For the 32nd time in 132 years, the torch has been passed at the pinnacle of the Ontario Fire Department. Chief Deputy Mike Gerken on December 19 in the Ontario City Council Chamber recieved the department’s ultimate promotion when he was sworn in as the department’s 33rd Chief, replacing Ray Gayk, the department’s 32nd chief.
Chief Gerken has been a professional firefighter for more than 26 years, having initially hired on with the Alhambra Fire Department in 1996 as a paramedic. In 1998 he made a transfer to Ontario as a fireman, thereafter moving up the ranks to captain, battalion chief, deputy chief and chief deputy.
In his capacity as chief deputy, Gerken led the department’s operations bureau, overseeing emergency operations, specialty team programs and fire services at Ontario International Airport. He also served as fire marshal, guiding the fire prevention bureau’s citywide development projects, fire inspection program, and grant programs.
Gerken was an active member on the hazardous materials team for 16 years. During his tenure as a team leader and battalion chief liaison, that specialty unit evolved into a California Office of Emergency Services Type 1 hazardous materials handling resource and is now recognized statewide as a premier program.
Gerken earned his master’s degree in organizational leadership with a concentration in change leadership from Gonzaga University. He received a bachelor’s degree in business management from San Diego State University. In addition, he graduated from Mount San Antonio College paramedic and fire academy programs and is a 28-year licensed paramedic.
Gerken’s predecessor, Chief Gayk, has retired after a 33-year career that included service in the Riverside County Fire Department and the Redlands Fire Department before he landed a position as a firefighter in Ontario in 1997. He became chief in 2018.
During his time as Fire Chief, Gayk led the Ontario Fire Department Command Team in completing several high-level projects, such as developing its first standards of cover and strategic plan, completing the Ontario Fire Department Command Training Tower project, placing two fire stations into service in the Ontario Ranch area and placing the first Ontario Fire Department paramedic ambulance unit in service in over 40 years, and beginning the first Ontario Fire Department Fire Academy to create a more diverse workforce within the department.
Gayk served on the California Fire Chiefs Association as vice president of the operations section, area director, and on the state legislative committee, recently completing a term as president. Gayk served the International Association of Fire Chiefs/Western Fire Chiefs Section as the California state director.
Gayk has written over 40 published articles in Fire Rescue Magazine and has spoken at numerous conferences on several topics related to the fire service throughout the United States.
“We want to express our gratitude to Chief Gayk for his dedicated contributions to our community throughout the years, in his most recent achievement as a key member of the leadership team driving the public-private partnership that will unite various fire and emergency medical services agencies, along with ambulance transport services,” said Mayor Paul Leon.

In a report delivered December 15, the San Bernardino County Grand Jury stopped short of concluding that three members of the Yucaipa City Council violated the Brown Act when they forced the resignation of the former city manager, joined with their two other colleagues in outright firing the city attorney and then acted without any prior announcement to hire one of their political associates as the replacement city manager and one of the new city manager’s professional associates as the follow-on city attorney. Nevertheless, the civil review panel made a finding that Yucaipa City Hall’s controlling political coalition had engaged in action that has severely undercut its credibility with the public.
While the grand jury did not delve into the minutiae or the intricacies of the accusations that the way the troika effectuated those changes entailed an out-and-out violation of the State of California’s open public meeting law, it observed that the series of backroom maneuvers the council engaged in had created an atmosphere in which the city council “has lost the trust of many citizens.”
The city’s political establishment – consisting of the three council members who actuated those sackings and the city manager and city attorney replacements who now occupy City Halls’ most powerful staff posts – hailed the grand jury’s reluctance to get into the weeds with regard to the Brown Act implication as a vindication of the January 2023 action which changed the administrative dynamic in the city. Nevertheless, they put out a statement in which they roundly criticized the grand jury for concluding a less than thorough investigation of the controversial developments which resulted in the first recall efforts in Yucaipa’s 34-year history.
Simultaneously, a spokesman for the recall proponents said that the grand jury’s inquiry and findings had served to document two serious issues pertaining to conflicts of interest and a prior business relationship between a member of the city council and a member of the planning commission, which merits the attention of both voters and prosecutors.
The issues in Yucaipa which fell under the scrutiny of the grand jury had their genesis in, first, an October 23, 2022 vote by the Yucaipa City Council as it was then composed to extend City Manager Ray Casey’s contract until June 2024. That council consisted of Greg Bogh, David Avila, Justin Beaver, Bobby Duncan and Jon Thorp. At the time of that vote, Bogh and Avila were lame ducks, as they had both opted against running for reelection in the following month’s municipal election. In the November election, Matt Garner proved the top vote-getter in the race to replace David Avila in the First District and Chris Venable won in a two-person race to supplant Greg Bogh in the Second District.
Unbeknownst to the electorate, prior to the election a discussion had taken place between then-candidate Garner and both Beaver and Duncan in which they had discussed jettisoning Casey as city manager in the event that Garner’s election bid was successful. At some point after Garner was elected but before he was sworn into office in December 2022, the trio had confirmed that commitment.
On January 9, 2023, the first substantive meeting of the Yucaipa City Council with Garner and Venable as members, was held. After adjourning into a closed session conducted outside the scrutiny of the public shortly after the meeting began, Beaver, Duncan and Garner pressured Casey into resigning and moved to conduct a vote to terminate City Attorney David Snow. The vote to accept Casey’s resignation was 3-to-2, with Beaver, Duncan and Garner prevailing and Thorp and Venable dissenting. The council then voted 5-to-0 to fire Snow. At that point, Steven Graham, the city attorney with the City of Canyon Lake in Riverside County, materialized and began functioning as Yucaipa’s City Attorney. The council then voted 4-to-1, to offer the position of city manager to Chris Mann, who at that time was the city manager of Canyon Lake, a member of the Yucaipa Water District Board of Directors, and the principal in Mann Communications. Mann, like Graham, had been present on the civic center grounds throughout the meeting.
Nearly two score Yucaipa residents who had been alerted at the last minute that something was in the offing had shown up at the meeting, several of whom had hoped to be able to talk the council out of getting rid of Casey, a Princeton-educated civil engineer with extensive public works experience in governmental and municipal settings and construction experience in the private sector. He had served as Yucaipa’s city engineer/director of public works for five years beginning in 2003 before he was promoted to the position of city manager in 2008. The crowd’s efforts at intercession had been to no avail, and Casey abruptly joined the ranks of the unemployed or retired or both.
