ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2404955
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Gaven Daniel Martin filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Gaven Daniel Martin to Gaven Daniel De La Fosse, 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: 05/03/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S27
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division,, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS Upland in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 03/08/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Upland on 03/28/2024, 04/04/2024, 04/11/2024, 04/18/2024

FBN 20240002503
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SUNSHINE CLEANING SOLUTION 8529 SIERRA MADRE AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: AMANDA M LANTER
Business Mailing Address: 8529 SIERRA MADRE AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ AMANDA M LANTER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/13/2024
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy D9865
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 29 and April 5, 12 & 19, 2024.

Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department by arresting one of its own deputies on somewhat nebulous charges relating to his ties with what has been termed “an outlaw motorcycle gang” appears to have opened a can of worms that now cannot be untangled short of the involvement of federal investigators and prosecutors, if at all.
At issue is whether the guilt by association implied with some of the department’s actions and statements together with that of the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office can pass constitutional muster, taken together with a test of the accuracy of the assumptions the department and prosecutors have made with regard to the case’s underlying facts, a circumstance complicated further still by whatever investigative role the deputy was serving in which may not have been known by all or even most of his colleagues within the department.
Even assuming the deputy was, as is alleged, a criminal who had insinuated himself into the county’s primary law enforcement agency and was in possession of illegal weaponry he was not allowed to possess in his off-duty capacity, questions attend the admissibility of the materials seized in the effort to adduce his guilt thus far, given the dubious grounds cited in obtaining the warrant used in conducting the search of his premises that yielded that evidence.
In analyzing the case against Deputy Christopher Bingham, the most important determination may not turn on whether what the sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office is at this point disclosing about him is true, which it might very well be, but rather what information about him is not being provided or deliberately withheld. Continue reading →

In an impactful reversal, a three-member panel of the California State Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division Two in Riverside has set aside the 2021 ruling of San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge David Cohn that has prevented a the construction of a warehouse in Upland that which was to serve as the center for online retail behemoth Amazon’s distribution efforts in western San Bernardino County and eastern Los Angeles County.
While the basis for Cohn’s ruling suspending the project had been what he had determined to be insufficient recognition, and inadequate mitigation, of the anticipated air quality impacts of the proposed project, the delay had provided the community an opportunity to focus on what a substantial cross section of Uplanders felt was city officials’ failure to insist upon the company providing adequate offsets in terms of financing and offsite/infrastructure improvements to balance the downsides of the massive operation.
With the Court of Appeal panel’s tentative ruling, which is likely to be finalized in June or shortly thereafter, the legal and practical leverage a group of activists had previously seemed to have secured toward imposing further conditions on the company building the warehouse now appears to have vanished. Continue reading →

The gulf between the city of Redlands’ elected officials, who are celebrated as forward-looking futurists, and the most vocal and effective of that city’s politically active residents, who pride themselves on their traditionalism, has long been apparent.
Time and again the action of City Hall has sought to break or overcome that resident resolve but never succeeded, though, curiously, anti-traditionalists manage to get elected to the city council in Redlands.
Since the beginning of the month, yet another issue has been raised by city officials, one impacting not just the city’s residents but its downtown business community, which is threatening to move a major portion of the city’s business community, which has previously steered clear of the struggle between the traditionalists and the futurists, into the traditionalists’ camp.
One report has it that senior Redlands officials are using parking enforcement downtown in an effort to clear the city of its quaint but aging mercantile district to make way for a forest of highrises.
Incorporated in 1888, the third San Bernardino County to become a municipality, Redlands was founded by a group of wealthy investors from Chicago, who became known as the Chicago Colony, on land that was previously sparsely developed for agricultural use. The city attracted affluent Easterners wanting winter homes in the region and became what was arguably the grandest residential/agricultural/resort venue in Southern California at that time, and through subsequent generations its residents built on and enhanced that status. By the late mid-20th Century, a core of sophisticated and energetic city residents were acutely conscious of the city’s rich heritage and assets and, looking at the unbridled development occurring in many areas within Southern California, undertook efforts to head off the wall-to-wall urbanization of their city. This vanguard – traditionalists who were in place as many as three and four generations ago, worked together to codify protections against the urbanization that was consuming most of the surrounding communities. Using the initiative process, they bypassed their elected pro-development city council, authoring among themselves ordinances to be placed into the city code, then obtained the needed signatures to qualify them for the citywide ballot and then convinced a majority of the city’s voters to pass them. This was done with Proposition R in 1978, Measure N in 1987 and Measure U in 1997, all of which were intended to reduce growth to manageable levels. Continue reading →

