Azusa Beacon_11/25/2024

Thomas asks 9th Circuit in Pasadena to reverse convictions

After audit of services agency, Horvath proposes LA County homeless department

By City News Service

Following the release of an audit citing financial-control issues with a joint city-county homeless services agency, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey Horvath said Wednesday she is proposing the creation of a county department to centralize homeless services.

The audit of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority was requested by Horvath and the board in February, and its results were released late Tuesday.

The LA County AuditorController Department report cited several concerns about LAHSA’s management of homeless funding, such as failing to recoup cash advances provided to subcontractors, failing to establish repayment schedules for subcontractors, lack of adequate records for tracking cash advances awarded to other agencies and failure to adequately monitor contracts with recipient agencies and document whether subcontractors who received funds actually met the terms of their contracts.

LAHSA officials disagreed with many of the issues cited in the report, but acknowledged others and said many had already been recognized and recommendations of the auditor were already in the process of being implemented, “with many having already been resolved.”

In its response to the audit provided to the county, LAHSA CEO Va Lecia Adams Kellum contended that several issues identified in the report were “in whole or in part attributable to LAHSA’s fiscal practices during the COVID-19 years. ... Therefore, these actions should be considered within a broader context of the public health emergency, rather than being assessed solely through the conventional accounting framework.”

She also noted that the period of time examined in the audit — fiscal year 2016-17 through 2023-24 — “captured a time of rapid growth and expansion for LAHSA, both in its organizational size, scope and nature of its functions.” She said that during that time, the agency evolved from a conventional “pass-through grant and contract administrator into a systems administrator with significant programmatic and direct services roles.” She also wrote that the agency underwent a “complete agencywide reorientation” between 2019 and 2022 to focus on public health responses due to the pandemic.

Horvath issued a statement Wednesday in response to the audit, saying its findings “underscore the urgent need for greater accountability in our homeless services system.”

“LAHSA plays an important role, but the current structure is not meeting the scale of this crisis,” Horvath said. “That’s why I’m introducing a motion to create a new L.A. County department to centralize accountability and expedite the solutions and partnerships we know work. We must take bold steps to ensure our investments deliver real results for our communities and unhoused neighbors.”

It was unclear what impact such a move would have on LAHSA and its operations.

LAHSA has come under scrutiny from public officials previously, with several Los Angeles City Council members calling for increased transparency about the agency’s operations.

In response, LAHSA earlier this year introduced data dashboards on its website designed to give a better picture of its operations. The

dashboards allow viewers to access data on street outreach, interim housing and time-limited subsidies; details on LAHSA-funded programs and their efficacy; as well as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe initiative and the county’s Pathway Home program.

The dashboards can show how many unhoused residents entered the rehousing system in respective City Council or Board of Supervisors’ districts, how many people individual programs have helped, and the performance of local service providers.

“We’ve been working hard to provide the public access to clear, easy-to-digest data on homelessness in Los Angeles,” Adams Kellum said at the time. “LAHSA is committed to transparency and accountability as we work toward ending homelessness for our unhoused neighbors.”

Attorney general, LA County seek stricter rules for juvenile halls

By Joe Taglieri joet@beaconmedianews.com

CaliforniaAttorney

General Rob Bonta on Tuesday filed a joint motion with Los Angeles County to amend courtordered reforms aimed at stemming the “deteriorating conditions” at the county’s juvenile halls.

Bonta and the county seek a judge’s approval on a plan that outlines steps the LA County Probation Department must take to increase staffing, revise internal policies and increase safety for detainees, according to AG’s office.

The legal move follows “the county’s failure to improve and provide adequate staffing as required under an earlier settlement and a court order enforcing that settlement last year.”

Officialsreceived “alarming reports from an independent monitor about the continued deterioration of conditions at Barry J. Nidorf Secure Youth

Treatment Facility and Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall,” which led Bonta to call for more stringent monitoring and reporting as well as additional policy and procedural changes, training and staffing “to address the illegal and unsafe conditions at these facilities.”

The amended judgment is subject to a judge’s approval. No information on a scheduled court hearing was provided.

“The County of Los Angeles is responsible for safeguarding the safety and well-being of the children at its juvenile halls — and it has utterly failed in this responsibility to date,” Bonta said in a statement. “These new terms will strengthen oversight and accountability, and lead to necessary and overdue improvement to conditions at these facilities. As the state’s chief law enforcement officer, I take my responsibility seriously,

Tents line the street in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles. | Photo courtesy of Russell Allison Loar/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

| Photo courtesy of Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall/Instagram

Ridley-Thomas asks 9th Circuit in Pasadena to reverse convictions

By Fred Shuster, City News Service

Afederal appellate panel heardarguments Thursday but made no ruling in former Los Angeles County politician Mark RidleyThomas’ bid to overturn his fraud and bribery convictions for scheming to obtain benefits for his son from a USC social work dean.

In arguments before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, a lawyer for Ridley-Thomas asserted that guilty verdicts for bribery and honest services fraud should not be allowed to stand.

Ridley-Thomas, 70, was sentenced to three years and six months in federal prison for his March 2023 convictions on single counts of conspiracy, bribery and honest services mail fraud and four counts of honest services wire fraud.

The Los Angeles federal jury acquitted him of a dozen fraud counts. U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer subsequently granted the longtime politician’s bid for bail pending appeal.

Ridley-Thomas was a suspended member of the L.A. City Council at the time he was convicted.

The jury found that Ridley-Thomas engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Marilyn Flynn, 85, former

dean of USC’s School of Social Work and a tenured professor. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to bribing Ridley-Thomas, was sentenced in July 2023 to 18 months home confinement and ordered to pay a $150,000 fine.

Evidence showed that Flynn provided RidleyThomas and his son benefits, including graduate school admission to pursue a dual master’s degree, a full-tuition scholarship, a paid professorship and a way for RidleyThomas to transfer $100,000 of his campaign funds through the university to a nonprofit — Policy, Research & Practice Initiative — to be run by the politician’s son.

In exchange, prosecutors said, Ridley-Thomas supported contracts involving the Social Work School, including contracts to provide services to the Department of Children and Family Services and the Probation Department, as well as an amendment to a contract with the Department of Mental Health that could help bring the social work school potentially millions of dollars in new revenue.

By secretly “funneling” the money through USC, RidleyThomas and Flynn attempted to disguise the true source of the $100,000 payment to

make it appear as though USC, not Ridley-Thomas, was the benefactor supporting RidleyThomas’ son and PRPI. Defense attorneys said the defendant wanted his money transferred this way in order to avoid negative publicity stemming from the appearance of nepotism.

In arguing for a reversal of the bribery and fraud counts,

appellate attorney Alyssa Bell asserted there was no evidence of a “quid pro quo” arrangement between Ridley-Thomas and Flynn. The attorney criticized as “unprecedented” the prosecution’s theory that Flynn’s assistance in transferring the money to PRPI was a “thing of value” that serves as a basis for bribery.

“As a matter of law, the

so-called funneling cannot serve as a predicate for any of Ridley-Thomas’ convictions,” Bell stated before the threejudge panel Thursday. “Flynn’s assistance did not personally enrich Ridley-Thomas, and personal enrichment is the hallmark of traditional bribery. Rather, Flynn helped RidleyThomas to make his donation, which complied fully with state campaign finance laws and public disclosure requirements.”

In her opposing argument, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lindsey Greer Dotson said the $100,000 payment itself is the “thing of value” at the heart of the bribery conviction.

“The fact is, there was a payment, and a payment is a thing of value,” she said, adding that the assistance of Flynn was essential to “getting that check issued” to PRPI.

In its appellate brief, lawyers for Ridley-Thomas also argued that the process of selecting jurors for the trial was flawed because government attorneys allegedly acted in a discriminatory manner by using two peremptory strikes to eliminate all Black women from the jury.

The defense also insists there was no showing that Ridley-Thomas performed “an official act” while on

Shohei Ohtani named National League MVP

By City News Service

As expected, Dodger slugger Shohei Ohtani, who this year became the first Major League Baseball player to ever hit 50 home runs and steal 50 bases in a single season, was named the National League Most Valuable Player Thursday.

Ohtani won the MVP award twice in the American League during his time with the Angels, in 2021 and 2023. He joins Frank Robinson as the only players to win MVP awards in both leagues, but Ohtani is the first to do it in back-to-back seasons.

Ohtani won the National League award Thursday on a unanimous vote. He is the first designated hitter to win the award. Voting is conducted by the Baseball Writers Association of America. The announcement was made during a live broadcast on the MLB Network, with Ohtani’s teammate and

past MVP Clayton Kershaw delivering the news.

Ohtani told the network after the announcement the honor was a team effort.

“I’m just representing the Dodgers,” he said through an interpreter. “It was a complete team effort. I wouldn’t have been able to receive this award if it wasn’t for my teammates. Obviously, if my teammates weren’t there and we didn’t play as a team we would not have even gotten to the playoffs or won the World Series. So for me, again, I’m just taking this as I’m representing the team receiving this award.”