With Mann and Graham on hand for the meeting and Graham assuming the role of city attorney on the spot without any forewarning, there were immediate accusations that a violation of The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, had taken place. The Brown Act prohibits a quorum of an elected governmental body or an appointed governmental body with decision-making authority from meeting, discussing any matter to be decided or voted upon or coming to a consensus in any way about a matter to be voted upon outside of a public forum. The Brown Act allows less than a quorum of an elected body – as in the case of the five-member Yucaipa City Council, two members – to meet and discuss some contemplated action to be voted upon, but it prohibits either of those two members from engaging in a “serial” meeting of a quorum, whereby one of those members then separately meets with another member to discuss the upcoming action or vote.
Residents who were opposed to what was tantamount to Casey’s sacking reasoned that a Brown Act violation had to have taken place, as Graham was on hand for the meeting before he was hired as city attorney and, likewise, Mann was immediately present, in anticipation of the action the council ultimately took.
The council majority would eventually form a response to the Brown Act violation accusation that held no such violation had occurred since the collusion with regard to Casey’s forced exit and Snow’s firing had taken place prior to Garner being sworn in as a member of the city council, such that when that plotting took place, the three did not constitute a quorum of the city council.
For those upset at Casey’s departure, that defense was one that relied on a distinction without a difference and constituted an admission of duplicity on the part of the three, given Beaver’s and Duncan’s October 23 vote to extend Casey’s contract and Garner’s failure to inform the community of his intention with regard to the city manager prior to his election.
Moreover, many Yucaipa residents, acutely conscious that their 27.8-square mile, 55,495-population city at present is less densely populated than 13 of San Bernardino County’s 24 incorporated municipalities, were concerned that the council majority is set on allowing aggressive development to occur, allowing the city’s largely rural nature to be eradicated and replaced by “stack and pack” subdivision after subdivision that would make Yucaipa indistinguishable from scores of other cities in Southern California that are now composed, practically, of wall-to-wall houses. Mann owns Mann Communications, which touts itself as a mouthpiece for the development industry. Residents believed putting him in place as city manager presaged just such a development frenzy.
A recall committee formed, and some 193 city residents lent their names as sponsors of the effort, with
62 residents of District 4 signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Justin A. Beaver, 67 residents of District 3 signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Bobby Dean Duncan and 64 residents of District 1 signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Councilmember Matthew Gabriel Garner.
Reasons given for seeking the recall against each of the three were that they had acted to terminate Casey and had violated the Brown Act in doing so.
In the aftermath of Casey’s departure and the hiring of Mann, Mann replaced the city clerk who had been in place under Casey, Kimberly Metzler, with his own choice, that being Ana Sauceda, whom he had previously promoted to city clerk when she was employed at the City of Canyon Lake.
To protect his political masters on the city council, Mann formulated a strategy of hiring the Los Angeles-based Sutton Law Firm, using city money, to represent Sauseda as plaintiff, acting in her capacity as the city’s chief elections officer, in a lawsuit challenging the validity of the recall effort. According to the suit as authored by two of the Sutton Law Firm’s attorneys, Bradley W. Hertz and Eli B. Love, the recall proponents could not prove their allegation that a Brown Act violation had occurred with the forced departure of Casey, and the recall proponents’ separate accusations against Beaver, Duncan and Garner that each had acted to terminate Casey and Snow was not true since no single one of them had such authority and the actions to relieve Casey of his city manager’s post and fire Snow were ones taken collectively by the entire city council body. The lawsuit was presented as adhering to recently passed law, AB 2584, allowing Sauseda to contest the accuracy of the stated grounds for a recall. Sauseda’s suit, was filed against all 193 of the recall proponents.
To augment that effort, Mann had Joseph Pradetto, whom he had hired to serve as Yucaipa’s director of governmental affairs and official spokesperson, intensify the intimidation level against the recall proponents. Pradetto, in trumpeting to the Yucaipa community that the recall proponents were being sued by the city clerk, publicly stated, “In addition to the provisions of AB 2584, Sauseda also cautions recall proponents that, ‘Per Elections Code section 18600, it is a misdemeanor offense to circulate or obtain signatures on a recall petition that intentionally misrepresent (sic) or make (sic) false statements.’”
Faced with the distraction of the lawsuit and stood off by Pradetto’s threat to have them jailed for persisting with the recall effort, recall proponents fell far short of gathering, by the August 16, 2023 deadline, the minimal 1,826 valid signatures from among District 1’s 7,303 registered voters to qualify a ballot item on recalling Garner, the minimal 1,478 valid signatures of the 5,912 registered voters in District 3 to qualify a ballot item on recalling Duncan and the minimal 1,623 valid signatures from among the 6,492 registered voters in District 4 to qualify a vote on recalling Beaver.
Nevertheless, several of the recall proponents approached the San Bernardino County Grand Jury, lodging a complaint with regard to all that had occurred, doubling down on the accusation that a Brown Act violation had taken place and accusing the council majority, aided by Mann, Sauseda, Pradetto and the Sutton Law Firm, of interfering in the political process and the recall proponents’ exercise of their First Amendment Rights.
The grand jury on December 15 released a report on its investigation and findings.
“The purpose of this report is to shine a light on the actions of members of the Yucaipa City Council that have agitated and divided this once sleepy town and to make findings and recommendations to the Yucaipa City Council to help regain the trust of the citizens of Yucaipa,” the report’s introduction states.
The grand jury stated “The original complaint was that there was a violation of the Brown Act. The grand jury found no violation. However, there appears to be a violation of the public’s trust.”
In that regard, the grand jury observed that the “new city council,” i.e., the one in which Garner and Venable replaced Bogh and Avila, “through its nontransparent method of replacing the long-time city manager” created “resident disdain, resentment, and anger.”
According to the grand jury, “For many years, Yucaipa relied on its long-serving city manager for governance and on its long-serving city attorney for legal advice. In late 2022 the city council unanimously renewed the city manager’s contract. Within a month of taking office in 2023, though, a newly elected city council decided that the city needed a change. At a closed session it voted to accept the resignation of the city manager despite the contract renewal just a few months earlier. The reasons for this resignation are unknown to the grand jury. At the same closed session, the council immediately replaced the city manager with its pre-selected choice. The council didn’t require applicant vetting; indeed, it didn’t require any applicants at all. The council didn’t interview other qualified applicants; there were no other applicants to be considered for such an important decision. Some city council members believed that the applications, vetting and interviewing took place during the previous council term, and that their only function now was to approve the choices. The evidence showed that some of the council members had not met these pre-chosen candidates until the meeting during which the council appointed them. Even before the city council vote, the soon-to-be appointed new city manager (and city attorney) waited in the parking lot outside the council chambers, to be called into the meeting and introduced to the council. These city council actions blindsided many residents; their outrage followed, soon to be fueled by additional questionable actions.”
