ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2525127,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Victor D. Rosales, filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Victor D Rosales to Karson Buddha-Ivory Kartier, 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 includes 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 not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 10/20/2025, Time: 09:00 AM, Department: S24The 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, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 09/08/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Ontario on 09/12/2025, 09/19/2025, 09/26/2025, 10/03/2025

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CVSB 2524966,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Dylan Sebastien Ramirez, filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Dylan Sebastien Ramirez to Dylan Sebastien Amin, 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 includes 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 not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 10/17/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: SThe 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, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 09/05/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on 09/12/2025, 09/19/2025, 09/26/2025, 10/03/2025

Continue reading →

In a replay of what in late 2023 and throughout much of 2024 was for many property- and homeowners on 102 square miles in the formerly verdant agricultural communities at the east end of the San Bernardino Valley an unpleasant experience, residents on 74 square miles of southwest San Bernardino County find themselves and their land under a quarantine directive from the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
The same pest that was targeted in the previous eradication/control effort, the oriental fruit fly, is again what is being targeted.
Previously known by the scientific name, Dacus dorsalis and now referred to as Bactrocera dorsalis, the oriental fruit fly is a species of tephritid fruit fly that was endemic to Southeast Asia. It is a major pest species, with a broad host range of cultivated and wild fruits. Having left its native Asia, it is a highly invasive pest that now has a presence in at least 65 countries. It is believed to have invaded Hawaii in 1945 as a contaminant of military material returning from the western Pacific war zone, in particular Taiwan and the Mariana Islands. Fruit imported to the mainland from Hawaii is generally fumigated to prevent the pest from coming to the Mainland. But fruit brought by travelers, most likely from Hawaii but also from Southeast Asia and other Pacific islands has allowed the flies to get into California.
On September 27, 2023, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture imposed a quarantine in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The quarantine covered 102 square miles of San Bernardino County. Redlands, which is one of the communities in San Bernardino County which has preserved significant portions of historic agricultural property, was at the epicenter of the infestation.
Within the expansive quarantine zone, 1,200 acres of commercial agriculture production of citrus, apples, avocados, peaches and other stone fruits were affected.
It took several months for word about the quarantine to pervade the affected population, and the restrictions began in earnest in January 2024
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, known by its acronym CDFA worked in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, and the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner in arresting the migration of the pest, doing so with the cooperation of the local populace, which complied, for the most part, with orders to refrain from removing fruit from trees and further demands that they not move any produce from their property. If fruit fell from trees, residents were urged to double-bag it and place it in a trash bin rather than green waste bins or other organic refuse designations.
Work crews consisting of a combination of California Department of Food and Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture employees, California Conservation Corps crews, and private contractors specializing in fruit removal then methodically worked their way from one end of the target area to the other, going on to private property to pick up the contaminated, or potentially contaminated, fruit, disposing it into containers from which it was impossible for the flies, larvae or maggots to escape.
California and its fruit industry have been buffeted over the years by several pests, including Mediterranean, Mexican, Tau, melon, peach and guava fruit flies. Oriental fruit flies are most easily distinguished from other flies by their yellow color.
In August 2024, the California Department of Food and Agriculture declared an end to the Oriental fruit fly quarantine in the Redlands area following eradication of the invasive species. At that point, according to officials, the nearly 11-month-long collaborative effort to eradicate four unique invasive fruit fly species (Tau, Queensland, Mediterranean and Oriental) from seven quarantine areas across seven California counties — San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Clara, Sacramento and Contra Costa – concluded with a success.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, nevertheless, stated at the time that “the threat of new fruit fly introductions remains. Left unchecked, they can endanger the state’s natural environment, agriculture, and economy.” Agricultural officials called upon the state’s residents to remain vigilant for signs of invasive species.
It seems the Bactrocera dorsalis has returned to Southern California, this time further to the west and some 25 miles closer to the Pacific Ocean than in 2023.
Yesterday, September 25, 2025, the California Department of Food and Agriculture declared a 131-square-mile area of Riverside and San Bernardino counties to be under quarantine.
In this case, it was flies found in the cities of Ontario and Jurupa Valley and nearby areas that triggered the alarm. California Department of Food and Agriculture officials have declared 57 square miles in Riverside County and 74 square miles in San Bernardino County as the circumscribed restricted property. Intense monitoring in those areas began in early September, which produced confirmation of infestations in the area. For internal California Department of Food and Agriculture purposes, the commitment for the commencement of the quarantine came on September 19.
“To prevent the spread of Oriental fruit flies through homegrown fruits and vegetables, residents living in the quarantine area are urged to not move those items from their property,” according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture website. “However, home grown produce may be consumed or processed (i.e., juiced, frozen, cooked, or ground in the garbage disposal) on the property where they were picked, or disposed of by double bagging and placing in the regular trash, not in green waste receptacles.”
According to the website, “Following the principles of integrated pest management, agricultural officials use the “male attractant” technique as the mainstay of the eradication effort for this invasive species. This approach has successfully eliminated dozens of fruit fly infestations in California. Trained workers apply a small amount of fruit fly attractant mixed with a very small dose of an organic pesticide, Spinosad, approximately 8-10 feet off the ground on street trees and similar surfaces. Male fruit flies are attracted to the mixture and perish after consuming it. The male attractant technique is being carried out over an area that extends 1.5 miles from each site where oriental fruit flies have been trapped.”