He said he did not go into the season “striving to get the MVP.”

“I was more focused on being one of the guys with a new team with the Dodgers,” Ohtani said. “I wanted to obviously embrace the fans as well just to let them kind of learn who I was. That was

my main goal heading into the season. ...

“The next goal for me is to do it again, so right now I’m in the middle of rehab and working out, getting stronger and I’m looking forward to next season so we can run it back.”

Asked if he was looking forward to returning to the mound to pitch and possibly win a Cy Young Award, he said, “That would obviously be great, but right now my focus is just to get back healthy, come back stronger, get back on the mound and show everybody what I can do.”

Ohtani underwent left shoulder surgery following the season. He injured the shoulder while trying to steal a base during the World Series.

Ohtani hit 54 home runs and stole 59 bases, both highs for his seven-season MLB career, helping the Dodgers to baseball’s best

record.

Ohtani scored 134 runs, the most by any Dodger since the team moved to Los Angeles following the 1957 season, and led the National League in RBIs (130), on-base percentage (.390), slugging percentage (.646), OPS (1.036), total bases (411) and runs (134).

Earlier this month, Ohtani was named as the recipient of the Edgar Martinez Outstanding Designated Hitter Award for the fourth consecutive season, the National League’s Hank Aaron Award as the league’s top hitter and a Louisville Slugger Award, given to the best hitter at each position in each league.

Ohtani was the American League’s MVP in 2021 and 2023 when he played for the Angels. Ten players, including the late Brooklyn Dodgers catcher Roy Campanella have been

the Board of Supervisors in favor of an expansion of a Telehealth contract with the county Department of Mental Health.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined comment.

Federal prosecutors based their case on a long string of emails and letters they say showed that Ridley-Thomas “used his publicly provided privileges to monetize his elected office and demand benefits for his son,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Ridley-Thomas served on the LA City Council from 1991-2002, then was a member of the Assembly and state Senate before being elected to the powerful county Board of Supervisors in 2008, serving until 2020. He then returned to the City Council until he was suspended by his council colleagues in October 2021 and permanently removed following his conviction.

“The entire community has been victimized by the defendant’s crimes,” Fischer said during the sentencing hearing, adding that Ridley-Thomas “has committed serious crimes, has not accepted responsibility and has shown no remorse.”

Mark Ridley-Thomas. | Photo courtesy of Mark Ridley-Thomas/X

three-time MVPs. The retired Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds is the only player with more, winning seven.

| Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Dodgers/X

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: 820 S. Myrtle 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

editor@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

CExperts analyze why CA propositions on minimum wage, rent control failed

By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service

aliforniapolitical analysts say inflation and voter confusion contributed to the failure of propositions to raise the minimum wage and allow stronger rent control.

Proposition 33 would have allowed local governments to pass strict new rent-control ordinances.

Christian Grose, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Southern California’s Dornsife College and Price School of Public Policy, said voters may have found the measure to be overly complex.

“We did some polling on this back in September, and we found a lot of people were undecided,” Grose said. “I think it’s a confusing initiative for a lot of voters, and so often when people aren’t certain what the effects are going to be, they’ll just vote no.”

Opponents of Prop. 33 argued that more rent control would discourage construction of new rental units, thus thwarting attempts to increase the supply of

housing.

Proposition 32 would have raised the minimum wage to $18 an hour for companies that have 26 or more employees, and to $17 for smaller companies.

Grose called the defeat surprising, as California recently raised the minimum wage -- but only for fast-food workers.

“With inflation, there’s some concerns about raising minimum wage will then lead to increased costs. So people who traditionally would support minimum wage maybe are opposed,” he said.

Opponents of Prop. 32 warned it would have hurt California businesses and led to an increase in the cost of goods and services.

Keely O’Brien, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said Prop. 32 would have helped the working poor at a time when poverty is the highest it has been in years.

“In early 2023, 31% of California residents were either poor or near poor, and nearly 76% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one working adult. So these are not, these are

families who are working. They’re often working really hard, and they’re still not. They still don’t have the resources that they need,” O’Brien said.

Disclosure: University of Southern California Dornsife College of Letters Arts and Sciences and USC Price School of Public Policy contributes to Public News Service’s fund for reporting on Arts & Culture, Cultural Resources, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, visit https://www. publicnewsservice.org/dn1. php.

Proposed bill would fight crisis of antibiotic-resistant infections

By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service

According to experts in the field, the system of developing new antibiotics is broken and doctors are running out of ways to treat deadly infections.

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

Lawmakers have proposed the PASTEUR Act to fix the pipeline. New antibiotics are critical but they must be used sparingly, which means private drug companies cannot recoup their investment.

David Hyun, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the bill would establish a subscription model to fund research for certain drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“It delinks their revenue from the volume of sales and provides an up-front payment to the companies purely based on the value of the public-health value of the new antibiotic,” Hyun explained.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said patients in the U.S. contract

2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections each year and more than 35,000 of them die. Experts estimate the U.S. spends $4.6 billion a year to treat infections caused by drug-resistant germs.

Dr. Sarah Doernberg, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, said the ability to treat infection dictates the safety of all kinds of medical procedures from giving birth to having surgery.

“We are able to operate ICUs and transplantation and give chemotherapy agent,” Doernberg noted. “All of these things that we do that are very invasive and come with risks of infection, and we need to be able to treat the infections in order to be able to provide modern health care.”

Despite bipartisan support, a similar bill failed to pass in 2021. Senate lawmakers reintroduced the PASTEUR Act in 2023 with reduced funding but it

remains stalled in committee.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Disclosure: The Pew Charitable Trusts Environmental Group contributes to Public News Service’s fund for reporting on Endangered Species and Wildlife, Environment, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, visit https://www. publicnewsservice.org/dn1. php.

Photo by Tuccera LLC on Unsplash

Photo by Testalize.me on Unsplash

State regulators know health insurance directories are full of wrong information. They’re doing little to fix it.

By Max Blau, ProPublica

Series: America’s Mental Barrier: How Insurers Interfere With Mental Health Care Reporting Highlights

- Extensive Errors: Many states have sought to make insurers clean up their health plans’ provider directories over the past decade. But the errors are still widespread.

- Paltry Penalties: Most state insurance agencies haven’t issued a fine for provider directory errors since 2019. When companies have been penalized, the fines have been small and sporadic.

- Ghostbusters: Experts said that stricter regulations and stronger fines are needed to protect insurance customers from these errors, which are at the heart of so-called ghost networks.

- These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

To uncover the truth about a pernicious insurance industry practice, staffers with the New York state attorney general’s office decided to tell a series of lies.

So, over the course of 2022 and 2023, they dialed hundreds of mental health providers in the directories of more than a dozen insurance plans. Some staffers pretended to call on behalf of a depressed relative. Others posed as parents asking about their struggling teenager.

They wanted to know two key things about the supposedly in-network providers: Do you accept insurance? And are you accepting new patients?

The more the staffers called, the more they realized that the providers listed either no longer accepted insurance or had stopped seeing new patients. That is, if they heard back from the providers at all.

In a report published last December, the office described rampant evidence of these “ghost networks,” where health plans list providers who supposedly accept that insurance but who are not actually available to patients. The report found that 86% of the listed mental health providers who staffers had called were “unreachable, not in-network, or not accepting

new patients.” Even though insurers are required to publish accurate directories, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t find evidence that the state’s own insurance regulators had fined any insurers for their errors.

Shortly after taking office in 2021, Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to combat provider directory misinformation, so there seemed to be a clear path to confronting ghost networks.

Yet nearly a year after the publication of James’ report, nothing has changed. Regulators can’t point to a single penalty levied for ghost networks. And while a spokesperson for New York state’s Department of Financial Services has said that “nation-leading consumer protections” are in the works, provider directories in the state are still rife with errors.

A similar pattern of errors and lax enforcement is happening in other states as well.

In Arizona, regulators called hundreds of mental health providers listed in the networks of the state’s most popular individual health plans. They couldn’t schedule visits with nearly 2 out of every 5 providers they called. None of those companies have been fined for their errors.

In Massachusetts, the state attorney general investigated alleged efforts by insurers to restrict their customers’ mental health benefits. The insurers agreed to audit their mental health provider listings but were largely allowed to police themselves. Insurance regulators have not fined the companies for their errors.

In California, regulators received hundreds of complaints about provider listings after one of the nation’s first ghost network regulations took effect in 2016. But under the new law, they have actually scaled back on fining insurers. Since 2016, just one plan was fined — a $7,500 penalty — for posting inaccurate listings for mental health providers.

ProPublica reached out to every state insurance commission to see what they have done to curb rampant directory errors. As part of the country’s complex patchwork of

regulations, these agencies oversee plans that employers purchase from an insurer and that individuals buy on exchanges. (Federal agencies typically oversee plans that employers selffund or that are funded by Medicare.)

Spokespeople for the state agencies told ProPublica that their “many actions” resulted in “significant accountability.” But ProPublica found that the actual actions taken so far do not match the regulators’ rhetoric.