The concern of residents who then became involved in the recall effort with regard to the city embarking on aggressive residential growth found confirmation when the city pushed forward, with Mann in place as city manager, with a development proposal, referred to as the “Serrano Estates Project,” lying at the periphery of the largely rural and undeveloped “North Bench” section of the city, according to the grand jury. The council’s apparent adherence to this developmental imperative extended to a conflict of interest which, the grand jury hinted, potentially relates to issues of criminal implication.
“On August 17, 2022, the planning commission voted 4 to 2 against approval of the Serrano Estates Project,” the grand jury noted. “Immediately thereafter, the applicant appealed the decision to the city council. On September 12, 2022, the former city council voted to deny the applicant’s appeal. On January 9, 2023, the new city council was installed. On January 9, 2023, two months after the election of the three new city council members, the city council called a special session. Although the agenda had brought attention to the fact that this meeting would be used to discuss personnel issues, the public knew no particulars. While these actions were permissible, they lacked transparency. During this meeting, although the present and soon-to-be former city manager’s contract was renewed in October 2022, by a 5-to-0 vote, the city manager resigned. The council immediately appointed a new city manager to replace him. The newly elected city council then promptly removed the current city attorney and installed a new one. When the full meeting continued, constituents were informed of the new appointees. Public outcry ensued. Residents complained they had no input into the changes. The lack of transparency was evident. The selected appointees waited outside in the parking lot, knowing that they would be installed. On March 15, 2023, the Serrano Estates Project applicant made changes to the plan in accordance with suggestions made by the new city council, and the council approved it despite the objections of many citizens. The grand jury found that some residents viewed the appointment of the city council’s choice for city manager and city attorney as a move to assure that the council could approve the Serrano Estates Project. In March 2023, opposition in the community continued to grow after the Yucaipa City Council approved the project. Opponents expressed their concerns at the city council meetings and in the local paper. According to meeting minutes and media reports, opposition to the project grew with each city council meeting. At one of the heated city council meetings where the council discussed the Serrano Estates Project, a council member responded to citizens voicing their concerns by saying, “All I hear is blah, blah, blah.” In fairness, the civil grand jury has evidence that many citizens were rude in their addresses to the council. Some members of the public were disruptive; some violated the rules of the meeting; others were name-calling during their speaking time. Regarding the public complaints that the Yucaipa City Council has navigated this project opaquely and with little consideration for some of the objections of the public, the San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury found city council members have prior and current personal and business relationships with entitlement and/or development companies that want to redevelop the North Bench area. The grand jury discovered there was a prior business relationship with a member of the planning commission and the city council. The businesses were real estate sales and development. The procedure complied with the law regarding consideration or approval of the Serrano Estates Project. However, the rule of law is only half of the city council’s mandate for governing. The voice of the people is the other and perhaps paramount.”
Enlarging upon that point, the grand jury stated, “For years local residents opposed the Serrano Estates Project, and the prior city council and planning commission rejected it. But the new council nevertheless voted to approve the project. For years North Bench residents enjoyed the serenity of its rural setting. It was zoned RL-1, one home on each one-acre lot. The new city council proposed rezoning the North Bench to allow ‘cluster housing,’ more housing on less land (up to four homes on each one-acre lot and multi-resident units such as condos and apartments). Many residents believe that the approval of the Serrano Estates Project provided a gateway to the rezoning of the North Bench later because the Serrano Estates Project is immediately adjacent to the North Bench area. Many North Bench residents and some other district residents opposed the change. The proposal, the residents asserted, would deprive Yucaipa of a rural residential and open-space region and instead would create a congested sprawl with insufficient infrastructure. Anger swelled, then ballooned when residents learned that a council member was a real estate agent, had a property listed in the North Bench district and possibly stood to reap a substantial financial gain upon council approval of this proposal and subsequent sale of the listing. Despite the apparent financial conflict of interest and lack of transparency, no council member deemed it prudent to recuse himself. Angered and frustrated once again, citizens responded. The city council’s efforts to rezone the North Bench district created an uproar among Yucaipa citizens and spawned raucous city council meetings.”
The efforts to thwart the recall taken by the city council using and involving Mann, Sauseda, the Sutton Law Firm and Pradetto as proxies exacerbated the atmosphere of distrust in the city, according to the grand jury.
“A citizen’s group, the Coalition to Save Yucaipa, filed a recall notice seeking to remove three city council members, one of them the mayor,” according to the grand jury. “The city clerks’ office immediately filed a lawsuit to halt the recall, naming as defendants each citizen who signed the petition. Recall law requires that each petitioner must include his/her address. Subsequently, anonymous letters were sent to each signer, informing them that their information would be published in the local newspaper. The lawsuit filed by the office of the city clerk, and the anonymous letters, intimidated many Yucaipa residents, especially those who had their names on the petition, and therefore on the lawsuit. Many Yucaipa citizens are incensed. They do not believe the city council demonstrated adequate concern for their objections to the possible rezoning of the North Bench and to the approval of the Serrano Estates Project; they did believe that the council acted with a lack of transparency when it replaced the former city manager and city attorney, with pre-selected people, without much notice to or input from the community. The anonymous letters sent only to the recall petition signers did not help the public perception of the city council.”
In August, the deadline for the recall proponents to have gathered sufficient signatures to force the recall elections against Beaver, Duncan and Garner had elapsed. With the recall effort having failed, the judge hearing the lawsuit brought by Sauseda concluded that the matter being litigated “is deemed moot.” Despite that, Sauseda is proceeding with the lawsuit, which the grand jury said is perpetuating the community’s distrust of city government.
“As of the writing of this report, the office of the city clerk had not agreed to dismiss the petition for writ of mandate, despite the fact that the judge deemed the matter moot,” the grand jury stated. “Nevertheless, the Office of the Yucaipa City Clerk, with retained counsel, decided to move forward with the lawsuit. If the city clerk’s office continues on this path, Yucaipa likely will spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees and the defendants, residents who had signed the recall petitions, may spend thousands more on their own attorney fees. These actions may further erode the public trust and the Yucaipa City Council itself must share some of the blame. Since the new council term began in 2023, the Yucaipa City Council has developed a reputation among many residents of ignoring the concerns of the public and of fostering an atmosphere of mistrust, disdain, anger, resentment, lack of transparency and appearances of conflicts of interest. Regaining the residents’ trust is paramount.”
