By Carlos Avalos
At least some of the ground covered in Stuart Harmon’s documentary, titled “Fontana PD: Hate Within The Ranks” produced in cooperation with The Intercept and posted at theintercept.com for free viewing this week was previewed over the years by parallel articles and letters to the editor which ran in the Fontana Herald News and the San Bernardino County Sentinel.
One of these was a letter to the editor that ran in the Fontana Herald News on October 22, 2015 under the heading “Fontana is still affected by racism.” This showed the Fontana Police Department at the heart of these ongoing issues. This set the stage for a deeper dive into the department’s troubled culture.
Next, on August 22, 2016, the Sentinel reported on unresolved questions surrounding a series of in-custody deaths in 2002 involving the Fontana Police Department. Three men—Ismael Banda, David Michael Tyler, and Fermin Rincon—died under circumstances alleged to involve excessive force by police. Investigations cleared the officers, but some former officers and community members have criticized a “code of silence” that may have suppressed accountability (https://sbcsentinel.com/2016/08/14-years-later-questions-remain-over-spate-of-fpd-in-custody-deaths/).
The Sentinel then on September 4, 2016 published details alleged by two Fontana police officers who claim the FPD harbors systemic racism. They report instances of racial discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment, with minority officers allegedly facing unfair treatment compared to their counterparts. The officers assert that complaints of racism have been repeatedly ignored by department leadership. This raises concerns about the internal culture within the Fontana Police Department (https://sbcsentinel.com/2016/09/two-fontana-cops-allege-fpd-is-riddled-with-racism/).
On September 17, 2016 the Sentinel wrote about former Fontana Police Department “Officer of the Year” Dave Ibarra who resigned due to a perceived cultural clash within the department (https://sbcsentinel.com/2016/09/culture-clash-sent-former-fpd-officer-of-the-year-packing/). The officer, who had a background in the military, reportedly faced difficulties adjusting to what he described as the department’s leadership style and internal culture. His departure highlighted ongoing issues within the department related to management practices and morale among officers.
On January 1, 2017, the Sentinel the Sentinel published a report on the contrasting tributes given to two Fontana police officers who died in the line of duty. While both made significant sacrifices, the department and community offered different levels of recognition, sparking debate over how fallen officers are honored and remembered (https://sbcsentinel.com/2017/01/two-fallen-officers-accorded-differing-levels-of-honor-remembrance-respect/). This disparity has raised questions about standards of commemoration and respect within the department.
On February 6, 2017, the Sentinel reported on longstanding allegations of evidence tampering within the FPD, focusing on a 1994 incident involving the death of Jimmy Earl Burelson (https://sbcsentinel.com/2017/02/23-years-on-fpds-evidence-tampering-under-scrutiny-2/).
In April of 2017, the Sentinel published an article about serious allegations against the FPD, focusing on claims of racism, excessive force, and evidence tampering (From One Reporter’s Notebook | SBCSentinel). A notable case involves the death and alleged post-mortem desecration of Jimmy Earl Burelson, which has raised questions about the department’s culture and professionalism. His stepsister, Lurline Davis Jimmy Burelson closest relative called for an investigation and reform. Her brother’s body was reportedly desecrated with a chicken bone placed in his hand while dead on the autopsy table, sparking accusations of racial insensitivity and misconduct. This incident  resurfaced amid new legal scrutiny, raising questions about evidence handling and integrity within the department.
On August 23, 2017, the Sentinel reported on a terminated FPD officer who claimed he was fired for whistleblowing on unethical practices within the department (https://sbcsentinel.com/2017/08/terminated-whistleblowing-fontana-police-officer-seeking-reinstatement-tuesday/). He was seeking reinstatement, alleging his dismissal was retaliatory after he reported misconduct by fellow officers. His case is set for review by the Fontana City Council, and his legal battle highlights ongoing tensions within the department concerning transparency and internal accountability.
On September 13, 2019, the Sentinel reported on Jimmy Earl Burelson’s family filing a complaint against San Bernardino County and Fontana officials, alleging his body was desecrated by Fontana police officers in 1994 (https://sbcsentinel.com/2019/09/sb-city-officials-resolve-to-brass-out-whatever-opposition-muscupiabe-residents-show-toward-welfare-building-in-their-neihborhood/). The family’s attorney, Monrow Mabon, claimed police staged a photo of Burelson with a chicken leg to mock him and covered up details surrounding his death. The family seeks a renewed investigation, citing new evidence of misconduct and systemic racial discrimination within the police force.
On June 5, 2020, The Sentinel reported on how former Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones allegedly helped his son, Jeremiah Jones, secure a job with the Fontana Police Department despite Jeremiah’s criminal record, including accusations of rape (https://sbcsentinel.com/2020/06/father-helped-son-now-arrested-for-rape-land-fpd-job/). Jeremiah’s hiring has raised questions about possible favoritism and ethics violations, as his father may have influenced the process. The article highlighted concerns about internal hiring practices within the department, with implications for transparency and accountability.