Female flies lay eggs in groups of three to 30 under the skin of host fruits, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Larvae tunnel through the host and emerge approximately 10 days later. Flies mature into adulthood in 10 to 12 days and usually live up to 90 days. Adult flies are strong fliers and can travel as far as thirty miles for sustenance. This aggressive search for food allows the pest to infest a region quickly.

Governor Gavin Newsom on Saturday September 20 signed four bills into law which are intended to shield illegal immigrants and their children from operations carried out by federal immigration enforcement agents in workplaces, schools and hospitals and requiring those agents to remain unmasked.
Signed were Senate Bill 89, authored by State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez of Alhambra; Assembly Bill 49 by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi of Rolling Hills Estates; Senate Bill 81 by State Senator Jesse Arreguín of D-Berkeley; and Senate Bill 627, drafted by state senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín.
Senate Bill 89 requires school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on grade school, middle school, high school or college campus. Assembly Bill 49 prohibits immigration agents from coming into nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order and make it illegal for school districts or school employees to provide information about students, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant. Senate Bill makes it illegal for a healthcare official to disclose a patient’s immigration status or birthplace to immigration authorities or permit them into nonpublic spaces in hospitals or medical clinics without a search warrant or court order. Senate Bill 627 requires that law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, cannot engage in detaining or arresting members of the public, including migrants at their workplaces, be unmasked. California Highway Patrol officers are exempt from the provisions of Senate Bill 627 but sheriff’s deputies and municipal and school police officers are not.
In signing the bills, Newsom said the current federal immigration law enforcement push had taken on the aspect of repression practiced by authoritarian regimes.
“We’re not North Korea,” the governor said.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the legislation, which federal officials maintain will hamstring agents in the execution of their duties, was justified.
“The Trump Administration claims to target the worst of the worst, but has instead targeted hardworking people without criminal records, including parents of U.S. citizens, and even people with legal status and part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, while also targeting children,” Newsom’s office told the Sentinel. “Meanwhile, they are diverting law enforcement from focusing on child predator cases, drug interdiction and other serious crimes to focus on civil immigration enforcement. The Trump Administration also continues to target worksites despite significant concerns from business leaders, including the agricultural sector, and Republicans.”
The legislation is intended to counter the pernicious influence White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and United States Homeland Security Advisor Stephen N. Miller is having on President Donald Trump, according to Newsom’s staff.
“Trump and Stephen Miller’s immigration agenda is built on arbitrary quotas and few guardrails for fairness or due process,” Newsom’s office stated. “In California, their tactics have terrorized communities, traumatized students, disrupted businesses, and endangered public safety for American citizens. For Trump and Miller, the only metric is mass arrests, detentions, and removals — even at the expense of Americans’ constitutional rights. ICE [Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents have wrongfully arrested citizens, concealed their identities, and undermined transparency. They dismantled rules that once kept enforcement away from schools, hospitals, and churches, fueling student absences and eroding community trust.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing people to be targeted because of how they look or where they work has only brought further pain and fear to so many, especially many Latino Californians.
After asserting that Governor Newsom in his encouragement of the drafting of and signing of Assembly Bill 49 and Senate Bills 81, 89 and 627 was seeking to reassure and protect Latinos that were being terrorized by the immigration policies of the federal government, his office made the somewhat contradictory claim that the governor has consistently tried to facilitate the removal of undocumented migrants through cooperation with ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol.
“Under California law, state prison officials communicate and coordinate with immigration authorities” Newsom’s office insisted. “And under the Newsom Administration, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR has coordinated with the Federal Government more than 10,000 times – a fact that the Trump Administration simply ignores because it doesn’t fit their preferred narrative. Lastly, the governor has twice vetoed bills that would have limited the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s coordination with ICE: Assembly Bill 1306 (Carrillo) in 2023, and a different version — Assembly Bill 1282 in 2019.
Democrats have made a point of layering into their multiple layers of criticisms of Donald Trump that he is “unpresidential.” In signing the bills aimed at compromising the federal immigration enforcement effort in California, Governor Newsom could not resist in engaging in some gloating that was widely perceived as decidedly “ungubernatorial.” Prior to signing the bills, Newsom’s posted on the social media platform X that “[Secretary of Homeland Security] Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”
This provoked Bill Essayli, President Trump’s designee as the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. Essayli, interpreting what the governor had posted to be a threat, responded with an posting on X of his own. “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote, and he said his office was going to work in conjunction with the U.S. Secret Service to carry out a “full threat assessment” of Newsom’s statement.
Moreover, with regard to the substance and legal implication of Assembly Bill 49 and Senate Bills 81, 89 and 627, Essayli asserted the State of California has no authority over the federal government and that he is directing federal agencies to maintain their current policies in the face of the state legislation. “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” Essayli posted. wrote.
Who, precisely, will enforce the new laws or their various aspects is an open question. Most logically, that task would fall to the California Highway Patrol, which doubles as the California State Police, as well as county sheriff’s offices and police department. Federal law trumps state law, under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, even if state or local agencies had the will to interrupt federal operations, under most interpretations of the law of the land, do not have the authority to do so. Historically, law enforcement agencies are extremely reluctant to interfere in the operations of another law enforcement agency, generally.