The grand jury said the city should form a watchdog committee to provide oversight of the city council, report to the public on the operations of city government, ensure compliance with general ethics principles and with campaign finance, contracting, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and other laws and regulations, as well as with government transparency guidelines. The grand jury said the city should also implement a formal written and on-line complaint process whereby citizens may ask questions or voice concerns about the actions of the city council and put in place transparent procedures that give time for council members and the community to provide input before the council solicits applications and appoints high-level city employees. The city needs to update the Yucaipa Code of Conduct as relates to the city council and it should develop an effective training policy in all city government transparency policies, as well as in the state statutes and regulations related to city government, such as the Brown Act [and] the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations about conflicts of interest.
The grand jury’s report prompted Mann and Pradetto to put out a reflexive defense of their political masters on the city council.
“Following months of heated public discourse initiated by a vocal group of residents critical of recent actions taken by the Yucaipa City Council, the San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate allegations of Brown Act and conflict of interest violations, and other concerns over transparency. In a report released on Friday, December 15th, the grand jury found no such violations,” according to Mann and Pradetto. They quoted Mayor Justin Beaver in furthering that assertion.
“After nearly an entire year of public upset and scrutiny, the County Civil Grand Jury has confidently declared our city council violated no laws,” Beaver was cited as saying. “Certainly, when passions run high, allegations sometimes get made; in this case the allegations of criminal conduct were unfounded. I serve today as your mayor, your representative here in your local government, and I remain committed to enhancing transparency and communication between City Hall and you all.”
Despite that claim of vindication, Mann and Pradetto asserted that the grand jury’s findings and recommendations were unjustifiably critical of the city and the city council, as they were “based on an incomplete investigation and understanding of the laws and standard practices applicable to local government. The city is also disappointed that the report fails to mention that some of the complaints and recommendations relate to decisions and actions by previous councils and administration, ignoring the many efforts the current council and city manager have taken to get the city back on course.”
The grand jury’s erroneous conclusions were based on the ignorance and lack of experience and sophistication of the grand jurors, according to Mann and Pradetto.
“Civil grand juries are comprised of citizen volunteers (most often retirees), most of whom lack legal and/or local government education, training or experience,” Mann and Pradetto stated. “This clearly seems to be the case with the individuals seated on this year’s San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury, as their report demonstrates an alarming lack of understanding of common practices and laws pertaining to municipal government operations. One of the recommendations, if implemented, would actually violate the law. Another egregious error was the Grand Jury’s failure to interview the Yucaipa City Manager, who serves as the city’s chief executive officer, and thus was the person with the required experience and information needed to provide investigators with current and accurate information.”
This shortcoming, in fact, represented, according to Mann and Pradetto, either a civil or criminal violation on the part of the grand jury itself.
“The grand jury report violates state law,” Mann and Pradetto said. “By not interviewing the city manager, the grand jury report not only contains antiquated and incorrect information, but it also violates provisions of the California Penal Code. As the chief executive officer of the public agency that is the subject of the report, the city manager must be interviewed. Under Penal Code Section 933.05(e), an opportunity to address the grand jury is mandatory unless the court determines that such an interview would be detrimental to the investigation. Interviewing the city manager is a basic step in completing a comprehensive and fair investigation. Failing to do so has resulted in a report rife with factual inaccuracies.”
Further, according to Mann and Pradetto, “[T]he Grand Jury failed to offer the city the opportunity, under Penal Code Section 933.05(d), to have a representative of the city read and discuss the findings of the grand jury in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to release. This leads to a report with a set of findings and recommendations built upon erroneous information.”
Mann went on the record as stating, “This is particularly concerning because the report contains several significant factual errors that will only serve to inflame the tensions and public sentiment for which the grand jury expresses so much concern. It was irresponsible to allow this report to be released without giving the city an opportunity to correct flagrant misinformation, with the expectation that the city will simply address the inaccuracies in its official response, as the damage to public trust will already have been done.”
Mann and Pradetto dismissed the grand jury’s criticism of the secretiveness that led up to Mann’s hiring, saying, “Confidentiality is an important consideration in any recruitment. Present job security and long-term career opportunities could be jeopardized if an applicant’s interest in another position is made public prematurely. In recent months, many other local jurisdictions have hired a city manager or county CEO without undertaking a public engagement effort, and a number of those hires were made without a formal recruitment process. A high-profile example is the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, which has selected two of its past three CEOs without conducting open recruitments, and sought public engagement in none of those cases. Standard practice does not involve community input into personnel matters because such involvement could undermine recruitment efforts and compromise a candidate’s right to a confidential process. However, these facts did not preclude the grand jury from making critical findings of the Yucaipa City Council’s process and making related recommendations. Had the grand jury researched the law and customary practices for the appointment of agency executives, it would have found that confidentiality in the process is not only legal, it is critical to a successful transition.”
The grand jury’s findings with regard to the present city council reviving the application for the Serrano Estates development after it was rejected by the previous city council were flawed, Mann and Pradetto asserted, since “The applicant modified the project and resubmitted it as a new project, triggering a new hearing process.”
Mann and Pradetto sought to defend Sauseda’s filing of the lawsuit challenging the recall effort.
“The recall proponents did not challenge the city clerk’s assertion in the lawsuit that the petitions contained false or misleading statements,” they said.
Mann and Pradetto took issue with the grand jury’s statement that the city council needs to implement additional transparency measures and to offer additional training for elected officials.
“Since the new city council was elected and new city manager appointed, the city has taken extraordinary measures to increase transparency that were not done under previous administrations,” according to Mann and Pradetto.
Chris Robles, a spokesman for the Coalition to Save Yucaipa, said Mann’s and Pradetto’s attempts at minimizing the seriousness of the grand jury report and its findings through their ill-advised attacks on grand jury itself did not detract from “the alarming findings that underscore concerns related to conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency with their local governance. Although not intended as a criminal indictment, the December 15, 2023 Grand Jury report does reveal two significantly disturbing issues worth referring to law enforcement, those being conflicts of interest with developers and a prior business relationship between a member of the city council and the planning commission. The grand jury found that certain city council members have conflicts of interest with developers seeking to develop the North Bench area. This revelation raises questions about the impartiality and fairness of decision-making processes related to this and other development projects in Yucaipa. Another troubling discovery outlined in the report is a prior business relationship between a member of the planning commission and the city council. The nature of this relationship involved real estate sales and development, indicating potential conflicts that could compromise the integrity of city planning and development decisions.”
