of Justice Clarence Thomas. | Photo courtesy of Stetson University (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Former aide to James Hahn, Mike Feuer tapped as ambassador to Croatia

Nathalie Rayes, who worked on the staffs of then-L.A. Mayor James Hahn and then-City Councilman Mike Feuer, was tapped by President Joe Biden Tuesday to be U.S. ambassador to Croatia.

Following Biden’s announcement of his intent to nominate Rayes to the post, the White House issued a statement praising her “distinguished career in public service as a leader, consensus builder and advocate.”

The nomination will still have to clear the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then the full U.S. Senate to become official.

If Rayes clears those hurdles swiftly, she would become the second Angeleno in recent months to become a U.S. ambassador.

Former Mayor Eric Garcetti officially became ambassador to India in March, following a nearly two-year process in which he was dogged by allegations he ignored accusations of assault and sexual harassment against a former top aide.

Garcetti’s nomination was long stalled at the committee level but finally made it to the Senate floor, where it passed 52-42, with seven Republicans crossing the aisle to vote in favor of Garcetti and three fellow Democrats voting nay.

Rayes began her career in government as a field deputy for Feuer, then became a senior advisor to Feuer, who represented Council District 5 from 1995-2001.

She then became deputy chief of staff for Hahn, managing the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, International Trade, Protocol and helped established the city’s Office of Immigrant Affairs.

Councilman Tim McOsker, who was Hahn’s chief of staff when Hahn was mayor from 2001-05, called Reyes “a bril-

LASD sergeant’s suit claiming retaliation by Villanueva to proceed

By City News Service By City News Service

Aformersheriff’s sergeant who sued Los Angeles County, alleging she suffered a backlash for being critical of then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva and his wife, can move forward with her two retaliation claims, a judge ruled Wednesday.

However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis also found that plaintiff Vanessa Chow will have to shore up her defamation and false claims regarding Villanueva’s allegedly false statements on the sheriff’s department website.

On the website, Villanueva described Chow’s lawsuit allegations as a “compendium of false statements, omissions, mischaracterizations, and outright lies” and said the complaint was designed to get publicity for other department employees who filed similar cases.

liant, diligent, and thoughtful public servant.”

“It is especially meaningful to me as the Council member for the One-Five, because I have the privilege of representing San Pedro and the Harbor Area, which is home to one of the largest Croatian communities in the United States outside of the Republic of Croatia,” McOsker said.

“With Ms. Rayes as ambassador, we will continue our strong relationship between, not just the United States of America, but also the city of Los Angeles and the Republic of Croatia. I look forward to working with Ms. Rayes on issues that are important to the residents I serve.”

Rayes is president and CEO of Latino Victory, which describes itself as a progressive organization working to grow Latino political power by increasing Latino representation at every level of government and building a base of Latino donors.

Homeless crisis

She was vice president of public affairs for the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, responsible for its philanthropic activities in the United States.

Biden had previously appointed Reyes as a member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace.

Rayes is also secretary of the Board of Directors of the nonprofit Hispanic Federation, vice chair of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, chair of the Hispanas Organized for Political Equality Binational Advisory Group, and advisory board member of the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program.

She was a member of the Board of Directors of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, appointed by then-President Barack Obama.

Rayes received a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a master’s in public policy from UCLA.

But Duffy-Lewis noted the website is a public forum. She gave Chow’s attorneys 10 days to file an amended complaint.

According to Chow’s suit, Villanueva while in office “held himself out as above the law and immune to accountability, with leadership operating with the lack of transparency and audacity of a Third World dictatorship and evading any oversight.”

Villanueva “lied repeatedly to the public” by claiming the Board of Supervisors has a vendetta against him, but at the same time the supervisors have “done nothing to curb Villanueva’s corruption, retaliation against whistleblowers, and extreme abuse of power,” the suit further states.

Chow became the sheriff’s department liaison to the Board of Supervisors in October 2018, shortly before Villanueva’s election. When Chow informed Villanueva that the Board of Supervisors wanted to build a working relationship with him, he told her to tell the supervisors “they could go (epithet) themselves,” for not endorsing him, a message the plaintiff did not relay to the board, the suit states.

While Villanueva stated over social media that he would not enforce the county’s employee coronavirus vaccination mandate, he at the same time asked his top leaders to draft written reprimands for any deputies that refused to register or adhere to the policy, the suit states.

“Sheriff Villanueva fooled anti-vaxxer deputies into thinking that he was on their side regarding the vaccine mandate,” the suit states.

Villanueva’s only real concern with the mandate was that it was authored by Supervisor Hilda Solis, against whom Villanueva had “a particular chip on the shoulder,” the suit states.

Two department members who were Villanueva allies engineered a “lieutenant’s exam cheating scandal” in which one of them seeking the promotion obtained the answers in advance, was given time off to study while still being paid and helped numerous sergeants cheat in the same way she did, the suit alleges.

Chow alleges she was given an unfairly low score on the lieutenant’s exam, which she further maintains was part of the retaliation against her.

Villanueva’s wife, Vivian Villanueva — who retired five years ago — is “an associate of the deputy gang, the Banditos, and has acted as the gang’s protector during Alex Villanueva’s reign as sheriff,” the suit alleges.

ueva was driven to a training session in a county car by an alleged founding member of the Banditos, whose members allegedly attacked other deputies during a September 2018 party at Kennedy Hall in East Los Angeles, the suit states. The Kennedy Hall incident left five deputies injured, including two knocked unconscious, the suit states.

Someone close to the sheriff told Chow that Vivian Villanueva “did not like to drive herself anywhere, not even to the grocery store, and said that people would recognize her everywhere ... because she is a celebrity,” the suit states.

One of the investigators into the Kennedy Hall incident was Sgt. Jefferson Chow, the plaintiff’s husband, the suit states. Villanueva and the Banditos have targeted Jefferson Chow for retaliation for “creating a paper trail of Villanueva’s alleged obstruction of justice in the investigation into the attack at Kennedy Hall,” the suit alleges.

In September 2021, Vivian Villanueva confirmed to the plaintiff that she and one of her husband’s allies were behind the firing of the plaintiff’s assistant because they saw a photo of the aide depicting support for thenrival candidate Eli Vera, a retired sheriff’s department commander, in the sheriff’s race, the suit states.

in health inequities, and it will make the voucher system more effective,” L.A. Care CEO John Baackes said. “Securing rental units in advance will ensure vouchers are able to be used and will cut down on the long wait times. At the same time, it will give landlords a long-term funding commitment.”

Martha Santana-Chin, Medi-Cal president at Health Net, said the company was “proud to take part in this critical initiative, which will continue to increase access to housing for people experiencing homelessness. Together we aim to improve access to whole-person care services for vulnerable Angelenos.”

The funding is the result of the state’s Housing and Homelessness Incentive Program, which the state launched with the help of matching funds from the American Rescue Plan. HHIP is a voluntary incentive program allowing Medi-Cal managed care plans to earn incentive funds for making progress in addressing homelessness and housing insecurity as social determinants of health.

Villanueva viewed Chow as an “important vehicle to do battle” with the supervisors, but over time the sheriff grew frustrated and angry with her when she “refused to take part in illegal conduct and spoke out against such corruption acts, and repeatedly advising the sheriff to not engage in wrongful conduct and reporting that conduct when the sheriff refused to follow rules and laws,” the suit brought last Aug. 30 states.

“The sheriff and his wife ... run LASD like their own personal fiefdom and business by placing individuals whom they consider as allies in key positions within the department, despite these individuals’ lack of qualifications and ethics, while weeding out individuals with integrity, without regard for their accomplishments or contributions,” the suit alleges.

In September 2019, Chow learned that Vivian Villan-

Chow maintains she is “too distressed to return to work and she has been constructively terminated from LASD.” She has suffered temporary lower body paralysis and cancer as well as severe financial losses and emotional distress because of the alleged retaliation, according to her suit.

Villanueva was defeated in his bid for reelection on Nov. 8 by retired Long Beach Police Department Chief Robert Luna.

Nathalie Rayes. | Photo courtesy of Nathalie Rayes/Twitter

Former LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva with his wife Vivian. | Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department/ Facebook

Editorial editorial@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Graphics/Production production@beaconmedianews.com production@hlrmedia.com

Advertising advertising@beaconmedianews.com advertising@hlrmedia.com

Legal Advertising legals@beaconmedianews.com legals@hlrmedia.com

Business accounting@beaconmedianews.com accounting@hlrmedia.com

BEACON MEDIA ADDRESS: 125 E. Chestnut Ave., Monrovia, CA 91016

PHONE: (626) 301-1010 WEBSITE www.beaconmedianews.com

HLR MEDIA ADDRESS: 820 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016

PHONE: (626) 301-1010 www.HLRmedia.com

PRESS RELEASE SUBMISSIONS editor@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Attorney for Bill Cosby, R. Kelly wants to join Harvey Weinstein defense

By Staff

The Arcadia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 004333 for the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monrovia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of General Circulation in Court Case GS 004759 City of Monrovia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Temple City Tribunehas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 012440 City of Temple City, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The El Monte Examinerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015872 City of El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Azusa Beaconhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015970 City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Gabriel Sunhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013808 City of San Gabriel, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Duarte Dispatchhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013893 City of Duarte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Rosemead Readerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 048894 City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Alhambra Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016581 City of Alhambra, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Baldwin Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017174 City of Baldwin Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Burbank Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016728 City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Glendale Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016579 City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monterey Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016580 City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The West Covina Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017304 City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Bernardino Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.

The Riverside Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number RIC1505351 City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California.

The Pasadena Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES018815 City of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Belmont Beacon has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number NSO30275 City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Anaheim Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number 30-2017-00942735-CU-PT-CJC City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California.

The Ontario News Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California.

The

Prominent lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, who has represented high-profile clients such as Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, has filed a motion to join the defense team of longtime film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein is currently being sued by a former model/ actress, referred to as Jane Doe No. 1 in court documents, who alleges that Weinstein sexually assaulted her in her Beverly Hills hotel room in 2013. The lawsuit filed in February 2023 alleges sexual battery, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Bonjean has filed court papers asking Judge Elaine Mandel to allow her to serve on the case as an out-of-state attorney who is not a member of the California State Bar. Ashley Cohen, another lawyer in Bonjean’s firm, has also applied to represent Weinstein. Weinstein’s current lawyer in the case, Michael Freedman, is licensed in California.

In an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint filed on Monday, Bonjean and Freedman stated that her claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that

her request for punitive damages is unconstitutional and that her lawsuit should be dismissed. Bonjean’s motion is scheduled for hearing on June 9, 2023.

Weinstein was convicted on Dec. 19, 2022, of three of the seven counts he was facing related to Jane Doe No. 1 — forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison on Feb. 23, 2023.

In Weinstein’s criminal

case trial, his attorney Mark Werksman argued that Jane Doe No. 1 “was not a woman who was alone and vulnerable and cut off from the world,” noting that she let his client into her hotel room at Mr. C Beverly Hills and had a cell phone and the hotel room phone at her disposal.

The plaintiff was in town to attend a film festival, and her suit alleges that Weinstein came to her room unexpectedly after she attended events related to the festival

that day. “After he was done raping her, he acted as if nothing out of the ordinary happened and left,” her court papers stated.

Doe did not report the incident until 2017, when she had a talk with her daughter during a time when Weinstein was at the forefront of the #metoo movement, according to her court papers. The lawsuit is one of several that Weinstein faces in California, including one from actress Ashley Judd.

Jenny Craig to close all centers in U.S., per report

Jenny Craig Inc. is closing its hundreds of weight-loss centers in the United States and Canada this week, NBC News reported Wednesday.

TheCarlsbad-based company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report, which said employees were notified by email late Tuesday

that the locations were closing due to the company’s failure to secure funding.

The email reportedly said corporate and salaried field employees’ last day would be Friday, and hourly center employees’ last day working was Tuesday.

Last week, executives at the Carlsbad office were told that

the company would be closing the office June 24 and would transition to an e-commerce model, according to the report. It was not immediately clear if those plans were still in place.

Craig, 90, opened the first Jenny Craig weight loss center with her late husband Sid in Australia in 1983. Their

first U.S. center opened two years later.

The company operated weight-loss centers in Anaheim Hills, Brea, Burbank, Culver City, Fountain Valley, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lakewood, Mission Viejo, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, Studio City, Tustin and West Hollywood.

Harvey Weinstein. | Photo courtesy of Thomas Hawk/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jenny Craig location. | Photo by Mike Mozart (CC BY 2.0)

Man obtains $49,000 default judgment against rapper Famous Dex

By City News Service

National group defends California endof-life option amid federal lawsuit

By Shanteya Hudson, Producer, Public News Service

Ajudge has granted a man’s request for a $49,000 default judgment against rapper Famous Dex, who was sued for allegedly stealing the plaintiff’s expensive watch in 2021 and then lying to police about who was the victim.

On Tuesday, a clerk for Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa A. Beaudet issued a minute order stating that the judge will sign the proposed judgment presented to her by plaintiff Michael Francati’s attorney in February.

Francati’s suit alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, false promise, theft, unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He sought a default judgment because the singer had not participated in the suit brought in April 2021.

The singer’s real name is Dexter Tiewon Gore Jr. In a sworn declaration, Francati said he and the 29-year-old entertainer already knew each other socially when he contacted the singer in March 2021. At the time, the singer was at the Saticoy Smoke Shop in Van Nuys, according to Francati.

The plaintiff said at one point he asked the singer to “showcase my luxury watch on his Instagram account. I thought it was a good opportunity to have my watch viewed by a large crowd because Famous Dex is a well-known rapper and has a massive audience on Instagram.”

The singer accepted Francati’s proposal and the two decided to meet that night at the smoke shop, Francati says. When Francati arrived at the business, the rapper was

still in his car and asked the plaintiff to hand him the watch, according to the plaintiff.

“I handed him the watch, thinking that he wanted it to take a look at it,” according to Francati, who says the singer instead drove away with the watch.

After a period of time, the singer called Francati and said four men had robbed him, taking the watch with them, according to Francati, who reported the alleged robbery and met with the singer again at the smoke shop, Francati says.

“Famous Dex made up false and misleading information to the officers, as the robbery had never taken place,” according to Francati.

Without giving Francati a chance to tell his side of the story, the officers placed the plaintiff inside their patrol car and let the singer leave, the plaintiff said.

“I was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the police car for a prolonged time because Famous Dex, lying to the officers, told them that I had allegedly staged the robbery and set him up to be arrested,” Francati said.

That same night, the singer displayed Francati’s watch on the entertainer’s Instagram account, according to the plaintiff.

Francati said he has suffered “from a great deal of anxiety, stress and monetary loss.”

Anational nonprofit organization is speaking out about a federal lawsuit filed last week against California officials, challenging the state’s End of Life Option Act.

The plaintiffs claim that the revised law, which took effect last year, discriminates against people with disabilities by violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

CEO of the group Compassion & Choices, Kim Callinan, pointed out that a disability alone doesn’t qualify a person for medical aid in dying.

She added that a national poll shows it is an end-of-life care option people believe should be available.

“The current lawsuit that came forward makes claims that are inconsistent with what the data demonstrate,” said Callinan. “We know that eight out of ten people with a disability want and support the option of medical aid in dying.”

Ten states now authorize doctors to offer mentally sound, terminally ill adults the option to request prescription medication they could choose to take - to die gently in their sleep, if their suffering becomes unbearable.

Studies show the most common diagnosis among terminally ill people who qualify for medical aid in dying is cancer. Since January, bills to authorize medical aid in dying have been introduced in 14 states.

Dr. Chandana Banerjee - an associate professor who teaches palliative medicine, and a physician who practices medical aid in dying, both at City of Hope National Medical Center - said it’s important that people understand what medical aid in dying is and isn’t.