The entire matter at hand pointed up a stark partisan divide. Pérez, Muratsuchi, Arreguín and Wiener, like Newsom, are all Democrats. Their bills signed by Newsom on September 20 all passed with overwhelming Democratic support and at least some Republican opposition.
The 55-year-old Wiener, who has ambition of becoming the first openly homosexual governor of California as well as eventually acceding to the U.S. Presidency, engaged in rhetorical flourishes with regard to his legislation and the other bills signed into law by Governor Newsom that exceeded that of the governor.
Wiener decried governmental operations that relied on its agents who are anonymous and masked, denouncing them as “secret police” and who had stooped to tactics reminiscent of those in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said Wiener’s characterization of Immigration and Customes Enforcement agents as members of the Gestapo is “beneath contempt.”
Trump Administration officials maintain that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers.

In a little over three years, Chino Valley’s politicians and municipal officials have transitioned from a leadership role within the vanguard seeking to preserve local land use authority from being eclipsed by state government functionaries to embracing Sacramento’s dominance with regard to managing development.
This month, a divided Chino City Council leaned into the concept of providing incentives to proceed with constructing secondary dwelling units on their property if that will assist in the city meeting a state-imposed mandate toward constructing new homes, in particular ones intended to house individuals with low to moderate earning power.
In California over the past ten to eleven years, policies pushed by both immediate past Governor Jerry Brown and his administration as well as that of current Governor Gavin Newsom, abetted by the super-majority Democratic legislature, have been exceptionally accommodating of the development industry as part of intensified efforts at solving what has been declared to be a housing crisis.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has pushed for local jurisdictions to adhere to the developmental mandates derived through an assessment of a survey of housing needs carried out throughout the state. Collated into a document given the title Regional Housing Needs Allocation, those figures provide the basis of the mandates that state officials impose on all jurisdictions, including cities and unincorporated county areas in California, demands that those entities include in their general plans and zoning codes an accommodation of the number of dwelling units specified in the assessment, meaning each city must allow the construction of at least the number of homes the state says is its share of the burden to meet housing demand statewide.
In this way, in what is widely seen, both positively and negatively, as a daring social experiment, the State of California has, through Government Code §65580, required each municipality in the state to assist in alleviating the homelessness crisis by complying with what the California Department of Housing and Community Development deems to be each city’s housing responsibility.
Under this so-called Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, a determination is made of what number of dwelling units according to affordability type each community is to accommodate over an eight-year period. The expectation is that those cities will comply by granting developers clearance to build the specified number of houses within that span.
Based upon the numbers formulated for the state by the Southern California Association of Governments – a joint powers authority consisting of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino County, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties – as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation effort, San Bernardino County must accommodate the construction of 138,110 new homes between the end of 2021 and the end of 2028, including 35,667 intended for very-low-income homebuyers; 21,903 for low-income homebuyers; 24,140 for moderate-income homebuyers and 56,400 for above moderate-income homebuyers.
In the case of Chino Hills, the state’s expectation was that the city welcome 3,720 more dwelling units from October 2021 to October 2029. Chino, meanwhile, was being called upon to construct 6,978 total units in the same timeframe.
Though the vast majority of municipal officials in California accept the state’s asserted authority in this area, up and down the state there has been protest of, and in some cases resistance to, these mandates. Land use policies – from zoning to development standards to architectural guidelines to height restrictions and limitations on density – have evolved gradually over a period of more than a century at the local political levels in response to immediate and regional concerns and conditions. These policies have come to reflect the character of the varied communities and the values, attitudes and expectations of residents/citizens who inhabit those areas. To force not only the individual local governments of the state but the citizens that live in those communities to dispense with standards and polices that have been carefully and methodically developed over decades and generations in favor of meeting what are relatively short-term goals to address the housing crisis and the burgeoning numbers of homeless constitutes a myopic fix to a problem that exists in a much larger context, some social scientists, governmental analysts, politicians and California residents have observed. The imposition of that fix, entailing the construction of residential projects of a vastly higher density than what has been the previous norm, is very likely to result in undesirable consequences that will remain in place and mar the communities in question for decades or even centuries to come, those opposed to the mandates assert.
There has been an upswing in the number of people living in California, from 1,490,000 in 1900 to 10,677,000 by 1950 to 15,870,000 by 1960 to 19,971,069 in 1970 to 23,800,800 in 1980 to 29,950,111 in 1990 to 33,987,977 in 2000 to 37,253,956 in 2010 to 39,538,000 in 2020. Amidst conflicting reports of bot an infux and outflow of residents, it is projected by one reliable source that the current population of the Golden State is 40,793,891.
`There remains a difference of opinion among the population as to whether intensifying residential development is a sensible response to the general situation. Some have argued that more homes are needed to accommodate the influx of people. Others, citing what they consider to be a diminution in the quality of life as the population increases, argue that an effort to limit or end population growth in California is the more reasonable approach to the issue.
California’s government is clearly in the former camp. Nevertheless, within the last six years, provoked in no small part by the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s insistence that the Imperial County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Orange County, Los Angeles County and Ventura County area of Southern California including the 191 cities or towns within those jurisdictions allow without question the construction of 1,341,827 housing units over the current eight-year planning cycle, a group of Southern California civic leaders, in some cases involving majorities of certain city councils, initiated meaningful and concerted steps toward contesting the State of California’s usurpation of what has traditionally been local land use authority.
