HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocuments submitted by Council Member Calvin1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NOTICE INVITING QUALIFICATION PROPOSALS, RFQ NO. F-20-03
DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that qualification proposals will be
received by the City of San Bernardino (“City”) online via the Planet Bids
web site until August 26, 2019 at 3:00 PM, PDT. Qualification proposals
received after this date will be rejected by the City. Faxed or e-mailed
qualification proposals will not be accepted.
Interested proposers may download copies of the Request for
Qualification proposals (“RFQ”) by visiting the City’s web site:
http://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/services/request_for_bids/all_bids.asp
For more information regarding the RFQ, please contact:
City of San Bernardino Finance Department
909-384-5242 / Purchasing@SBCity.org
2
Introduction:
The City of San Bernardino invites qualified local, regional and national
developers to submit their qualifications for consideration by the Mayor and
City Council to redevelop the former Carousel Mall. The City seeks developers
who have experience with large urban in-fill, mixed use and transit-oriented
development projects that have been a catalyst for stimulating growth and
development in communities.
The property under consideration is referred to as the Carousel Mall, a 43-acre
property located in the historic heart of Downtown San Bernardino. In 1972,
the mall opened its doors as the Central City Mall with major anchor stores
including Harris Company, J.C. Penney and Montgomery Wards with a variety
of inline tenants. By the 1980s, the mall began to decline and efforts were
made to rebrand the mall as the Carousel Mall. By the beginning of the new
century, the anchor stores began to close their doors leaving the inline tenants
in the mall. After 45 years of operations, the Carousel Mall closed its doors to
the public in 2017. This action has created a new and exciting opportunity for
growth and development in the historic core of San Bernardino.
The vast majority of the
Carousel Mall property is
controlled by the City of San
Bernardino with the exception
of the Harris Company
department store and the
Enterprise Building, formerly
known as the Andresen
building, both of which fronts
E Street. The City’s
ownership of the property is
through its former
redevelopment agency and is
therefore subject to the
dissolution act process for all
redevelopment agencies in
California. This property has
been identified as one of the
main catalysts for the future
revitalization of Downtown
San Bernardino and the strategic sale of this property asset is of key
importance.
3
The Carousel Mall is strategically located in the center of the City’s Downtown,
which stretches from 9th Street on the north to Mill and Rialto Streets on the
south and from Interstate 215 on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east. In
addition to this location being in the City of San Bernardino’s Downtown, it
also includes the County of San Bernardino seat of government and hosts both
state and federal government office buildings as well. On any given day, there
are 15,000 to 20,000 governmental employees and patrons in Downtown. The
Carousel Mall is also located a short distance north of the Downtown Regional
Transit Center, a multi-model transportation facility. The Regional Transit
Center services the Metrolink commuter heavy rail line, the Omnitrans sbX
Rapid Transit bus line, the future light rail line from the University of Redlands
and local and regional bus services. Due to the Carousel Mall’s proximity to
the Regional Transit Center, the mall property is ideal for Transit Oriented
Development.
The Carousel Mall is also located in the federally designated Opportunity Zone
(“OZ”). The OZ program was established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
through the Internal Revenue Service. The program offers three tax incentives
for investment in lower income communities through a qualified Opportunity
Fund.
4
Development Parameters and Vision:
The development parameters for future development of the Carousel Mall
property are drawn from the 2005 Land Use and Economic Development
Elements of the General Plan and from the 2009 Vision Plan for the Carousel
Mall property. Although the existing General Plan and Development Code
establish the development limitations for the Carousel Mall, the City
encourages developers to be innovative and creative in their vision for the
development of the mall. Since the Carousel Mall property and the Downtown
plays such a pivotal role in the community, the parameters include, but are not
limited to:
Redevelop the Carousel Mall property as a destination attracting new
business and residents to the downtown core of the city;
Utilize place making concepts for the design framework of future
development;
Re-establishment of the historic street system in part or whole;
Downtown revitalization would include urban development in a vertical
mixed-use format combining high density residential, commercial and office
uses;
Development patterns would include ground floor commercial, retail,
service, entertainment and food oriented uses with residential uses allowed
on the second floor and above;
Outdoor dining would be encouraged for ground floor restaurant and food
oriented uses;
Entertainment venues are encouraged;
Professional and/or governmental office development may be a functional
component of the redevelopment of the site;
5
On secondary street frontage, live/work units may be a functional
component;
New development in the Downtown should be designed, sited and massed to
convey “Urban” characteristics with buildings and structures in close
proximity to sidewalks. First floor architectural design should be designed
at a pedestrian scale and create interest;
Buildings of historic significance should be preserved when feasible
maintaining the historic fabric of the Downtown;
The use of pedestrian oriented plazas and courtyards are encouraged
creating interest for the users and residents of the Downtown;
Parking should be located at the rear of the site or underground and cannot
be located along a public street;
Main entryways to the project should tie into surrounding transit facilities;
Off-street parking may be reduced for projects, building and uses that make
use of public transportation provided at the San Bernardino Regional
Transit Center and the sbX High-Speed Bus Rapid Transit System;
Flexibility may be provided as it relates to the residential density, floor area
ratio and building height when deemed necessary;
The City understands that a project of this magnitude may be broken into
various development phases; and
The City would encourage developers to evaluate the future development
opportunities on adjacent and surrounding properties.