People with disabilities who would qualify for the law must have a prognosis of six months or less to live - and Banerjee said even then, they still may not be eligible.

“There are several other guardrails and eligibility criteria that these dying patients must meet, and then follow a multistep process in order to get the prescriptions filled,” said Banerjee, “contrary to the belief no one really gets to wake up one morning and access medical aid in dying.”

The law also requires an attending physician to advise the patient about “feasible alternatives or additional treatment options, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, palliative care and pain control.”

Studies from nine jurisdictions where medical aid in dying is authorized show that more than a third of terminally ill adults who receive prescriptions for medical aid in dying don’t take the medication.

Disclosure: Compassion & Choices contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, Health Issues, Senior Issues, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, visit https://publicnewsservice.org/dn1.php.

References:

US States - Ranked by Population 2023 World Population Reveiw 2023

Photo by Anna Shvets

Famous Dex. | Photo courtesy of Icebox/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

Dodgers want no mention of Stow case in trial of fan beating suit

By City News Service

Attorneys for the Los Angeles Dodgers want a judge to bar lawyers of a man suing the team for an alleged beating by a pair of other patrons inside Dodger Stadium in a 2018 game, from mentioning in the upcoming trial a previous beating case in a stadium parking lot.

Plaintiff Milton Flores alleges the team provided inadequate security and a lack of uniformed Los Angeles police officers the night he was beaten by two other men inside Dodger Stadium during an extrainning playoff game. His Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit names as defendants Los Angeles Dodgers LLC and the two alleged assailants, Robert and Jaime Joe Berumen. The suit does not state the relationship between the Berumens.

In 2011, San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow was assaulted in one of the venue’s parking lots.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury in 2014 awarded about $18 million in damages to Stow while attributing 75% of the liability to his two assailants who beat him into a coma, 25% to the team and none to former Dodgers owner Frank

McCourt.

In court papers filed Tuesday with Judge Michelle C. Kim arguing that any mention of the Stow case during the Flores trial would be prejudicial to the team, Dodger attorneys noted that Stow was represented by disgraced former attorney Tom Girardi.

“Due largely to years of false publicity generated by the now-disbarred Girardi, there is a widespread misperception that the Dodgers and McCourt were found solely liable for Stow’s injuries,” the Dodger lawyers state in their court papers. “But facts are far from the fiction promulgated by Girardi and his minions.”

While the Stow case involved a fight in the Dodger Stadium parking lot and alleged that there was inadequate lighting, the fight between Flores and the Berumens took place in the smoking section of the venue and Flores has not made an issue about lighting, the Dodger lawyers state in their court papers.

Under the new team ownership and management now as well as in 2018, there were many more uniformed LAPD officers present than under the McCourt regime,

the Dodger lawyers state in their court papers.

“Thus, this case is far removed from the Stow incident, in which Girardi repeatedly argued that Stow’s injuries were the result of the Dodgers’ eliminating, or reducing, the number of uniformed LAPD officers who provided security at Dodger Stadium,” the team’s attorneys argue in their court papers.

According to Flores’ suit, the Dodgers decreased security in 2004, possibly because of McCourt’s financial trouble. By 2018, the team began relying solely on security guards in polo shirts, diminishing safety by making police intervention seem less likely to troublemakers, according to the suit.

In August 2018, the Dodgers resumed in-seat sales of beer to fans 21 years old and over who paid with cash or a credit card to vendors at all levels, according to the suit.

Flores and the Berumens were present at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 16, 2018, when the playoff game between the Dodgers and Milwaukee Brewers went into the 13th inning before the home team won, 2-1, the

suit states. At about 10 p.m. and with the game still tied 1-1, Flores and his son-inlaw went to the restroom and encountered the Berumens, who appeared drunk and falsely accused Flores of trying to urinate into a trash can, the suit states.

The Berumens also called Flores a derogatory name suggesting he was not a U.S. citizen, the suit states.

Security guards tried to calm the situation, but did not follow up to confirm that the Berumens returned to their seats, the suit states. The guards also did not eject the Berumens from the stadium or monitor them to make sure they did not drink more alcohol or take steps to reduce the chance they would bother Flores again, according to the suit.

At about 11 p.m., Flores and his daughter went to a smoking area of the stadium and encountered the Berumens there, the suit states. Flores’ daughter accidentally bumped one of the Berumens and apologized, but Robert Berumen shoved the woman and caused her to stumble backward, and no security guards were nearby, the suit

states.

Flores intervened to help his daughter, but Robert Berumen punched him in the face, causing the plaintiff to fall and hit the back of his head on the ground, the suit states. He lost consciousness and suffered a subdural hematoma, according to the complaint.

Flores’ son-in-law also tried to protect the woman, but Jaime Berumen punched him in the left ear, causing him a laceration and abrasions, the suit states. The son-in-law is not a plaintiff.

Two security guards arrived later and separated the victims from the Berumens, the suit states. Flores regained consciousness, but had amnesia and

could not recall such basic information as his address, the suit states.

The Berumens were not charged with any crime and in his court papers, their attorney maintains the pair also have no civil liability in Flores’ suit.

“Defendants allege that the plaintiff in this case created a situation in which the (Berumens) had a reasonable belief regarding an imminent danger of being injured ... and caused (the Berumens) to have a reasonable belief that use of force was necessary to prevent the harm from occurring,” their attorney maintains in his court papers.

Trial of Flores’ suit is scheduled June 9.

Dodger Stadium. | Photo courtesy of Steven Miller/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

On May the 4th, Carrie Fisher receives long-awaited star on Walk of Fame

By City News Service

Coinciding with the unofficial “Star Wars” holiday May the 4th, actress Carrie Fisher posthumously received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame Thursday, with Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill, helping to unveil the marker on the nation’s most famous sidewalk.

Fisher’s daughter, Billie Lourd, accepted the star on behalf of her mother, who died Dec. 27, 2016, at age 60.

“My mom used to say you weren’t actually famous until you became a Pez dispenser,” Lourd said, referring to the classic lift-top candy holder. “Well, people eat candy out of her neck every day. I say you aren’t actually famous until you get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Which I guess is kind of weird because people in most places tend to avoid people walking all over them, but in this weird little town, the pinnacle of fame is getting people to walk all over you.

“My mom is a doublewhammy — a Pez dispenser and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame now. Momma, you’ve made it.”

The run-up to Thursday’s ceremony had been overshadowed by pre-event, public bickering between Lourd and her mother’s three siblings — Todd, Joely and Tricia Leigh Fisher, whom Lourd opted not to invite to the ceremony. But no mention of the dispute was made during the unveiling.

Hundreds of “Star Wars” fans packed around the unveiling ceremony near the El Capitan Theatre in honor of Fisher, who became famous portraying Princess Leia in the iconic film series. Lourd gave a shout out to the fans who braved the morning rain waiting for the event.

“I adore you. She adored you. Thank you, thank you, thank you,” she said.

Hamill recounted his first meeting with Fisher when she was 19 years old and he was 24, and the pair had dinner together during “Star Wars” filming.

“She was so charming, so funny, so adorable, so wise beyond her years, I just couldn’t believe it. And brutally frank. She started telling me stories, intimate stories, about her family that I was thinking, should I be hearing this? I mean, these were things that I would probably not tell friends unless I knew them for years. But that was

Carrie.

“She also had a wisdom that seemed to be far beyond what a 19-yearold should be expected to have.”

Hamill read from a notebook that contained words he wrote shortly after Fisher’s death six years ago.

“Carrie was one of a kind, who belonged to us all, whether we liked it or not,” Hamill read from his notes. “She was our princess, damn it, and the actress who played her blurred into one gorgeous, fiercely independent and ferociously funny takecharge woman who took our collective breath away. Determined and tough with a vulnerability that made you root for her and want her to succeed and be happy. She played such a crucial role in my professional and personal life and both would have been far emptier without her.

“Was she a handful? Was she high-maintenance? Oh ho ho, no doubt. But everything would have been so much drabber and less interesting if she wasn’t, if she hadn’t been the friend that she was.”

Fisher made her film debut as a teen in “Shampoo” in 1975, two years before becoming famous as Princess Leia in George Lucas’ classic film series.

Her other film credits included “The Blues Brothers,” “The Man with

One Red Shoe,” “Hannah and Her Sisters,” “The ‘Burbs,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle” and “Fanboys.”

On the animated series “Family Guy,” Fisher was the voice of Peter Griffin’s brewery boss, Angela.

As a child of Hollywood royalty born in Beverly Hills, Fisher’s childhood was anything but ordinary. She was 2 years old and her brother an infant when their father, the late singeractor Eddie Fisher, left her mother — actress Debbie Reynolds — to have an affair with actress Elizabeth Taylor, who was a close friend of Reynolds and the widow of Fisher’s close friend Mike Todd.

Fisher drew on her experiences in her semiautobiographical novels, including “Postcards From the Edge,” which was made into a movie based on her screenplay.

Her struggles with cocaine and prescription medication abuse were memorialized in her memoir, “Wishful Drinking,” which was adapted from her onewoman stage play of the same name. Fisher, who was bipolar, also was open about her struggle with mental illness and became a powerful mental health advocate.

Fisher authored a total of eight books. Her latest, “The Princess Diarist,”

made headlines when it was released in 2016 for its disclosure that she had an affair with then-married actor Harrison Ford during filming of the original “Star Wars.”

The actress was briefly married to singer Paul Simon in the 1980s. Her daughter was fathered by talent agent Bryan Lourd.

Fisher died after suffering a cardiac arrest aboard a flight from London to Los Angeles. She was pronounced dead at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center.

Her mother, Debbie Reynolds, with whom Fisher had a notoriously close relationship, died the following day at age 84.

Lourd acknowledged in a statement Wednesday that she chose not to invite Todd, Joely and Tricia Leigh Fisher to the unveiling ceremony, accusing them of trying to “capitalize” on Fisher’s death.

“The truth is I did not invite them to this ceremony,” Lourd wrote. “They know why. Days after my mom died, her brother and sister chose to process their grief publicly and capitalize on my mother’s death, by doing multiple interviews and selling individual books for a lot of money, with my mom and my grandmother’s (Debbie Reynolds) deaths as the subject. ...

“They never consulted me or considered how this

my mother Debbie’s deaths, and in no way meant to hurt Billie.”

Joely and Tricia Leigh Fisher issued a joint statement Wednesday on social media, saying they “adored” their sister and were mystified by the decision to exclude them from the event.

“For some bizarre, misguided reason our niece has chosen not to include us in this epic moment in our sister’s career,” they said in the statement. “This is something Carrie would have definitely wanted her siblings to be present for. The fact that her only brother and two sisters were intentionally and deliberately excluded is deeply shocking.

would effect our relationship. The truth of my mom’s very complicated relationship with her family is only known by me and those who were actually close to her. Though I recognize they have every right to do whatever they choose, their actions were very hurtful to me at the most difficult time in my life. I chose and still choose to deal with her loss in a much different way.”

Todd Fisher issued a statement earlier this week calling it “heartbreaking and shocking” that he was not invited to the ceremony.

“It’s obviously extremely hurtful and distressing as I was always a big part of everything my sister and mother did historically over their lifetimes, and continue to manage after their passing,” he said.

“Carrie and I both attended the Walk of Fame ceremony for our mother as well as her handprint dedication in the courtyard of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. I was constantly my sister’s date and ‘plus one’ to every single `Stars Wars’ premiere and fan event right up to the end. I’ve supported Disney for years with providing anything they needed from Carrie Fisher.”

After Lourd issued her statement Wednesday, Fisher responded with a statement of his own, denying that he ever “capitalized on either Carrie or

“We have all been grieving the loss of our favorite human for some years now. We have given Billie the space to do that in her own way. We have been nothing but loving and open, consistently. This isn’t about a photo opp on Hollywood (Boulevard). This is about celebrating the permanency of Carrie’s legacy in this industry, taking her place with a star on the iconic Walk of Fame alongside our parents. We thank the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce for honoring our sister in this way.”

Todd Fisher and Joely Fisher have both published memoirs about their life with their sister and mother. Todd Fisher’s book is titled “My Girls: A Lifetime with Carrie and Debbie,” while Joely’s is titled “Growing Up Fisher: Musings, Memories and Misadventures.”

Fisher’s star is located near that of Hamill, and across the street from her mother’s star.

In her remarks Thursday, Lourd — wearing a dress featuring a picture of Princess Leia — recounted that she had little interest in “Star Wars” as a child, and only became aware of its immense popularity when some of her male “Star Wars” fan classmates in school told her they “fantasize” about her mother.

“My mom died six and a half years ago, and every since I have fallen deeply in love with Leia and the entire `Star Wars’ universe,” she said. “I’ve gone from little girl unwilling to even watch ‘Star Wars’ to obsessive ‘Star Wars’ fan. If you haven’t noticed, I’m literally wearing a Princess Leia dress.”

Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia in 1977’s “Star Wars.” | Photo courtesy of Sami Keinänen/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Citing new evidence, Menendez brothers look to overturn murder convictions

By City News Service

Potentially reopening one of the Southland’s most notorious murder cases, attorneys for Erik and Lyle Menendez filed court papers Wednesday contending that newly surfaced evidence warrants the overturning of the brothers’ convictions for killing their parents in 1989.

Jose Menendez and his wife, Mary Louise, or “Kitty,” were gunned down by their sons in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989. Erik Menendez, now 52, and Lyle Menendez, now 55, never denied carrying out the killings, but contended they were repeatedly sexually assaulted by their father and feared for their lives.

As a result, defense attorneys argued that the brothers “did not harbor the mental state needed for first-degree murder and were therefore guilty of manslaughter.”

Prosecutors, however, said the killings were financially motivated, pointing to lavish spending sprees by the brothers after the killings and arguing they were guilty of first-degree murder.

The brothers’ first trial ended with jurors unable to reach verdicts, deadlocking between first-degree murder and lesser charges including manslaughter. The second trial, which began in October 1995 and lacked much of the testimony centered on allegations of sexual abuse by Jose Menendez, ended with both brothers being convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy.

The brothers were both sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They have repeatedly appealed their convictions to no avail.

But in court papers filed Wednesday, and first obtained by Los Angeles Magazine, attorneys for the brothers point to two new pieces of evidence they contend corroborate the brothers’ allegations of longterm sexual abuse — a letter

written by Erik Menendez to one of his cousins in early 1989, eight months before the August 1989 killings, and recent allegations by a former member of the Puerto Rican boy band Menudo that he was also sexually abused by Jose Menendez as a teenager.

The court document includes a copy of the handwritten letter sent to Erik Menendez’s cousin, Andy Cano. Attorneys contend the letter was recently discovered by Cano’s mother. Cano, who died of a drug overdose in 2003, testified in the brothers’ first trial that Erik Menendez had told him about the molestation by his father when Erik was 13 years old, according to the court documents.

In the letter, Erik Menendez writes in part, “I’ve been trying to avoid dad. It’s still happening Andy, but it’s worse for me now. I can’t explain it. ... I never know when it’s going to happen and it’s driving me crazy.

Every night I stay up thinking he might come in. I need to put it out of my mind.”

In court papers, Menendez brothers attorneys Mark Geragos and Cliff Gardner write that the new evidence “not only shows that Jose Menendez was very much a violent and brutal man who would sexually abuse children, but it strongly suggests that — in fact — he was still abusing Erik Menendez as late as December 1988. Just as the defense had argued all along.”

To bolster their contention, the attorneys also cited allegations that surfaced last month in a Peacock documentary series, in which Roy Rosselló — a former member of the boy band Menudo — alleged that Jose Menendez drugged and sexually assaulted him when he was about 14 years old during a visit to the Menendez home in New Jersey in 1983 or 1984.