Among the jurisdictions at the forefront of that movement was the City of Chino Hills.
Most cities in Southern California, reasoning it would do no good to try to fight the state, merely knuckled under to the Department of Housing & Community Development’s regional 1,341,827 housing unit construction mandate. Forty-five cities in the region, however, engaged in an appeal in 2021, in which they were collectively represented by Southern California Association of Governments staff.
In San Bernardino County, the city councils of Fontana, Chino Hills, Chino and Barstow were brave enough to challenge the state. Barstow asked the state to cut its 1,516 house-building mandate by 58 percent to 635; Chino Hills requested 1,797 units in lieu of 3,720, a 52 percent reduction; Chino wanted a 49 percent cut from 6,978 to 3,564; and Fontana insisted that the 17,477 units it was being asked to accommodate was 30 percent too optimistic, requesting that its mandate be reduced to 10,563.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development did not budge in its demands, conveying that the government does not negotiate with scofflaws, renegades, terrorists or any entity or anybody that does not respect the rule of law. Lest anyone forget, California Government Code §65580 is the law, those city officials were warned.
In January 2022, a still-determined Chino Hills City Council, bolstered by an outpouring of resident sentiment, ventured even further down the path of resisting having to surrender land use authority within that city’s confines by adopting a local housing initiative referred to as “Neighborhood Voices” that asserted local land use and zoning laws trumped any conflicting state laws.
Over the next six months, however, developmental interests looking to construct housing subdivisions in Chino Hills, chaffing at the limitations on density, i.e., the number of units per acre to be permitted on property they had purchased or had tied up within the city, made it known that they were considering legal action against the city in which they were prepared to allege the city was denying them the right to develop that land to an intensity they were entitled to under the newfangled state law.
Though city officials since 2020 had been contemplating whether or not to comply with what was then the state’s tentative mandate that it clear the decks for the construction of 3,720 units within the city by 2029 or whether to fight to change that number to 1,797, it had previously made contingency plans to meet the 3,720-unit mandate and had formulated a revised housing element for the sixth period planning cycle for 2021 to 2029 to the state with the 3,720 unit figure embedded in it, at least conceptually. The city council adopted the housing element document on February 8, 2022 as a formality and sent it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. On April 11, 2022, the California Department of Housing and Community Development responded by letter, letting the city know that while the housing element addressed most of the state’s housing requirement, it was deficient in certain respects, asserting the city had fallen short in terms of “affirmatively furthering fair housing” and providing specific detail on segregation/integration, concentrated areas of affluence, eliminating concentrated areas of poverty and demonstrating how the city was meeting with the spirit and letter of Regional Housing Needs Allocation The California Department of Housing and Community Development said revisions were needed to respond to the requested fair housing analyses. Faced with the threats of private sector entities suiting and the state dictating to the city how many homes to build as well as the character and placement of those homes, city staff members worked to address the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s expressed concerns. After some back and forth, on July 20 the California Department of Housing informed the city that the housing element document was in an acceptable form that would allow it to ratify the housing element document as being sufficient. Weary of the tension with Sacramento and having not yet fully initiated the fight with the the state they had been considering entering into, Chino Hills officials in August 2022 essentially dropped the city’s opposition to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandate, signaling it was going along, and avoiding the prospect of administrative, legal or financial retribution by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the rest of the state government in the immediate or near term.
Like Chino Hills, Chino abandoned protesting or resisting the state’s mandate that it be prepared to accept another 6,978 housing units within its city limits by October 2029.
In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed three bills into law – Assembly Bill 2533, Senate Bill 1211 and Senate Bill 1077 – which took effect on January 1, 2025 and altered California Senate Bill 1534, passed in 1982 and which enshrined into law Government Code section 65852.2, a statute which established statewide options for local governments to promote and regulate secondary residential suites. also known as “accessory dwelling units (ADUs)” or granny flats in California. Essentially, what Assembly Bill 2533, Senate Bill 1211 and Senate Bill 1077 did was to allow a second housing unit to be built on any property with an existing single family home or parcel zoned for a single family home, doubling the potential density of such properties. A possible use for such units, which are generally but not necessarily smaller than the existing unit on the property was to house the aging parent of the property owner, thus giving rise to the label “granny flat.” The occupancy of accessory dwelling units, however, was not limited to family members of the owners or occupiers of the primary residence on the property. In this way, Assembly Bill 2533, Senate Bill 1211 and Senate Bill 1077 eroded further the land use authority of local government.
At a Chino City Council study session on September 9, municipal officials cataloged the city’s options on meeting the need for more housing, including the construction of new units that will be affordable to very low income buyers, low income buyers, moderate income buyers and above average income buyers.
Gone was any pretense of resisting the state government’s effort to straitjacket cities into accepting more intensive and denser development within residential zones. Accepting that there are growing numbers of existing homeowners who are contemplating constructing accessory dwelling units on their property and that an unbridled frenzy to construct a secondary housing unit in the back or side yard of homes throughout the city could break out at any time, city officials contemplated a proposal to encourage city residents to adopt the city’s higher development standards for accessory dwelling units than those that now exist under state standards. The incentives to do this, under the plan, are to consist of financial assistance with such construction efforts to be provided by the city. A further requirement, under the program, would be that the units be leased or rented at an affordable to tenants with very low, low or moderate income.