6
Submittal Requirements:
The City of San Bernardino is interested in identifying a developer with a sound
professional development team to redevelop the former Carousel Mall property.
Development scenarios could include the sale of the property to a developer
with specific development criteria to carrying out the development of the
property; or entering into a Public Private Partnership (“PPP”) with the City of
San Bernardino. As the City evaluates each development team, the evaluation
criteria will be heavily weighted in the favor of a developer who has recent
experience in the urban in-fill, mixed use and transit-oriented development
projects that have functioned as a catalyst for future growth and development
in an urban setting.
Since the City seeks to identify the most experienced and innovative developer,
the submittal criteria is less rigid than a Request for Proposal submittal. At
the minimum, please provide the following information:
1. Letter of Introduction – Including a summary of the respondent’s basic
qualifications, experience, past projects of similar size and scope and other
projects that show a diversity of experience, and the reason for interest in
this great development opportunity. The letter should be signed by a
principal or authorized officer of the company who may make legally binding
commitments for the development entity.
2. Team Members – Identify members of the development Team and provide a
brief description of each of the member’s role including the following:
Principles that will be involved in the project;
Resumes for the key members of the team;
Describe each of the team member’s proposed role and relevant
experience with projects of similar size and scope;
An organizational chart of the firm and/or development team; and
Identify the lead contact or project manager of the team.
3. Demonstrate relevant design and development experience in high-quality in-
fill development projects that are compatible with the urban fabric of a
traditional downtown. This experience should include a broad
understanding of the components that make up a functional downtown
including commercial, entertainment, restaurants, service industries,
hospitality, urban housing and professional and/or governmental offices.
Transit oriented development experience is also a key component under
consideration.
7
4. Describe your experience working with and/or partnering with local
government on a similar sized project or any project for that matter. Provide
a contact list from each of the municipalities you have worked with.
5. Demonstrate the ability to self-finance or secure funding for large mixed-use
projects such as this.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
The tentative schedule is as follows:
ACTION DATE
Release of Request for Qualifications July 11, 2019
Last Day to Submit Questions for
Clarification received by the City on or
before 3:00 PM
July 25, 2019
Clarifications Issued by City on or before 5:00 PM August 2, 2019
Qualification proposals are Due by 3:00 PM August 26, 2019
Approval of Short List of Firms September 2019
The above scheduled dates are tentative and City retains the sole
discretion to adjust the above schedule. Nothing set forth herein shall be
deemed to bind City to award a contract for the above-described Services
and City retains the sole discretion to cancel or modify any part of or all
of this RFQ at any time.
PROCESS FOR SUBMISSION
Content of Qualification Packet
The qualification packet must be submitted using the format as indicated
in the proposal format guidelines.
Preparation of Proposal
Each proposal shall be prepared simply and economically,
avoiding the use of elaborate promotional material beyond those
sufficient to provide a complete, accurate and reliable
presentation.
8
Number of Qualification proposals
Submit twelve (12) hard copies plus one copy of your proposal saved
onto a flash drive in PDF file format. Provide sufficient detail to allow for
thorough evaluation and comparative analysis.
Submission of Qualification proposals
Submit twelve (12) hard copies plus one copy of your proposal
saved onto a flash drive in PDF file format. Provide sufficient
detail to allow for thorough evaluation and comparative analysis.
Qualification packets must be submitted to the City of San
Bernardino no later than 3:00 p.m. (P.S.T) on August 26, 2019.
Qualification proposals will not be accepted after this deadline.
Faxed or e-mailed qualification proposals will not be accepted.
Qualification proposals should be delivered to:
City of San Bernardino
ATTN: Jim Slobojan Deputy Finance Director
290 North D Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
The City shall not be responsible for qualification proposals
that are delinquent due to any technological malfunction on
Proposers equipment, delinquent in mail delivery, lost,
incorrectly marked, and sent to an address other than that
given herein, or sent by mail or courier service and not signed
for by the City.
Inquiries
Questions about this RFQ must be directed in writing, via PlanetBids
Q&A tab by July 25, 2019 at 3pm for response.
The principal contact for the City regarding this RFQ will be Jim Slobojan
at Slobojan_Ji@sbcity.org. From the date that this RFQ is issued until a
vendor is selected and the selection is announced, firms are not allowed
to communicate for any reason with any City employee other than the
principal contact listed above regarding this RFQ, except during the pre-
proposal conference, if scheduled. Refer to the Schedule of Events of this
RFQ to determine if a pre-proposal conference has been scheduled. The
City reserves the right to reject any proposal for violation of this
provision. No questions other than those written and submitted to the
appropriate city employee will be accepted, and no response other than
written will be binding upon the City.