Speaking on behalf of the Coalition to Save Yucaipa, Robles said, “While we find vindication in the grand jury’s 2023 Report that our reasons for recalling three city council members were honest and correct and the city clerk’s lawsuit was merely judicial harassment designed to intimidate residents and protect the council majority, it deeply saddens us that the reputation of our beloved Yucaipa has been severely damaged by this city council. The grand jury report shines a light on the year-long erosion of public trust in Yucaipa’s municipal governance, the wasted tax dollars on a self-serving lawsuit, council member incompetency, lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest with developers. We call upon all Yucaipa residents to join our demand for the city council to immediately and transparently address these issues, demonstrating a commitment to rebuilding the trust and confidence of the community. The Coalition to Save Yucaipa remains steadfast in its mission to promote responsible and ethical governance, and will continue to monitor developments related to the grand jury’s admonishment of the Yucaipa City Council.”
Kathy Sellers, one of the recall proponents, told the Sentinel, “Joe Pradetto’s comment that the report found no wrongdoing is another example of his pompous word salad. As I read the report, the grand jury found numerous examples of malfeasance. Several people also filed formal complaints with the district attorney’s office and that investigation is still ongoing.”
-Mark Gutglueck

For the third week in a row, Edin Enamorado and the eponymous group of activists he leads have been outmaneuvered by the authorities in the battle that counts, that being the effort to take possession of the evidence implicative of their propensity for escalating their activism into physical confrontations and incidental violence.
Both previously and in the first two weeks after eight Enamorados including Edin Enamorado himself were blitzed by San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies in predawn raids on December 14 and taken into custody, charged with conspiracy, assault and a host of related charges, they and their movement had relied upon civil rights attorney Christian Contreras to serve as their mouthpiece and legal representative. While Contreras’s true talent consists of advocacy for the advancement of the liberty, egalitarianism, social inclusion and the eradication of prejudice, constructing a defense against criminal charges was not and is not his strong suit. With each assertion by Contreras that the eight Enamorados or, as Contreras insisted on referring to them, “the Freedom 8,” were engaged in earnest efforts to promote social and political reform, his clients were losing ground as the sheriff’s department and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office were making strides in convincing the court that the Enamorados’ crusade to protect Hispanics in general and recent immigrants from Latin America more specifically, particularly those who are seeking to make their way in the world by sidewalk/street vending, had, on occasion made use of violence and intimidation.
In his approach, Contreras emphasized that the motives and intent of his clients in their willingness to become a buffer protecting downtrodden Latinos was a defensible principle and they were being demonized and unfairly tarnished because of the intrepid way they go about what they are doing. The government was using, Contreas said, its overwhelming power and authority in an illegitimate bid to foreclose the Enamorados’ right of free expression.
With his focus on rhetorical rhapsody and seizing the moral high ground to ensure that his clients have a path for effectuating social reform rather than deflecting accusations of wrongdoing by his clients, what Contreras was missing was that the authorities were not angling to shut the Enamorados in general and Edin Enamorado in particular up but instead seeking to ensure that the statements they, most notably Edin Enamorado, had made remain on the public billboard that is social media. It was those acts of public speech and free expression which the prosecution has found to be in its own interest to not only preserve, but ultimately, highlight. What Contreras failed to grasp was that every day, indeed every hour and even every minute that his primary client – Edin Enamorado – remained incarcerated, the forces arrayed against him – primarily the sheriff’s department investigators, had not only the opportunity but the time to harvest from the internet and a host of social media platforms materials – many of them videos – that will ultimately serve as the ammunition to be loaded, aimed and then volleyed at Enamorado and his cohorts when they come before a jury.
It is Edin Enamorado’s deeply held belief that America, i.e., North America, was and therefore still is the land of the indigenous people of the Americas. In his worldview, foreigners, primarily in the form of European colonizers, usurped the land and resources that the indigenous tribes had enjoyed as their own for tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands, of years without the interference of outsiders.
As the rich white Europeans engage in the domination of Latinos or La Raza through their capitalistic system and hoard the wealth and goods they are accumulating by continuing to exploit those who are less fortunate and not well-fixed financially, according to Enamorado, he and those with whom he networks and is in league are perfectly and morally justified in taking back what was taken from them. For members of the Anglo establishment to tell a Latino that he should go back to Mexico, Enamorado has said, is like a human telling a fish that it should get out of the sea. It is not the Mexicanos who should go back to Mexico but rather the white population that is socially and economically ascendant in the Golden State who should, as he once put it to Dr. Phil McGraw on national television, “go back to England.”
In carrying out his calling of protecting the Latino and immigrant population being assailed formally or informally, officially or unofficially by agents of the white-controlled government such as the police or municipal code enforcement officers or white bigoted bullies who insult, assault or interfere in any way with street vendors or sidewalk vendors, Edin Enamorado maintains he and the group he leads are entirely justified in responding in kind by fighting fire with fire.
In his role a social justice crusader, Enamorado engages in a form of street activism and politicking that consists of equal parts of a presumption of moral superiority, making accusations of racism, profanity, rapid fire questions and assertions without giving his interlocutor an opportunity to respond, immediately dismissing any response his target manages to get in edgewise, browbeating, insults and threats. In such circumstances, the intent is not to achieve an exchange of information or views but rather to relentlessly intimidate, provoke and generate more heat than light. Key elements of Enamorado’s tactics are being surrounded by a physically intimidating support network, the use of surprise, verbal domination and videography to capture indelible moving sound images of the individual being confronted, which in many, though not all, cases will result in an untoward or intemperate remark or reaction. Routinely, videos of these confrontations are uploaded onto social media platforms Enamorado controls. Some of those depict an individual being confronted or in other cases bystanders to the protests the Enamorados are engaged in growing impatient at being blocked or hemmed in or harangued and then reacting, whereupon the subject is ganged up upon and physically assaulted by those present.