The incentives would come in the form of zero-interest or no-interest loans.
The plan was put together by Development Services Director Warren Morelion and Deputy Development Services Director Chris Corbin.
According to Corbin, the city is already supporting the construction of granny flats by waiving some development fees has and facilitating such projects that confine themselves to less than 1,000 square feet under roof and fewer than three bedrooms. The city has three sets of pre-approved design/construction plans that can be utilized by property owners or developers at no cost. at no cost to builders.
Councilman Marc Lucio was enthusiastic about the financing program. Mayor Eunice Ulloa was less so, stating that the widespread addition of accessory dwelling units in various areas of the city, particularly neighborhoods that already are densely packed with houses, where parking space is already severely limited and the sewer system is at near capacity, would overwhelm the city’s existing infrastructure and entail “parking nightmares. I don’t know if I want to incentivize these issues,” she said.
Lucio suggested the city can work with the accessory dwelling unit applicants to mitigate such issues. “We can put some limits on what they’re able to build, if they want our money,” he said.
Ulloa pointed out that the city is not at liberty, under the new state law, to charge existing homeowners fees to upgrade the sewer line when a secondary unit is constructed on their property.
Morelion acknowledged that was a problem city officials “haven’t dealt with it yet” as the city, in particular at its extreme southern end, is dealing with an effluent flow for which the city’s engineering division had not planned for.
There has already been an influx of granny flats into the city and it is unclear the degree to which they have intensified the use of the city’s sewage and water treatment systems, according to Chino Public Works Director Hye Jin Lee. Lee said her staff is updating the sewer master plan to address those impacts.
The council did not approve the incentive plan for accessory dwelling units but will reconsider it at a later date in the context of its overall strategic housing plan.

The opening of the Gold Line from Azusa to Pomona took place today, extending by 9.1 miles the premier light rail commuting system in the United States. That breakthrough came just 22 days after San Bernardino County’s public transportation agency walked away from the prospect of expanding the railway into its jurisdiction.
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and its predecessor, San Bernardino Associated Governments was twice in the last decade committed to seeing the Gold Line extended eastward, conceptually all the way to Yucaipa. Twice, however, its members opted out of constructing the dual-track transportation system, ostensibly on the basis of the undertaking’s exceptionally high cost.

Over the passionate opposition of scores of community members, the Redlands school board gave final approval on August 19 to a[mechanism, policy, means] of banning books deemed sexually provocative/explicit or otherwise objectionable from the district’s library and schoolroom shelves.
The policy approved in a 3-to-2 vote extends to textbooks used in teaching the district’s curriculum, ones for assigned class reading in class or collective contexts as well as ones available in the schools’ libraries that can be checked out by individual students.
For decades trends in academic, classroom and social standards in the Redlands Unified School District more or less mirrored those generally extant in the educational system in California, moving somewhat leftward on the political scale. A Republican has not held the post of superintendent of public instruction in California since Max Rafferty in January 1971, while the California Teachers Association, which is closely associated with the unionist wing of the Democratic Party, has come to play an ever more dominant role in educational norms in California’s public schools. In Redlands, the school district, as in the vast majority of school districts elsewhere in the Golden State embraced liberal and progressive notions rather than reactionary ones in defining the curricula, learning materials and books made available to students. District officials fell more to the permissive side than the restrictive one as well in defining what license teachers were to have in instilling what was collectively taken or assumed to be Redlands community values.
That changed significantly with the election of Candy Olson and Jeannette Wilson, who came into office as the consequence of intensive electioneering assistance efforts by so-called conservative activists during the course of the 2024 election, including the traditional values coalition calling itself Awaken Redlands.
After settling into office, Olson and Wilson took up several policy proposals which were anathema to the liberals. Among these were ending the district’s open endorsement and acceptance of gender transition by students and allowing them to engage in gender reidentification without parental knowledge or consent, removing books and literature they deemed to be of a highly sexualized nature from the district’s curriculum and libraries; and ending open and active support and celebration of what was previously considered to be alternative lifestyles/sexuality, specifically that of the LGBQT+ community – homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, asexuality and nonsexuality.
In accordance with their ideological leanings, Olson and Wilson used their authority as board members to schedule topics and items for discussion, consideration and potential adoption which included banning all flags, banners and symbols from district campuses other than the United States, California, U.S. military and school flags; a policy change requiring teachers to inform parents if their children have adopted in the school/classroom setting a gender identity at odds with the one assigned them at birth and removing those books from the district’s school libraries that had overtly sexual content.