9
All questions, requests for interpretations or clarifications, either
administrative or technical must be requested in writing and directed to
the City Contact for this RFQ, identified above.
Conditions for Proposal Acceptance
This RFQ does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any
costs incurred for any services. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves
the right to accept or reject any or all qualification proposals received as
a result of this RFQ, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel
this RFQ in part or in its entirety. All qualification proposals will become
the property of the City of San Bernardino, USA. If any proprietary
information is contained in the proposal, it should be clearly identified.
Submittal Requirements
General: It is strongly recommended that the Proposer submit
qualification proposals in the format identified in this RFQ to allow the
City to fully evaluate and compare the proposal. All requirements and
questions in the RFQ should be addressed and all requested data shall
be supplied. The City reserves the right to request additional information
which, in the City’s opinion, is necessary to assure that the Proposer’s
competence, number of qualified employees, business organization, and
financial resources are adequate to perform according to the Agreement.
Preparation: Qualification proposals should be prepared in such a way as
to provide a straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfy
the requirements of this RFQ. Responses should emphasize the
Proposer’s demonstrated capability to perform the Services. Expensive
bindings and promotional materials, etc., are not necessary or desired.
However, technical literature that supports the approach to providing the
Services and work plan should be forwarded as part of the proposal.
Emphasis should be concentrated on completeness, approach to the
work and clarity of proposal.
Site Examination: Proposers may visit the City and its physical facilities
to determine the local conditions which may in any way affect the
performance of the work; familiarize themselves with all federal, state
and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and codes affecting the
performance of the work; make such investigations, as it may deem
necessary for performance of the Services at its proposal price within the
terms of the Agreement; and correlate its observations, investigations,
and determinations with the requirements of the Agreement.
Authorization: The proposal shall be signed by an individual, partner,
officer or officers authorized to execute legal documents on behalf of the
Proposer.
10
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Amendments to RFQ: The City reserves the right to amend the RFQ
and issue to all Proposers an addendum.
2. Amendments to Qualification proposals: Unless specifically
requested by the City, no amendment, addendum or modification shall
be accepted after a proposal has been submitted to City. If a change to a
proposal that has been submitted is desired, the submitted proposal
must be withdrawn and the replacement proposal submitted prior to the
deadline stated herein for receiving qualification proposals.
3. Non-Responsive Qualification proposals: A proposal may be
considered non-responsive if conditional, incomplete, or if it contains
alterations of form, additions not called for, or other irregularities that
may constitute a material change to the proposal.
4. Costs for Preparing: The City shall not compensate any Proposer
for the cost of preparing any proposal, and all materials submitted with a
proposal shall become the property of the City. The City will retain all
qualification proposals submitted and may use any idea in a proposal
regardless of whether that proposal is selected.
5. Cancellation of RFQ: City reserves the right to cancel this RFQ at
any time prior to contract award without obligation in any manner for
proposal preparation, interview, fee negotiation or other marketing costs
associated with this RFQ.
6. Price Validity: Prices provided by Proposers in response to this RFQ
are valid for 180 days from the proposal due date. The City intends to
award the contract within this time but may request an extension from
the Proposers to hold pricing, until negotiations are complete and the
contract is awarded.
7. No Commitment to Award: Issuance of this RFQ and receipt of
qualification proposals does not commit the City to award a contract.
City expressly reserves the right to postpone the proposal for its own
convenience, to accept or reject any or all qualification proposals received
in response to this RFQ, to negotiate with more than one Proposer
concurrently, or to cancel all or part of this RFQ.
8. Right to Negotiate and/or Reject Qualification proposals: City
reserves the right to negotiate any price or provision, task order or
service, accept any part or all of any qualification proposals, waive any
irregularities, and to reject any and all, or parts of any and all
qualification proposals, whenever, in the sole opinion of City, such action
11
shall serve its best interests and those of the tax-paying public. The
Proposers are encouraged to submit their best prices in their
qualification proposals, and City intends to negotiate only with the
Proposer(s) whose proposal most closely meets City’s requirements at the
lowest estimated cost. The Agreement, if any is awarded, shall go to the
Proposer whose proposal best meets City’s requirements.
9. Non-Discrimination: The City does not discriminate on the basis of
race, color, national origin, religion, age, ancestry, medical condition,
disability or gender in consideration for an award of contract.
10. Confidentiality of Proposal: Pursuant to Michaelis, Montanari, &
Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, qualification proposals
submitted in response to this RFQ shall be held confidential by City and
shall not be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act
(Cal. Government Code section 6250 et seq.) until after either City and
the successful Proposer have completed negotiations and entered into an
Agreement or City has rejected all qualification proposals. All
correspondence with the City including responses to this RFQ shall
become the exclusive property of the City and shall become public
records under the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, the City
shall have no liability to the Proposer or other party as a result of any
public disclosure of any proposal or the Agreement.