Previously, Enamorado and his associates were active in Southern California, primarily in Los Angeles County, making occasional forays elsewhere. In 2023, several of the Enamorados’ actions took place in San Bernardino County, partly as an outgrowth of his effort to avenge the action of some San Diego State University students who had, in his words, harassed a street vendor. One of those students was Breanna Peelman, the daughter of Upland Police Sergeant Nick Peelman. The Enamorados cited a connection between the incident in San Diego involving Peelman’s daughter and Peelman’s entanglement in a 2013 shooting of an 18-year-old Hispanic. In the same timeframe, Enamorado took up residency in Upland, which he at one point implied but did not directly state was occasioned by his efforts to have Nick Peelman bounced off the Upland Police force. That effort included holding nighttime rallies on the residential block in neighboring Rancho Cucamonga where Sergeant Peelman lives. Using his trademark bullhorn, Enamorado exhorted a group of Enamorados who had accompanied him there to voice their disapproval of what he called Peelman’s bigotry.
With his advent in San Bernardino County, Enamorado espoused similar causes as he had taken up elsewhere. When the City of Fontana in October undertook to pass a sidewalk/street vendor regulation ordinance and the following month augment the ordinance with $232 vendor cart/merchandise impound fee, the Enamorados showed up en masse at the city council meetings where those matters were on the agenda to register their protest, in both cases resulting in disruptions which prompted Mayor Acquanetta Warren to clear the council chambers of the public before the council voted on the matter behind closed doors. By the fashion in which Edin Enamorado conducted himself, staging a rally on the street where Warren lived after the crowd was excluded from the October 24 meeting at 10 p.m. that evening and returning to the council chamber the morning of November 15 for the continuation of the meeting that Warren had suspended on the evening of November 14, at which point he engaged in another disruption, he was arrested on both occasions by the Fontana Police Department.
After the October 24 meeting, the City of Fontana sought a temporary restraining order against Enamorado to keep him from coming within 100 feet of Mayor Warren or her home. On October 27, Superior Court Judge Ron Gilbert denied the request for that civil harassment temporary restraining order.
When Upland residents objected to the Enamorados’ characterization of Peelman, the police department and the entire city and Upland community as racist, Edin Enamorado organized protests outside some of their homes, at one point following the 93-year-old father of one of those residents from one of his son’s home to the home of another of his sons who also resided in Upland. At one point, when a congregation of more than 30 Enamorados swarmed a residential neighborhood in northern Upland, given that the residence of District Attorney Jason Anderson and his family was nearby, the Upland Police Department felt it necessary to send a contingent of officers to shadow the group and monitor the circumstance using a magnifying video camera and a parabolic listening device.
Edin Enamorado was arrested when several Enamorados conducted a protest outside the home of an Apple Valley woman to protest what they said was a racist rant she had engaged in while within a Disneyland restroom when she encountered a woman speaking Spanish to her son.
It was an incident on September 24 that led to the extended incarceration and extensive criminal charges against the eight Enamorados.
On that day, they had come to Downtown Victorville in the area that included the highly visible span of Palmdale Road between Amargosa Road and McArt Road, a stone’s throw from the sheriff’s station on Amargosa Road, to protest the action of a sheriff’s deputy who had been videotaped slamming a 16-year-old girl as he and a fellow deputy sought to break up a fight between that girl and another that had broken out in the parking lot outside Ray Moore Stadium in the immediate aftermath of a high school football game between Victor Valley and Big Bear the evening of September 22.
Bullhorn in hand, Edin Enamorado led a party of roughly 40 Enamorados, most of them from lower San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, to Victorville on that Sunday, as they carried placards calling for justice and paraded in the vicinity of the sheriff’s station. Exhorting the crowd and demanding that the deputy who had injured Jeffers be identified, fired and prosecuted, Enamorado used his cell phone to videorecord the protest, which was also being memorialized for posterity by at least three other Enamorados using shoulder-held, handheld or tripod-mounted video cameras.
As the protest was ongoing, a couple in a relatively late model Hyundai had gone into the car wash proximate to the sheriff’s station near the intersection of McArt Road and Palmdale Road. Upon attempting to leave, the woman, who was driving, was unable to pull onto Palmdale Road from the car wash parking lot’s exit because of the traffic flow on Palmdale Road coupled with the constant stream of protesters moving in both directions on the sidewalk and gutter of the roadway. Despite the Hyundai’s obvious presence and the driver’s intent to leave, the protesters remained disregardful of the car and its occupants as most were engaged in making a show of protest to the motorists passing by on Palmdale Road.
The occupants of the Hyundai exhibited patience initially, but after more than two minutes, the woman sounded the Hyundai’s horn. This had no appreciable impact on the protesters, who continued to file in front of the car, such that the driver could not move the car forward without running into and possibly injuring one or more of the protesters. A further wait ensued, at which point the woman sounded the horn once more and the man opened the door on the passenger’s side of the car. As he emerged, he was immediately engaged by three of the Enamorados, at least one of whom referred to him as a “bitch” and accused him of opening the door on one of the woman protesters. One, then two, and then a third Enamorado began to rain blows on the man, who attempted to defend himself while he was angled away from the car and then knocked to the ground. As he attempted to get to his feet, he was pepper sprayed.
The incident was captured on video from at least three perspectives. Among those who can be seen in one of the video depictions hitting the man is Edin Enamorado, who does so with his left fist while holding and continuing to video with his cellphone in his right hand.
The man succeeded in getting up but as he was staggering, he was knocked to the ground once more and kicked while he was down. Off camera, shortly after the man came out of the car, Edin Enamorado could be heard belittling him for being less than a man for hitting the woman with his car door. After the man was pepper sprayed and on the ground for the second time, Edin Enamorado can be heard remarking that he had gotten what he deserved.
As it was ongoing, the incident was livestreamed to Enamorado’s YouTube page.
From their nearby vantage, deputies saw the assault and roughly two minutes later they came to the spot of the assault, whereupon a shoving match ensued between two of the deputies and two of the Enamorados. Within minutes, at least eight deputies had arrived. Narrowly, Edin Enamorado avoided arrest, but the deputies took four of the Enamorados into custody at that time: David Chávez, 27, of Riverside, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical and unlawful assembly; Wendy Luján, 40, who is described variously as Edin Enamorado’s partner or wife, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical, obstructing a peace officer, battery and unlawful assembly; Victor Alba, 30, of Victorville, who was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer, battery and unlawful assembly; and Wayne Freeman, 36, of Moreno Valley, who was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer and unlawful assembly.
Upon her booking, Luján provided her jailers with a Pomona address rather than her actual residence in Upland, which sheriff’s department’s investigators, as a result of their subsequent investigation, now believe was an effort to protect Edin Enamorado, with whom she cohabits, from being connected to what had occurred that day.