“One of the primary reasons insurance commissions exist is to hold companies accountable for what they are advertising in their contracts,” said Dr. Robert Trestman, a leading American Psychiatric Association expert who has testified about ghost networks to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. “They’re not doing their job. If they were, we would not have an ongoing problem.”

Most states haven’t fined a single company for publishing directory errors since 2019. When they do, the penalties have been small and sporadic. In an average year, fewer than a dozen fines are issued by insurance regulators for directory errors, according to information obtained by ProPublica from almost every one of those agencies. All those fines together represent a fraction of 1% of the billions of dollars in profits made by the indus-

try’s largest companies. Health insurance experts told ProPublica that the companies treat the fines as a “cost of doing business.”

Insurers acknowledge that errors happen. Providers move. They retire. Their open appointments get booked by other patients. The industry’s top trade group, AHIP, has told lawmakers that companies contact providers to verify that their listings are accurate. The trade group also has stated that errors could be corrected faster if the providers did a better job updating their listings.

But providers have told us that’s bogus. Even when they formally drop out of a network, they’re not always removed from the insurer’s lists.

The harms from ghost networks are real. ProPublica reported on how Ravi Coutinho, a 36-year-old entrepreneur from Arizona, had struggled for months to access the mental health and addiction treatment that was covered by his health plan. After nearly two dozen calls to the insurer and multiple hospitalizations, he couldn’t find a therapist. Last spring, he died, likely due to complications from excessive drinking.

Health insurance experts said that, unless agencies can crack down and issue bigger fines, insurers will keep selling error-ridden plans.

“You can have all the

strong laws on the books,” said David Lloyd, chief policy officer with the mental health advocacy group Inseparable. “But if they’re not being enforced, then it’s kind of all for nothing.”

The problem with ghost networks isn’t one of awareness. States, federal agencies, researchers and advocates have documented them time and again for years. But regulators have resisted penalizing insurers for not fixing them.

Two years ago, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions began to probe the directories used by five large insurers for plans that they sold on the individual market. Regulators wanted to find out if they could schedule an appointment with mental health providers listed as accepting new patients, so their staff called 580 providers in those companies’ directories.

Thirty-seven percent of the calls did not lead to an appointment getting scheduled.

Even though this secretshopper survey found errors at a lower rate than what had been found in New York, health insurance experts who reviewed Arizona’s published findings said that the results were still concerning.

Ghost network regulations are intended to keep

provider listings as close to error-free as possible. While the experts don’t expect any insurer to have a perfect directory, they said that double-digit error rates can be harmful to customers.

Arizona’s regulators seemed to agree. In a January 2023 report, they wrote that a patient could be clinging to the “last few threads of hope, which could erode if they receive no response from a provider (or cannot easily make an appointment).”

Secret-shopper surveys are considered one of the best ways to unmask errors. But states have limited funding, which restricts how often they can conduct that sort of investigation. Michigan, for its part, mostly searches for inaccuracies as part of an annual review of a health plan. Nevada investigates errors primarily if someone files a complaint. Christine Khaikin, a senior health policy attorney for the nonprofit advocacy group Legal Action Center, said fewer surveys means higher odds that errors go undetected.

Some regulators, upon learning that insurers may not be following the law, still take a handsoff approach with their enforcement. Oregon’s Department of Consumer and Business Services, for instance, conducts spot checks of provider networks

| Photo by Pixabay

to see if those listings are accurate. If they find errors, insurers are asked to fix the problem. The department hasn’t issued a fine for directory errors since 2019. A spokesperson said the agency doesn’t keep track of how frequently it finds network directory errors.

Dave Jones, a former insurance commissioner in California, said some commissioners fear that stricter enforcement could drive companies out of their states, leaving their constituents with fewer plans to choose from.

Even so, staffers at the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions wrote in the report that there “needs to be accountability from insurers” for the errors in their directories. That never happened, and the agency concealed the identities of the companies in the report. A department spokesperson declined to provide the insurers’ names to ProPublica and did not answer questions about the report.

Since January 2023, Arizonans have submitted dozens of complaints to the department that were related to provider networks. The spokesperson would not say how many were found to be substantiated, but the department was able to get insurers to address some of the problems, documents obtained through an open records request show.

According to the department’s online database of enforcement actions, not a single one of those companies has been fined.

Sometimes, when state insurance regulators fail to act, attorneys general or federal regulators intervene in their stead. But even then, the extra enforcers haven’t addressed the

underlying problem.

For years, the Massachusetts Division of Insurance didn’t fine any company for ghost networks, so the state attorney general’s office began to investigate whether insurers had deceived consumers by publishing inaccurate directories. Among the errors identified: One plan had providers listed as accepting new patients but no actual appointments were available for months; another listed a single provider more than 10 times at different offices.

In February 2020, Maura Healey, who was then the Massachusetts attorney general, announced settlements with some of the state’s largest health plans. No insurer admitted wrongdoing. The companies, which together collect billions in premiums each year, paid a total of $910,000. They promised to remove providers who left their networks within 30 days of learning about that decision. Healey declared that the settlements would lead to “unprecedented changes to help ensure patients don’t have to struggle to find behavioral health services.”

But experts who reviewed the settlements for ProPublica identified a critical shortcoming. While the insurers had promised to audit directories multiple times a year, the companies did not have to report those findings to the attorney general’s office. Spokespeople for Healey and the attorney general’s office declined to answer questions about the experts’ assessments of the settlements.

After the settlements were finalized, Healey became the governor of Massachusetts and has been responsible for over-

Health insurance

seeing the state’s insurance division since she took office in January 2023. Her administration’s regulators haven’t brought any fines over ghost networks.

Healey’s spokesperson declined to answer questions and referred ProPublica to responses from the state’s insurance division. A division spokesperson said the state has taken steps to strengthen its provider directory regulations and streamline how information about in-network providers gets collected. Starting next year, the spokesperson said that the division “will consider penalties” against any insurer whose “provider directory is found to be materially noncompliant.”

States that don’t have ghost network laws have seen federal regulators step in to monitor directory errors.

In late 2020, Congress passed the No Surprises Act, which aimed to cut down on the prevalence of surprise medical bills from providers outside of a patient’s insurance network. Since then, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the two large public health insurance programs, has reached out to every state to see which ones could handle enforcement of the federal ghost network regulations.

At least 15 states responded that they lacked the ability to enforce the new regulation. So CMS is now tasked with watching out for errors in directories used by millions of insurance customers in those states.

Julie Brookhart, a spokesperson for CMS, told ProPublica that the agency takes enforcement of the directory error regulations “very seriously.” She said CMS has received a “small

number” of provider directory complaints, which the agency is in the process of investigating. If it finds a violation, Brookhart said regulators “will take appropriate enforcement action.”

But since the requirement went into effect in January 2022, CMS hasn’t fined any insurer for errors. Brookhart said that CMS intends to develop further guidelines with other federal agencies. Until that happens, Brookhart said that insurers are expected to make “good-faith” attempts to follow the federal provider directory rules.

Last year, five California lawmakers proposed a bill that sought to get rid of ghost networks around the state. If it passed, AB 236 would limit the number of errors allowed in a directory — creating a cap of 5% of all providers listed — and raise penalties for violations. California would become home to one of the nation’s toughest ghost network regulations.

The state had already passed one of America’s first such regulations in 2015, requiring insurers to post directories online and correct inaccuracies on a weekly basis.

Since the law went into effect in 2016, insurance customers have filed hundreds of complaints with the California Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees health plans for nearly 30 million enrollees statewide.

Lawyers also have uncovered extensive evidence of directory errors. When San Diego’s city attorney, Mara Elliott, sued several insurers over publishing inaccurate directories in 2021, she based the claims on directory error data collected by the companies themselves. Citing

that data, the lawsuits noted that error rates for the insurers’ psychiatrist listings were between 26% and 83% in 2018 and 2019.

The insurers denied the accusations and convinced a judge to dismiss the suits on technical grounds. A panel of California appeals court judges recently reversed those decisions; the cases are pending.

The companies have continued to send that data to the DMHC each year — but the state has not used it to examine ghost networks. California is among the states that typically waits for a complaint to be filed before it investigates errors.

“The industry doesn’t take the regulatory penalties seriously because they’re so low,” Elliott told ProPublica. “It’s probably worth it to take the risk and see if they get caught.”

California’s limited enforcement has resulted in limited fines. Over the past eight years, the DMHC has issued just $82,500 in fines for directory errors involving providers of any kind. That’s less than onefifth of the fines issued in the two years before the regulation went into effect.

A spokesperson for the DMHC said its regulators continue “to hold health plans accountable” for violating ghost network regulations. Since 2018, the DMHC has discovered scores of problems with provider directories and pushed health plans to correct the errors. The spokesperson said that the department’s oversight has also helped some customers get reimbursed for outof-network costs incurred due to directory errors.

“A lower fine total does not equate to a scaling back on enforcement,” the spokesperson said.