A good number of those in the progressive camp recognized that two solidly-composed factions on the council had come to exist: One consisting of Olson and Wilson at the right end of the political spectrum and the other formed by the alliance of longtime school board member Patty Holohan and Melissa Ayala-Quintero, representing the left side of the philosophical divide. The board’s centrist, to the extent that one existed, was embodied in the personage of Michelle Rendler, who had acceded to the position of board president. A fair number of the community’s liberals, while aware that Rendler was unlikely to buy into the progressive agenda whole-hog, yet had reason to believe the board president could be convinced that Olson and Wilson were two intolerant and inflexible gammons prone to predictable knee-jerking and rejectionism to any new or innovative concepts, whose social orientation was too far removed from that of the vast majority of Redlands residents. For a short time, that approach appeared to hold some promise for the community’s progressive forces. There were those within the liberal assemblage who grew dismayed and impatient with having to cultivate Rendler as team member and felt that her willingness to dither between the community’s knuckle-dragging close-minded troglodytes and the more-enlightened and forward-looking elements of the Redlands populace such as themselves was not just a bad sign but simply unacceptable. They set about seeking to shame Rendler into coming to her senses. Unaccountably, however, the tactics several among them chose to effectuate Rendler’s reconversion into the higher plane of civilization included a confrontational approach and psychological pressure that relied upon verbal ambushes and shock attacks, many of which were couched in highly offensive personal terms that included vulgarisms and pointed profanity. This had an effect that was virtually precisely the opposite of what had been the intent. One of Rendler’s primary duties as board president was and remains to officiate over the board’s meetings, which extended, in her mind and in the minds of many others whom she respected as well as generally throughout the community, to maintaining the decorum and civility of the proceedings. Faced meeting after meeting with a bevy of individuals who engaged in ad hominem attacks laced with profanities that belittled Olson, Wilson, herself and other participants of the meetings who had voiced support for Olson’s and Wilson’s proposals and unable to curb their vitriol, intemperance and disrespect, Rendler grew frustrated and angry. The continuous efforts of the left-leaning contingent of participants at the meetings to disrupt the meetings and circusify their atmosphere was indignity she was unable to bear. It was that disparagement her substance and value as an elected official by those who were among the most vocal of the city’s liberal vanguard that influenced her with regard to the Olson’s and Wilson’s proposals and forced her, ineluctably, into an alliance with them.
As the board considered and voted on each of two initiatives – one in April expressing opposition to transgender athletes competing on teams that align with their gender identity; another in July that banned all flags from classrooms except for the American flag, the California state flag, and military flags – Rendler supported Olson and Wilson.
In June, before the flag policy was settled upon, the school board had simultaneously taken up a book policy, which had followed up on preliminary and intermediary discussions that went on for months and included a workshop in March during which the concept and specific elements of the proposed ban were broached and explored. At the same June meeting when the board had given the first of two required passages of the flag policy, it took up the explicit/obscene book and material removal proposal. At that meeting, the board by an identical 3-to-2 margin gave a first reading or preliminary passage to a policy mandating that any book challenged for containing “perceived pornography, erotica, graphic descriptions or depictions of sexual acts, and/or sexual violence, or sexually explicit materials” be removed from school libraries within three business days
At the board’s July 8 meeting it was scheduled to give second reading and final passage to both the flag and book policies. While the flag policy was adopted that night, accusations of censorship were flung about with unfavorable comparisons to the German Student Union, the National Socialist German Students League, Joseph Goebbels, the Inquisition, Pope Lucius III and Girolamo Savonarola. While Olson and Wilson weathered those aspersions, Rendler appeared to be wounded by them. Simultaneously, doubt or questions about how determinations were to be made with regard to whether certain materials were actually obscene arose. With Olson and Wilson willing to proceed and both Holohan and Ayala-Quintero against the plan, Rendler proved the dominant influence as she insisted on having the matter re-examined by district staff to arrive at better and more thoroughly defined definitions of what constitutes “pornography” and other key terms before finalizing the policy.
After a month’s delay the matter came before the board in August.
The proposed book challenging and banning policy was refined during that interlude. What was firmed up was that the policy will involve the district looking into a particular book or item available in a school library if a parent or other member of the community “perceives” it as sexually explicit, pornographic or inappropriate. The item will then be removed from the library within three days and a hearing relating to it will be conducted by the school board within 45 days, at which a determination is to be made about the item being returned to circulation or kept off the library’s shelf. Books are to be rated 0 to 35 in terms of sexual explicity. Those at 10 or below would be allowed to remain on the district’s bookshelves. Those between 11 and 30 would be subject to discretionary exclusion from the district’s libraries and classrooms. Those at 30 and above would be automatically removed.
On August 5, the board gave a 3-to-2 approval of the policy. It was brought before the board for a second reading and final passage on August 19.
At that board meeting, Olson defended the proposal as a preventative policy which would protect students from sexually explicit books, examples of which, she said were at that point available in Redlands school libraries. Exposing impressionable youths to that kind of material was tantamount to sexual abuse and qualified, she said, as grooming, which would leave at least some of the district’s students vulnerable “to predators who wish to abuse them.”
Ayala-Quintero and Holohan opposed the policy from top to bottom. Ayala-Quintero maintained that Wilson and Olson were advocating on behalf of parents who were close-mindeldy conservative just as they are but were ignoring the wishes of a greater number of enlightened parents who are intent on their children being exposed to a broader range of ideas and concepts. She said that those parents who want to limit their children’s exposure to provocative materials and books should and do have the right to do just that but that they should not be allowed to dictate the parameters of what other parents deem acceptable and appropriate for their children.
Ayala-Quintero said the policy would intrude on the rights of more liberal-minded parents as well as on the rights of their children.
Ayala-Quintero said the policy would entail a cost, as holding the hearings to determine whether the books were obscene would cost money.