Jose Menendez was an executive at RCA Records, which signed Menudo to a recording contract.

“I know what he did to me in his house,” Rosselló, now 54, says in the series. In another segment, he points to a picture of Jose Menendez and says, “That’s

the man here that raped me. That’s the pedophile.”

A declaration from Rosselló — who also alleges Menendez sexually assaulted him on two other occasions in New York — was attached to the court papers filed Wednesday.

The Menendez brothers’

attorneys argue that the new evidence warrants a reopening of the case, saying it establishes “a prima facie case for relief.”

“To resolve this case, jurors had to decide a single, critical question: was Jose Menendez molesting his sons?” the attorneys write in the court document. “Jurors making this determination did not know of Erik’s letter to his cousin Andy, and they did not know that Jose Menendez had previously raped a 14-year-old boy.”

As a result, the attorneys argue that the brothers are being “unlawfully” imprisoned.

“Newly discovered evidence directly supports the defense presented at trial and just as directly undercuts the state’s case against (the brothers),” the attorneys contend in the document.

Representatives for the District Attorney’s Office could not be reached late Wednesday for comment, and the office did not immediate respond to a request for comment from Los Angeles Magazine.

The papers ask that following a response from prosecutors, a judge “vacate the judgment and sentence imposed upon petitions,” or in the alternative schedule an evidentiary hearing.

From left, Lyle and Erik Menendez. | Photos courtesy of the Beverly Hills Police Department

SCAN ME!

El Monte City Notices

ORDINANCE NO. 3023

CODE AMENDMENT NO. 810, NO. 811 AND NO. 812 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-23 AND ZONING MAP NO. 1

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENTS TO REPEAL AND REPLACE IN ITS ENTIRETY TITLE 16 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) AND UPDATE TITLES 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS), 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY), 10 (VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC), 12 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES), 14 (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) AND 17 (ZONING) OF THE EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE (EMMC); APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE GATEWAY (SP-1), MOUNTAIN VIEW (SP-2), DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET (SP-4) AND ESPERANZA VILLAGE (SP-5) SPECIFIC PLANS; AND APPROVING THE OFFICIAL CITY OF EL MONTE ZONING MAP

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, the City of El Monte (the “City”) has the authority to enact local planning and land use regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare of their residents through its police power; and

WHEREAS, the City police powers provides the right to adopt and enforce zoning and other regulations; and

WHEREAS, in January 2023, the City Planning Division staff initiated the following entitlements for consideration by the City Council:

• Code Amendment (CA) No. 810: A comprehensive update to Title 16 (the “Subdivision Ordinance”) of the El Monte Municipal Code (EMMC);

• CA No. 811: Updates to Title 17 (the “Zoning Code”) of the EMMC;

• CA No. 812: Updates to Titles 1 (General Provisions); 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations); 8 (Health and Safety); 10 (Vehicles and Traffic); 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places); and 14 (Sustainable Development) of the EMMC;

• Specific Plan Amendment (SP) No. 02-23: Updates to the Gateway (SP-1); Mountain View (SP-2); Downtown Main Street (SP-4); and Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plans;

• Zoning Map No. 1 (ZM-1): The official City of El Monte Zoning Map as referenced in Section 17.14.030 of the EMMC; and

WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance of the EMMC contains the majority of the City’s standards related to the subdivision and consolidation of land, consistent with the California Subdivision Map Act; and

WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the EMMC contains the majority of the City’s zoning standards and regulations; and

WHEREAS, Specific Plans are a planning tool many cities use to establish detailed development and implementation measures to which future projects located within a specific geographic area must achieve; and

WHEREAS, the official City Zoning Map is referenced in Section 17.14.030 of the EMMC and identifies all zoning districts, specific plan subareas, overlay zones and sign districts; and

WHEREAS, CA No. No. 810, CA No. 811, CA No. 812 and ZM-1 will affect all properties in the City; and

WHEREAS, SP No. 02-23 will affect all properties within the Gateway (SP-1), Mountain View (SP-2), Downtown Main Street (SP-4) and Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plan areas, as shown on the City’s Zoning Map; and

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3011, approving a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code and significant updates to the Gateway (SP-1) and Downtown Main Street (SP-4) Specific Plans. Also as part of the update, the zoning designations were changed for 24 areas of the City with a combined area of 126.73 acres. In addition, five (5) zoning districts were removed from the City Zoning Map. This required staff to complete significant updates to the City Zoning Map; and

WHEREAS, as part of the presentation on June 21, 2022, staff noted they would continue to review the Zoning Code and other related Titles of the EMMC for any corrections, clarifications, additions and changes in state law. The first series of updates were anticipated to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in early 2023. Staff would then complete routine updates on an annual basis; and

WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10334, approving the City’s 2021-2029 General

Plan Housing Element. On September 30, 2022, the Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment will further implement Programs #3 (Implement the Durfee Avenue and Peck Road Corridor Plans), #5 (Comprehensive Zoning Code Updates), #12 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) and #14 (Religious Facilities Standards for Affordable Housing); and

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3018, approving the Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Code Amendments, Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Map have been made available for public review on the City’s Website and at the Planning Division public counter; and

WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on Inclusionary Housing and on March 15, 2023, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on CA No. 810 and CA No. 812, to receive presentations on the proposed Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment, receive comments from the community and provide staff with comments; and

WHEREAS, evidence, both written and oral, were duly presented and considered by the Planning Commission at duly noticed public hearings on March 28, 2023 and April 13, 2023, to consider the proposed Code Amendments, Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Map. After the close of said public hearings, and after deliberation, the Planning Commission approved Resolution Nos. 3649 and 3650, recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2023 to consider the proposed Code Amendments, Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Map. After the close of said public hearing, and after deliberation, the City Council considered the First Reading of this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, notices of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were placed in a local newspaper in accordance with the EMMC, and all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as follows:

SECTION 1 - RECITALS. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL. The project has been determined to be exempt by the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQA), pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, also known as the “Common Sense Exemption.” This is because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment. A public notice was prepared and published in the local newspaper.

SECTION 3 – CODE AMENDMENT NO. 810, NO. 811 AND NO. 812 FINDINGS. All necessary findings to approve the Code Amendments can be made in a positive manner and are as follows:

A. The Code Amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the City.

Finding of Fact:

Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the EMMC

The Comprehensive Subdivision Update to the Subdivision Ordinance incorporated a significant amount of language from Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC, including application submittals, resubmittals, inactive applications, rules and measurements, interpretations, fees, public noticing, public hearings and appeals. This will provide needed clarity for applicants and the public. The public noticing requirements have been increased to better protect surrounding properties from proposed development.

Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC

The Code Amendment calls for updates that will maintain or improve public health, safety and welfare of the City. This includes the following examples:

• Section 17.16.040 (Nonconforming Provisions – Nonconforming Residential Uses) – Added language on the ability to expand nonconforming residential uses in single-family, multiple-family, commercial and manufacturing zoning districts. In addition, language was added on when additional open space and parking are required. This will further protect surrounding properties from proposed development.

• Section 17.20.050 (One-Family Dwelling Residential Zoning Districts – Development Standards) – Revised the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from four (4) categories to three (3) categories. This will further protect surrounding properties from proposed development.

• Section 17.24.050(B) (Multiple-Family Dwelling Residential Zoning Districts – FAR Bonus) – Added several qualifying enhancements to receive an FAR bonus. These focus on the construction of affordable housing, measures that will

reduce energy consumption and reduce building bulk and mass. This will further assist residents afford housing, preserve the environment and protect surrounding properties from proposed development.

• Chapter 17.102 (Inclusionary Housing) – Established new inclusionary housing requirements for most residential projects with ten (10) or more units. This will encourage the development of affordable housing on-site or will provide inlieu funds that can be spent on affordable housing. This will further improve the public welfare of the City, by providing housing opportunities for a range of households.

• Section 17.111.080 (Standards for Specific Residential Uses – Religious Institutions Housing) – Established new religious facilities housing requirements where affordable housing may be constructed in combination with an existing religious facility, where open space and parking may be shared. This will further improve the public welfare of the City, by providing housing opportunities for a range of households.

• Chapter 17.124 (Temporary Use Permits) – Established a new temporary use classification and requirements for temporary uses that do not require Permit Committee approval. This includes off-site construction yards, seasonal sales (e.g. Pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc.), outdoor events (e.g. business openings, food events, merchandise sales, etc.), living trailers as a temporary residence for housing projects, model homes, real estate offices, work trailers and off-site vehicle parking. This will further protect surrounding properties from temporary uses. However, if an activity includes amplified sound, food trucks, use or sale of fireworks and/or the closure of street, it shall still require Permit Committee approval.

Other Titles of the EMMC

The Amendment updates the language in other Titles of the EMMC that reference Titles 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) and 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC.

B. The Code Amendments are consistent with the purpose, goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Finding of Fact:

Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the EMMC

The Comprehensive Subdivision Update was completed to ensure full compliance with the California Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Zoning Code. The new Subdivision Ordinance will facilitate the ability to develop properties with housing and commercial uses and will streamline the review process. The General Plan’s Economic Development Element identifies economic focus areas including Northwest El Monte, Auto District, Downtown El Monte, El Monte Gateway, Major Corridors and Flair Park. El Monte is comprised of many older areas developed prior to being annexed by the City. As a result, there are numerous commercial corridors that need revitalization. The new Subdivision Ordinance will help facilitate such revitalization by streamlining the review process and encouraging lot consolidation. Also, by having minimum design requirements, the new Subdivision Ordinance will preserve existing singlefamily neighborhoods.

Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC

The Code Amendments further implement numerous General Plan goals and policies. These are primarily found in the Community Design, Land Use and Housing Elements and include the following:

Community Design Element

Goal CD-2 – Promote attractive commercial corridors exemplified by consistency of hardscape, landscaping, signage, sidewalks and other treatments appropriate to their context to foster a pleasant driving and pedestrian experience.

Goal CD-4 – Achieve high-quality architectural design of residential, commercial and industrial buildings evidenced by thoughtful attention and balance of quality materials, durability, aesthetics, functionality and sustainability concepts.

Goal CD-7 – Develop modern, clean industrial parks that provides opportunity for investment and commerce which are denoted by their clean, attractive and well-managed environments compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Goal CD-8 – Encourage attractive, vibrant and convenient commercial centers that convey a quality shopping experience through the careful application of land use, site design, design policies and architectural standards.

Goal CD-9 – Promote quality neighborhoods evidenced by distinct identities; focal points that provide recreation and social opportunities; attractive streetscapes that accommodate autos, pedestrians, and cyclists; and attractive and well-designed residential projects that improve property values.

Land Use Element

Goal LU-1 Compatible residential, commercial, and industrial development that is sensitively integrated with existing development and neighborhoods and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses:

Goal LU-2 – Revitalize and redevelop residential, commercial and industrial areas through the sensitive integration of infill development, elimination of blight, and master planning efforts.

Goal LU-7 – Establish a diversified district of sustainable manufacturing, distribution, and technology-oriented businesses that provides opportunity for investment, entrepreneurship and significant creation of well-paid jobs in a sustainable environment that minimizes traffic impacts, promotes a clean environment, ensures long-term vitality and strengthens neighborhoods.

GOAL LU-9 – Recreate vibrant commercial corridors with the introduction of a mix of higher density residential uses, sensitively integrated commercial uses concentrated at critical nodes and tree-lined streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing, encourage walking, and inspire community pride.

2021-2029 Housing Element Goals and Objectives

Goal H-2 – Adequate sites for new housing that create a vibrant downtown, revitalize transportation corridors with quality housing, and motivate reinvestment and revitalization in neighborhoods.

• H-2.1 – Housing Sites. Provide adequate sites through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to allow singlefamily homes, multi-family homes, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), urban housing, mixed-use housing, mobile homes and special needs housing.

• H-2.4 – Urban Housing. Provide zoning designations necessary to develop urban housing at high densities along Garvey Avenue Corridor and the 5-Points Area, providing for linkages to transit, commercial activity and communities like parks and recreation centers.

• H-2.5 – Major Corridors. Direct the production of quality mixed/multiuse projects along major corridors Durfee Avenue, Peck Road, and Garvey Avenue to allow for efficient land use practices, improved mobility and energy conservation.

H-2.9 – Neighborhood Protection. Protect established single-family neighborhoods, through measures including use of zoning standards and objective design standards, from the transition, intensification and encroachment of nonresidential uses and higher density housing that detracts from the character of the neighborhood.

• H-2.10 – Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing. Support the development of TODs, which contains a variety of mixed-use projects vertically or horizontally integrated with commercial, professional, entertainment and recreational uses.

Goal H-3 – A diversity of quality housing types and prices that meet the needs of residents, support the economic development and revitalization, and provide opportunities for residents of all ages and income levels:

• H-3.7 – Diverse Housing. Support the production of varied housing types, including single-family, townhomes, apartments and special needs housing that are priced at levels affordable to all income levels;

• H-3.8 – Unique Housing. Permit and encourage the construction of innovative housing types, such as tiny, shipping container, modular, earth/green roof and wood pallet houses; and

• H-3.9 – Development Standards. Provide zoning, development standards and appropriate regulatory incentives to facilitate quality live-work, mixed use and other housing suited to different lifestyle needs.

Goal H-4 – Adequate rental, homeownership, and supportive services to individuals, families, and those with special needs that will help them find and maintain affordable housing in the community:

• H-4.4 – Homeless People. Support adequate opportunities for emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing, including services, within El Monte through the implementation of land use and zoning practices and monitoring through permitting procedures.

2021-2029 Housing Element Programs

The Housing Element includes 37 programs focused on: special planning areas, adequate sites and no net loss; zoning toolbox and permit processing; housing rehabilitation and preservation; housing affordability programs; special needs housing; and fair housing. The Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment specifically implement the following programs:

Program #3 – Implement the Durfee Avenue and Peck Road Corridor Plans, the Downtown Main Street Specific Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan, and develop the MacLaren (Esperanza Village) Specific Plan:

• By the end of 2024, develop the MacLaren (Esperanza Village) Specific Plan to allow for the development of up to 380 affordable housing units with open space and on-site amenities for families and seniors.

o Development standards for the Specific Plan were codified within Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC.

Program #5 – Comprehensive Zoning Code Update: Create a Planned Residential Development (PRD) Chapter to allow the flexible use of zoning standards for larger projects.

o Chapter 17.127 (Planned Residential Developments) of the EMMC was updated for consistency with recent court cases.

• Review the Density Bonus Chapter, ADU Section, Urban Dwelling Section and new State Housing Bills for consistency with state law.

o All Chapters and Sections were reviewed for compliance. Added a new Chapter for Affordable Housing in Commercial Areas and a new Section for Corridor Housing to comply with new state legislation.

Program #12 – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: By the end of 2023, adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance incorporating incentives to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units, include clear development standards and provide alternative methods of compliance.

o Added a new Chapter for full compliance.

Program #14 – Religious Facilities Standards for Affordable Housing:

LEGALS

• By the end of 2024, create zoning standards to allow the development of affordable housing and market rate housing on properties developed with religious institutions.

o Added a new Section for full compliance.

Other Titles of the EMMC

The Amendment updates the language in other Titles of the EMMC that reference Titles 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) and 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC.

SECTION 4 – CODE AMENDMENT NO. 810, NO. 811 AND NO. 812 TEXT, TABLE AND FIGURE UPDATES.

A. Code Amendment No. 810 – Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the EMMC is repealed and replaced in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A.