Dr. Joaquin Arambula,

one of the state Assembly members who co-sponsored AB 236, disagreed. He told ProPublica that California’s current ghost network regulation is “not effectively being enforced.” After clearing the state Assembly this past winter, his bill, along with several others that address mental health issues, was suddenly tabled this summer. The roadblock came from a surprising source: the administration of the state’s Democratic governor.

Officials with the DMHC, whose director was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, estimated that more than $15 million in extra funding would be needed to carry out the bill’s requirements over the next five years. State lawmakers accused officials of inflating the costs.

The DMHC’s spokesperson said that the estimate was accurate and based on the department’s “real experience” overseeing health plans.

Arambula and his co-sponsors hope that their colleagues will reconsider the measure during next year’s session. Sitting before state lawmakers in Sacramento this year, a therapist named Sarah Soroken told the story of a patient who had called 50 mental health providers in her insurer’s directory. None of them could see her. Only after the patient attempted suicide did she get the care she’d sought.

“We would be negligent,” Soroken told the lawmakers, “if we didn’t do everything in our power to ensure patients get the health care they need.”

Paige Pfleger of WPLN/ Nashville Public Radio contributed reporting.

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

Cities say they store property taken from homeless encampments. People

rarely get their things back.

By Nicole Santa Cruz, Asia Fields and Ruth Talbot, ProPublica

Series: Swept Away: When Cities Take Belongings From Vulnerable Residents Reporting Highlights

Lost Belongings: As cities remove more encampments, they often take people’s belongings, which can include items needed to survive and irreplaceable mementos.

Storage Programs: Some cities with large homeless populations have been sued for depriving people of their property; in response, they established programs to store what’s taken.

Failed Policies: ProPublica examined such programs and found that people whose belongings are taken in encampment removals rarely get them back.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

When Stephenie came upon workers in Portland, Oregon, who had bagged up all of her belongings in a homeless encampment sweep, she desperately pleaded to get one item back: her purse. It contained her cash and food stamp card — what she needed to survive.

The crew refused to look for it, she said. The items workers had put in clear bags were headed to a city warehouse. Those in black bags were headed to a landfill.

They handed her a card with a phone number to call if she wanted to pick up her things.

Pregnant and hungry, Stephenie was supposed to rest and avoid heavy lifting. She now had to start all over. In the days that followed last September, Stephenie slept on a sidewalk for the first time. She said she attempted suicide.

“I had nowhere to go — no place, no tent, no nothing. I couldn’t even feed myself,” she said. “The lowest point I’ve ever been in my life was after the sweep.”

As homelessness has

reached crisis levels, more cities are clearing tents and encampments in operations commonly called sweeps. Since a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June allowed cities to punish people for sleeping outside, even if there’s no shelter available, some have made their encampment policies more punitive and increased the frequency of sweeps.

Some cities have programs to store what they take, sometimes created in response to lawsuits. In theory, these storage programs are supposed to protect people’s property rights and make it easy to get their possessions back.

In reality, they rarely accomplish either objective, according to a ProPublica investigation of the policies in regions with the largest homeless populations.

ProPublica obtained records from 14 cities showing what was stored following encampment clearings. In Los Angeles and San Diego, thousands of encampments are removed each year, but the belongings taken from them are rarely stored, the records showed. San Diego, for example, removed more than 3,000 sites during 2023 but only documented storing belongings 19 times. In Seattle, the city removed nearly 1,000 encampments during a six-month period last year and stored belongings from just 55 of them.

Even when possessions are stored, the records showed, people are rarely able to reclaim them. In Portland, which stores the most among the cities ProPublica reviewed, property was reclaimed 4% of the time during a recent 12-month period. In San Francisco, property was reclaimed roughly 12% of the time over 18 months; much of what the city stored was collected after contact with police. Records provided to ProPublica by Anaheim, California, showed nothing had

been retrieved from January 2023 through May of this year.

Some cities did not address ProPublica’s questions about the low rates at which people are able to retrieve their belongings. But they broadly defended their encampment practices, saying that they balance the rights of people experiencing homelessness with public health needs.

In Portland, officials said they manage an extensive database of stored belongings and “share in the collective frustration in the difficulties in managing a system that works well for everyone.”

When asked about the sweep in which Stephenie’s items were taken, they acknowledged that camp removals are harmful to unhoused people, but that they must also maintain city property and natural areas.

ProPublica heard from at least 95 people who had experienced encampment clearings in cities with programs to store belongings. Thirty said they tried to recover their belongings but hit obstacles, such as being unable to reach anyone at the facility or the site not having everything that was taken. Only one person got back all of his items.

The rest said they didn’t try, often because they didn’t

know how to go about it, lacked phones or transportation, or thought, and in some cases saw, that their belongings had already been thrown away.

The storage programs offer only an “illusion of compassion,” said Barbara DiPietro, senior director of policy for the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. People experiencing homelessness often endure encampment clearings multiple times, which “wears a human being down,” DiPietro said. “I’ve never heard anyone say they got their stuff back.”

Dozens of outreach workers and advocates in cities with storage programs echoed DiPietro’s statements. Advocates and people with lived experience said this deprives homeless people of belongings they need to survive on the street and forces them to reconstruct their lives and obtain new identification documents when they are taken.

“The loss of property was the harshest punishment many people felt they could face on the street,” said Chris Herring, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California Los Angeles who researches homelessness.

When Stephenie called to

retrieve her belongings last October, no one answered the storage facility phone number. The line was staffed for limited hours. She left a message but couldn’t always keep her phone charged in case someone called back. When she finally reached a person, they provided the address and an appointment time. She had to take multiple buses and walk to get there.

As she sorted through the large clear bags at the warehouse, she realized her tent, most of her tarps and her cooking stove weren’t there. Nor was her purse or prenatal vitamins. Her engagement ring and the notes from her late fiance were also gone.

She left the bags behind.

“To go through all that trouble to get my stuff back and then to have nothing that I needed there, and to have that decided by somebody else who doesn’t even know me, it was traumatizing all in itself,” she said. “It was heartbreaking. It felt like losing everything all over again.”

A Response to

Lawsuits

Nearly half of the cities ProPublica examined created storage programs in response to lawsuits alleging they had violated people’s property rights by destroying belongings during encampment removals. Yet some of those cities, including Phoenix, continue to throw away possessions, according to advocates and people who sleep outside.

In December 2022, after a local advocacy group and unhoused people sued the city of Phoenix for violating the rights of homeless people, a chief U.S. district judge issued an injunction against seizing their property without advanced notice and ordered the city to store belongings for at least 30 days.

The city began storing belongings in May 2023.

Since then, it has responded to 4,900 reports from the public involving encampments, according to city records through May. The city of Phoenix said workers, trained to assess which items are property and which are trash, found storable property at 405 of the locations it visited, and not all of those cases required storage because people may have removed their belongings prior to their arrival. The city stored belongings 69 times.

In June, the Department of Justice issued a report following a nearly three-year investigation, finding that the city and its police department destroyed belongings without providing adequate notice or an opportunity to collect them. Before property is destroyed, the city must provide notice, catalog the property and store it so people can retrieve their belongings, federal investigators wrote.

Benjamin Rundall, who represents the plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit, said he’s never encountered anyone whose belongings were stored by the city. “It’s just giving this appearance that they’re doing something when they’re not doing anything,” he said.

Over the summer, Mike Leeth was helping a friend move their things from a Phoenix alley, leaving his own camp unattended. He rushed back to find his own belongings — clothing, canned food and canopies for shade — were gone. “All of a sudden, I’m down to one set of clothes, and I can’t even wash them because I’m currently wearing them,” he said.

Leeth said the city has thrown away his belongings at least five times. He said he’s never been told that his property would be stored.

The city said in a state-

Homeless encampment. | Photo by Russ Allison Loar CC

Homeless encampments

ment that workers give notice and store unattended property, and that it’s “confident” its processes address encampments in a “dignified and compassionate manner.”

In other cities, lawsuits have continued long after storage programs were put into place.

Los Angeles, with the nation’s largest population of people sleeping outside, has in the last 30 years faced nearly a dozen lawsuits over the destruction of property in homeless camps, according to court records.

A 2019 lawsuit brought by seven people experiencing homelessness and two advocacy groups alleged the city has “codified” seizing and destroying belongings, rather than investing in bathrooms, hand-washing stations and trash cans for unhoused people. In April, a federal judge overseeing the case found that the city had altered documentation of what crews removed during cleanups.

The city declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.

In response to questions from ProPublica, the city of Los Angeles provided data showing that it only stored belongings 4% of the time during a three-month period in 2023. A spokesperson said the city recognizes the “importance of ensuring people have their personal belongings” and “works to not unnecessarily remove anyone’s belongings during cleanings.”

In April, when crews came to move Ismael Arias from where he was living on a sidewalk in a Los Angeles suburb, they took his plumbing tools, a Mexican coin collection given to him by his father and a baseball card collection he was planning to give to his son.