At any rate, Ayala-Quintero insisted, the district already had librarians who were doing a good job of screening what reading materials are available to the district’s students.
“We don’t have pornography in our curriculum,” Ayala-Quintero said, and she lampooned the “narrative that we teach our students to have oral sex” as deliberately misleading “rumors.”
Books which Awaken Redlands has in its cross hairs as being obscene and pornographic, such as James Joyce’s Ulysses, Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, Stephen Chbosky’s “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” Gustave Flaubert’s Madam Bovary, Charles Baudelaire’s The Flowers of Evil, Patricia McCormick’s “Sold” by Patricia McCormick and Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer also have redeeming social and cultural value, those who oppose Wilson and Olson say.
The policy is one that defies Assembly Bill 1078, which was authored by Assemblyman Corey Jackson and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023 and prohibits the censorship of books, the policy’s opponents maintain.
Under the policy, if a book is “perceived” as sexually explicit by a member of the public, it will be removed within three days and subject to a school board hearing within 45 days.
After the report comes in, a district review committee comprised of the superintendent, assistant superintendent of educational services and the director of elementary or secondary education will have two months to read and review the book using the rubric.
Olson, Wilson and Rendler are prejudiced against homosexuals and intent on marginalizing and demonizing the LGBTQ+ community, their political opponents maintain. The three will use the power of censorship the policy provides to ban materials that a accepting of alternative lifestyles, those opposing the policy say.
The board majority of Rendler, Olson and Wilson are intelligent enough nor socially sophisticated enough to make decisions on behalf of the community, Katherine Hayes, a former substitute teacher in the district, said.
Trisha Keeling, the executive director of Together for Redlands, accused the board majority of engaging in “book banning,” which she opined “has no place in Redlands Unified.”
The Reverend Cheryl Raine, said, “Banning books gives us silence when we need speech, closes ears when we need to listen and makes us blind when we need to see,” Raine said.
When the time of a vote came, Rendler said it was her judgment that the policy was not an attempt to ban books but an effort to be responsible. She said children should not be subject to sexually explicit or obscene material and that the board must continue to provide a safe learning environment.
“From the time that I was appointed to this board, I have consistently supported keeping sexually explicit books out of our libraries and classrooms, and I’m still of the conviction that children should not be subjected to this material,” Rendler said.

The policy was adopted on a 3-to-2 vote, with Olson, Rendler and Wilson prevailing and Ayala-Quintero and Holhan dissenting. At once, a voice above the din pronounced Rendler, Wilson and Olson to be “frigid, middle-aged hags” who are “bigots on a crusade of disgrace.” A chorus of those present cried “shame” at the board’s “fascistic plan.” Thereafter, another syncopated chant was heard: “Candy resign Olson resign Candy resign Olson resign Candy resign Olson resign.”

Three men now in the custody of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department were involved in bringing drugs into the High Desert Detention Center in Adelanto, the department maintains.
The importation of contraband into the 2,100 inmate-capacity facility began sometime this summer after Alfred Bojorquez, a 39-year-old resident of Apple Valley, was arrested on June 4 on charges of evading police with wanton disregard for public safety. He did not successfully pursue obtaining bail and was awaiting trial when he had contact with William Diaz, a 43-year-old resident of Apple Valley, and Anthony Lopez, a 32-year-old resident of Apple Valley.
According to the sheriff’s department, “On September 3, 2025, investigators from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department discovered an inmate at the High Desert Detention Center, Alfred Bojorquez, conspired to smuggle drugs into the jail with two other males, identified as William Diaz and Anthony Lopez. Investigators conducted a thorough investigation which led to a search warrant that was served on September 5, 2025, at a residence in Apple Valley where various controlled substances and paraphernalia were confiscated.”
The department reported that “On September 10, 2025, William Diaz was arrested for his warrant related to the conspiracy case. On September 24, 2025, Anthony Lopez was arrested for his warrant related to the conspiracy case. A subsequent search warrant was served at a residence in Apple Valley. During booking, Lopez attempted to smuggle narcotics into the High Desert Detention Center but investigators located it before he was housed. Bojorquez was supplementally booked and charged with conspiracy to smuggle drugs into a secure jail facility.”

Rialto Unified School District Nutrition Services Director Rausat Rahman-Davies has entered into an agreement to resign from that post effective as of May of next year while the school breakfast and lunch program she headed is dogged by yet-to-be-fully-proven allegations of financial misfeasance and malfeasance.
On Wednesday, September 24, in the absence of two members of the school board, Edgar Montes and Evelyn Dominguez, who formerly appeared inclined to give Rahman-Davies the benefit of the doubt as indications mounted that the district had defrauded the state and federal government to obtain school lunch program subsidies it was not entitled to through the submission of inaccurate documentation, the three other members of the school board accepted Rahman-Davies resignation and voted to approve her departure contract.
That contract will allow her to continue to collect her current total yearly compensation of $293,589.41, consisting of her present annual $221,977.41 salary and $71,612. benefits until January 1, whereupon her annual salary rate will increase to $228,636.73. Upon retirement, she will be eligible for a $141,754.77 pension at age 60 in 2028 ,and the district will continue to provide her and her spouse with medical coverage until she reaches the age of 65 in 2033.