B. Code Amendment No. 811 – Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC is updated as set forth in Exhibit B (with added text highlighted and underlined and removed text crossed-out); and

C. Code Amendment No. 812 – Titles 1 (General Provisions); 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations); 8 (Health and Safety); 10 (Vehicles and Traffic); 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places); and 14 (Sustainable Development) of the EMMC is updated as set forth in Exhibit C (with added text highlighted and underlined and removed text crossed-out).

SECTION 5 – SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-23 FINDINGS. All necessary findings to approve the Specific Plan Amendment can be made in a positive manner and are as follows:

A. The Specific Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the City.

Finding of Fact:

Updates to the Gateway (SP-1), Mountain View (SP-2), Downtown Main Street (SP-4) and Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plans are primarily to the development standards and are necessary to make the Specific Plans consistent with Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC. This includes adding new uses such as affordable housing in commercial areas, corridor housing and religious institutions. Other updates are limited to formatting and grammar corrections.

B. The Specific Plan Amendment will result in the development of desirable character and use types that will be compatible with the surrounding area and provides effective buffering from adjacent uses as found necessary.

Finding of Fact:

The overall character and mix of use types will remain in place for all the Specific Plan areas. This includes developing a highly urban character with vertical mixed-use and urban housing centered around the El Monte Bus Station for the Gateway (SP-1) Specific Plan and maintaining a small-town feel along Main Street and permitting multi-story urban housing close to transit for the Downtown Main Street (SP-4) Specific Plan.

C. The Specific Plan Amendments are consistent with the purpose, goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Finding of Fact:

Updates to the Gateway (SP-1), Mountain View (SP-2), Downtown Main Street (SP-4) and Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plans are primarily to the development standards and are necessary to make the Specific Plans consistent with Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC. The Amendment further implements several General Plan goals and policies. These are primarily found in the Community Design, Land Use and Housing Elements and include the following:

Community Design Element

Goal 5-6 – Create a vibrant Downtown that is an attractive, accessible and pedestrian friendly center noted for its wide range of quality shopping, entertainment and cultural and recreational amenities.

Policy CD-5.1 – Implement the Gateway and Downtown Main Street Specific Plans. This include attracting specific land uses, completing mobility and beautification improvements and addressing infrastructure needs.

Land Use Element

Goal LU-5 – Establish the Downtown as the mixed-use, mixed-income and cultural heart of El Monte. Its historical role is augmented by new housing, business, parks, cultural facilities, and transit-oriented development. The population is diverse, the architecture is human scaled, and the character authentic.

Policy LU-5.1 – Facilitate continued construction of the El Monte Gateway transit-oriented development around the El Monte Station, with a range of residential, commercial, hotel and recreation uses. This will serve as a destination point for the region and a catalyst for new investment in the Downtown.

2021-2029 Housing Element Goals and Objectives

Goal H-2 – Adequate sites for new housing that create a vibrant downtown, revitalize transportation corridors with quality housing, and motivate reinvestment and revitalization in neighborhoods.

• H-2.1 – Housing Sites. Provide adequate sites through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to allow singlefamily homes, multi-family homes, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), urban housing, mixed-use housing, mobile

homes and special needs housing.

• H-2.4 – Urban Housing. Provide zoning designations necessary to develop urban housing at high densities along Garvey Avenue Corridor and the 5-Points Area, providing for linkages to transit, commercial activity and communities like parks and recreation centers.

• H-2.9 – Neighborhood Protection. Protect established single-family neighborhoods, through measures including use of zoning standards and objective design standards, from the transition, intensification and encroachment of nonresidential uses and higher density housing that detracts from the character of the neighborhood.

• H-2.10 – Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing. Support the development of TODs, which contains a variety of mixed-use projects vertically or horizontally integrated with commercial, professional, entertainment and recreational uses.

2021-2029 Housing Element Programs

The Housing Element includes 37 programs focused on: special planning areas, adequate sites and no net loss; zoning toolbox and permit processing; housing rehabilitation and preservation; housing affordability programs; special needs housing; and fair housing. The Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment specifically implement the following programs:

Program #3 – Implement the Durfee Avenue and Peck Road Corridor Plans, the Downtown Main Street Specific Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan, and develop the MacLaren (Esperanza Village)

Specific Plan:

• By the end of 2024, develop the MacLaren (Esperanza Village) Specific Plan to allow for the development of up to 380 affordable housing units with open space and onsite amenities for families and seniors.

Program #12 – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:

• By the end of 2023, adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance incorporating incentives to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units, include clear development standards and provide alternative methods of compliance.

o Will apply to new projects in the Gateway (SP-1) and Downtown Main Street (SP-4) Specific Plans.

Program #14 – Religious Facilities Standards for Affordable Housing:

• By the end of 2024, create zoning standards to allow the development of affordable housing and market rate housing on properties developed with religious institutions.

o Permitted as a use in the Downtown Main Street (SP4) Specific Plan.

Economic Development Element

Goal ED-5 – Expand businesses and promote new businesses to invent in the continued development and improvement of the Downtown, creating a thriving central place that defines the popular image of El Monte.

SECTION 6 – SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-23

TEXT, TABLE AND FIGURE UPDATES. The Gateway (SP-1); Mountain View (SP-2); Downtown Main Street (SP-4); and Esperanza Village (SP-5) Specific Plans are updated as set forth in Exhibit D (with added text highlighted and underlined and removed text crossed-out).

SECTION 7 – ZONING MAP NO. 1 FINDINGS. All necessary findings to approve the Zoning Map can be made in a positive manner and are as follows:

A. The Zoning Map will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the City. Finding of Fact:

As part of the June 21, 2022 comprehensive update to the Zoning Code, the zoning designations were changed for 24 areas of the City, with a combined area of 126.73 acres. In addition, five (5) zoning districts were removed from the City Zoning Map. This required staff to complete significant updates to the City Zoning Map. Section 17.14.030 (Zoning Classifications and Map – City Zoning Map) of the updated EMMC references the official City Zoning Map (ZM-1). Prior to June 2022, staff used multiple maps to provide the public with zoning information. Staff is in the process of using new mapping software. As part of this transition, staff consolidated all zoning information into one (1) map – i.e., the official City Zoning Map. No properties will have their zoning designation changed as part of this consolidation. Future zone changes will be identified as amendments to the official City Zoning Map.

The official City Zoning Map includes the following Zoning Districts, Specific Plans and Overlay Zones –Residential Zoning Districts –

• One-family Dwelling (R-1A, R-1B and R-1C);

• Low-density Multiple-family Dwelling (R-2);

• Medium-density Multiple-family Dwelling (R-3);

• High-density Multiple-family Dwelling (R-4); and

• Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP).

Multiuse Zoning District –

• Mixed/Multiuse (M/MU).

Commercial Zoning Districts –

• Office Professional (OP);

• Office Commercial (C-1);

• Neighborhood Commercial (C-2); and

• General Commercial (C-3).

Manufacturing Zoning Districts –

• Light Manufacturing (M-1); and

• General Manufacturing (M-2).

Public and Quasi-Public Zoning Districts –

• Airport (AP);

• Railroad (RR);

• Transitway (TW);

• River/Wash (RW);

• Open Space (OS); and

• Public Facilities (PF).

Specific Plans –

• El Monte Gateway Specific Plan (SP-1) and the following Subareas –

o Mixed-use Subdistrict (MU);

o Transit Subdistrict (T);

o River Subdistrict (R); and

o Park and Open Space Subdistrict (POS).

• Mountain View Specific Plan (SP-2);

• Flair Spectrum Specific Plan (SP-3);

• Downtown Main Street Transit Oriented Specific Plan (SP4) and the following Subareas –

o Main Street Subareas (MS);

o Zocalo Subarea (Z);

o Station Subarea (S); and

o Monte Vista Subarea (MV).

• Esperanza Village Specific Plan (SP-5) and the following Subareas –

o Residential Subarea (R);

o Mixed-use Subarea (MU);

o Circulation/Common Area Subarea (CC);

o County-related Subarea (CR); and

o Community Park Subarea (CP).

Overlay Zones and Special Districts –

• Rurban Homestead Overlay District (RHOD);

• Billboard Overlay Zone (BOZ) with Ten (10) Subareas; Valley Entryway Overlay District (VEOD); and

• El Monte Center Sign District (SD-1) (presented to the Plan ning Commission on April 13, 2023, as part of Sign District No. 01-23 and Design Review No. 05-23).

B. The Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose, goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Finding of Fact:

Staff has reviewed the entire City to ensure the zoning designations for individual properties on the official City Zoning Map are consis tent with Figure LU-1 (Land Use Policy Plan – Land Use Map) of the City’s General Plan.

SECTION 8 – ZONING MAP NO. 1 FIGURE. The official City of El Monte Zoning Map as referenced in Section 17.14.030 of the EMMC as set forth in Exhibit E.

SECTION 9 – EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT.

A. Approved Projects. Any permit, entitlement or subdivision map previously approved by a Review Authority shall remain vested, subject to the requirements of the Title in effect on the effective date of approval, unless the approval expires.

B. Pending Projects. Planning permit applications that are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, that have been submitted to the City prior to the effective date of the Code Amendments and Specific Plan Amendment, which do not require a plan amendment, rezone, or other legislative decision, shall be subject to the Title under the rules in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. However, the applicant may choose to use the updated provisions in their entirety.

SECTION 10 – INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS. Any provision of the EMMC or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance’

SECTION 11 – SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof, of its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 12 – PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the

CA NO. 812: OTHER TITLES

Link to Document:

https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6000/C---

SP NO. 02-23: SPECIFIC PLANS

Link to Document:

https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6001/D--Specific-Plans

ZM-1: ZONING MAP

https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6025/CitywideZoning-Map?bidId=

Publish May 8, 2023 EL MONTE EXAMINER

ORDINANCE NO. 3024

SIGN DISTRICT NO. 01-23 (SD-1)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EL MONTE CENTER SIGN DISTRICT OVERLAY TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FREEWAY ORIENTED PYLON SIGN WITH A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 25 FEET

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, the City of El Monte (the “City”) has the authority to enact local planning and land use regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare of their residents through its police power; and

WHEREAS, the City police powers provides the right to adopt and enforce zoning and other regulations; and

WHEREAS, in October 2022, Merlone Geier Partners (MGP) (the “Applicant”) submitted the following entitlement for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council:

• Sign District (SD) No. 01-23: To establish a Special Sign Dis-

trict for the El Monte Center (the SD-1 overlay), on property within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) and General Commercial (C3) zoning districts; and Design Review (DR) No. 05-23: To remove an existing pylon sign and construct a new freeway-oriented pylon sign with a height greater than 25 feet in the SD-1 overlay, on property within the C-3 zoning district; and

WHEREAS, DR No. 05-23 will be considered by the City Council via separate Resolution; and

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the City Council adopted an Ordinance approving Code Amendment No. 811 to update Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the El Monte Municipal Code (EMMC). That update included adding a new Subsection to Chapter 17.80 (Signage Regulations), allowing the creation of a Special Sign District for multiple parcels that may be reasonably grouped together. Development standards for the signs would be incorporated as part of the

WHEREAS, SD-1 applies to the El Monte Center, a 42.2 acre shopping center roughly bounded by Peck Road to the west, Sitka Street to the north, La Madera Avenue to the east and Stewart Street, the railroad and I-10 Freeway to the south (the “Sign District Area”). The Applicant owns a portion of the Sign District Area. The City subsequently expanded the Sign District Area. The Sign District Area

Street Addresses: 3500-3698 Peck Road, 1021-1045 Stewart Street, 11728 Alloway Street and 3515 La Madera Avenue; Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 8567-014-027, -043 & -048; 8567-015-055, -057, -058 & -059; and 8567-016-026, -027,

WHEREAS, the application for SD-1 has been made available for public review at the Planning Division public counter; and

WHEREAS, evidence, both written and oral, were duly presented and considered by the Planning Commission at duly noticed public hearings on April 13, 2023, to consider the proposed Special Sign District. After the close of said public hearings, and after deliberation, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3651, recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2023 to consider the proposed Special Sign District. After the close of said public hearing, and after deliberation, the City Council considered the First Reading of this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, notices of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were placed in a local newspaper in accordance with the EMMC, and all interested persons were given full opportu-

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of

SECTION 1 - RECITALS. The recitals above are true and correct

SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL. This project is exempt by the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, also known as the “Common Sense Exemption” and Section 15311 (Class 11 – Accessory Structures) of the California Public Resources Code, for the construction or replacement of minor ac-

SECTION 3 – SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FINDINGS. All necessary findings to approve SD-1 can be made in a positive manner and

The Special Sign District will not be detrimental to the public

The Special Sign District fully complies with the EMMC. The Special Sign District will require the removal of one (1) freeway-oriented pylon sign and the construction of one (1) new pylon sign. The proposed sign will need to meet all Caltrans’ requirements for signs in proximity to a freeway. In addition, it will be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that it does not disrupt motorists traveling on the freeway or nearby City streets. The City has successfully reviewed other applications for freeway-oriented pylon signs. Any proposed pylon sign will be required to comply with all conditions of approval as incorporated by various City departments and divisions.

B. The Special Sign District is consistent with the purpose, goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Finding of Fact:

The Sign District Area is part of the General Plan’s Auto District Strategic Area. While uses within the Special Sign District will not be limited to vehicle related uses, it will improve the overall economic viability of the area. Over the past year, staff and the Applicant have been working together to attract a new tenant for the former Sears Outlet tenant space. Maintaining a freeway-oriented pylon sign has been identified as crucial to attract a new anchor business/tenant for the El Monte Center. This will have a positive

impact on existing vehicle dealerships and other businesses in the Auto District. Creating a Special Sign District will help implement the following Land Use Element and Economic Development Element Goals and Policies:

• Policy LU-8.3 – Attract, cultivate, and retain auto dealer amenities (theaters, restaurants, shopping, etc.) and necessary automotive support uses (financing, rentals, etc.) that enhance customer experience and support the Auto District.

• Policy ED-8.4 – Supporting Land Uses. Identify, plan for, and attract ancillary uses that support auto dealers and their customers and create a premium car-buying and service experience.

• Policy ED-8.7 – Model Signage. Create model signage regulations to create a unified image of the auto district, both from the freeway and within the Auto District itself.

SECTION 4 – APPLICABLE EXHIBITS. The Special Sign District Boundaries are incorporated as Exhibit A. The Pylon Sign Location is incorporated as Exhibit B. The Special Sign District Development Standards are incorporated as Exhibit C.

SECTION 5 – EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT. Code Amendment No. 811 shall be approved and effective prior to or concurrent to the effective date of the Special Sign District. In addition, Code Amendment No. 811 shall include amended language for Subsection 17.80.050(B)(6) (Signage Regulations –General Procedures: Special Sign Districts) of the EMMC, allowing the establishment of a Special Sign District.

SECTION 7 – SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof, of its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

LEGALS

INVITATION TO BID

Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 1600 and 1601, all bids or proposals shall be submitted through the City’s electronic bid management system (PlanetBids) at https://www.planetbids. com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=43375 by 2:00 pm Pacific Standard Time on or before May 25, 2023 for the project listed below. A bid submitted after the time set shall not be considered. Bidders are required to submit (upload) all items listed in the section 4(d) of Instructions to Bidders, including a copy of the required Bidder’s Bond and acknowledgement of all addendums. Bids will be received by the City via the electronic submission up to the date and time shown in the Notice of Inviting Bids. The City will be responsible for bid tabulations. Bids will be opened and read out loud by the City Clerk’s Office in Council Chambers at the date and time stated in the Notice of Inviting Bids. Bid results will be made available to the public on the City’s website in the electronic bid management system once the bid tabulation has been completed.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the award of any contract shall be subject to approval by the City Council at a duly noticed City Council meeting and the City Council reserves the right to reject all Bids.