Edin Enamorado uploaded an extended video of the protest including the assault of the couple in the Hyundai to a social media account on TikTok he controls under heading “Edin Enamorado is going live.” The video was presented to the public within a context in which it was suggested that what had occurred was a demonstration of the noble efforts of the Enamorados to stand up to racism. The posting did not dwell on the consideration that the passenger of the Hyundai who was assaulted is Hispanic.
The sheriff’s department investigation that ensued in short order brought Edin Enamorado into focus, helped along in part by his utterances to the media and other public forums in the immediate aftermath of the Chávez, Luján, Alba and Freeman arrests when he assigned blame for what had occurred to the driver of the Hyundai, who, he said, “tried to run over protesters” and her passenger, who, Enamorado asserted “hit a woman” and then assaulted Luján, who, Enamorado indignantly insisted, had merely “defended herself.”
When investigators observed the video of the assault which offered a visual and verbal contrast to what Enamorado claimed to have occurred, they began to explore the activities of the Enamorados and their leader in multiple other venues, which were likewise documented in posted videos.
As investigators delved into the circumstance, they became aware of further incidents involving the Enamorados and Edin Enamorado specifically, and began trading notes with the police agencies in Los Angeles, Pomona, Upland, Fontana, Riverside, Santa Ana, Long Beach, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Woodland Hills, Huntington Park, San Bernardino and Moorpark, and their dealings with him.
A department investigator working undercover in the guise of a social activist gained access to several Enamorados, obtaining crucial information in that way. At least two Enamorados who had been arrested by the department or other agencies proved vulnerable to compromise by means of deals that could be cut with them in exchange for cooperation to include providing inside information known only to the Enamorados themselves.
At some point, Edin Enamorado took stock of how the extended video of the protests in Victorville on September 24, including the assault on the couple in the Hyundai, represented evidence of criminal activity by both him and his associates, and he removed it from his social media platform. That, investigators and prosecutors believe, is a demonstration of what they term “consciousness of guilt” on Enamorado’s part. Despite his scrubbing of the video, investigators had already secured a reprint.
Despite the Chávez, Luján, Alba and Freeman arrests in Victorville on September 24 and the arrest of Enamorado himself in Fontana on October 24 and November 15 and Apple Valley on December 10, the Enamorados grew progressively bolder with their actions and protests in San Bernardino County. Early in the morning of December 14, between 3:20 a.m. and 4:46 a.m., however, department teams in a coordinated set of seven raids served arrest and search warrants at the Upland apartment of Enamorado, 36, and Luján, 40; the Riverside home of Chávez, 28; the Bell habitation of Fernando López, 44; the Ontario premises of Vanessa Carrasco, 40; the San Bernardino abode of Gullit Eder Acevedo, 30; the San Bernardino residence of Stephanie Amésquita, 33; and the Los Angeles apartment of Edwin Peña, 26. All are identified as Enamorados active in protests for social justice that turned violent. Contreras denounced the arrests as “baseless” and the charges “absurd and resemblant of conduct in a third world country.” He said, “The arrests of the Victorville 8, including Edin Alex Enamorado, were clearly done in retaliation for such activists exercising their First Amendment rights. Criticizing elected officials and law enforcement officers should never be criminalized and that it what the sheriff’s department has done in this case.”
The portrayals of the arrests as an attack on the First Amendment, however, ignored the violence that had occurred during the September 24 protest in Victorville and the irrefutable video evidence, which originated not with the sheriff’s department but the Enamorados themselves. In this way, when the arraignment for the defendants took place on December 18, Contreras missed a crucial opportunity to contest the arrests and the prosecution request for a no bail hold on all of the defendants on relevant technical grounds, instead engaging in a rhetorical flourish calculated for public relations purposes with the public in general, rather than with the judge, Shannon Faherty, who had been a deputy prosecutor with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office before she spent two years as a court commissioner before her 2020 appointment to the Superior Court.
As a consequence, Judge Faherty was persuaded by the prosecution’s assertions that releasing any of the eight would represent a threat to the community, which entailed them remaining jailed through Christmas until their next hearing, which was supposed to take place on December 26 before Judge Zahara Arredondo.
Contreras pushed forward with the legally moribund theory that the arrests and filing of criminal charges against the eight constituted a constitutional violation, arguing that because the defendants were social and political activists, any action they took was protected under the First Amendment. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus Contreras filed with the Court of Appeals, labeling the Enamorados detention “unconstitutional,” was denied.
On December 26, the hearing for the eight that was supposed to take place before Judge Arredondo was instead conducted by Judge Melissa Rodriguez, who scheduled a preliminary hearing and bail consideration for them two days hence. On December 28, again with Judge Rodriguez presiding, the court acceded to the prosecution requests to perpetuate the no bail holds on Enamorado, Chávez, López, Carrasco, Amésquita and Peña, while agreeing to grant Acevedo bail of $40,000 and defer a bail review for Luján until January 2.
Acevedo had the fewest number of counts against him of all of the defendants. He was charged with violating PC 245.2, use of a deadly weapon on an operator of a motor vehicle; PC 236, false imprisonment; and PC 182.5 conspiracy to commit a gang-related felony.
Enamorado is charged with 16 felonies; Luján with 14; Chávez, is charged with the same 14 counts lodged against Carrasco; Peña is charged with 14 counts; López is charged with 12 counts; and Amésquita faces nine counts.
While the ostensible purpose for keeping the Enamorados locked up is the physical threat they represent to the community at large, the actual rationale and the practical benefit of doing so for the prosecution is it buys further time for the investigators to not only interact with the informants within the Enamorados that they have cultivated but to carry out an exhaustive examination of the videos and other materials that the Enamorados, Edin Enamorado in particular, have mounted on multiple social media platforms. Obtained during the early morning raids on December 14 were cell phones and computers at the various defendants’ homes. The seizure of those devices potentially has allowed the department investigators and forensic analysts to review video and social media postings to websites Edin Enamorado controls or has access to, videos that were once mounted but taken down or ones that might not have been mounted or uploaded to those websites or platforms. It is not known, however, outside of the sheriff’s department or district attorney’s office whether investigators were able to crack whatever protections barring access Enamorado may have had on those devices. The more time the department’s forensic examiners and cyber system consultants have to work on those items, the greater the chances are that they will obtain access to those videos, some of which include evidence of physical confrontations between some of the Enamorados and those they were targeting with their protests or, as in the case in Victorville on September 24, bystanders who were caught in the middle.