A friend drove him to reclaim his things. At the storage facility, he was given items to look through. “I said, ‘This is not my stuff,’ and they said, ‘Well, this is all we got,’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean this is all you got?’”

ProPublica spoke to three others who attempted to retrieve belongings from Los Angeles storage facilities and found some or all of their things were missing.

Evidence in an ongoing lawsuit in San Francisco revealed that workers were not instructed how to distinguish between personal property that is unattended, abandoned property and property that’s mixed in with biohazards, Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu wrote. Workers’ decisions “appear to give rise to the most disputes,” Ryu wrote in August. The city agreed to better train workers who handle the belongings of

homeless people at removals.

The ruling came weeks after Mayor London Breed promised “a very aggressive” crackdown on encampments. Breed lost her race for reelection.

In August, two ProPublica reporters observed San Francisco public works employees clear an encampment of tents, plastic bins of clothing, a cot and bikes. Nothing was set aside to be stored. One employee did slip into his uniform’s oversized pocket a tin of baseball cards taken from the encampment; he then placed it in the cab of a work truck rather than the back, where other belongings were stacked. The city said it is investigating the incident.

Barriers to Claiming Property

In Portland two years ago, workers took Errol Elliott’s tools, clothing, electronics and makeshift tent near the church where he stayed. He was given information about storage but didn’t have a way to carry his things.

“How are you gonna pick it up when you have no car and you’ve got nine bags of stuff or two big trunks of tools?” he said. “How are you supposed to get that back? They act like it’s so easy to go and get it, but it’s not that easy.”

Portland officials said in this kind of situation, property was likely taken to storage.

But people in Portland and other cities told ProPublica that even if local officials promise to store belongings, they’re often difficult to retrieve. The programs don’t take into consideration the challenges of experiencing homelessness, which include lack of access to transportation and not having a phone, they said. This is further complicated by requiring an appointment to retrieve belongings or not widely distributing the address where items are stored.

Some cities, such as Seattle, Portland, Anaheim and San Jose, California, don’t publicize the addresses of their storage facilities because of concerns about security. Phoenix says it delivers belongings to people, but records show people there are rarely reunited with their property.

When people do figure out where to go, the journey can be long and require multiple trips.

In Denver, for instance, the storage facility is only open for limited hours. Some people have trekked to the warehouse only to be told their belongings were stored off-site and have to be retrieved, said Andy McNulty, an attorney who sued the city on behalf of people who live outside. When they return

they’re told that their belongings weren’t stored, he said.

“It’s pretty common knowledge to folks on the street now that if the city takes your stuff, even if they say they’re going to store it, it’s gone,” McNulty said.

The city of Denver said that people receive a claim slip when their items are stored after an encampment removal. Flyers with contact information are also widely shared so people can arrange a pickup, the city said.

In Los Angeles, a sign giving notice of a June encampment clearing in the San Fernando Valley directed people to call or retrieve their items from The Bins downtown, which is about two hours away on public transit. Multiple people said the distance prevented them from getting their things back or that they were unable to reach anyone for more information on how to retrieve them.

The city stores belongings at 10 locations across Los Angeles, making it even more challenging for people to find their things.

People who experienced encampment removals and researchers who study homelessness said the programs could be more effective by giving clearer notice, providing trash cans and garbage pickup and making sure people have detailed instructions on how to retrieve belongings.

Sonja Verdugo-Baumgartner, an advocate in Los Angeles who said she has experienced sweeps herself, said storage programs could be more productive if cities put effort into them. “But I don’t see the city or anybody being willing to take the time to do that,” she said. “And they can’t just do it for a few people, they need to do it across the board, for anytime they do a sweep.”

Stephenie, whose belongings were taken in Portland, said the experience was crushing.

“It keeps you in what we call a ‘homeless rut,’ where we can’t focus on anything else except being homeless,” she said. “We can’t focus on getting out of it and moving forward.”

She now lives in an RV, which makes it easier to haul her belongings when city workers show up. But she has to move the vehicle every few weeks to avoid being towed, and finding a spot to park is challenging. She’s noticed more cement blocks cropping up in parking spaces along the roadsides.

Maya Miller contributed reporting.

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

Starting a new business? Go to filedba.com

San Gabriel City Notices

ORDINANCE NO. 714

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING CASE NOS. GPA24-001, ZC24-002, DENSITY BONUS, AND STREET VACATION FOR A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 405 S. DEL MAR AVENUE

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2024, the applicant, The Related Companies of California, LLC., submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Density Bonus, and Street Vacation for a one hundred percent affordable senior housing project at 405 S. Del Mar Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Designation is Light Industrial. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing); and WHEREAS, the project site is bordered by industrial/office uses to the north and west, single-family residences to the south, multiple family residences to the east; and WHEREAS, the State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code § 65915, et seq.) allows developers to seek incentives, concessions, or waivers to help make construction of affordable units feasible and without significant burden or detriment to public health; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment of said property from Light Industrial to High Density Residential pursuant to Government Code § 65850 et seq., and San Gabriel Municipal Code § 153.470; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Zone Change of said properties from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-3 (High Density Residential) pursuant to Government Code § 65850 et seq., and San Gabriel Municipal Code § 153.470; and

WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code § 8312 provides that the legislative body of local agency, including the City, may utilize general vacation procedures to vacate any excess rightof-way of a street not required for street or highway purposes; and WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code § 8324 provides that the legislative body of a local agency, including the City, may vacate a public right-of-way by adopting a resolution of vacation in compliance with the requirements set forth therein; and WHEREAS, if there are any public utility facilities within W. Main Street, any vacation of the W. Main Street by the City would require reservation of an easement(s) and right necessary to maintain, operate, replace, remove, or renew the public utility facilities; and

WHEREAS, on September 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time it considered all material and evidence, whether written or oral; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the information contained in the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Density Bonus, and Street Vacation prior to recommending City Council approval of Planning Case Nos. GPA24-001 and ZC24-002; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the City’s vacation of 12 feet of W. Main Street is consistent with the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Agreement, together with the provisions for its design and improvements consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council held a dulynoticed public hearing on the project to consider the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Density Bonus, and Street Vacation, during which time it reviewed all evidence received, both written and oral, considered action and recommendations of the Planning Commission as evidenced by Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-16.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that the Planning Case No. GPA24-001, ZC24-002, Density Bonus, and Street Vacation are consistent with the City of San Gabriel General Plan and San Gabriel Zoning Code based on the following findings:

• The General Plan Amendment will allow the project site to be consistent with the General Plan land use and other applicable General Plan goals.

• The Zone Change will allow the project site to be consistent with the General Plan land use and other applicable General Plan Goals. The development will conform to all applicable development standards of the Zoning Code with the application of a High-Density Residential Zone.

SECTION 2. The Official General Plan Land Use Map of the City is hereby amended to reclassify the property located at 405 S. Del Mar Avenue from Light Manufacturing to High-Density Residential and the Official Zoning Map of the City is hereby amended to be rezone the property from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential), as depicted in Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this

reference.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a local weekly newspaper of general circulation and which is hereby designated for that purpose.

CERTIFICATION

I, Sharon F. Clark, Chief City Clerk of the City of San Gabriel, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 714 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting on the 15th day of October, 2024. Thereafter, said Ordinance was duly approved and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers - Chan, Ding, Harrington, Menchaca, Wu Noes, Abstain, Absent: Councilmembers - None

A copy of the full text of the ordinance including exhibits is available at https://sangabrielcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/22805, at the City Clerk Department, or by e-mailing cityclerk@sgch.org.

EXHIBITS TO ORDINANCE

1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP

2. ZONING MAP

3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Published November 25, 2024 SAN GABRIEL SUN

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF AMENDED PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

HIROSHI TAKAKI

CASE NO. 24STPB11737

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of HIROSHI TAKAKI. AN AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KEIICHI MASADA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KEIICHI MASADA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE AMENDED 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: 12/16/24 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

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 knowl-edgeable 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: STACI TOJI ESQ SBN 299385 TOJI LAW APC 3655 TORRANCE BLVD STE 300 TORRANCE CA 90503 CN111635 LEM Nov 18,21,25, 2024 SAN GABRIEL SUN

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF PHILIP C.T. HUANG

Case No. 24STPB12640

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF HAZEL VICTOR Case No. 24STPB09999

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of HAZEL VICTOR A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Joni Robinson in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Joni Robinson 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.

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 RONALD BERMAN - SBN 079775

BERMAN & BERMAN, APLC 16633 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 940 ENCINO CA 91436

Telephone (818) 593-5050 11/14, 11/18, 11/25/24 CNS-3870577# EL MONTE EXAMINER

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF KAI S. LEM

Case No. 24STPB12526

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

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Elizabeth D. Lem in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Elizabeth D. Lem 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 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 Dec. 10, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 62 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

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of PHILIP C.T. HUANG A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Gordon Huang in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Gordon Huang 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 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 Dec. 13, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 5 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 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.