The Bidder, by submitting their electronic proposal, agrees to and certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the certification, forms and affidavits submitted as part of this proposal are true and correct. The Bidder, by submitting its electronic bid, acknowledges that doing so carries the same force and full legal effect as a paper submission with a longhand (wet) signature. By submitting an electronic bid, the Bidder certifies that the Bidder has thoroughly examined and understands the entire Contract Documents (which consist of the plans and specifications, drawings, forms, affidavits and the solicitation documents), and that by submitting the electronic bid as its Bid proposal, the Bidder acknowledges, agrees to and is bound by the entire Contract Documents, including any addenda issued thereto, and incorporated by reference in the Contract Documents.

Gibson Mariposa Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 066, Phase 1

The proposed improvements are located within the Gibson Mariposa Skate Park. The improvements are necessary to provide safety enhancement features that will benefit the local community. The proposed improvements will consist of:

Construction of a storm drainage system for the skate park Concrete Improvements

This is a federally assisted construction contract. Federal Labor Standards Provisions outlined in the HUD-4010 form, including prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), will be enforced.

The “current Federal Wage Decision” is the one in effect ten (10) days prior to the bid opening date and can be found online at http://www.wdol.gov In the event of a conflict between federal and state wage rates, the higher of the two will prevail. “The Contractor’s duty to pay State prevailing wages can be found under Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. and Labor Code Sections 1775 and 1777.7 outline the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages and employ apprentices including forfeitures and debarment.” This Project is a “public work,” and thus, the Contractor and any Subcontractors must pay wages in accordance with the determination of the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) regarding the prevailing rate of per diem wages. Copies of those rates are on file with the Director of Public Works and are available to any interested party upon request. The contractor shall post a copy of the DIR’s determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at

Section 3 Statement: This is a HUD Section 3 construction contract. First preference will be given to a bidder who provides a reasonable bid and is a qualified Section 3 Business Concern. Second preference will be given to a bidder who provides a reasonable bid and commits to achieving the Section 3 employment, training, and subcontracting opportunity goals by submitting a Declaration of Intent to comply with Section 3 requirements, including benchmarks. One Section 3 MANDATORY Pre-Bid Meeting will be held to discuss the Section 3 bid preference and goals. The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 10:00am. The mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held at Gibson Mariposa Skate Park, by the amphitheater 4140 Gibson Road, El Monte, CA, 91731,. Bidders shall attend the mandatory pre-bid scheduled meeting. A bidder who is not responsive to the Section 3 requirements of the Housing Development Act of 1968 (as amended), will not receive consider-

A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. It is not a violation for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.

Completion of Work: All work shall be completed within thirty(30) working days from the date designated on the Notice to Proceed.

Obtaining Contract Documents: Specifications and contract documents are posted in the City’s electronic bid management system (PlanetBids) at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal. cfm?CompanyID=43375. All Bidders must first register as a vendor on the City of El Monte PlanetBids System website to participate in a Bid or to be added to a prospective Bidders list. Only those parties that have registered with the City as a plan holder on a particular project will receive the addendum(a) for that project. The City is not responsible for notifications to those parties who do not directly register as a plan holder on the City’s database. It is the responsibility of all perspective Bidders to register on the City’s database to ensure receipt of any addendum(a) prior to Bid submittals. Additionally, information on any addendum(a) issued for any bid specifications for any project will be available on the City website at: https:// www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=43375. The City reserves the right to reject as nonresponsive any bid that fails to include the information required by any addendum(a) posted on the City website.

Questions: Project-specific questions must be submitted in writing through the City’s electronic bid management system (PlanetBids) at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal. cfm?CompanyID=43375 by 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on or before Monday, May 15, 2023. All posted questions will be answered in writing and conveyed via written addenda to all Bidders via posting on PlanetBids.

Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting: One mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 10:00am at Gibson Mariposa Skate Park, 4140 Gibson Road, El Monte, CA, 91731. Every Bidder is required to attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Failure of a Bidder to attend will render that Bidder’s Bid non-responsive. No allowances for cost adjustments will be made if a Bidder fails to adequately examine the Project before submitting a Bid.

Submission of Proposals: All Bids or Proposals shall be submitted through the City’s electronic bid management system (PlanetBids) at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal. cfm?CompanyID=43375 no later than the date and time prescribed. All Bids must be signed by an authorized representative.

All required sections, including pricing, shall be submitted (uploaded) to PlanetBids via the website. The Bidder shall attach Subcontractor(s) Listing, Experience Form, Copy of Bid Security, and all other documents as listed in the BIDDER’S CHECKLIST to the PlanetBids Attachments Tab. The system will not accept a Bid for which any required information is missing. Prior to the Bid due date and time, all Bidders shall submit the original Bid Security to:

Office of the City Clerk

City of El Monte – City Hall East 11333 Valley Blvd El Monte CA, 91731

The award of the contract by the City Council is contingent upon the Bidder submitting the required bonds and insurance, as described in the Contract, prior to the Bid due date and time. If the Bidder fails to comply with these requirements, the City may award the contract to the second or third lowest Bidder and the Bid security of the lowest Bidder may be forfeited.

Bids Remain Sealed Until Due Date and Time. Electronic Bids are transmitted into the City’s bidding system via hypertext transfer protocol secure (https). Bids submitted prior to the due date and time are not available for review by anyone other than the submitter, who will have until the due date and time to change, rescind, or retrieve its bid should they desire to do so. Upon the Bidder’s entry of their bid, the system will ensure that all required fields are entered. The system will not accept a Bid for which any required information is missing. This includes all necessary pricing, subcontractor listing(s) and any other essential documentation and supporting materials and forms requested or contained in these solicitation documents. All Bid submission information must be fully transferred from the Bidder server to the bid system server before bid closing. Bids still transmitting at the time of bid closing will not be accepted. Bidders will receive an e-bid confirmation number with a time stamp from the bid management system indicating their bid was submitted successfully. The City will only receive those bids that were transmitted successfully. DO NOT FAX OR EMAIL.

Bid Security: Each proposal must be accompanied by a Bid Security in the form of a cashier’s check, certified check, or bid bond executed on the prescribed form, in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the total bid price payable to the City of El Monte. Bidders are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of Public Contract Code section 22300, securities may be substituted for any monies which the City may withhold pursuant to the terms of this Contract to ensure performance.

Prior to the bid due date and time, all Bidders shall submit the original Bid Security to the City Clerk. Proof of delivery that is date/ time stamped and signed for by the City Clerk from other couriers other than Certified mail will be accepted. A copy of the proof of delivery shall be submitted with the bid package by the bid due date.

Contractor’s License: Bidder must possess a current Class_”A” - General Engineering Contractor license issued by the State of

California, at the time the bid is submitted.

Contractor Registration: All Bidders and listed subcontractors must have registered with the California State Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 prior to submitting a Bid. Furthermore, a Contractor and all subcontractors must be registered pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 before entering into a contract to work on a public project.

City’s Right to Postpone Opening of Bids. The City reserves the right to postpone the date and time for the opening of Bids at any time prior to the date and time initially announced in this Invitation to Bid in accordance with applicable law.

Opening of Bids. Bids will be received by the City via the electronic submission up to the date and time shown in the Notice of Inviting Bids. The City will be responsible for bid tabulations. Bids will be opened and read out loud by the City Clerk’s Office in Council Chambers at the date and time stated in the Notice of Inviting Bids. Bid results will be made available to the public on the City’s website in the electronic bid management system (PlanetBids) at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=43375 once the bid tabulation has been completed.

Award: The award shall be made to the lowest responsible Bidder whose proposal complies with the specified requirements. The foregoing notwithstanding, the award of any contract shall be subject to approval by the City Council at a duly noticed City Council meeting. Contractor shall execute the Contract within ten (10) days after it has received the Contract from the City. The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in the proposals. No bid may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after the opening of bids.

Rejection of Bids: The City reserves the right to reject any and all Bids. The City further reserves the right to waive immaterial irregularities in any Bid. Any Bid not conforming to the intent and purpose of the Contract Documents may be rejected. The City reserves the right to make all awards in the best interest of the City.

Disqualification of Bidder: If there is a reason to believe that collusion exists among any Bidders, none of the Bids of the participants in such collusion will be considered and the City may likewise elect to reject all bids received.

Wage Rates: Bidders are hereby notified that the California Department of Industrial Relations has determined the general prevailing rate of wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the work. Copies of the current schedules for prevailing wages applicable to this project are on file in the City’s office. It shall be mandatory for the Contractor and any subcontractor under it to pay not less than the said specified rates to laborers and workmen employed by them in the execution of the Contract. The contractor’s duty to pay State prevailing wages can be found under Labor Code, Section 1770 et seq. Labor Code Sections 1775 and 1777.7 outline the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages and employ apprentices including forfeitures and debarment.

This public works construction project is also funded in whole or in part with federal funds. Accordingly, federal labor standards provisions including prevailing wage requirements of the DavidBacon and Related Acts (DBRA) will be enforced. In the event of a conflict between Federal and State prevailing wage rates, the higher of the two will prevail.

Bonds: The successful Bidder will be required to furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price, and a faithful performance bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price.

Conflict of Interest: in the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the sub-recipients, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 OMB Circular A-110, and 24 CFR 570.611, respectively, shall apply. No employee, officer, or agent of the sub-recipient 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.

Publish May 8, 2023

EL MONTE EXAMINER

CITY OF EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE SUMMARY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 2, 2023, the City Council of the City of El Monte, California adopted Ordinance No. 3023 entitled:

ORDINANCE NO. 3023

CODE AMENDMENT NO. 810, NO. 811 AND NO. 812 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-23 AND ZONING MAP NO. 1

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENTS TO REPEAL AND REPLACE IN ITS ENTIRETY TITLE 16 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) AND UPDATE TITLES 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS), 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY), 10 (VEHICLES

AND TRAFFIC), 12 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES), 14 (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) AND 17 (ZONING) OF THE EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE (EMMC); APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE GATEWAY (SP-1), MOUNTAIN VIEW (SP2), DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET (SP-4) AND ESPERANZA VILLAGE (SP-5) SPECIFIC PLANS; AND APPROVING THE OFFICIAL CITY OF EL MONTE ZONING MAP

A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE contents is provided below: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 810

Completed a comprehensive update to Title 16 (Subdivision) of the El Monte Municipal Code.

Division 1 – General

Includes Sections on applicability; review authorities; applicant responsibilities; subdivision permits and actions; project with multiple applications or actions; ability to appeal; application resubmittals; inactive applications; rules and measurements; procedures for interpretations; and fees.

Division 2 – Maps and Procedures

Identifies the types of Subdivision Maps covered in the Subdivision Ordinance. This includes Chapters 16.20 (Maps Required); 16.21 (Tentative Maps); 16.22 (Vesting Tentative Maps); 16.23 (Final Maps and Parcel Maps); Chapter 16.24 (Adjustments, Mergers and Reversions); 16.25 (Urban Lot Splits); 16.26 (Certificates of Compliance); and 16.27 (Condominium Conversions).

Division 3 – Design Standards and Other Requirements

Outlines the design standards and requirements when establishing new parcels. This includes Chapters 16.30 (Design Standards); 16.32 (Dedications and Reservations); 16.34 (Subdivision Improvement Requirements); 16.36 (Subdivision Improvements Security); and 16.38 (Surveys and Monuments).

Division 4 – Definitions

Includes Chapter 16.40 (Definitions) to define key terms used in the Subdivision Ordinance.

CODE AMENDMENT NO. 811

Staff completed an annual update to Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the EMMC. This includes minor changes (e.g. correcting any errors, adding clarifying language, etc.) and more significant changes (revising some development standards, adding new Chapters and Sections for new uses, etc.).

Division A – Matrix of Uses

Includes adding the following new uses: affordable housing in commercial areas; corridor housing; religious institutions housing; temporary uses; commercial manufacturing; and vehicle parking (as a commercial use).

Division 1 – Introduction

• Clarifies the language on transferring lot coverage, floor area ratio (FAR) and residential density from one property to another.

• Adds language on the ability to expand nonconforming residential uses in single-family, multiple-family, commercial and manufacturing zoning districts. Added language on parking and open space requirements.

Division 2 – Residential Zoning Districts and Overlays Revises the maximum FAR for single-family properties.

• Revises the building separation requirements for multiple-family zoning districts.

• Adds new qualifying enhancements to receive an FAR bonus in multiple-family zoning districts.

• Requires recreational amenities for projects with 20 or more units in multiple-family zoning districts.

Division 3 – Mixed/Multiuse Zoning District

Expands the list qualifying recreational amenities to include barbeque with seating/picnic area, designated dog run or play area, horseshoes or cornholes and pickle ball courts.

Division 4 – Commercial and Manufacturing Zoning Districts

Adds a new table outlining residential development standards for commercial zoning districts.

• Moves the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zoning district to Chapter 17.24.

Division 5 – Performance Standards

No significant changes.

Division 6 – General Development Standards

Allows wall heights up to eight (8) feet in commercial zoning districts and fully updates wall standards when there is a grade separation.

Division 7 – Parking and Landscaping Regulations

• Increases the parking requirements for manufacturing uses.

• Adds language to comply with recent state legislation, which eliminates parking minimums for projects within one-half (½) miles of a Major Transit Stop (MTS).

• Fully updates recreational vehicle (RV) parking requirements.

• Adds a new Subsection for the installation and maintenance of artificial turf.

Division 8 – Signage and Billboard Regulations

Adds a new Section allowing the creation of Special Sign Districts for multiple parcels that may be reasonably grouped together. Development standards for the signs would be incorporated within the Special Sign District Ordinance.

Division 9 – Wireless Regulations

No significant changes.

Division 10 – Affordable Housing

• Adds a new Chapter for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance outlining applicability, exemptions, affordable housing unit requirements, alternative forms of compliance, development standards for the affordable units, Inclusionary Housing Agreement requirements, incentives to construct affordable units on-site and the Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund.

• Adds a new Chapter for Affordable Housing in Commercial Areas to comply with recent State legislation.

Division 11 – Regulations Applicable for Specific Uses

• Reviews the Sections on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Urban Dwellings for compliance with recent State legislation.

• Adds a new Section for Corridor Housing to comply with recent State legislation.

• Adds new Section for Religious Institutions Housing. Relocates Urban Lot Splits to Title 16 (Subdivision).

Division 12 – Applications and Permits

• Updates the Zoning Clearance Chapter and replaced Administrative Permits with Director Level Zoning Clearances.

• Adds a new Section outlining requirements for Business Occupancy Permits.

• Adds a new Chapter for Temporary Use Permits.

• Increases the length of approval for most entitlements from one (1) year to two (2) years.

Division 13 – Specific Plans

• Adds new Chapters for the Mountain View and Esperanza Village Specific Plans.

Adds façade remodels as another type of private improvements that may qualify for Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR) credits in the Downtown Main Street Specific Plan.

Division 14 – Comprehensive Design Guidelines

No significant changes.

Division 15 – Definitions

Adds definitions for all new land uses.

CODE AMENDMENT NO. 812

Minor updates to Titles 1 (General Provisions), 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations), 8 (Health and Safety), 10 (Vehicles and Traffic), 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) and 14 (Sustainable Development) of the EMMC.

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-23

Minor updates to the Gateway (SP-1) and Downtown Main Street (SP-4) to remain consistent with updates made to Division 13 of Title 17.

ZONING MAP NO. 1

Consolidated the City’s Zoning Map, Specific Plan Maps and Overlay Zones into one official City of El Monte Zoning Map. Zoning boundaries did not change. However, some adjustments were made to the boundaries of the Billboard Overlay Zone.

THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE on May 2, 2023 at a noticed public hearing for public posting with the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Ancona, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Councilmembers Cortez, Martinez Muela, Puente, Rojo and Ruedas

NOES: None

ABSTAINS: None

ABSENT: None

A copy of the full text/graphics of the Ordinance is available at the following:

• Hard Copy: Visit the office of the City Clerk at El Monte City Hall; 11333 Valley Boulevard; El Monte, California, 91731; Monday through Thursday, except legal holidays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM;

• City Website:

o Code Amendment No. 810: https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/6002/A---Subdivision-Ordinance

o Code Amendment No. 811: https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6040

o Code Amendment No. 812: https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/6000/C---Other-Titles

o Specific Plan Amendment No. 02-23 https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/6001/D---Specific-Plans

o Zoning Map No. 1 https://www.elmonteca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6039

• Email: Jason C. Mikaelian, AICP, Deputy Director, Community

/s/ Linda Rodriguez Assistant City Clerk

Dated: April 27, 2023

Publish: May 1, May 4, and May 8, 2023

ARCADIA WEEKLY

Temple City Notices

CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE

SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36933(c)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AT ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED:

ORDINANCE NO. 23-1072

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 (STORMWATER POLLUTANT ELIMINATION) AND SECTION 9-1N-10 (LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GREEN STREETS) OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMIT

THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES ORDINANCE 23-1072:

The Ordinance amends the Temple City Municipal Code Title 8 (Stormwater Pollutant Elimination) and Title 9, Section 9-1N-10 (Low Impact Development Standards and Green Streets). These code amendments will ensure that the City’s Municipal Code complies with California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Order No. R4-2021-0105 (MS4 Permit), which establishes waste discharge requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County.

Ordinance No. 23-1072 was introduced for first reading at the City Council Regular Meeting of April 18, 2023, and adopted at the City Council Regular Meeting of May 2, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember- Sternquist, Vizcarra, Yu, Chavez, Man

NOES: Councilmember- None

ABSENT: Councilmember- None

RECUSED: Councilmember- None

A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance is available for review on the City’s website, www.templecity.us. Anyone having questions may contact the City Clerk at (626) 285-2171.

Dated: May 3, 2023

Published: May 8, 2023

Probate Notices

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 knowl-edgeable in California law.

& Professions Code, Section 2328 of the UCC, Section 535 of the Penal Code and provisions of the Civil Code. Any vehicles sold will be under Section 3071 of motor vehicle code.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: HELEN RODRIGUEZ CASE

NO. 23STPB04304

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of HELEN

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JESUS M. RODRIGUEZ AND ARLEEN OCHOA in the Superior Court of California, County

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JESUS M. RODRIGUEZ AND ARLEEN OCHOA 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

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 06/02/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 11 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA

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 Petitioner

ANNA VALIENTE GOMEZ - SBN 246661

2146 BONITA AVENUE LA VERNE CA 91750 BSC 223277 5/1, 5/4, 5/8/23 CNS-3695297# EL MONTE EXAMINER

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 this court as follows: 05/30/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 29 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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 Petitioner MONICA GOEL - SBN 211549, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE LLP

2010 MAIN STREET, STE. 1000 IRVINE CA 92614 BSC 223284

5/1, 5/4, 5/8/23

CNS-3695507# AZUSA BEACON

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF SANDRA M. HART

Case No. 23STPB04599

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of SANDRA M. HART

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Phyllis B. Cohen in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Phyllis B. Cohen be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

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 petitioner:

WILLIAM J ZEUTZIUS JR ESQ SBN 152829

LAW OFFICES OF ZEUTZIUS & LABRAN 234 E COLORADO BLVD STE 520 PASADENA CA 91101 CN996373 HART

May 8,11,15, 2023 DUARTE DISPATCH

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF Phillip Lin, also known as Lip Sananikone CASE NO. 23STPB04622

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of: Phillip Lin, also known as Lip Sananikone

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Lee Sananikone in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Lee Sananikone 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 with full authority . (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 on 06/07/2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 9 located at 111 N. HILL ST. LOS ANGELES CA 90012 STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE.

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.

The Online bidding starts on 4/19/2023 and ends at 9:00AM on 05/15/2023. Full access to this auction can be viewed at www.bid13.com. The undersigned will be sold by competitive bidding at BID13 on or after the 05/15/2023 at 9:00AM or later, on the premises where said property has been stored and which are located at:

Mt.Olive Storage 1500 Crestfield Dr. Duarte, CA 91010 County of Los Angeles State of California

Unit sold appear to contain:

Misc. furniture, household goods, and boxes, tools, luggage, clothes, electronics, Bikes

Belonging to:

G55 Chris M Ramos

D36 Leslie Smutz

J33 Thomas P Ray Purchases must be paid for at the time of purchase in CASH ONLY. All purchased items sold as is and must be removed at the time of sale. Sale subject to cancellation in the event of settlement between owner and obligated party.

Bid 13 HST License #864431754

This notice will be published on the following dates: May 1, 2023 & May 8, 2023 in the DUARTE DISPATCH

NOTICE OF PUBLIC LIEN SALE

In accordance with provisions of State Law, There being due and unpaid charges for which the undersigned is entitled to satisfy an owner and/or manager’s lien of the goods herein after described and stored at the LifeStorage location listed below.

1727 Buena Vista Street, Duarte, CA 91010, 626/775-7690

Customer Name – Inventory

Dave Guerra Hsld gds/Furn

And, due notice having been given, to the owner of said property and all parties known to claim an interest therein, and the time specified in such notice for payment of such having expired, the goods will be sold to the highest bidder or otherwise disposed of at a public auction to be held online at www.storagetreasures.com which will end Thursday May 25, 2023 @10AM

Published on May 1, 2023 & May 8, 2023 in the DUARTE DISPATCH.

NOTICE OF $10,000 REWARD OFFERED BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI-SORS

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.

23STPB04344

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ARIES B. MORALES CASE NO.

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of ARIES B. MORALES.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PAT DUGQUEM AND ARMI DEDICATORIA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PAT DUGQUEM AND ARMI DEDICATORIA 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

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 administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on June 6, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 2D located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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 ap-pearance 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

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 (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 Petitioner:

Cindy Nguyen, Esq. (273886) 3733 Rosemead Blvd., Suite 201 Rosemead, CA 91770

Telephone: (626) 307- 2800 5/4, 5/8, 5/11/23

CNS-3697507# SAN GABRIEL SUN

Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has extended the $10,000 reward offered in exchange for information leading to the apprehen-sion and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the fatal shooting of 46-year-old Terry Alford, who was found in front of a residence located on the 100 block of Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Mon-rovia suffering from multiple gunshot wounds on January 29, 2021, at approximately 5:00 p.m. Si no entiende esta noticia o necesita mas informacion, favor de llamar al (213) 974-1579. Any person having any information related to this crime is requested to call Detective Cynthia Sanchez at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Homicide Bureau at (323) 890-5617 or Crime Stoppers at (800) 222-8477 and refer to Report No. 02100014-3199-011. The terms of the reward provide that: The information given that leads to the determination of the identity, the apprehension and conviction of any person or persons must be given no later than October 16, 2023. All reward claims must be in writing and shall be received no later than De-cember 15, 2023. The total County payment of any and all rewards shall in no event exceed $10,000 and no claim shall be paid prior to conviction unless the Board of Supervisors makes a finding of impossibility of conviction due to the death or inca-pacity of the person or persons responsible for the crime or crimes. The County reward may be apportioned between various persons and/or paid for the conviction of various persons as the circum-stances fairly dictate. Any claims for the reward funds should be filed no later than December 15, 2023, with the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors, 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, Cali-fornia 90012, Attention: Terry Alford Reward Fund. For further information, please call (213) 974-1579. CELIA ZAVALA EXECUTIVE OFFICER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CN995441 04046

May 4,8,11,15,18,22,25,29, Jun 1,8, 2023 MONROVIA WEEKLY

NOTICE OF $20,000 REWARD OFFERED BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has established a $20,000 reward offered in exchange for information leading to the apprehen-sion and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the heinous murder of 40-year-old Carlos Alva-rez-Diaz, who was fatally shot while he drove north on Norwalk Boulevard at 226th

Peggy Kuo, City Clerk

Starting a new business?

Glendale City Notices

NOTICE CALLING FOR BIDS

Sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 for:

THE LEGAL ADVERTISING WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE

Bids will be opened publicly at or about 2:00 P.M. of said day in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, in the City of Glendale, California.

The work shall be done in accordance with Specification No. 3944 on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale, where they may be examined copies obtained.

Bids shall be made in duplicate on the proposal form obtainable at the Office of the City Clerk.

Bidders are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Council of the City of Glendale has ascertained and determined by Resolution No.23-54 as amended, the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for legal holiday and overtime work for each craft or type of worker needed in the execution of contracts with the City of Glendale. Said Resolution is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein and made a part hereof the same as though fully set forth herein.

The City of Glendale reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informalities or technical defects as the best interests of the City may require.

Suzie Abajian, City Clerk City of Glendale

Publish May 4 & May 8, 2023

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE INVITING BIDS

NOTICE is hereby given that the City of Glendale (“City”) will receive sealed Bids, before the Bid Deadline established below for the following work of improvement:

FISCAL YEAR 2023 ADA CURB RAMP INSTALLATION AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM SPECIFICATION NO. 3913R

Bid Deadline: Submit before 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 (“the Bid Deadline”)

3. Completion: This Work must be completed within One Hundred Twenty Five (125) Working days from the Date of Commencement as established by the City’s written Notice to Proceed.

4. Acceptance or Rejection of Bids. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Bids, to award all or any individual part/item of the Bid, and to waive any informalities, irregularities or technical defects in such Bids and determine the lowest responsible Bidder, whichever may be in the best interests of the City. No late Bids will be accepted, nor will any oral, facsimile or electronic Bids be accepted by the City.

5. Contractor License. At the time of the Bid Deadline and at all times during performance of the Work, including full completion of all corrective work during the Correction Period, the Contractor must possess a California contractor license or licenses, current and active, of the classification required for the Work, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division 3, Section 7000 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code. In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 3300, the City has determined that the Bidder must possess the following license(s):

a. Pursuant to Section 3300, of the Public Contract Code, the classification of the bidder’s Contractor’s License shall be “Class A” For sewer cleaning and video, use Class A, C-36, C-42, or D-38). Failure of a bidder to obtain adequate licensing at the time the contract is awarded shall constitute a failure to execute the Contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the Bidder’s Bond.

b. For federally funded projects, the Contractor shall be properly licensed at the time of award. The successful Bidder will not receive a Contract award if the successful Bidder is unlicensed, does not have all of the required licenses, or one or more of the licenses are not current and active. If the City discovers after the Contract’s award that the Contractor is unlicensed, does not have all of the required licenses, or one or more of the licenses are not current and active, the City may cancel the award, reject the Bid, declare the Bid Bond as forfeited, keep the Bid Bond’s proceeds, and exercise any one or more of the remedies in the Contract Documents.

6. Subcontractors’ Licenses and Listing. At the time of the Bid Deadline and at all times during performance of the Work, each listed Subcontractor must possess a current and active California contractor license or licenses appropriate for the portion of the Work listed for such Subcontractor and shall hold all specialty certifications required for such Work. When the Bidder submits its Bid to the City, the Bidder must list each Subcontractor whom the Bidder must disclose under Public Contract Code Section 4104 (Subcontractor Listing Law), and the Bidder must provide all of the Subcontractor information that Section 4104 requires (name, the location (address) of the Subcontractor’s place of business, California Contractor license number, California Department of Industrial Relations contractor registration number, and portion of the Work). In addition, the City requires that the Bidder list the dollar value of each Subcontractor’s labor or services. The City’s disqualification of a Subcontractor does not disqualify a Bidder. However, prior to and as a condition to award of the Contract, the successful Bidder shall substitute a properly licensed and qualified Subcontractor— without an adjustment of the Bid Amount.

7. Permits, Inspections, Plan Checks, Governmental Approvals, Utility Fees and Similar Authorizations: The City has applied and paid for the following Governmental Approvals and Utility Fees:

All other Governmental Approvals and Utility Fees shall be obtained and paid for by Contractor and will be reimbursed based on Contractor’s actual direct cost without markup.

See Instructions to Bidders Paragraph 14, and General Conditions Paragraph 1.01 for definitions and Paragraph 1.03 for Contractor responsibilities.

8. Bid Forms and Bid Security: Each Bid must be made on the Bid Forms obtainable from the City’s Bidding website listed in the paragraph 1 above. Each Bid shall be accompanied by a cashier’s check or certified check drawn on a solvent bank, payable to “City of Glendale,” for an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the total maximum amount of the Bid. Alternatively, a satisfactory corporate surety Bid Bond for an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the total maximum amount of the Bid may accompany the Bid. Said security shall serve as a guarantee that the successful Bidder, within fourteen (14) calendar days after the City’s Notice of Award of the Contract, will enter into a valid contract with the City for said Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

9. Bid Irrevocability. Bids shall remain open and valid for ninety (90) calendar days after the Bid Deadline.

10. Substitution of Securities. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22300, substitution of securities for withheld funds is permitted in accordance therewith.

tached two-car garage on a 7,166 SF, vacant, hillside lot in the R1R-II (Restricted Residential Zone, Floor Area Ratio District II) Zone. VARIANCES are requested for a reduced street front setback (six feet whereas 15 feet is required) and to provide a ten-foot driveway length (18 feet required). ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS are requested to develop the project on a substandard lot size (7,166 whereas 7,500 SF is required) and to exceed the maximum allowed height (32 feet) by four feet (36 feet).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” per Section 15303(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project involves construction of one single-family residence. The on-site oak tree is not a protected species and the protected oak tree near the site is over 20 feet away from the property line.

HEARING INFORMATION

The Planning Hearing officer will conduct a public hearing regarding the above project at 633 E. Broadway (Municipal Services Building) Room 105, Glendale, CA 91206, on May 24, 2023, AT 9:30 AM or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is to hear comments from the public with respect to zoning concerns. The hearing will be held in accordance with Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Chapter 30.43. and 30.44. The meeting can be viewed on Charter Cable Channel 6 or streamed online at: https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/gtv6/livevideo-stream. For public comments and questions during the meeting call 818-937-8100. City staff will be submitting these questions and comments in real time to the appropriate person during the Planning Hearing Officer Hearing. You may also testify in person at the hearing if you wish to do so.

If the final decision is challenged in court, testimony may be limited to issues raised before or at the public hearing.

The staff report and case materials will be available a week before the hearing date at www.glendaleca.gov/agendas.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: If you desire more information on the proposal, please contact the case planner Cassandra Pruett in the Planning Division at CPruett@glendaleca.gov, or (818) 937-8186, or (818) 548-2140.

Any person having an interest in the subject project may participate in the hearing, by phone as outlined above, and may be heard in support of his/her opinion. Any person protesting may file a duly signed and acknowledged written protest with the Director of Community Development not later than the hour set for public hearing before the Hearing Officer. “Acknowledged” shall mean a declaration of property ownership (or occupant if not owner) under penalty of perjury. If you challenge the decision of this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Glendale, at or prior to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, please notify the Community Development Department at least 48 hours (or two business days) for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services.

When a final decision is rendered, a decision letter will be posted online at www.glendaleca.gov/planning/decisions. An appeal may be filed within 15 days of the final decision date appearing on the decision letter. Appeal forms are available at https://www.glendaleca.gov/ home/showdocument?id=11926

Dr. S. Abajian

The City Clerk of the City of Glendale

Publish May 8, 2023

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

Monterey Park City Notices

Bidding Documents Available: Bidding documents are also available to view and download online at: https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/finance/purchasing/rfp-rfq-page/fsiteid-1

11. Prevailing Wage Resolution. Bidders are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City has ascertained and determined by Resolution No. 18,626 (as amended), the general prevailing rate of per diem wages of a similar character in the locality in which the Work is performed and the general prevailing rate for legal holiday and overtime Work for each craft or type of worker needed in the execution of agreements with the City. Said resolution is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is hereby incorporated and made a part hereof by the same as though fully set forth herein. Copies of said resolution may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk.

