[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6565171,"mediaKeyId","3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3","parentId",3225827,"title","Council approves county funding agreements for Newmark Field and La Plaza Park; supervisor presents large county investments in the city","audioSeconds",115,"startMs",7919000,"endMs",8034000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3&start=7919&end=8034","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3/thumbnail_7919000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6565171/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/Council-approves-county-funding-agreements-for-Newmark-Field-and-La-Plaza-Park-supervisor-presents-large-county-investments-in-the-city","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565171-84495ebd64bf7d633280df64ea6e5f98/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172731&Signature=MHQWn3pjsuwwTLaQeHKAzH4A90Y1hr0CJ0XfCclQtV0fHNFrLre4VOKuEQOXOdh9WjeTbBOV0TMgiIupFfHrY8ksW6iNIS~TvRNlKyQV85Ql2STu2ZZgD8TFMSrmpYBGDGr5GZ0FRg7kh3D3kwNCpNVkwcJmXtJwXnYYdwXne5WAGJFwLl4gAnjkyaAcdp29KTPV5Y5jYzR1S4U~Dsq0Fw-85K9RcoLqTei~i7alWMgDv-jEMZLEcdCVnftlZLYwD0mdBUXs70yfe-P0HyqVCBMnQo-F3IuBtgR-M~07CGvVlgG4lbcVAkoJg6GkJkUDxTnvrpGdV1bwobtHeROnHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T03:10:29Z","article","The City Council unanimously approved two funding agreements with the County of San Bernardino for park improvements in two wards.

Item 10: The council approved a funding agreement with the County of San Bernardino for Newmark Field improvements (Fourth Ward) in the amount of $569,250, with $189,750 in city matching funds. The motion to approve was made by Councilmember Flores and seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem; the council took a voice vote and the motion passed unanimously.

Item 11: The council also approved a funding agreement with the county for La Plaza Park improvements (First Ward). Staff identified the items as community‑driven requests from local groups (Newmark Little League and Suavecito Car Club) and said the agreements facilitate field and park upgrades; the motion carried unanimously.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Joel Baca Jr. joined the council on stage for a check presentation and outlined a broader list of county investments in San Bernardino over recent years. Supervisor Baca described nearly $100 million in county investments across multiple parks, roads, safety projects and other capital needs, and he cited specific projects including sidewalk and ADA ramp work, a new fire station, bridge repairs and field improvements at Guadalupe Field and others. The supervisor said the two agreements before the council were community‑driven and the result of county‑city partnership.

Councilmembers and the supervisor emphasized the community‑driven origin of the park requests and thanked neighborhood advocates who pushed for improvements. The agreements will proceed to implementation under the city manager and public‑works oversight; staff did not identify any additional immediate budgetary changes beyond the matching amounts noted for Newmark Field.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","sbcitygov Live Stream","oneSentenceSummary","Council voted unanimously to accept county funding agreements for Newmark Field improvements ($569,250 with $189,750 city match) and for La Plaza Park improvements. San Bernardino County Supervisor Joel Baca Jr. presented a series of county investments in the city totaling millions of dollars.","taxTitle","San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California","taxId",9775,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6565174,"Day laborers and street vendors decry code‑enforcement harassment near Home Depot; community groups request meeting with councilmember Ibarra",392,9972000,10364000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3&start=9972&end=10364","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3/thumbnail_9972000.jpg","/articles/6565174/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/Day-laborers-and-street-vendors-decry-codeenforcement-harassment-near-Home-Depot-community-groups-request-meeting-with-councilmember-Ibarra","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565174-a7d6d5cd987bea112dbb99bca3f9388f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172731&Signature=NSqaae-NVl2tPTdx0I6Y0sBvDlzOJTonlf~zxNQELqXxTvjNnP3HobGUo8KG0CUGXJBRJlqZUf1IkvOTERc6gPoqeoAufk5--rtW4JiWl56idRnERBjkOJLgrRx7BUBMAioY9xMvzt8OYYmszSnv2yx4SoStL0E1LsWUHdGg4llJnRvdvlqKGcAthiiwxfOCLqJwKn73W1CzSG2e7zEmSFreoGsBZvm5uKdTseS-X-q2nAfyWjKx7951s0OGKgNQAqGB-ogAkzhtFYsqmhreedsznr07irE251ow9AT1F7oeckAeSNlotBwTw7KeY3shmNqSMAFcGH-O8Vr9rzrivw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A coalition of day‑labor advocates, vendors and community organizations urged the San Bernardino City Council on May 7 to intervene in what they described as repeated, aggressive enforcement near the Home Depot on First Street.