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: ARMINE BAZIKYAN ESQ SBN 273238 BAZIKYAN LAW GROUP APC 111 E BROADWAY

A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 10, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 4 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: COLETTE T DAVIS ESQ SBN 143785 LAW OFFICES OF COLETTE T DAVIS 5701 W SLAUSON AVENUE STE 140 CULVER CITY, CA 90230 CN111976 VICTOR Nov 25,28, Dec 2, 2024 MONROVIA WEEKLY

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF SUSAN C. EGAN Case No. 24STPB12750

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

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Timothy Egan in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Timothy Egan 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

Glendale City Notices

City of Glendale

NOTICE INVITING BIDS

Specification No. 3989

For Maintenance and Repair of Electrical Services

Four (4) sets of a sealed Bid (one original and three copies) must be received before

2:00PM on Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, in the City Clerk’s Office, located at 613

E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206. Late Bids will not be accepted. There will be a mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting on December 4th at 8AM.

Copies of Specification 3989 (“Specification”) will be made available from noon on November 13th, 2024 until noon on December 4th, 2024. To receive an electronic copy, please send an email request to the City’s contact listed below.

Bid Security equal to 10% of the total Bid Amount, in the form of cash, cashier’s check, money order, or surety bond, made out to City of Glendale, must accompany all Bids.

Refer to the Specification for complete details and Bid requirements. The Specification and this Notice shall be considered a part of any contract made pursuant thereunder.

Bidders shall submit all questions regarding the scope of services, Specification, and Bid process by email with the Subject “Request for Clarification – Electrical”. All Requests for Clarifications shall be submitted before 3PM on December 10th, 2024. City personnel to contact regarding this Bid:

Public Works Facilities Management Division

Bolaji Sojobi, Sr. Public Works Management Analyst 633 E. Broadway, Room 307 Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-3970

bsojobi@glendaleca.gov

The Electrical Services per this Specification are anticipated to start on or about February 1, 2025.

Published on November 18, 25, 2024 GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

City of Glendale

NOTICE INVITING BIDS

Specification No. 3990 For Maintenance and Repair of Flooring

Four (4) sets of a sealed Bid (one original and three copies) must be received before 2:00PM on Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, in the City Clerk’s Office, located at 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206. Late Bids will not be accepted. There will be a mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting on December 4th at 8AM.

Copies of Specification 3990 (“Specification”) will be made available from noon on November 13th, 2024 until noon on December 4th, 2024. To receive an electronic copy, please send an email request to the City’s contact listed below.

Bid Security equal to 10% of the total Bid Amount, in the form of cash, cashier’s check, money order, or surety bond, made out to City of Glendale, must accompany all Bids.

Refer to the Specification for complete details and Bid requirements. The Specification and this Notice shall be considered a part of any contract made pursuant thereunder.

Bidders shall submit all questions regarding the scope of services, Specification, and Bid process by email with the Subject “Request for Clarification – Flooring”. All Requests for Clarifications shall be submitted before 3PM on December 10th, 2024.

City personnel to contact regarding this Bid:

Public Works Facilities Management Division

Bolaji Sojobi, Sr. Public Works Management Analyst 633 E. Broadway, Room 307 Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-3970

bsojobi@glendaleca.gov

The Flooring Services per this Specification are anticipated to start on or about February 1, 2025.

Published on November 18, 25, 2024

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

Pasadena City Notices

Special Meeting Planning Comission

Zoning Code Amendment to Implement Objective Design Standards for High Density Residential Development

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning and Community Development Department is bringing forward a Zoning Code Amendment to amend Title 17 (the Zoning Code) of the Pasadena Municipal Code to implement objective design standards, related to items such as bulk and mass, setbacks, open space, and building materials, applicable to residential and mixed-use projects, with a density greater than 48 dwelling units per acre.

PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed objective design standards will have a significant effect on the environment and whether there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class, therefore resulting in no unusual circumstances.

APPROVALS NEEDED: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider recommendations on the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and environmental determination. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City

LEGALS

Council. The City Council will make a final decision at a separately noticed public hearing.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and proposed environmental determination. The hearing is scheduled for:

Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024

Time: 6:30 p.m.

Place: Council Chambers, Pasadena City Hall 100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249. The meeting agenda packet will be posted by November 29, 2024 at https://www. cityofpasadena.net/commissions/planningcommission/.

PUBLIC INFORMATION: Any interested party or their representative may provide live public comment by following the instructions in the meeting agenda. Prior to the start of the meeting, written correspondence may be emailed to commentsPC@ cityofpasadena.net or mailed to the address below (note that this email address will not be checked once the meeting starts).

Contact Person: Martin Potter, Principal Planner

Phone: (626) 744-6710

E-mail: mpotter@cityofpasadena.net Website: www.cityofpasadena.net/planning

Mailing Address:

Planning & Community Development Department Planning Division, Community Planning Section 175 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101

ADA: To request a disability-related modification or accommodation necessary to facilitate meeting participation, please contact the Planning & Community Development Department as soon as possible at (626) 744-4009 or (626) 744-4371 (TDD) or mpotter@ cityofpasadena.net. Providing at least 72 hours advance notice will help ensure availability. Language translation services may also be requested with 72-hour advance notice by calling (626) 744-4009

Published on November 18, 25, December 2 2024 PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ANGEL MARIA VALDES Case No. 24STPB11596

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of ANGEL MARIA VALDES

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Maria Cruz and Paula Cruz in the Superior Court of Cali-fornia, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Maria Cruz and Paula Cruz 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 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 Dec. 9, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 4 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 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

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 formal 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.

PAUL D. VELASCO, SB# 192421

Attorney for Petitioner

VELASCO LAW GROUP, APC 333 W. Broadway, Suite #100 Long Beach, CA 90802

PNSB# 107439

Published in: Belmont Beacon

Pub Dates: November 18, 21, 25, 2024

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

ALICE E. NATALIZIO

CASE NO. 24STPB12803

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: GREG ASLANIAN ESQ SBN269824 TRUST LAW PARTNERS 275 E CALIFORNIA BLVD PASADENA CA 91106 CN111948 VALDES Nov 18,21,25, 2024 GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF MARIO S. BALIWAG CASE NO. 24STPB12743

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of MARIO S. BALIWAG A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LILIA P. BALIWAG, AKA LILY BALIWAG in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LILIA P. BALIWAG, AKA LILY BALIWAG 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 DECEMBER 13, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Dept.: “5” located at: 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Attorney for Petitioner

PETER A. KEON - SBN 224452

KAVESH, MINOR & OTIS, INC. 990 WEST 190TH STREET, SUITE 500 TORRANCE CA 90502

Telephone (310) 324-9403

11/18, 11/21, 11/25/24 CNS-3871637# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

CHARLES BRUCE MILLER AKA CHARLES B. MILLER CASE NO. PROVA2400954

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of CHARLES BRUCE MILLER AKA CHARLES B. MILLER.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DONALD B. MILLER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DONALD B. MILLER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

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

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JOANIE KAY NATALIZIO ZIELINSKI in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JOANIE KAY NATALIZIO ZIELINSKI 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: 12/31/24 at 8:30AM 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.

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.

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: 12/23/24 at 9:00AM in Dept. F2 located at 17780 ARROW BLVD., FONTANA, CA 92335

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 ANDREW WERTHEIM - SBN 323236 PACIFIC ESTATE PLANNING P.C. 29970 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 109 MURRIETA CA 92563

Telephone (951) 973-0313 BSC 226056 11/18, 11/21, 11/25/24 CNS-3871691# ONTARIO NEWS PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CLOVER THOMAS CASE NO. 24STPB12904 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of CLOVER THOMAS. A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DANA THOMAS in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE

Probate Notices

requests that DANA THOMAS 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: 12/16/24 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 for Petitioner

WILLIAM HAYES - SBN 059479

THE HAYES LAW FIRM

729 MISSION ST., #300 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030

Telephone (626) 403-2292

11/21, 11/25, 11/28/24 CNS-3872223# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF RAZAN FARAH AMMARI

Case No. 24STPB12040

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of RAZAN FARAH AMMARI

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Zena Sawaged in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Zena Sawaged 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 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 Feb. 7, 2025 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 5 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 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.

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:

JEFFREY M OBERTO ESQ SBN 298805

KEYSTONE LAW GROUP P C 11300 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 910

LOS ANGELES CA 90064

CN111982 AMMARI Nov 25,28, Dec 2, 2024

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

MARK KARAMIAN AKA

MARK M. KARAMIAN AKA MAIS MARK KARAMIAN CASE NO. 24STPB12873

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of MARK KARAMIAN AKA MARK M. KARAMIAN AKA MAIS MARK KARAMIAN.