On August 14, 2020, the Sentinel reported on critiques of the FPD’s longstanding lack of diversity, noting a culture dominated by white males and instances of racial bias (https://sbcsentinel.com/2020/08/four-corners/). The department has reportedly struggled to retain minority officers and has seen minimal diversity improvement over the years. Allegations include a biased hiring process, nepotism, and a history of racial discrimination, with examples of discriminatory incidents and a militaristic approach toward minority community members. Photos and historical decor within the station reportedly reflect and reinforce this exclusionary culture.
On September 18, of 2020, the Sentinel reported on Fontana Police Chief Billy Green asserting he is not swayed by external pressures in managing the department amid critiques of bias and diversity issues (https://sbcsentinel.com/2020/09/fpd-chief-green-isnt-inveigled/). He defended the department’s efforts to maintain community relations, arguing that a zero-tolerance policy against misconduct is in place and that hiring practices aim for diversity. Green emphasizes his commitment to transparency and accountability, despite allegations of racial discrimination and past incidents within the department.
On October 22, 2021, the Sentinel reported on consultants on the FPD in 2021 recommended increasing ethnic and racial diversity among its ranks to better reflect the city’s demographics (https://sbcsentinel.com/2021/10/consultants-assessment-calls-for-greater-ethnic-racial-diversity-within-the-fontana-police-department/). The assessment highlighted a significant gap between the department’s racial makeup and the community’s, suggesting that improved diversity could enhance public trust and effectiveness. Recommendations included adjusting recruitment, hiring, and retention practices to attract a broader range of applicants from various backgrounds. Since 2021 The FPD whistleblowers have been fighting their case and the Sentinel’s reporting on the FPD continues with this new documentary released.

An intriguing scenario is playing out in the single board race being held in the Adelanto Elementary School District this year, one which is testing several competing concepts and/or constructs, including how far the First Amendment principle of free speech and expression extend before being curtailed by the restrictions of contract law.
Krause, a graduate of Northern Alabama University, participated in local school education programs as an undergraduate. Upon graduation in 2000, he began work as a stockbroker and bond salesman, but left that profession to enlist in the U.S. Army after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. He served as a medic with the 11th Armored Blackhorse Cavalry Regiment, in which capacity he was eventually stationed at Fort Irwin. While at Fort Irwin, he obtained his emergency teaching credential to fill the gap in available substitute teachers in the Silver Valley School District, which serves the children of soldiers stationed at Fort Irwin. Upon his discharge from the Army in 2004, he used the GI Bill to further his education, achieving his master’s degree in management at Webster University and his teaching credential by 2007, whereupon he went to work as a teacher in the Victor Valley Union High School District, teaching at Silverado High School. After four years there, in 2011, he transitioned into educational administration, going to work with the Baker Unified School District as its chief business officer. In 2013, he jumped at the chance to go from overseeing a district budget of $2.7 million with an average daily attendance of less than 400 at Baker Unified to becoming the associate superintendent with the South Whittier School District, with a budget of $34 million and an average daily attendance of 3,300. Thereafter, he worked for more than three years with the California Association of School Business Officials. In 2018, he returned to the role of school district administrator as the assistant superintendent for administrative services with the Anaheim Elementary School District, which had 23 schools and a budget of $230 million. In October 2020, he was lured to the Adelanto Elementary School District, which was in a pinch and needed to fill the position of assistant superintendent of business services. His performance in that role was exemplary, so much so that in July 2022, he was chosen as the interim superintendent to replace Dr. Kennon Mitchell. In January 2023, halfway through the 2022-23 academic year, the board voted to make Krause the full-fledged superintendent.
Krause remained on what appeared to be positive terms with the board, which suffered the loss of Holly Eckes in February 2023 and filled that vacancy with the appointment of Miguel Soto the following month.
In January 2024, Krause resisted what he said were actions by the board collectively or requests by board members individually that were illegal, constituted graft or were conflicts of interest which he deemed to be contrary to the interests of the district’s students and the district’s overall educational mission. When members of the board redoubled those requests, according to Krause, he again objected. On April 9, during a closed-door session of the school board, by a 4-to-1 vote, with members La Shawn Love-French, Christine Turner, Miguel Soto and Christina Bentz prevailing and Stephanie Webster dissenting, Krause was placed on administrative leave. John Albert, the assistant superintendent for human resources was appointed as the interim superintendent.
In June, the district and Krause signed a separation agreement, effective June 30, by which he was to continue to receive his salary as superintendent through to the end of 2024 and was to continue to receive for six months or until he found employment elsewhere the health benefits he had been provided as an employee, which included coverage for his family.
In July, Krause, a resident of Adelanto within the School District’s Area 1, filed for candidacy in the November election for the District Area 1 position on the board, held by Turner, which was up for election. The registrar of voters office determined he had met the requirement to qualify his candidacy. Turner likewise qualified her candidacy for reelection.