If a Proposer desires to exclude a portion of its proposal from disclosure
under the California Public Records Act, the Proposer must mark it as
such and state the specific provision in the California Public Records Act
which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for claiming
the exemption. For example, if a Proposer submits trade secret
information, the Proposer must plainly mark the information as “Trade
Secret” and refer to the appropriate section of the California Public
Records Act which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for
claiming the exemption. Although the California Public Records Act
recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be
protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish
that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a
request is made for information marked “Confidential”, “Trade Secret” or
“Proprietary” (“Proprietary Information”), the City will provide Proposers
who submitted the information with reasonable notice to seek protection
from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. Proposer shall have
five (5) working days after receipt of such notice to give City written
notice of Proposer's objection to the City's release of Proprietary
Information. Proposer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents from and against
all liability, loss, cost or expense (including attorney's fees) arising out of
a legal action brought to compel the release of Proprietary Information.
12
Qualification proposals which indiscriminately identify all or most of the
proposal as exempt from disclosure without justification may be deemed
unresponsive and disqualified from further participation in this
procurement.
11. Pre-Proposal meeting (if designated): Each Proposer may be
requested to attend a pre- proposal meeting or job-walk. The date will be
listed online and in the Proposal Schedule in this RFQ. The meeting or
job-walk will be designated as either mandatory or non-mandatory.
Failure to attend a mandatory meeting will preclude a Proposer from
submitting a proposal. Attendance at the pre-proposal meeting or job-
walk will ensure the Proposer understands the full scope of the Services
requested
12. Protest Contents: Protests based on the content of the RFQ shall
be submitted to the City no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the
scheduled proposal submittal deadline. If necessary, the proposal
submittal deadline may be extended pending a resolution of the protest.
Proposer may protest a contract award if the Proposer believes that the
award was inconsistent with City policy or this RFQ is not in compliance
with law. A protest must be filed in writing with the City (email is not
acceptable) within five (5) business days after receipt of notification of the
contract award. Any protest submitted after 5 p.m. of the fifth business
day after notification of the contract award will be rejected by the City as
invalid and the Proposer’s failure to timely file a protest shall waive the
Proposer’s right to protest the contract award. The Proposer’s protest
must include supporting documentation, legal authorities in support of
the grounds for the protest and the name, address and telephone
number of the person representing the Proposer for purposes of the
protest. Any matters not set forth in the protest shall be deemed waived.
City Review: The City will review and evaluate the basis of the protest,
provided that the protest is filed in strict conformity with the foregoing.
The City shall provide the Proposer submitting the protest with a written
statement concurring with or denying the protest. Action by the City
relative to the protest will be final and not subject to appeal or
reconsideration. The procedure and time limits set forth in this section
are mandatory and are the Proposer’s sole and exclusive remedy in the
event of protest. Failure to comply with these procedures shall constitute
a waiver of any right to further pursue the protest, including filing a
Government Code claim or legal proceedings.
EXHIBIT D
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
http://www.dknhotels.com/holiday-inn-express-newport-beach-completes-2-7-million-renovation/
Exhibit F
Exhibit F
Perla is managed by Broadway Elite LLC – run by Executive VP Qi Wang
Perla Privacy Policy – Perla on Broadway
Broadway Elite LLC is a subsidiary of SCG America
Exhibit F
Exhibit F
Exhibit F
Broadway Elite also donates to Jose Huizar’s corruption PAC “Families for a better Los
Angeles. This account is where he funneled his larger bribes.
The Department of Justice reports:
Lobbyist Agrees to Plead Guilty in City Hall Bribery Scheme in Which City Councilman
Jose Huizar Supported Developer in Exchange for PAC Donations
Court documents also outline how Goldman secured commitments from Company M to contribute to
PACs at Huizar’s request prior to September 2018. Between November 2016 and March 2017,
Company M contributed a total of $50,000 to a PAC used to benefit Huizar’s political causes. In
June 2018, Goldman secured a $25,000 contribution to the PAC designed to elect Relative A-1, as
well as a commitment for an additional $25,000 contribution. Company M’s project ultimately
received significant benefits in the city approval process. For example, the City Council’s approval of
Company M’s request to reduce the project’s availability of low-income housing – despite its
proximity to Skid Row – netted the company approximately $14 million in savings, court papers
state.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/lobbyist-agrees-plead-guilty-city-hall-bribery-
scheme-which-city-councilman-jose-huizar
EXHIBIT G
And another reports state:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1287936/download
This Company, Shenzhen Hazens, is noted as the largest perpetrator in the bribery
scandal. They are now required to repay the City of Los Angeles with $1 million.
They have also been connected to bribery and pay-to-play corruption with other elected
officials by the way of gifts, hotel stay, trips to China and fundraising at their Luxe City
Center Hotel, Beverly Hill Marriot and others.