Speakers included Alexis Teodoro, worker‑rights director at the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, an organizer from the same center and other community members who described a pattern of code‑enforcement tactics they said included taking photographs of workers’ vehicles, blocking exits, issuing citations to street vendors and repeatedly driving enforcement vehicles into the lot to disperse workers. Teodoro said the conduct violates workers’ constitutional rights to seek work in public spaces and requested an immediate halt to enforcement in the area until the city meets with advocates to develop a local solution.

Other public commenters including an organizer named Angel and resident speakers said they had documented incidents of “mocking,” “escorting” workers away and issuing citations to vendors — including vulnerable immigrant women selling food. The advocates asked for a meeting within 15 days with the mayor and Councilmember Ibarra (in whose district the Home Depot sits) and asked the city to consider day‑labor center models used in neighboring jurisdictions such as Pomona and Riverside.

Councilmembers and city staff agreed in public comment to meet with community representatives. The transcript shows multiple speakers referencing state law decriminalizing street vending (SB 946 and SB 972) and asserting that enforcement of vending in public space must comply with state law. Advocates requested that code enforcement pause enforcement actions at the Home Depot lot until the meeting occurs and a solution is negotiated.

City staff did not take an immediate enforcement‑suspension vote on the floor; the meeting produced a public commitment by staff to meet with advocates and council staff to discuss next steps.

Speakers documented incidents and asked for direct city engagement; they offered models and a willingness to assist in designing a local day‑labor center. Councilmember Ibarra was asked explicitly to meet with advocates because the location falls in her ward.","Multiple community organizations and day laborers testified that San Bernardino code‑enforcement officers have harassed day laborers and street vendors near the Home Depot on 201st Street. Organizers asked the council to halt enforcement actions in the area and to meet within 15 days to pursue a community‑led solution or a day‑labor center model.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6565177,"Council debate over putting city‑attorney work out to bid turns contentious; motion to consider RFP fails to advance",490,12020000,12510000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3&start=12020&end=12510","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3/thumbnail_12020000.jpg","/articles/6565177/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/Council-debate-over-putting-cityattorney-work-out-to-bid-turns-contentious-motion-to-consider-RFP-fails-to-advance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565177-c037e590bdc949bb5e51fd03e222e668/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172731&Signature=LlajcWtesJGWU7-cs1udHP~9d2r7RPmbgU1mwRGFlra-e2~SdIQou10MrF2YHxFJ5MjcrZPHS9y6c7CniOdROn9qjJPPEzPBqRIsVw2zb0Klknt25UfQAJOV3N673A7zPnDpiNtuQF1wqd0ANJY16vHdPewWILHN6qccqRXaB8ibsVetYY428X7AkHYr~wUrF7nHsYIRJ4zjmgz9gwBovx1Atf6Kwl1ADDl9kHMtc5AM2FYVBHpelxneNBTxbpUFN66sgTiHq3cyVi~4y8o5rb3LpSop~PX0JVVADWDB~TLc3Eim5MWi2KQXT-jiIQsqhqOkaGT-JF5UpsDWz39R2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilmember Treasure Ortiz moved that the council direct staff to solicit competitive proposals for the city‑attorney contract. That request was framed by Ortiz as a routine procurement practice: staff prepare an RFP so the council can determine whether the current firm remains the best choice. Ortiz said the move was not targeted at any single firm and noted the city spends “millions in legal fees” and needed the standard procurement oversight applied to legal services.

The item generated extended procedural debate on the dais. A substitute motion to approve the RFP process (noted in the transcript as a substitute to move the item forward) failed on a 2–5 vote. The meeting record shows that councilmembers voted against the substitute motion (five in opposition, two in favor). Following further discussion two councilmembers moved to table the item indefinitely; the record reflects substantial procedural disagreement among councilmembers about what “tabling indefinitely” would mean for future ability of individual councilmembers to place the matter on a future agenda.

Councilmembers questioned whether tabling would prevent any councilmember from later asking the city manager to place an RFP request on a future agenda; the city attorney advised that, absent a majority vote to bring the item back, the majority could effectively keep it off future agendas unless the council later changed its direction.

The transcript records considerable tension in the chamber during this item; several councilmembers asked for clarity about Brown Act constraints and the city’s procurement policy. Multiple speakers characterized the RFP request as a routine procurement review; others opposed reopening the matter at this time. The transcript does not record a conclusive roll‑call vote on the final tabling at the time the meeting record moved on to other items.

The council did not adopt a new procurement sequence or select an outside counsel in open session during the May 7 meeting. Councilmembers who supported an RFP said the step would allow the city to confirm best value; those who opposed tabling said indefinite tabling could limit council oversight in the future and warned against removing routine procurement options.