Questions about the financial integrity of the Rialto School District’s lunch program, which was augmented by state and federal funding, were raised two years ago. Those, however, were drowned out in the swirl of events and cacophony that attained in the aftermath of then Rialto District Superintendent Cuauhtemoc  Avila’s May 8, 2024 suspension by the school board, which had been orchestrated by Montes and effectuated with the support of Dominguez and then-Board Member Nancy O’Kelley.
What is now believed is that two district employees affiliated with the nutrition services division in 2023 grew suspicious about monetary pass-throughs and reimbursements the district had received for purchases, some of which had not been made. Initially, their separate reports wound up the chain of command on different paths, involving two school principals. By July 2023, Avila learned of the issue when several district employees were airing complaints about what they said was Rahman-Davies’ disproportional display of anger toward them when they made inquiries about missing food supplies. Avila did not have specific information upon which to act at that time, but he initiated an audit of the district’s nutrition department.
Avila did not fully appreciate the connection between Rahman-Davies, who had acceded to the position of nutrition services director in 2019 and Maria Montes Torres, School board Member Edgar Montes’ mother, who had been employed as a nutrition department worker with the district at least since January 2022. As the audit and parallel investigation of the nutrition services division progressed, it was learned that food, sometimes in bulk and sometimes in smaller quantities, was not being utilized in the school lunch program but was being diverted to other uses, including by charities that were in no way affiliated with the school district, churches and mosques as well as to district employees.
Sarah Dunbar-Riley, a nutrition services supervisor, was able to offer specific information about diversions, including data regarding food that had been ordered and delivered to some schools but which had not been served to students as part of the lunch program. Reports reached Avila that on multiple occasions going back at least to 2020, no fewer than seven individuals had participated in removing substantial quantities of food from the warehouse adjacent to the district’s central kitchen into their personal vehicles. Among those participating in this were Rahman-Davies; Kristina Kraushaar, a district employee who held the title of child nutrition program innovator; and Maria Rangel, who was employed by the district as assistant nutrition services director, as well as Maria Montes Torres, Avila learned.
According to Avila, when Edgar Montes, whom Avila described as a “close friend” of Rahman-Davies, learned of the audit and side-by-side investigation, the school board member grew irate. Directly and without informing the other members of the school board, scheduling a discussion of the matter either in pubic or in a closed session of the board or conducting a vote, Montes ordered Avila to discontinue the audit and investigation. When Avila did not comply, Montes again and again instead that the investigation be close out, according to Avila.
Thereafter, Avila was accused of sexual harassment by Patricia Chavez, who had been the principal at Wilmer Amina Carter High School and was also the district’s assistant superintendent for educational services and its so-called lead agent of innovation. It was Chavez’s accusations of sexual harassment that formed the basis of Montes’, Dominguez’ and O’Kelley’s May 8 2024 vote to suspend him. After leaving Avila hanging in limbo for more than nine months, the school board on February 19, 2025 voted to terminate him.
During Avila’s suspension, the district had promoted Edward D’Souza, who served up until May 2024 as the district’s so-called lead academic agent for math and early college programs, to serve as the district’s acting superintendent.
D’Souza, who was entertaining the notion of seeing his temporary position as interim superintendent being upgraded into a full-fledged and permanent post, was aware of how Avila’s direction in commissioning the audit and accompanying investigation had rattled Edgar Montes. Accordingly, D’Souza prudently sought to avoid antagonizing Montes, who could count on the support of Dominguez, who is Montes’ most steadfast ally on the school board. D’Souza suspended the probe of the disappearance of the food.
In the meantime, O’Kelley, who had been experiencing extensive health challenges including memory and cognitive degradation, did not seek reelection to the board in the November 2024 election, and Dakira Williams was voted into office and replaced her in December.
Edgar Montes’ effort to permanently bury the investigation into the food diversions failed when the school board, by a vote of 3-to-2 , with members Stephanie Lewis, Joseph Martinez and Williams prevailing, opted against permanentizing D’Souza as the superintendent, instead returning him to his former role as the district’s lead academic agent of math and early college programs in education services.
The board, again by a 3-to-2 vote with Lewis, Martinez and Williams coming out on top, voted to hire Judy White, the former Riverside County superintendent of schools and deputy superintendent of schools with the San Bernardino City Unified School District, to lead Rialto Unified.
In one of her first acts as superintendent, White reinitiated the investigation that had been suspended under D’Souza’s watch.
Almost immediately, on February 26, Kraushaar resigned to take a position as the food services director for the Chaffey Joint Union High School district.
With the resumption of the investigation and the audit, it was soon documented that at some the schools, discrepancies existed with regard to how much food was delivered and how many actual meals produced or provided. Data showed outright falsification of breakfast and lunch meal counts in single months exceeding two thousand at some elementary schools and more than 12,000 at a district high school. Other data showed the district being remunerated by the federal government for tens of thousands of meals that had not been served.
On April 16, 2025, Maria Montes Torres, Edgar Montes’ mother, submitted her resignation as a district employee. A public relations blitz around her departure suggested that she was leaving because her hiring by the district had been an “inadvertent” technical violation of the district’s ethical and nepotism restrictions when Board Member Montes had voted to ratify her promotion from being a substitute nutrition worker to a full-fledged district employee in the nutrition services division in September 2023.