Chinese Company’s SoCal Subsidiary Agrees to Pay More Than $1 Million to Resolve Criminal
Investigation into Bribe Payments to Jose Huizar and Illegal Contributions to Other Political Figures |
USAO-CDCA | Department of Justice
EXHIBIT G
March 31, 2020
City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE: GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT
DON SMITH
C/O Tom Yu, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PELAYES & YU, APC
10803 Foothill Blvd., Suite 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
2. DATE, TIME, & PLACE OF INJURY OR DAMAGE
On or about August 6, 2018 to present.
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES, INJURY OR LOSS
On or about August 6, 2018, Claimant Don Smith (“Smith”) interviewed with John
Valdivia for a Campaign Worker position. He started in that capacity on or about August 27,
2018. At the time, John Valdivia was a City of San Bernardino Council Member and was
running for the Mayor’s seat.
At the time Smith started working as Valdivia’s Campaign Worker he was approximately 23 or
24 years old and a recent college graduate. Valdivia was approximately 45 years old and a career
politician.
From the beginning, then Council Member Valdivia had Smith perform the duties of a
Legislative Field Representative, which is a regular City employee position, either payed or
volunteer and either full or part time. As a City Councilman, Valdivia had the authority, either
actual or ostensible to employ Smith on behalf of the City as a Legislative Field Representative.
LAW OFFICES OF PELAYES & YU
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112 T: 909-481-3833
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 F: 909-801-7004
Page 2
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
On numerous occasions, Valdivia lied and told Smith that as a Campaign Worker, he
needed to also perform the duties of a Legislative Field Representative if he wanted to get a full-
time position with the City and the monetary compensation that went with it. Smith reported to
his first day of work at City Hall as an official Legislative Field Representative on or about April
4, 2019.
However, from the first day he started as a Campaign Worker to the present, Smith was
yelled at and/or ridiculed and/or subjected to unwelcomed profanity and/or sexual comments and
behavior and/or racist comments and a hostile work environment on an almost daily basis. Smith
was also retaliated against for reporting Valdivia’s behavior to his supervisors throughout his
tenure with the City.
As a result, his job duties were taken away from him, his work hours have been cut, he
has been ostracized by management and he has been constructively demoted. From October
2018 to present, the hostile work environment created by the City of San Bernardino was
pervasive and severe, and includes, but is not limited to the following conduct:
- On or about October 26, 2018 Smith was ordered by John Valdivia to go out late
at night in the cover of dark and illegally take down signs from opposing
candidates or groups that said John Valdivia was supported by slumlords. Smith
was not aware that the order given to him by Valdivia was illegal. As a result,
Smith became ill from being out in the cold all night.
- On or about October 30, 2018 Smith was ordered by Valdivia to come into
Valdivia’s campaign office early to staple campaign flyers together. Because he
made a mistake in the order the materials were stapled, Valdivia screamed and
yelled at him and told him “ I’m going to explain this to you like a five-year-old
because obviously that’s as much as you can think”.
- On or about November 2018, Smith was ordered by Valdivia to accompany
Valdivia to a meeting. Valdivia informed Smith that it was a secret meeting that
would take place at 1 a.m. in a restaurant on Hospitality Lane, in the City of San
Bernardino, but did not tell him the nature of the meeting. Smith met Valdivia at
the restaurant sometime between midnight and 1 a.m., whereupon Valdivia
requested a private booth, away from the other patrons. Once they were seated,
Valdivia and Smith were joined by Danny Alcarez, whom Smith knew to be the
owner of Danny’s 24-Hour Towing, Inc. (“Danny’s Towing”). Danny’s Towing
is a tow carrier with a Tow Services Agreement with the City of San Bernardino.
After Alcarez sat down in the booth, Smith handed Valdivia a thick white
envelope that appeared to Smith to contain a large amount of cash. Alcarez told
Valdivia that the money was from the tow carriers with existing Tow Services
Agreements with the City of San Bernardino, and that the money was intended to
thank Valdivia for all of his help in supporting the then existing tow-carriers.
Page 3
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
Smith does not believe that the money was ever reported by Valdivia as a
campaign contribution.
- On or about November 1, 2018, Valdivia and Campaign Worker Tyler
Bustamante met Smith out in the field. Apparently, Valdivia forgot a clipboard
containing voter information sheets. Valdivia exploded in a rage berated Smith
and Bustamante and after they all drove back to the campaign office Valdivia
asked them why they couldn’t just do their “goddamn” jobs and “why do I have to
do everything?”.
- On or about November 6, 2018, Smith reported to Valdivia’s campaign office
from about 4 a.m. to 7 a.m. to help put up signs around polling places. Valdivia
had rented a truck for this purpose and while Valdivia was driving the truck, signs
fell out the back of the truck in the middle of the street. Valdivia made Smith get
out of the truck in the middle of the busy road and told him that if any of the signs
were damaged, Smith would have to pay for them out of his own pocket. During
the same drive, Valdivia told Smith “Once you get married its game over; no
more blow jobs”. Smith became visibly uncomfortable. Upon seeing Smith’s
reaction, Valdivia told Smith “You know you can just talk to me like one of the
guys? That’s how I want you to talk to me”. From day one to the present,
Valdivia almost daily tried to have Smith engage in foul, profane and sexual
language with him, but Smith refused. This made Smith extremely uncomfortable
every time he was in the presence of Valdivia.