12. Prevailing Wages. This Project is subject to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1720. Contractor awarded this Contract and all Subcontractors of any tier shall not pay less than the minimum prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Work. The Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California, pursuant to the California Labor Code, and the United States Secretary of Labor, pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, have determined the general prevailing rates of wages in the locality in which the Work is to be performed. The rates determined by the California Director of Industrial Relations are available online at www. dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/. Davis-Bacon wage rates are available online at www.wdol.gov/.

LEGAL NOTICE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 2229

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 12 OF THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO REPEAL AND REPLACE PROVISION AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING ENCROACHMENTS INTO PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHT OF WAYS

The Monterey Park City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2229 at the April 19, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

818-242-7087

E-mail: SMody@GlendaleCA.gov

Mandatory Qualifications for Bidder and Designated Subcontractors:

A Bid may be rejected as non-responsive if the Bid fails to document that Bidder meets the essential requirements for qualification. As part of the Bidder’s Statement of Qualifications, each Bid must provide satisfactory evidence that:

204 Bidder satisfactorily completed at least four (4) prevailing wage public contracts in California; each comparable in scope and scale to this Project, within three (3) years prior to the Bid Deadline and with a dollar value in excess of the Bid submitted for this Project.

General Scope of Work:

Contractor shall furnish labor, materials, equipment, services, and specialized skills to perform work involved in the Project. The Work included in the Bid is defined in accordance with Specification No. 3913R and Plan Nos. 1-3097, 1-3099, 2-409 and 23-19. The work generally includes: Selective removal and replacement of deteriorated Portland cement concrete (including street and alley) and Asphalt concrete pavement (including street and alley); the grading and preparation of the sub grade; selective removal ,repair and reconstruction of damaged curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, and alley aprons; remodeling of roof drains; curb ramp modification and reconstruction to meet the ADA guidelines requirements; Installation of permeable concrete gutter and new asphalt concrete pavement; installation of striping, pavement marking and signage; disposal of all construction debris, including disposal of asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavements as shown on the project plans and specifications, Standard Plans for Public Works Construction (SPPWC 2021 Edition), and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (2021 Edition), including all supplements thereto issued prior to bid opening date.

Other Bidding Information: Number of Contract Working Days: 125 Working Days

Amount of Liquidated Damages: $1,650 per Calendar Day Required Construction Staging: Work shall be completed in Nine Phases as follows:

1: Curb Ramps at Lexington/Kenwood and Lexington/Howard Street Phase 2: Viscano Drive and Ethel Street Improvements

Street

Phase 7: Maintenance District 7, South of Mountain Street

Phase 8: Maintenance District 4

Phase 9: Maintenance District 5

Other Bidding Information:

1. Bidding Documents: Bids must be made on the Bidder’s Proposal form contained herein. Bidding Documents may be obtained in the Public Works Engineering Department, 633 E. Broadway, Room 205, Glendale, CA 91206 where they may be examined. Electronic copies of bidding documents can be obtained at no cost from: https:// www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/finance/purchasing/rfp-rfq-page/-fsiteid-1.

Future addenda, if any, will be available for download on the same page as the bidding documents. The city will not mail/deliver the addenda to the prospective bidders. It is the bidders’ sole responsibility to check the website to obtain future addenda to this bid document. Prospective bidders shall acknowledge the receipt of the addenda in the bid forms.

2. Engineer’s Estimate: The preliminary cost of construction of this Work has been prepared. The estimate is in the range of $2,850,000 to $3,150,000.

To the extent that there are any differences in the federal and state prevailing wage rates for similar classifications of labor, Contractor and its Subcontractors shall pay the highest wage rate.

13. California Department of Industrial Relations ― Public Works Contractor Registration.

Beginning July 1, 2014, under the Public Works Contractor Registration Law (California Senate Bill No. 854 - See Labor Code Section 1725.5), contractors must register and meet requirements using the online application https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/PWCR/ActionServlet?a ction=displayPWCRegistrationForm before bidding on public works contracts in California. The application also provides agencies that administer public works programs with a searchable database of qualified contractors. Application and renewal are completed online with a non-refundable fee of $300. More information is available at the following links: http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE/PublicWorks/SB854FactSheet_6.30.14.pdf http://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/PublicWorks.html

Beginning April 1, 2015, the City must award public works projects only to contractors and subcontractors who comply with the Public Works Contractor Registration Law.

Notice to Bidders and Subcontractors:

• No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a Bid proposal for a public works project (submitted on or after March 1, 2015) unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code Section 1771.1(a)].

No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project (awarded on or after April 1, 2015) unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

• The prime contractor must post job site notices prescribed by regulation.

(See 8 Calif. Code Reg. Section 16451(d) for the notice that previously was required for projects monitored by the DIR Compliance Monitoring Unit.)

Furnishing of Electronic Certified Payroll Records to Labor Commissioner. For all new projects awarded on or after April 1, 2015, contractors and subcontractors must furnish electronic certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner (aka Division of Labor Standards Enforcement).

Dated this ____ day of _______, 20___, City of Glendale, California.

Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale

Publish May 4 & May 8, 2023

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

The adopted ordinance repealed and replaced current provisions and procedures under Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 13.12 and provides new permit requirements, including, exceptions to permits, procedures for permit application process, permit insurance requirements, guidelines for excavation in recently resurfaced public streets, requirements for traffic control plans and procedures for administrative review of permit decisions.

Adoption of Ordinance No. 2229 took place at the May 3, 2023, regular City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the City of Monterey Park, California.

For a copy of Ordinance No. 2229, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359.

Approved as submitted above:

Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney

ATTEST:

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Publish May 8, 2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE RECONNECTION OF WATER SERVICES

TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing will be held before the City Council on Wednes-day, June 7, 2023, 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the Monterey Park City Council Chambers, 320 W. Newmark Ave; regarding the proposed updated fees for the Reconnection of Water Services. The proposed updated fee of $40 Monday through Thursday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M and $225 for afterhour reconnection would re-cover costs resulting from the reconnection of water services. Following the public hearing, the City Council may adopt the proposed update to reconnection of water ser-vices in accordance with applicable law.

At any time before or during the public hearing, any person or organization may file a written statement with the City Clerk, of his or her opinions with respect to the proposed amendments. Any person or organization desiring to be heard will be given an oppor-tunity to do so. Copies of the proposed fees for the reconnection of water services are available at the City Clerk’s office, 320 W. Newmark Ave, Monterey Park, CA. If you have any questions regarding this hearing or any other matter, you may call the Fi-nance Department office at (626) 307-1458. Note that any appeal of a decision made following a public hearing may be limited to the issues raised by evidence submitted before or during that public hearing.

Publish May 8, 2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

ESTHER BEATRICE WILEY

CASE NO. PROSB2300268

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of ESTHER BEATRICE WILEY.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TROY WILEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TROY WILEY 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 this court as follows:

07/06/23 at 9:00AM in Dept. S37 located at 247 W. THIRD STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415

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 Petitioner ELIZABETH MCDONOUGH BARRY - SBN 159143, BARRY AND BARRY

404 N. SECOND AVENUE UPLAND CA 91786

BSC 223271

5/1, 5/4, 5/8/23

CNS-3694896#

ONTARIO NEWS PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

JIMMY ALBERTO STEWART

AKA JIMMY STEWART

CASE NO. 23STPB04442

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of

to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act with limited authority. (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 this court as follows: 05/26/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 4 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FRED A. GLIENNA

CASE NO. 23STPB04747

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of FRED A. GLIENNA.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AARON N. JACOBS in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AARON N. JACOBS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

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 this court as follows:

06/06/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 11 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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.

JIMMY ALBERTO STEWART AKA

JIMMY STEWART.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by GILBERT STEWART in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that GILBERT STEWART 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 with limited authority. (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 this court as follows:

06/06/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 2D located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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 Petitioner ROBERT L. COHEN, ESQ. - SBN 150913, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. COHEN, INC. 8081 ORANGETHORPE AVE BUENA PARK CA 90621 5/1, 5/4, 5/8/23

CNS-3695253#

BALDWIN PARK PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

JOHN DAVID ANDERSON

AKA JOHN ANDERSON, JR.

CASE NO. 23STPB04205

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of JOHN DAVID ANDERSON AKA JOHN ANDERSON, JR..

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ANDREW ANDERSON in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANDREW ANDERSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests authority

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 Petitioner

GILBERT A. MORET - SBN 38113, LAW OFFICES OF GILBERT A. MORET 5430 E. BEVERLY BLVD., STE. 250 LOS ANGELES CA 90022 5/1, 5/4, 5/8/23 CNS-3695304# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LUCIA M. GODINEZ CASE NO. 23STPB04555

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of LUCIA M. GODINEZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JESUS GODINEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JESUS GODINEZ 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 this court as follows: 06/05/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 9 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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

Attorney for Petitioner MICHAEL G. EBINER, ESQ. - SBN 183499, EBINER LAW OFFICE 100 N. CITRUS STREET, SUITE 520 WEST COVINA CA 91791 5/4, 5/8, 5/11/23

CNS-3696292# BALDWIN PARK PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN JOSE DIAZ CASE NO. 23STPB04604

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of JUAN JOSE DIAZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JORGE RAMON JUAREZ in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JORGE RAMON JUAREZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL 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 this court as follows:

06/07/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 9 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL 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 this court as follows: 07/27/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 67 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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 Petitioner

LINDA TOROSSIAN - SBN 238456

TAYLOR SUMMERS & TOROSSIAN, P.C. 301 E COLORADO BLVD., STE 450 PASADENA CA 91101 5/8, 5/11, 5/15/23

CNS-3697649#

PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARILYN LEE TEMPLEMAN CASE NO. 23STPB04548

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of MARILYN LEE TEMPLEMAN.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LORI G. TEMPLEMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LORI G. TEMPLEMAN 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

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 Petitioner JENNIFER L. FIELD - SBN 236565, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER L. FIELD 405 N. INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD CLAREMONT CA 91711 BSC 223289 5/4, 5/8, 5/11/23 CNS-3696154# WEST COVINA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF DANIEL YET-MAN CHANG

Case No. 23STPB03198

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of Daniel Yet-Man Chang

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Grace Chang in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Grace Chang be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will 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 on June 6, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 79. located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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.

Fictitious Business Name Filings

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as (1). FLOW LANDSCAPE LLC (2). FLOW LANDSCAPE (3). FLOW LANDSCAPES (4). FLOW AQUASCAPES (5). FLOW AQUASCAPE (6). FLOW 4724 Golden Ridge Drive Corona, CA 92878

Riverside County FLOW LANDSCAPE LLC (CA), 4724 Golden Ridge Dr, Corona, CA 92878

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a limited liability company (llc). Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on June 16, 2018. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. STANLEY SUH, PRESIDENT

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on March 24, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# 202304538 Pub. 04/03/2023, 04/10/2023, 04/17/2023, 04/24/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as (1). Boat Removers (2). Boat & RV Removers 35099 CA-74 SPC E4 Hemet, CA 92545 Riverside County Lando Fehrenbach, 35099 CA-74 SPC E4, Hemet, CA 92545 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is

LEGALS

guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Lando Fehrenbach Statement filed with the County of Riverside on March 30, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# 202304900

Pub. 04/10/2023, 04/17/2023, 04/24/2023, 05/01/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as

Showtime Tattoo Gallery 24877 Sunnymead Blvd Moreno Valley, CA 92553

Riverside County

Showtime Tattoo Gallery LLC (CA), 23815 Hemlock Ave #5, Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a limited liability company (llc). Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Francisco Ramos, Manager Statement filed with the County of Riverside on April 4, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Pub. 04/10/2023, 04/17/2023, 04/24/2023, 05/01/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Eddcart 1075 Mountain Grove Ln Corona, CA 92881 Riverside County (1). DESTI YUINGRA NGUI, 1075 Mountain Grove Ln, Corona, CA 92881 (2). DENNY TEJAKUSUMA, 1075 Mountain Grove Ln, Corona, CA 92881 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a married couple. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. DESTI YUINGRA NGUI

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on April 5, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# R-202305260

Pub. 04/10/2023, 04/17/2023, 04/24/2023, 05/01/2023 Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Muresan Insurance Agency 11840 Pierce St #200 Riverside, CA 92505 Riverside County

Romeo Sebastian Muresan, 17148 Rocky Bend Ct, Riverside, CA 92505 Riverside County

s. Romeo Sebastian Muresan Statement filed with the County of Riverside on April 12, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# R-202305645 Pub. 04/17/2023, 04/24/2023, 05/01/2023, 05/08/2023 Riverside Independent

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT File No. FBN20230004297

mon law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code) File#: FBN20230004297 Pub: 05/08/2023, 05/15/2023, 05/22/2023, 05/29/2023 San Bernardino Press

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as GS MARKETING 10800 Hole Avenue Riverside, CA 92505 Riverside County John Bohen, 10800 Hole Avenue, Riverside, CA 92505

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on April 1, 2023. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. John Bohen Statement filed with the County of Riverside on April 21, 2023

information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Marco A Ojeda. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on March 27, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920.

A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code) File#: 20230003064 Pub: 05/08/2023, 05/15/2023, 05/22/2023, 05/29/2023 San Bernardino Press

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202306216 Pub. 05/08/2023, 05/15/2023, 05/22/2023, 05/29/2023

Riverside Independent

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. 20230003064

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as GS MARKETING 10800 Hole Avenue Riverside, CA 92505 Riverside County John Bohen, 10800 Hole Avenue, Riverside, CA 92505 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on April 1, 2023. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. John Bohen

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on April 21, 2023

Peter Aldana, County,

Clerk File# R-202305142

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on May 28, 2015. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

The following persons are doing business as: IRIE Smart Home Design, 27410 N Bay Rd, Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352. Mailing Address, PO Box 291, Blue Jay, CA 92317. Phoebe V Kimble, 27410 N. Bay Rd, Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on March 1, 2017. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Phoebe V Kimble. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on April 27, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or com -

The following persons are doing business as: Ojeda Construction, 512 W Lorraine Pl, Rialto, CA 92376. Marco A Ojeda, 512 W Lorraine Pl, Rialto, CA 92376. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on January 3, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# R-202306216 Pub. 05/08/2023, 05/15/2023, 05/22/2023, 05/29/2023 Riverside Independent

State audit critical of CalOptima’s slow spending in Orange County

By Paul Anderson, City News Service

Astate audit of CalOptima released Tuesday criticized Orange County’s insurer for the needy for being slow to spend money and possibly violating state law in its hiring of a CEO in 2020.

“We determined that CalOptima accumulated surplus funds it should have used to improve services, retained a larger share of funds obtained through a process known as intergovernmental transfer than other managed care plans we reviewed, and did not follow best practices when hiring for some executive positions,” State Auditor Grant Parks wrote in a letter for the report to Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Senate.

“CalOptima had accumulated more than $1.2 billion in unrestricted funds as of June 2022,” Parks wrote. “It set aside $570 million of these funds as a reserve, which we determined was prudent, but the remaining $675 million represent surplus funds. An Orange County ordinance requires CalOptima to implement a financial plan that provides for using surplus funds on specific purposes, such as improving benefits, but CalOptima does not have a plan for spending all of its surplus funds and has struggled to use them in a timely manner.”