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

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ARARAT KARAMYAN 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: 12/16/24 at 8:30AM in Dept. 4 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

RYAN D. BOWNE, ESQ. - SBN 236970

LEGALS

LAW OFFICE OF RYAN D. BOWNE, ESQ. 4421 W. RIVERSIDE DR., STE. 200 BURBANK CA 91505

Telephone (818) 846-5515 11/25, 11/28, 12/2/24 CNS-3873098# GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

DEBRA SOTELO LEYVA

CASE NO. PROVA2400973

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

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

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ROBERT DEWESTER 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: 01/22/25 at 11:00AM in Dept. F2 located at 17780 ARROW BLVD., FONTANA, CA 92335

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 C. TRACY KAYSER - SBN 230022 KAYSER LAW GROUP, APC 1407 N. BATAVIA ST., STE. 103 ORANGE CA 92867

Telephone (714) 984-2004 BSC 226079 11/25, 11/28, 12/2/24 CNS-3873122# ONTARIO NEWS PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

YUN KEITH SHIM

CASE NO. 24STPB13062

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

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by HWA OK SHIM in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that HWA OK SHIM 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: 12/20/24 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

JESSICA A. LYONS, ESQ. - SBN 269768

LAW OFFICE OF FRED F. MASHIAN, APC 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 245

LOS ANGELES CA 90025-1104 Telephone (310) 274-7501 11/25, 11/28, 12/2/24 CNS-3873462# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RAZAN FARAH AMMARI

CASE NO. 24STPB12040

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

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

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SUHAIL SAWAGED 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: 12/19/24 at 8:30AM in Dept. 5 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 sec-

tion 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

STEPHEN P. AJALAT, ESQ. - SBN 159051, AJALAT & AJALAT LLP

330 NORTH BRAND BLVD., SUITE 1250

GLENDALE CA 91203

Telephone (818) 506-1500 11/25, 11/28, 12/2/24

CNS-3873093# GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

Public Notices

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE # CIV SB 2431329 TO ALL INTERESTED PER-

SONS: Petitioner: Yang Yu, filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present Name(s): Yang Yu to Proposed name: Henry Shen, THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that in-cludes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing. NOTICE OF HEARING

Date: 12/11/2024 Time: 9:00am Dept.: S24

The address of the court is: Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District - Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210 A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation printed in this county: San Bernardino Press Newspaper. Date: October 29, 2024 2 STAMPED/s/: San Bernardino Press, Judge of the Superior Court Publish Dates: November 4, 11, 18, 25, 2024 SAN BERNARDINO PRESS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Nikko Jewel Haller FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER: 24NWCP00429 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 12720 Norwalk Blvd, Norwalk, Ca 90650, SouthEast Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: 1. Petitioner Nikko Jewel Haller filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Nikko Jewel Haller to Proposed name Nikko Snow 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reason for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing NOTICE OF HEARING a. Date: 12/30/2024 Time: 9:30AM Dept: C. Room: 312 The address of the court is same as noted above. 3. a. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the day set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: Glendale Independent DATED: November 6, 2024 Olivia Rosales JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Pub. November 11, 18, 25, December 2, 2024 GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Megan Kristina Sutcliffe FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER: 24NWCP00428 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 12720 Norwalk Blvd, Norwalk, Ca 90650, SouthEast Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: 1. Petitioner Megan Kristina Sutcliffe filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Megan Kristina Sutcliffe to Proposed name Megan Snow 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reason for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing NOTICE OF HEARING a. Date: 12/30/2024 Time: 9:30AM Dept:

GALSTAR WOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION and against SUAZO, ARCADIA. I have levied upon all the right, title and interest of said judgment debtor(s) in the property in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: A CONDOMINIUM COMPRISED OF: PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO., 23264, IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 819 PAGES 29 AND 30 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RE-CORDER OF SAID COUNTY SHOWN AND DEFINED AS UNIT 72 ON THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN RECORDED JANUARY 11, 1973 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3668 IN BOOK M4259 PAGE 480, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: AN UNDIVIDED 1/124TH INTEREST IN AND TO THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 23264, SHOWN AND DEFINED AS ``COMMON AREA`` ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN, EXCEPT THEREFROM 1/2 OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 116 OF TRACT NO. 930, DISTANCE THEREON SOUTH 1 DEGREES 04 MINUTES WEST 2300.00 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 19 OF SAID TRACT NO. 930; THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 21 MINUTES EAST 9343.27 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTER LINE OF BARANCA STREET AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP DISTANT THEREON SOUTHERLY FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CEN-TER LINE OF CAMERON AVENUE, 1000.00 FEET , AS RESERVED BY TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 21, 1944 IN BOOK 20687 PAGE 153, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. BY DEED DATED JANUARY 22, 1964 RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3933 IN BOOK D2332 PAGE 80, OF OFFI-CIAL RECORDS, JOSEPH DOBLE MULLENDER AND VIVIAN P. MULLENDER, QUITCLAIMED TO BRUTOCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE SUBSURFACE TO A DEPTH OF

Car buffs unite: LA Auto Show begins 10-day run at Convention Center

By City News Service

The Los Angeles Auto Show, billed as one of the most influential automotive events in the world, will open to the public Friday, featuring unveilings of the latest models and auto technology, displays from manufacturers around the world and even a chance to test-drive some of the latest off-road vehicles.

“The Los Angeles Auto Show is the preeminent, global stage for the latest trends and innovations in automotive, and overlanding is one of our most exciting categories,” Terri Toennies, president and chief operating officer of Los Angeles Auto Show and AutoMobility LA, said in a statement. “We will again deliver an unmatched experience for our attendees as they will be able to see and feel firsthand the power and vibrancy of this dynamic segment of our industry.”

Covering more than 1 million square feet of space at the Los Angeles Convention Center, the event annually draws thousands of spectators over its 10- day run — including Thanksgiving — as attendees wander through displays of hundreds of latest models, including gas-powered, hybrid and electric vehicles.

Among the manu-

facturers taking part are Acura, Alfa Romeo, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Dodge, Fiat, Ford, Genesis, GMC, Honda, Hummer, Hyundai, Ineos, Jeep, Kia, Lucid, Nissan, Polestar, Porsche Downtown LA, RAM, Rivian, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, VinFast, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Also on display will be an array of custom vehicles, exotics, classic cars, lowriders and off-road vehicles.

Attendees will also be able to take indoor and outdoor test drives. Among the “rides” available for visitors will be a first-ever indoor-outdoor off-road course known as Ford’s “Bronco Mountain,” which allows people to experience “the power of Bronco while learning about the brand’s storied legacy.”

Also included will be “Camp Jeep,” a 30,000-square-foot exhibit offering a chance to take a Jeep through a series of obstacles “that simulate the rigorous testing required before customers can get behind the wheel.” Professional drivers will also show off capabilities of the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 4xe, Grand Cherokee Trailhawk 4xe and Jeep Gladiator Rubicon.

The show will also feature a display area dedicated to outdoor vehicle recreation, known as the OVRland Outpost, sponsored by OVRMag.com. The exhibit will include 31 overlanding rigs, three camping trailers and exhibits from various companies and influencers.

The Auto Show will continue through Dec. 1.

4 pro-Palestinian protesters arrested at UCLA

By City News Service

Four people were arrested Tuesday after a protest held by Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA blocked access to Bruin Walk, it was reported Wednesday.

According to the UCLA Police Department, the arrests occurred Tuesday evening after about 75 people formed a human chain by linking their arms together.

“These actions blocked pedestrian access on Bruin Walk,” UCLA police said in a statement Wednesday morning. “Our officers responded to ensure people could use Bruin Walk, the main pedestrian thoroughfare on campus. Three suspects were identified and later arrested for physically blocking people who attempted to pass on Bruin Walk. A fourth suspect, who tried to interfere with one of the arrests, was also taken into custody.

“We respect and value everyone’s right to express

their First Amendment freedoms, provided it’s done safely and without adversely affecting others who are trying to travel throughout our campus,” the police statement continued. “The investigation into this incident is ongoing, and anyone with information is asked to contact the UCLA Police Department.”

According to the Daily Bruin, around 150 people had gathered in Bruin Plaza to protest with Students for Justice in Palestine.

Rash of Legionnaire’s disease in Westminster prompts warnings

By City News Service

Orange County Health Care Agency officials are reporting seven Westminster residents have contracted Legionnaire’s Disease, prompting an advisory Thursday for business and property owners to check water management practices.

The seven who fell ill to the disease live in a northwest corner of the city. Health Care Agency officials were working to find out the source of the infections, with suspicions pointing to cooling towers, pools, spas or other water sources, as the bacteria responsible for the illness thrives in warm water environments.

It is usually spread by the inhalation of water drops in the air that come from sources such as a cooling tower mist, hot tub or decorative fountains. It can’t be spread from person to person.

Legionnaire’s disease can be treated with antibiotics and includes symptoms associated with pneumonia such as fever, cough, shortness of breath, achy muscles, headaches, chest pain and nausea or diarrhea.

There has been a steady rise of the disease over the

‘La

past five years from 66 cases in 2019, 92 in 2023 and 82 reported so far this year.

Officials emphasize a slight risk to Westminster residents, but recommend that anyone who experiences those symptoms should see a doctor. The disease poses a greater risk to those 50 and older or anyone with a

compromised immune system or with chronic respiratory issues such as asthma.