- After the campaign, Valdivia assigned Smith and two other employees to remove
Valdivia’s campaign signs from all over the City. He told Smith he needed to
remove every sign, and that if any sign was left up Smith would personally pay
for any fine by the City out of his paycheck.
- Also, during the month of November 2018 Valdivia changed Smith’s original pay
of $13.50 per hour to a stipend of $500 per month under the promise that Smith
would only do a couple of errands for Valdivia a couple of times per week
However, immediately following the pay change Smith was placed on-call and
ended up typically working 4 to 5 days a week for approximately 25 to 30 hours
each week, running errands and staffing Valdivia at City events.
- Staffing Valdivia at City events are the job of a Legislative Field Representative
who is a regular City employee. Not only did Valdivia take advantage of Smith by
having him work without just compensation, but Valdivia also had Smith do the
job of a regular City employee on behalf of the City and also had him represent
the City at various events.
- On or about November 14, 2018, Smith staffed then mayor elect Valdivia at a
ribbon-cutting ceremony of an Arco gas station at 1240 E. Washington St. By
staffing Valdivia at this event, Valdivia was having Smith perform the duties of a
regular City employee on behalf of the City. Also, during this event, Smith had to
purchase equipment out of his own pocket without being reimbursed by Valdivia.
Page 4
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
- On or about December 13, 2018 Smith staffed Valdivia at the “Ho-Ho” parade in
San Bernardino. By staffing Valdivia at this event, Valdivia was having Smith
perform the duties of a regular City employee on behalf of the City. Valdivia did
not reimburse Smith for gas or mileage even though he required Smith to use his
own vehicle.
- On or about December 16, 2018, Smith staffed then newly elected mayor Valdivia
at a newly elected member orientation for the City of San Bernardino. All City
department heads as well as Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra and Councilman Ted
Sanchez were present. By staffing Valdivia at this event, Valdivia was having
Smith perform the duties of a regular City employee on behalf of the City.
- On or about December 19, 2018 Smith worked with the mayor’s staff to set up the
council meeting for his swearing in ceremony. By setting up this meeting,
Valdivia was having Smith perform the duties of a regular City employee on
behalf of the City.
- On or about December 23, 2018, Smith presented a certificate on behalf of the
City of San Bernardino to CMA Church. By having Smith present this certificate
on behalf of the City, Valdivia was having Smith perform the duties of a regular
City employee on behalf of the City.
- On or About January 5, 2019, Smith staffed Valdivia to present a City certificate
to a church located in the fifth Ward. By having Smith present this certificate on
behalf of the City, Valdivia was having Smith perform the duties of a regular City
employee on behalf of the City.
- On or about January 9, 2019, Smith staffed the mayor at a community builders’
neighborhood association meeting. By staffing Valdivia at this event, Valdivia
was having Smith perform the duties of a regular City employee on behalf of the
City.
- On or about January 12, 2019, Smith went with Valdivia to a fundraiser at the
“Hive and Honey Bar” in Irvine hosted by Evan Spencer, a Valdivia contributor.
At the fundraiser, Valdivia got extremely drunk and was flirting and making
sexual advances to numerous women in attendance. Valdivia was also soliciting
marijuana dispensary owners for contributions and told several of them “if you
want to do business in San Bernardino, I am the guy to talk to”. During the event,
Valdivia had Smith drive him and an unknown woman he had picked up to
Javier’s Bar in Irvine. During the drive Smith saw Valdivia “making out” with the
woman in the back seat. When they all got to Javier’s Bar, Valdivia had Smith
wait around while Valdivia and the woman got a private booth and continued to
“make out” and drink for about an hour. When Valdivia was done, he ordered
Smith to drive him back to the Hive and Honey Bar.
- On or about January 28, 2019 Valdivia ordered Smith to go to Valdivia’s office at
City Hall to pick up Valdivia’s campaign files from his executive assistant, Renee
Brizuela. Valdivia routinely stored campaign materials in his office at City Hall.
Page 5
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
- On or about January 30, 2019 Smith met with Chris Jones, Valdivia’s political
advisor who is not a City employee and Juan Figueroa, a then candidate for City
Council to discuss having Smith work on Figueroa’s campaign for City Council.
Smith was told by Valdivia to work on this campaign and in exchange, he would
support creating a permanent Legislative Field Representative position at the City
for Smith.
- On or about January 31, 2019, Smith was ordered by Valdivia to Santa Ana to
pick up a $2,000 campaign check for Valdivia’s campaign. Valdivia would often
order and trick Smith into picking up campaign related money or materials and
have Smith deliver them to Valdivia’s office at City Hall. Smith would not be
compensated for mileage or gas even though he used his own car. During all these
times, Valdivia never told Smith it was illegal to use City facilities, time and
resources for campaign purposes.