The matter may return to a future agenda if a majority of the council later votes to place an RFP item for consideration or if a councilmember follows the city’s procedural route for items for future consideration.","Councilmember Ortiz asked the council to direct staff to run a request for proposals (RFP) for city‑attorney services. A substitute motion to proceed failed and the item was subsequently subject to a motion to table; the meeting record shows disagreement among councilmembers about the timing and governance implications of tabling the procurement.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6565178,"Council reports $4.875 million settlement; city denies Councilmember Ortiz’s $2 million claim amid public allegations of illegal CLETS queries",8098,0,8098000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3&start=0&end=8098","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3225827-8da91cad9e604910e1b132afc2adeba3/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6565178/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/Council-reports-4875-million-settlement-city-denies-Councilmember-Ortizs-2-million-claim-amid-public-allegations-of-illegal-CLETS-queries","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565178-9b2ffe48703e24bdd75ac54ab111512b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172731&Signature=krzbZGvs8gxJcZtcVOMAoA515lPgynAvHEmRu3vuyhAJSzDVhNGSRSwptCcMiJYrLqQHwcEmGXmcGLdPN9tLhkhcDI~1~ysTjAp4k-LI1bRnoXrpV3JWHOXNWpuhh2jig5XtnMMvaA54XyP8h74MC6Qzrnf74~ps0Zvs12Q82Reey5Bo09tfxaK5zRmk6RlH3EKC5P71xqDLeyARmaCYs28iDvoI-ae4KWcRnVZDvB24IyPgUXni35u~fr5O72SWNiLsvcdaIH0nSLq50F7S5U~zqUtouW7jtVm1kqouRZO1Bcrm3mkLATOl45f9pCdOiffHRn1e2Lg8bTJYupQVdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino City Council on May 7 reported a closed‑session settlement of $4,875,000 and the city issued a public statement denying a $2 million claim filed by Councilmember Treasure Ortiz.

City staff reported that the council approved a proposed settlement in a closed session matter captioned as a personal‑representative action involving Robert (Robert Brown) and Victoria Brown; the motion to approve that settlement was made by Councilmember Sanchez, seconded by Councilmember Flores and passed unanimously. City staff said the settlement amount is $4,875,000.

The meeting record also included a public reading of the city’s evaluation of a separate claim filed March 28 by Councilmember Ortiz for $2,000,000. The city said its review found the claim “false and dishonest,” concluded that the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) was lawfully accessed in March 2020 by authorized personnel, and denied Ortiz’s claim. The city’s statement noted that, if Ortiz files suit, the city would seek to recover attorney fees and that possible criminal conduct connected to filing a false claim is under review. (The city’s reading of its determination appears in the transcript; the city said Ortiz will have six months to file a lawsuit.)

Public comment that preceded the city statement included allegations about unauthorized CLETS searches and claims about a police‑union endorsement withdrawal after disclosures. A caller who identified herself at the start of public comment said she was “present at the meeting between the POA president, Loria, and then‑candidate Ortiz, where he admitted to the illegally running of her while she was a private resident through Kletz and apologized to her for it.” That speaker said the admission implicated a now‑retired former POA board member and linked the matter to a withdrawn POA endorsement of a local candidate. Resident John Schallenberger said he supported Ortiz and said the alleged conduct had damaged rank‑and‑file officers and the community. Interim city manager Christian Sobrano urged elected officials to “follow the law” and to pursue the facts soberly.

The transcript records a city determination and a separate closed‑session vote to settle one case. It does not record a council vote approving denial of Ortiz’s claim; the denial was presented as the city’s decision after an internal review and described next steps if litigation is filed. The city repeatedly referenced CLETS during the statement and said its review found lawful access; members of the public disputed that characterization and urged further review.

The council did not take additional open‑session action on the Ortiz claim during the meeting. Councilmember Ortiz and other speakers raised the need for transparent investigation and for safeguards to prevent improper access to law‑enforcement databases.

City officials and any parties considering litigation have statutory timelines and remedies under California law; the city’s spoken statement referenced the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding recovery of attorney fees but did not identify a council vote on the claim denial. The council’s recorded, unanimous closed‑session action to approve the $4,875,000 settlement was entered into the record at the open meeting.

The council will reconvene on May 21; if any party files suit related to the Ortiz claim the city said it will seek to recover fees in court.","At the May 7 San Bernardino City Council meeting the council approved a $4,875,000 settlement from closed session and the city issued a public denial of a $2 million claim filed by Councilmember Treasure Ortiz. Multiple public commentators alleged unauthorized CLETS searches of Ortiz’s records and urged a full, impartial review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves county funding agreements for Newmark Field and La Plaza Park; supervisor presents large county investments in the city

Day laborers and street vendors decry code‑enforcement harassment near Home Depot; community groups request meeting with councilmember Ibarra

Council debate over putting city‑attorney work out to bid turns contentious; motion to consider RFP fails to advance

Council reports $4.875 million settlement; city denies Councilmember Ortiz’s $2 million claim amid public allegations of illegal CLETS queries