Officials advised property owners and businesses to check cooling towers, hot tubs or fountains to make sure they’re clean and disinfected. They should have routine maintenance and be checked for Legionella bacteria.

Virgen de Guadalupe, Dios Inantzin’ returns to LA Cathedral

By Staff

In a Nov. 17 Instagram post, SJP called for people to come to Bruin Plaza as part of a nationwide student strike and march in opposition of what it called a genocide, according to the Daily Bruin. The newspaper reported that the post also reiterated the group’s demands, which call on the UC and the UCLA Foundation to divest from organizations with ties to the Israeli military, and urged academic boycotts of Israeli universities.

Latino Theater Company returns with “La Virgen de Guadalupe, Dios Inantzin,” the company’s signature holiday pageant that has been a Los Angeles holiday tradition since 2002. Join the tens of thousands who have become transfixed by the story of Juan Diego, a simple peasant to whom the Virgin Mary appeared on four occasions in the mountains of Tepeyac near

Mexico City in 1531. Starring Esperanza América as the Virgin Mary and Sal Lopez as Juan Diego, the cast features over 100 actors, singers and indigenous Aztec dancers as well as children and seniors from the community.

LA’s largest theatrical holiday pageant, La Virgen has been covered by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles HOY, Univision and Fox

News among many others. Performed in Spanish with English supertitles. Performances will be held Friday, Dec. 6 at 7 p.m. and Saturday, Dec. 7 at 6 p.m. at Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, located at 555 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. General admission is free while premium seating is $45. For more information, visit www.latinotheaterco. org.

Sal Lopez and ensemble. | Photo by Grettel Cortes Photography

This map shows the area in Westminster where the Legionnaire’s outbreak is occurring. | Image courtesy of the Orange County Health Care Agency

The Palestinian flag. | Photo courtesy of JDiala/Wikimedia Commons

| Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Auto Show/Facebook

Copper wire thieves causing phone, internet outages in Hacienda Heights

By City News Service

Copper wire thieves have left people who live in Hacienda Heights withoutlandlinephone service and internet access for months, and they are demanding answers from the service provider and police Wednesday.

During a Hacienda Heights Improvement Association meeting with the community Monday night to address the issue, residents complained about being without service since April and want to know how they are supposed to contact family and loved ones in the event of an emergency.

The community is also in an area that has poor cell phone service. There is a

concern that if there is a fire, earthquake or flood, there is no way to contact emergency responders or family members.

Thieves steal copper wire that is used by Frontier Communications for internet cables and phone lines. A representative from Frontier Communications attended the meeting and told the residents the cable theft is tough to stop.

The residents complained about the lack of responses from Frontier Communications and the continued outages.

DouglasMcAllister, Frontier’s vice president of external affairs in California, said preventing the copper

wire thefts is like playing Whack-a- Mole.

“We’ll get them dealt with here, and they pop up over there,” he said at the meeting.

One of the ways to stop the copper wire thefts is to replace the cables with fiber optics, which are made of glass.

McAllister said Frontier is not able to make that replacement because of safety rules in place by the city of Hacienda Heights.

But McAllister gave credit to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for addressing the copper wire thefts. There is a $5,000 reward offered to help catch copper wire thieves.

Phillips 66 charged with illegal wastewater discharge into LA County sewer system

By City News Service

Texas-based Phillips 66 was indicted on six federal charges for allegedly dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of wastewater from its Carson oil refinery into the Los Angeles County sewer system, prosecutors announced Thursday.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the indictment charges Phillips 66 with two counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act and four counts of knowingly violating the Clean Water Act. An arraignment date for the company has not yet been set.

Phillips 66 issued a statement saying, “Phillips 66 will continue its cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and is prepared to present its case in these matters in court. The company remains committed to operating safely and protecting the health and safety of our employees and the communities where we operate.”

Federal authorities contend that during a 2 1/2-hour period on Nov. 24, 2020, the refinery discharged roughly 310,000 gallons of wastewater into the county sewer system, with the wastewater containing about 64,000 pounds of oil and grease, which is more than 300 times the concentration allowed by its permit.

Juvenile halls

Refinery officials allegedly failed to inform the county about the noncompliant discharge.

The county issued violation notices to Phillips in December 2020 in response to the discharge, and according to federal prosecutors, a company manager responded by acknowledging the discharge and claiming the company would “retrain operations personnel” about such discharges and procedures for notifying the county.

However, during a 5 1/2-hour period on the evening of Feb. 8, 2021, the refinery discharged about 480,000 gallons of industrial wastewater into the sewer system, containing about 33,700 pounds of oil and grease, according to the U.S. Attorney’s

Office. The county again issued violations notices to the company the following month, and a refinery manager again responded by acknowledging the noncompliant discharge and its failure to notify the county, prosecutors said. If convicted of the charges contained in the indictment, the company could face a sentence of five years’ probation and $2.4 million in fines, prosecutors said.

Phillips 66 announced in October that it plans to close its Los Angeles-area refinery operations next year. The company operates the crude oil processing facility in Carson and a finishing plant in Wilmington. The facilities are linked by a five-mile pipeline.

and I know that we won’t break the cycle of incarceration without ensuring the education, healing, and rehabilitation of those involved in the juvenile justice system. I am hopeful that this new, expanded agreement will address persistent problems at these juvenile halls, but my office will be watching closely and ready to take further action if needed.”

The Probation Department issued a statement on the legal action:

“The Los Angeles County Probation Department has jointly filed a motion with the State Attorney General regarding improvements at Los Padrinos and Barry J. Nidorf. This joint motion will require court approval to take effect. While that is pending, we have no immediate comment other than to underscore that our top priority remains the safety and well-being of the youth in our care. We are committed to transforming

our juvenile facilities into secure, healthy, and rehabilitative environments and are determined to meet and surpass all required standards.”

Last month the LA County Board of Supervisors called for the appointment of an internal compliance officer within 30 days to ensure that juvenile halls comply with regulations mandated by state law.

District 5 Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she supports the motion filed by the county and AG’s office.

“I’m aware our Los Angeles County Probation Department has been working hard to course correct and meet its compliance obligations, but persistent shortcomings and big challenges persist within its system of care and rehabilitation for youth,” Barger said in a statement. “The joint motion filed with the Attorney General will bring in additional monitoring and protections that will

fortify and further help ensure the safety of youth and staff. I’m hopeful the court will approve these stricter monitoring and reporting requirements. I welcome the additional scrutiny and accountability. The more eyes, the better.”

Last year, Bonta secured a motion to enforce a 2021 judgment that initiated reforms at LA County juvenile facilities. But after some initial progress toward compliance with regulations, “the monitor again began to raise the alarm over multiple serious threats to youth safety including the County’s failure to adequately staff the juvenile halls; to stem the flow of drugs; to prevent staff from instigating or encouraging youth-on-youth assaults; to deliver youth to medical appointments; to prevent retaliation against youth who file grievances; and to ensure cameras are installed in all areas and that video footage is

reviewed, among other concerns,” according to the AG’s office.

The amended judgment filed in LA Superior Court, requests these stricter requirements for the Probation Department to fulfill:

Monitoring and reporting: The judgment requires monitoring reports twice a year, and now requires the reports to be publicly filed with the court. The judgment also requires monthly monitoring reports on critical health and safety issues and adds a deputy monitor at each juvenile hall “in the event that the County fails to come into compliance with critical judgment terms,” according to the AG’s office.

Youth safety: The motion calls for the county to do timely reviews of useof-force incidents, address gaps in camera coverage and implement formal procedures for reviewing incidents.

Access to services: The

Probation Department will be required to put in place an electronic data system to provide youth with access to outside recreation, religious services and visitation. The department will also have to implement a plan to address its “persistent failure” to get youth detainees to medical appointments on time.

Staffing: A revised plan is required to solve “the staffing crisis” with minimum staffing levels based on facility population, leave abuses and staff recruitment, retention and wellness.

Retaliation: The revised judgment would require the county to establish a “monitor-approvedanti-retaliation policy,” in addition to hiring and training an ombudsperson at each juvenile facility to address youth grievances and help prevent retaliation.

Revisinginadequate polices:Thejudgment requires the Probation

Department to revise insufficient policies on reducing violence, including incidents involving staff-instigated violence and ways to ensure timely and adequate investigations. Protocols for reporting child abuse must also be revised, according to Bonta and the county’s motion.

In May 2023, the Board of State and Community Corrections found the Central Juvenile Hall in Lincoln Heights and the Nidorf facility in Sylmar to be unsuitable to house youth detainees and ordered the facilities to close. That led to the reopening of Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, where all youths in custody were transferred. A portion of Nidorf remained open as a Security Youth Treatment Facility for post-disposition youth detainees.

The court filing of the proposed order to amend the stipulated judgment is available on the internet.

Copper wire manufacturing. | Photo by FabrikaPhoto/Envato Elements

| Image courtesy of Phillips 66 Company/Wikimedia Commons (CC0)