At the time of the Enamorados’ arrests, Edin Enamorado had dozens or even scores of postings to various social media accounts yet in place, including ones it appears that he was monitoring for the public responses they were generating and others which he may have forgotten about. Some of those contain material which could be of assistance to prosecutors. Enamorado’s continuing incarceration is preventing those postings from being taken down, giving investigators a grant of further time during which to discover their existence and preserve them.
In the immediate aftermath of the December 14 arrests, the Sentinel was in contact with Contreras’s office and sought to obtain from him whether he had ascertained which Enamorados had been persuaded by law enforcement to serve as informants and whether Contreras was preparing to have the court exclude as evidence any statements made by those informants and/or videos made by the Enamorados during the course of their protests.
Contreras did not respond to those inquiries.
The Sentinel has now learned that the Enamorados are no longer utilizing Contreras as their criminal defense attorney and are instead represented by Nicholas Rosenberg, a five star attorney who has had considerable success in getting clients exonerated at trial or severely weakening the cases against his clients by exploration and discovery of the various means of investigation used by law enforcement agencies in building those cases, including the use of informants and undercover operatives, and then successfully excluding inculpatory evidence.
Contreras remains the Enamorados’ legal representative with regard to the assertion of their civil rights and privileges under the U.S. and California constitutions.
–Mark Gutglueck

The phenomenal drawing power of more than four score of the 272 In-N-Out Burger locations elsewhere in California and what many see as the too-nonchalant planning approach of City Engineering Manager Don Young and Project Planner Sean Reilly to say nothing of the already-existent traffic circulation challenges in the Redlands “Doughnut Hole” near the northwest confluence of the 210 and I-10 freeways has raised concerns of an intractable traffic nightmare when the popular fast food restaurant opens at the furthest extension of the Citrus Plaza later this year.
Last March, the Redlands Planning Commission gave go-ahead to the In-N-Out proposal, which is to consist of a 3,887 square-foot drive-through restaurant with an 866 square-foot outdoor dining area under a covered patio, and dual drive-through lanes and bicycle racks on a 2.1-acre site located at the southwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Citrus Plaza Drive, on the west side of the Interstate 210 freeway.
The project will also entail the completion of an augmentation driveway further to the west of the project driveway, and provide a private easement for access to the parcel located to the south, which contains existing telecommunications equipment that will be accessed by an easement across the project site.
The project was exempted from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines in accordance with Section 15303, relating to new construction of small structures, and Section 15332, relating to infill development.
As it is subject to East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, which requires a traffic impact analysis for all proposed new drive-throughs, a traffic study was carried out. The study/analysis extended to the project’s anticipated impact on off-site traffic circulation. Based on that study, both city officials and In-N-Out corporate representatives said they were confident the traffic flow design for the undertaking would have little appreciable impact on the area. Nevertheless, observers of operations at existing In-N-Out Burger stands, particularly during the hours of 4:30 p.m to 7:30 p.m. during the evening rush hour/dinner hour window – which in reality runs to as long as three hours – believe the project will create, or exacerbate existing, traffic backups in the area.
According to Young, he is satisfied that ingress to and egress from the project is “adequate.” He said entry into and exit from the project will be from two driveways on Lugonia Avenue. On the east end of the project, patrons will be able to enter the site at the intersection with Citrus Plaza Drive, which is a four-way intersection with a traffic signal. The east driveway provides two exit lanes and one entry lane. On the west end of the site, a driveway is shown on the project plans with one lane in and one lane out.
According to Michelle Bennett, the development manager for In-N-Out, what she referred to as “a 33-car stack” will exist on the site, one that is longer than the standard room provided for cars built into the company’s other locations. Bennett said that would be “more than enough” length of internal area to accommodate the number of cars at dinner hour/rush hour.
At two of In-N-Out’s sites in Upland, two of its sites in Ontario, one of its sites in San Bernardino and one of its sites in Claremont, as many as 70 cars have been in the queue on weeknights as commuters are making their way home. Similar backups occur at other In-N-Outs too numerous to list here.
Many anticipate substantial backups on Lugonia and Citrus Plaza Drive.
Redlands residents have noted that congestion already besets the Doughnut Hole/Citrus Plaza district. At the intersection of Alabama and Lugonia, which is well west of the In-N-Out project site, cars can be restricted from moving for well over a minute. At the intersection of Nevada Street and Lugonia Avenue during rush hour, which is even further west of the project site than Alabama and Lugonia, cars heading in all directions can be jammed behind signals for well in excess of two minutes as gridlocks occur, with cars stuck in the intersection after a light turns red, preventing cross traffic from moving at all. Less onerous delays of half of a minute can occur at other intersections with traffic signals in the area.
The shopping center to the north of the project site has numerous retail and restaurant businesses, including Chick-Fil-A, Famous Dave’s BBQ, and Romano’s Macaroni Grill, among others. There is a self-storage facility to the immediate west as well as a Raising Cane’s restaurant with drive-through lanes. Existing freeway right-of-way is located to the immediate east and south.
Redlands residents say they believe Young was too optimistic in his pronouncement that the city will experience traffic circulation issues only in the immediate aftermath of the opening of the drive-through, anticipated for May or thereabouts, and that after the novelty wears off, normal traffic flow will resume.
The surrounding zoning consists of the County of San Bernardino’s East Valley Special Development land use designation to the north, and the City of Redlands’ General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan to the west, south and east.
-Mark Gutglueck

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FRANK A. VIRAMONTES
CASE NO.  PROVA2300218
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FRANK A. VIRAMONTES has been filed by PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held December 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: OCTOBER 25, 2023
DiAnna Verdugo, Deputy Court Clerk.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Philip A. Viramontes
Tyler H. Brown
SBN 259620
BROWN & BROWN
Attorneys at Law
10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 490
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 982-5086
tylerbrown@brownandbrownllp.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230012053
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
ATKINSONS’ 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H238 ONTARIO, CA 91761: DAMION K. ATKINSON 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H/238 ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ DAMION K ATKINSON
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/06/2023
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 J7550
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 December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230011975
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
UNLIMITED ME CONSULTING GROUP 9459 PEACH AVENUE HESPERIA, CA 92345: MARVIN ESPINOZA 9459 PEACH AVENUE HESPERIA, CA 92345
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/ MARVIN ESPINOZA, Principal Consultant
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/04/2023
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 J5842
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 December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

Continue reading →