The county has also “retained a larger share of (intergovernmental transfer

funds) than other managed care plans we reviewed,” he added. “Although it allocated a significant portion of its retained (intergovernmental transfer) funds for health care initiatives focused on members experiencing homelessness, it did not consistently monitor the effective use of those funds.”

The agency’s “executive turnover rate”’ is higher than other managed care plans, Parks said.

“However, it did not follow best practices when hiring three of six executives we reviewed, and one of its former board members may have violated state law when he entered into an employment contract to serve as the organization’s chief executive officer,” Parks said.

“CalOptima lacked a written policy that could have guided its approach to hiring in these instances. As a result of its practices, CalOptima has limited its ability to attract and select the most qualified candidates, and it has opened itself to criticism about the objectivity, appropriateness and transparency of its hiring process.”

The county hired Richard Sanchez, then the Health Care Agency director, to take over CalOptima in March 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic began. Sanchez had intended to retire a year prior, but Orange County CEO Frank Kim said at the time that he

had “begged” him to stay.

Sanchez took over for Michael Schrader, who had taken a similar job with another health insurance company at the time. Sanchez was viewed as an expert familiar with CalOptima and the Health Care Agency as the county was working to implement a state plan to merge care and services for physical and mental health, officials said.

Sanchez’s hiring also came at a time when Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do was pushing CalOptima to free up spending to provide more services for the homeless.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Don Wagner, who joined the board in 2019, told City News Service that the agency has “significant reserves, but I do believe (CalOptima CEO) Michael Hunn is working to spend it down to in my mind is an

appropriate level.”

As for the way Sanchez was hired, Wagner said, “I don’t think they’ll make that mistake again. I hope they’ve learned their lesson, which I believe from Michael that they have.”

Supervisor Doug Chaffee issued a statement saying that since he began serving on CalOptima’s board about a year ago the agency has implemented a plan “that focuses on improving access to high-quality health care services for all members. These programs include $108.1 million in COVID-19 supplemental payments to health care networks and qualified providers, $50.1 million toward a five-year comprehensive cancer screening and support program, $8 million for a street medicine program serving individuals experiencing homelessness, $7 million toward the OC Health Care Agency’s

outreach and engagement team, $5 million toward a National Alliance for Mental Illness support program, and $700,000 toward a Homeless Clinical Access Program extension.”

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who was recently appointed to the CalOptima board, issued a statement saying, “The public’s trust is important when it comes to any public agency, especially the county’s publicly funded health plan. Although I am a new member on the CalOptima board and the issues identified in this audit precede my time, I am nonetheless fully committed to working with the other directors and staff to take the corrective actions necessary and ensure that CalOptima is operating transparently and according to best practices going forward.”

CalOptima officials issued a statement saying many of the recommended reforms from the audit were already underway.

“As the largest health insurer in Orange County serving our most vulnerable populations, opportunities to increase transparency and improve services provide a major benefit to CalOptima Health and the patients we serve,” Hunn said in a statement about the audit.

“CalOptima Health would like to thank the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, as well

as Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, and the California State Auditor’s office for working with CalOptima Health while performing a comprehensive audit covering January 2014 through June 2022. We were pleased to learn that there were very few findings in the auditor’s report. Actions are already underway to implement all recommendations.”

Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, was critical of the agency for being slow to spend its funds.

“When, on average, 45 people who are experiencing homelessness and in need of vital healthcare services are dying each month in Orange County, it is unconscionable that CalOptima, an organization entrusted with the health and well-being of our community, has amassed an unplanned surplus of over $675 million,” Quirk-Silva said.

“The failure of CalOptima to use these funds to improve healthcare services for the most vulnerable members of our society can only be characterized as a dereliction of duty, and their conduct warrants serious scrutiny and accountability.”

Quirk-Silva added that county residents “deserve better than this. CalOptima must take immediate action to address the issues identified in this audit. The health and well-being of our community depends on it.”

Black bear captured, radio-collared in Santa Monica Mountains

In a rare find, National Park Service biologists captured a 210-pound black bear in the Santa Monica Mountains, marking the first time such an animal has been caught and radio-collared in the range, officials said Wednesday.

The bear was nabbed April 23 in a “natural area of the western Santa Monica Mountains,” south of the Ventura (101) Freeway, according to the NPS. The animal, believed to be 3 to 4 years old, was dubbed BB-12.

“He appears to be the only bear here in the Santa Monica Mountains, and he’s likely been here for almost two years based on our remote camera data,” Jeff Sikich, lead field biologist for the NPS’ long-running study of mountain lions, said in a statement.

“This seems to be our first resident bear in the 20 years we have conducted mountain lion research in the area. It will be interesting to see how he shares the

By City News Service

landscape with our other resident large carnivores.”

Park Service officials said the nearest known population of black bears in the area is in the Santa Susana Mountains north of the Ronald Reagan (118) Freeway, although there have been occasional sightings south of the 118 and even south of the 101.

Authorities said the bear captured last week may be the same one that has been spotted on remote cameras

since July 2021 in areas ranging from Malibu Creek State Park to Point Mugu State Park.

Sikich said that, as BB-12 gets older, it may attempt to move north across the 101 Freeway to search for a mate, since there is no evidence of other bears locally. He said the radio transmitter that was placed on the bear will help researchers track where he might try to cross the freeway, and also “help us better understand habitat

connectivity for wildlife in the area.”

Biologists noted that bear sightings are rare in the Santa Monica Mountains, although one was found dead under the rubble of a landslide in Malibu Creek State Park in the early 2000s, and another was spotted on trail cameras three times in 2016.

Authorities said black bears “rarely become aggressive when encountered, and attacks on people are uncommon.”

“If you encounter a bear while hiking, keep a safe distance and slowly back away,” NPS officials said in a statement. “Let the bear know you are there. Make yourself look bigger by lifting and waving your arms and making noise by yelling, clapping your hands, using noisemakers, or whistling. DO NOT run and do not make eye contact. Let the bear leave the area on its own. If a bear makes contact, fight back.”

2 mountain lion cubs get permanent home at the Big Bear Alpine Zoo

Staff at Big Bear Alpine Zoo have been preparing the quarantine area and display for the arrival of Hazel and Holly, two unrelated female mountain lion cubs that were found orphaned in early February. Since being rescued, California Fish

and Wildlife placed them at Oakland Zoo for veterinary treatment and critical care. Due to their age and extensive treatment, both cubs were deemed “non-releasable” by wildlife experts with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

By Staff

“Our goal is always to rehabilitate and return animals whenever possible and to be a sanctuary for animals that can no longer survive in their natural habitat. We strive to teach our fellow humans how to interact with nature and wildlife

with respect so that we can all co-exist” says Bill Hoffman,regional manager for Big Bear Valley Recreation & Park District.

The two cubs arrived at the Big Bear Alpine Zoo on Wednesday and went directly into a 30-day quarantine

period. Quarantine of new animals entering a new zoo is a routine practice to reduce risk of introducing any illnesses. The zoo anticipates an introduction to their display sometime in mid-June.

The public can follow Big Bear Alpine Zoo on Facebook

for updates and more information on the two cubs.

Big Bear Alpine Zoo is open daily from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. with summer hours 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. starting on Memorial Day weekend. Tickets are available at the zoo and online at bigbearzoo.org.

from another friend. It is not clear why he reported that payment but not Crow’s.

The tuition payments add to the picture of how the Republican megadonor has helped fund the lives of Thomas and his family.

“You can’t be having secret financial arrangements,” said Mark W. Bennett, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. Bennett said he was friendly with Thomas and declined to comment for the record about the specifics of Thomas’ actions. But he said that when he was on the bench, he wouldn’t let his lawyer friends buy him lunch.

Thomas did not respond to questions. In response to previous ProPublica reporting on gifts of luxury travel, he said that the Crows “are among our dearest friends” and that he understood he didn’t have to disclose the trips.

ProPublica sent Crow a detailed list of questions and his office responded with a statement that did not dispute the facts presented in this story.

“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth,” the statement said. “It’s disappointing that those with partisan political interests would try to turn helping at-risk youth with tuition assistance into something nefarious or political.” The statement added that Crow and his wife have “supported many young Americans” at a “variety of schools, including his alma mater.” Crow went to RandolphMacon Academy.

Crow did not address a question about how much he paid in total for Martin’s tuition. Asked if Thomas had requested the support for either school, Crow’s office responded, “No.”

Last month, ProPublica reported that Thomas accepted luxury travel from Crow virtually every year for decades, including international superyacht cruises and private jet flights around the world. Crow also paid money to Thomas and his relatives in an undisclosed real estate deal, ProPublica found. After he purchased the house where Thomas’ mother lives, Crow poured tens of thousands of dollars into improving the

property. And roughly 15 years ago, Crow donated much of the budget of a political group founded by Thomas’ wife, which paid her a $120,000 salary.

“This is way outside the norm. This is way in excess of anything I’ve seen,” said Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, referring to the cascade of gifts over the years.

Painter said that when he was at the White House, an official who’d taken what Thomas had would have been fired: “This amount of undisclosed gifts? You’d want to get them out of the government.”

A federal law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to publicly report most gifts. Ethics law experts told ProPublica they believed Thomas was required by law to disclose the tuition payments because they appear to be a gift to him.

Justices also must report many gifts to their spouses and dependent children. The law’s definition of dependent child is narrow, however, and likely would not apply to Martin since Thomas was his legal guardian, not his parent. The best case for not disclosing Crow’s tuition payments would be to argue the gifts were to Martin, not Thomas, experts said.

But that argument was far-fetched, experts said, because minor children rarely pay their own tuition. Typically, the legal guardian is responsible for the child’s education.

“The most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that this was a gift to Thomas and thus had to be reported. It’s common sense,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s all to the financial benefit of Clarence Thomas.”

Martin, now in his 30s, told ProPublica he was not aware that Crow paid his tuition. But he defended Thomas and Crow, saying he believed there was no ulterior motive behind the real estate magnate’s largesse over the decades. “I think his intentions behind everything is just a friend and just a good person,” Martin said.

[After this story was published, Mark Paoletta, a longtime friend of Clarence Thomas who

has also served as Ginni Thomas’ lawyer, released a statement. Paoletta confirmed that Crow paid for Martin’s tuition at both Randolph-Macon Academy and Hidden Lake, saying Crow paid for one year at each. He did not give a total amount but, based on the tuition rates at the time, the two years would amount to roughly $100,000.

Paoletta said that Thomas did not have to report the payments because Martin was not his “dependent child” as defined in the disclosure law. He criticized ProPublica for reporting on this and said “the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man.”]

Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories.

Crow has denied trying to influence the justice but has said he extended hospitality to him just as he has to other dear friends. From the start, their relationship has intertwined expensive gifts and conservative politics. In a recent interview with The Dallas Morning News, Crow recounted how he first met Thomas. In 1996, the justice was scheduled to give a speech in Dallas for an anti-regulation think tank. Crow offered to fly him there on his private jet. “During that flight, we found out we were kind of simpatico,” the billionaire said.

The following year, the Thomases began to discuss taking custody of Martin. His father, Thomas’ nephew, had been imprisoned in connection with a drug case. Thomas has written that Martin’s situation held deep resonance for him because his own father was absent and his grandparents had taken him in “under very similar circumstances.”

Thomas had an adult son from a previous marriage, but he and wife, Ginni, didn’t have children of their own. They pitched Martin’s parents on taking the boy in.

“Thomas explained that the boy would have the best of everything —

his own room, a private school education, lots of extracurricular activities,” journalists Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher reported in their biography of Thomas.

Thomas gained legal custody of Martin and became his legal guardian around January 1998, according to court records.

Martin, who had been living in Georgia with his mother and siblings, moved to Virginia, where he lived with the justice from the ages of 6 to 19, he said.

Living with the Thomases came with an unusual perk: lavish travel with Crow and his family. Martin told ProPublica that he and Thomas vacationed with the Crows “at least once a year” throughout his childhood.

That included visits to Camp Topridge, Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks, and two cruises on Crow’s superyacht, Martin said. On a trip in the Caribbean, Martin recalled riding jet skis off the side of the billionaire’s yacht.

Roughly 20 years ago, Martin, Thomas and the Crows went on a cruise on the yacht in Russia and the Baltics, according to Martin and two other people familiar with the trip. The group toured St. Petersburg in a rented helicopter and visited the Yusupov Palace, the site of Rasputin’s murder, said one of the people. They were joined by Chris DeMuth, then the president of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. (Thomas’ trips with Crow to the Baltics and the Caribbean have not previously been reported.)

Thomas reconfigured his life to balance the demands of raising a child with serving on the high court. He began going to the Supreme Court before 6 a.m. so he could leave in time to pick Martin up after class and help him with his homework. By 2001, the justice had moved Martin to private school out of frustration with the Fairfax County public school system’s lax schedule, The American Lawyer magazine reported.

For high school, Thomas sent Martin to RandolphMacon Academy, a military boarding school 75 miles west of Washington, D.C., where he was in the class of 2010. The school, which sits on a 135-acre campus

in the Shenandoah Valley, charged between $25,000 to $30,000 a year. Martin played football and basketball, and the justice sometimes visited for games.

Randolph-Macon was also Crow’s alma mater. Thomas and Crow visited the campus in April 2007 for the dedication of an imposing bronze sculpture of the Air Force Honor Guard, according to the school magazine. Crow donated the piece to Randolph-Macon, where it is a short walk from Crow Hall, a classroom building named after the Dallas billionaire’s family.

Martin sometimes chafed at the strictures of military school, according to people at RandolphMacon at the time, and he spent his junior year at Hidden Lake Academy, a therapeutic boarding school in Georgia. Hidden Lake boasted one teacher for every 10 students and activities ranging from horseback riding to canoeing. Those services came at an added cost. At the time, a year of tuition was roughly $73,000, plus fees.

The July 2009 bank statement from Hidden Lake was filed in a bankruptcy case for the school, which later went under. The document shows that Crow Holdings LLC wired $6,200 to the school that month, the exact cost of the month’s tuition. The wire is marked “Mark Martin” in the ledger.

Crow’s office said in its statement that Crow’s funding of students’ tuition has “always been paid solely from personal funds, sometimes held at and paid through the family business.”

Grimwood, the administrator at Hidden Lake, told ProPublica that Crow wired the school money once a month to pay Martin’s tuition fees. Grimwood had multiple roles on the campus, including overseeing an affiliated wilderness program. He said he was speaking about the payments because he felt the public should know about outside financial support for Supreme Court justices. Martin returned to Randolph-Macon his senior year.

Thomas has long been one of the less wealthy members of the Supreme Court. Still, when Martin was in high school, he and Ginni Thomas had income that put them comfort-

ably in the top echelon of Americans.

In 2006 for example, the Thomases brought in more than $500,000 in income. The following year, they made more than $850,000 from Clarence Thomas’ salary from the court, Ginni Thomas’ pay from the Heritage Foundation and book payments for the justice’s memoir.

It appears that at some point in Martin’s childhood, Thomas was paying for private school himself. Martin told ProPublica that Thomas sold his Corvette — “his most prized car” — to pay for a year of tuition, although he didn’t remember when that occurred.

In 2002, a friend of Thomas’ from the RV community who owned a Florida pest control company, Earl Dixon, offered Thomas $5,000 to help defray the costs of Martin’s education. Thomas’ disclosure of that earlier gift, several experts said, could be viewed as evidence that the justice himself understood he was required to report tuition aid from friends.

“At first, Thomas was worried about the propriety of the donation,” Thomas biographers Merida and Fletcher recounted. “He agreed to accept it if the contribution was deposited directly into a special trust for Mark.” In his annual filing, Thomas reported the money as an “education gift to Mark Martin.”

Republished with Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Clarence Thomas