- On or about January 31, 2019 Valdivia called Smith and offered tickets to a
Lakers- Clippers game and asked Smith to take Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra to
talk to her about why creating a permanent field representative position in the
mayor’s staff was important. Smith was hesitant and refused. Tickets were
donated by a developer to Valdivia and never reported as gifts by him.
- On or about February 6, 2019, Valdivia held a fundraiser at the “University Bar
and Grill” and got extremely intoxicated, mayor pro-tem Bessine Richard was
there and witnessed his behavior. While there, Valdivia was flirting and making
sexual advances at the waitresses who were at least half his age. Even though he
was visibly intoxicated Valdivia got in his car and drove himself home.
- On or about February 8, 2019, Valdivia ordered Smith to go to the “San
Bernardino Democrats” meeting and voice record then City Council candidate
Treasure Ortiz and report back to him for an upcoming Third Ward City Council
race.
- On or about February 13, 2019, after refusing to work on Juan Figueroa’s
Campaign. Smith met with Valdivia at approximately 1 pm at Vicky’s restaurant
in San Bernardino. There, they all agreed to the payment of $1,000 a month and a
win bonus of $3,500 for Smith following the campaign if Figueroa was
successful. Neither Valdivia nor Figueroa kept their promise for payment to
Smith, later saying that they did not remember the agreement.
- On or about February 20, 2019, Smith was ordered and tricked by Valdivia to
drop off at Valdivia’s office at City Hall a campaign contribution for the San
Bernardino Chamber of Commerce.
- On or about February 22, 2019, Valdivia rented an SUV from Enterprise and had
Smith drive him and Vice President / Councilmember Ovidiu Popescu from the
airport board to an event in Beverly Hills. Smith was not paid for this and was
told by Valdivia that Smith had to make up for hours not worked. This was not
true. Smith did not owe Valdivia any hours.
Page 6
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
- On or about February 27 Valdivia ordered Smith to pick up a voter list for Juan
Figueroa’s Campaign from the mayor’s office at City Hall.
- On or about March 12, 2019, Valdivia requested Renee Brizuela to reschedule
Smith’s San Bernardino City interview for the permanent Legislative Field
Representative position because Valdivia wanted Smith to work on the Figueroa
campaign at that specific time.
- On or about March 30, 2019, Smith was ordered to pick up tickets from
Valdivia’s house to attend the Cesar Chavez breakfast at CSUSB with Juan
Figueroa for campaign purposes. These tickets had been donated to the City and
were not meant to be used by Valdivia for campaign purposes.
- On or about April 4, 2019, Smith reported to his first day of work at the City as a
permanent Legislative Field Representative employee.
- On or about April 4, 2019, Smith staffed Valdivia at a Sixty Sixers game where
Valdivia threw out the first pitch. Valdivia also was given a booth to watch the
game where he invited Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra and numerous developers
from around the City. The gift of the booth was never reported by Valdivia. At the
event, Valdivia ordered a large amount of food which he had a developer, Rick
Avila pay for. However, the food was never reported as a gift.
- On or about April 30, 2019 Smith returned to work after attending his
grandmother’s funeral. Upon his return Valdivia screamed and yelled at him for
taking time off and said to Smith “You took time off because your dad or
someone, or whoever died? I don’t give a fuck who died! You need to be here at
work!”
- On or about May 7, 2019, Valdivia ordered Smith to have Valdivia’s personal car
serviced on City time.
- On or about May 10, 2019, Smith staffed Valdivia at the US China future trade
event in LA. Afterwards Valdivia ordered Smith to go with him to a bar where
Valdivia invited two young Asian women from the event to get drinks. There,
Valdivia was flirting with the women had very personal conversations and
attempted to invite them to a rave party called “EDC”. Valdivia got their phone
numbers and kept bragging to Smith how “hot” the women were and that Asian
women “don’t give it up on the first date. They like to make you work for it”.
- On or about May 24, 2019, Valdivia gave Smith campaign receipts while at his
office at City Hall and ordered Smith to take them to his campaign accountant
during City time.
- On or about June 18, 2019, Smith was going to go to a California Cities
conference on behalf of the mayor, however at the last-minute Valdivia decided
he wanted to send an intern, Alex Cousins because he didn’t want Smith to attend.
This was within Smith’s duties and not the intern’s job duties. Valdivia told Smith
that the reason he could not go was “You are not smart enough; you can’t
understand it”.
Page 7
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
- On or about July 2019, after Smith returned from a family vacation in Hawaii,
Valdivia pulled him aside and asked him “How were the babes in Hawaii?”.
- On or about August 21, 2019, Valdivia sent a text to Smith ordering him to
remove signs/trash placed at a freeway offramp and demanded that Smith go
remove them by himself. Sign and trash removal were not and is not within the
job description of a Legislative Field Representative and Valdivia only ordered
Smith to do this job merely to demean and embarrass him.
- On or about August 29, 2019, Valdivia agreed to pay Smith less than the amount
agreed upon for working on Juan Figueroa’s campaign in January 2019. Valdivia
said he didn’t remember their prior January agreement and if Smith wanted to get
paid, he had to agree to this lesser amount.