The City of Yucaipa is galloping toward an intensive round of development, a profile of applications pending before the 54,254-population city’s community development/planning department shows.
Fully 42 commercial/industrial/institutional projects, ones of relatively minor scope to one involving a light industrial logistics facility of more than two million square feet under roof located on site larger than 300 acres are either proposed, have been approved, are under construction or were recently completed.
The city is undergoing an even more substantial transformation in terms of residential development, one that is likely to see its population double or close to double in the next 20 years.
The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, approved in 2008 just before the massive economic downturn that became known as the great recession which resulted in dramatic changes to the retail and commercial industry, was intended to provide a development blueprint for the largest undeveloped area in Yucaipa, extending to both commercial and residential uses. Before adjustments were made to the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan as part of a Yucaipa General Plan adopted in 2016 which resulted in the modification to the City’s Hillside Overlay District requirements, roughly 2,400 housing units, give or take a few hundred were anticipated to eventually built in the freeway corridor. Assuming four people to a household that was the norm in the late 1990s and very early 2000s and the average of six people or more to a household that is a more recent trend, Yucaipa should see a boost in its population of something between 9,600 residents to 14,400 residents through the build-out of a limited area around the freeway alone. Continue reading →

San Bernardino Development Company LLC, the joint venture between Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group chosen by San Bernardino officials to undertake a makeover of the Carousel Mall in 2021, has sued the city over its cancellation of that contract.
After years of deterioration at the mall, which first opened in 1972 as the Central City Mall by incorporating the 1927 Harris Department Store at its east end, city officials in earnest about two decades ago undertook, through its redevelopment and economic development agencies, to revive it as a commercial center. This involved several entities, including the Spanish company El Corte Inglés, S.A.; LNR Corporation; the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; AECOM; the Fransen Company; KB Homes; Lynwood-based developer Placo, functioning as Placo San Bernardino LLC; Tishman Construction Corporation and Hunt Development Group. None of those efforts panned out.
City officials in 2020 resolved to hold a competition to find a contract redeveloper of the property and perhaps see it regain the glory of its heyday in the 1980s when it was host to Montgomery Ward, JC Penney, Harris’ and 114 other tenants. Bidding for that opportunity were SCG America, an American affiliate of a Chinese-owned company; Los Angeles-based BLVD Communities, Calabasas-based Alliant Strategic Development, Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group. Along the way, Huntington Station, New York-based Renaissance Downtowns USA and Los Angeles-based ICO Real Estate Group, which had initially entered competing bids but which had cooperated on projects previously, elected to combine their efforts. Continue reading →

State legislators are pressing for way to assist citrus farmers who are seeing the profitability of the agricultural operations evaporate as a consequence of the Oriental fruit fly quarantine.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture earlier this year implemented quarantine measures in Contra Costa, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara counties to address the presence of the Oriental fruit fly. The oriental fruit fly, previously known by the scientific name, Dacus dorsalis and now referred to as Bactrocera dorsalis, 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.
In January, the California Department of Food and Agriculture imposed quarantine and initiated a fruit removal program locally in the target area centered in Redlands north and south of I-10, with a northern boundary of East Highland Ave, a western boundary at the intersection of Garden and Elizabeth streets, an eastern boundary of Alta Vista Drive and a southern boundary of Silver Leaf Court.
“If left unchecked,” the Department of Food and Agriculture said at that time, “the Oriental fruit fly could become permanently established and cause billions of dollars worth of losses annually, which would significantly impact California’s food supply,” according to the Department of Food and Agriculture.
The state’s action meant, essentially, that citrus growers would not be able to market any of the fruit they grow this year. No arrangements to reimbursement those farmers were made at the time.
In February, Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes in February introduced Assembly Bill 2827, calling for the state to formulate and put in place polices to provide for early detection of and programs to exterminate invasive species to protect California’s crops. Continue reading →