- On or about September 2019, Valdivia ordered Smith to get his personal car
serviced while on City time, Smith was scheduled to attend a job corps tour on
behalf of the City, however he was forced to miss this event while getting
Valdivia’s personal car serviced.
- On or about October 12, 2019, while at the City Council meeting Smith was
ordered by Valdivia to not follow up and ignore the concerns of a citizen, Cheryl
Brown, because “she didn’t support the mayor”. Smith was also ordered by
Valdivia to ignore the concerns of anyone who lives “above the 210 Freeway in
San Bernardino”.
- On or about October 2019, at a census event, Smith was ordered by Valdivia to
take pictures. In one picture Valdivia was shown sitting next to congressman Pete
Aguilar. Valdivia texted Smith and ordered him to delete the picture because “he
doesn’t sign your paychecks”.
- On or about December 2019, the Valdivia created a very stressful work
environment by creating unrealistic expectations for his open house events. He
was upset at how much time it took to decorate the office. He also put a lot of
pressure on he and Karen Cervantes, Mayor’s Assistant to fund raise for the
events. He was then upset at how much in gift card donations was used to
purchase toys for the toy drive because he wanted to use the donated money for
later events of his own desire even though the money donated was not for that
purpose.
- On or about December 3, 2019, Smith worked a very long shift: over eight hours
with no lunch for the Christmas open house. This was a routine occurrence were
Valdivia would not allow employees timely breaks or meal periods.
- On or about December 18, 2019, Smith worked over a 12-hour day with no lunch
because he was ordered to drive Valdivia and Vice President / Councilmember
Ovidiu Popescu to an event in Los Angeles. During the event Valdivia constantly
talked about how “hot” some of the women were there. After leaving the event,
Valdivia talked about one woman and how she “wanted” him because she wanted
to take a picture with him. Popescu also told Valdivia that he had a daughter who
Page 8
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
wanted to become a man. Valdivia immediately started making anti-gay
comments thereafter. Valdivia made no secret of the fact he was anti-gay and
would often make profane gay comments in front of Smith and other staff.
- On or about December 23, 2019, Valdivia and Smith were touring the City and
saw a homeless person walking in a parking lot. At this time, Valdivia ordered
Smith to record the homeless person, as Valdivia referred to the homeless person
as a “scumbag who had just taken a shit.”
- On or about January 15, 2020, Valdivia ordered Smith to run personal errands like
getting his personal car serviced. Smith told Valdivia he was hesitant to do so and
wanted to think about it. Valdivia asked Smith “who do you need to check with?”
Valdivia then told Smith that he had rearranged Smith’s schedule so he could be
free to run his personal errands on City time.
- On or about February 2020, Smith publicly announced he had retained an attorney
to protect him against retaliation for whistleblowing and reporting several
instances of illegal activity on behalf of Valdivia and the hostile work
environment he was enduring.
Since the above referenced announcement, Smith has been the subject of retaliation as
previously described for reporting Valdivia’s behavior to his supervisors throughout his tenure
with the City. As a result, his job duties were taken away from him, his work hours have been
cut, he has been ostracized by management and he has been constructively demoted.
Further, Smith became aware that on or about February 4, 2020 Smith’s immediate
supervisor who is Valdivia’s Chief of Staff, Matt Brown, was approached by Valdivia and
Valdivia requested that Brown obtain false statements from Alex Cousins (intern Field
Representative), Smith and Renee Brizuela refuting the allegations from Mirna Cisneros and
Karen Cervantes; two prior employees that worked directly for Valdivia who have filed claims
against the City and Valdivia for wrongful termination, hostile work environment and sexual
harassment. Valdivia also requested that Brown fabricate false work performance of evaluations
for Cisneros and Cervantes emphasizing poor work habits. Brown refused and reported this
conversation to the City’s Human Resources Director.
Valdivia wanted these false statements and evaluations because he knew that the City
announced that they had begun an internal investigation into Valdivia’s behavior towards his
employees.
This revelation severely affected Smith and caused him extreme emotional distress,
because he felt completely isolated and exposed to Valdivia’s evil motives towards him.
Page 9
March 26, 2020
Governmental Tort Claim
10803 Foothill Blvd., Ste 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91790
T: 844-998-1033 | F: 909-801-7004
www.pelayes-yu.com
4. NAMES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CAUSING INJURY
JOHN VALDIVDIA
5. AMOUNT CLAIMED
Pursuant to Government Code section 910(f), the amount of compensatory and other
damages claims exceeds $10,000 and will lie within the unlimited jurisdiction of the Superior
Court. Claimant also claims and seeks to recover herein, the statutory and other penalties,
damages, attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs as provided by law, to include exemplary damages
against John Valdivia.
DATED: March ____, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF PELAYES & YU, APC
_________________________
Tristan Pelayes, Esq.
Tom Yu, Esq.
Attorneys for Claimant
DON SMITH
31