On October 18, Dominic Quiller, the district’s legal counsel, informed Krause by letter that he was being given notice that the district was Making “recission [sic] of your June 30, 2024 ’Separation Agreement And General Release’ with your former employer, Adelanto Elementary School District, demand for reimbursement of all benefits and other remuneration obtained by you since the execution of said agreement, and demand that you immediately withdraw from the race for a district board seat. Failure to cooperate will result in immediate litigation.
Quiller referenced the non-disparagement clause of the separation agreement, which states, “Neither Krause nor [the] District shall make any disparaging or derogatory remarks to or about operations, agents, board members or assigns… including but not limited to disparaging postings or statements on social media or in any other venue regarding the other party. Krause and the district also agree to take no action which is intended or would reasonably be expected to harm the other party’s reputation or interests individually or collectively, even if truthful, or which would reasonably to lead to unwanted or unfavorable publicity to the other party, regarding issues related to Krause’s employment with the district. This shall include statements made to the press, in social media, during public comment period in social media, or any other statement that is published to anyone other than Krause or the district.”
Quiller’s letter goes on to state, “As you are aware, you have made several comments in public forums that are disparaging to the district. This includes publicly discussing events that occurred during your employment, which you pronounced reflected badly on the district – in other words, disparaging the district’s reputation.”
In the letter, Quiller further charged Krause with having violated no-contact clause contained in the separation agreement in which he was enjoined “to stay away and not come upon district property nor contact district employees during work hours, or trustees in any form or manner whatsoever, except as may be necessary to participate in public meetings of the board of trustees as allowed by law or to exercise any parental rights he may have for his child[ren] while attending district’s schools.”
In the letter, Quiller asserts that Krause’s termination “was caused by your unfettered harassment of your subordinates.”
Krause’s candidacy for the public office of Adelanto Elementary School District board member constitutes a violation of the separation agreement, according to Quiller. He goes on to state, “Even though you agreed to discontinue all contact and relationship with this district, you ignored your promise and entered the race for a board seat, This filing evidences your intent to “come upon district property [and] contact district employees.”
Moreover, according to Quiller, by posting campaign signs, Krause is imposing upon district employees the burden of having to think about him. Quiller notes that Krause “recently placed one of your campaign signs at the Mojave Drive exit of the 395 Hwy. This exit is not in the Trustee Area – Area 1 – in which you are running for a board seat. Instead, you are aware that several employees who previously submitted complaints against you, live off and near that exit and would see your campaign sign.”
As a consequence of Krause’s actions, Quiller informed him in the letter, the district is discontinuing the payment of his monthly salary through the end of 2024and the provision of hi his health and welfare benefits until the end of the year and wants him to pay back all of the money he has been paid since his official departure from the district on June 30 and for him to reimburse the district’s coverage of his and his family’s medical benefits during that time.
According to Krause, while he was in the capacity of district superintendent, he had information that board members were being benefited, both financially and personally, by the use of district resources and personnel that were not authorized by action of the full board and which, if known to the public, would have damaged the reputation of those benefiting. He provided the Sentinel with the names and/or identities of district personnel who are able to verify that the diversion of district resources took place and that the district sustained increases in the overtime that was paid because the district personnel needed extra time on the clock to finish the work not completed while the board members were being catered to.
According to Krause, when he moved to at first quietly inquire into the diversion of district resources and personnel, he was told, he said to “stand down, do not worry about it and leave it alone.”
In that particular case, Krause said, “I dropped the matter because I knew what had happened to all of the prior superintendents before me.”
Ultimately, when he took up other similar matters, Krause said, he ran afoul of four of the district’s five board members, leading to his suspension and eventual separation.”
His board candidacy, Krause maintains, is part of his effort to redress those issues he experienced as superintendent which the political alliances on the board would not allow him to redress.
This week, the Sentinel sought to catch up with Quiller and explore with him the competing concepts and/or constructs embodied in his October 18 letter relating to the First Amendment principle of free speech and expression and the restrictions that were contained in Krause’s separation agreement with the district, most specifically whether a contract or agreement can be entered into which abridges one or both of the parties’ Constitutional rights.
The Sentinel asked Quiller to clarify if it was his contention that Krause’s board candidacy platform and campaign statements violated the non-disparagement clause contained in the separation agreement, thereby abrogating it and that Krause, simply by running for the board, disparaged the district.
The Sentinel sought to zero in on the absolute applicability of the several provisions contained in the separation agreement, including whether such an agreement can impose a binding limitation on one or both of the parties’ Constitutional rights and if, there comes a conflict between a provision of a contract or agreement with Constitutionally guaranteed rights of an individual, under the law as Quiller in his capacity as a lawyer understood it, which would prevail, the Constitution or the letter of the contract.
The Sentinel asked Quiller if someone can be deemed to be in violation of a contract for exercising his/her Constitutional rights and whether it was his contention that the separation agreement between Krause and the district, primarily by virtue of its non-disparagement clause, prohibited Krause from running for a position on the school board.
The Sentinel asked Quiller how precisely Krause disparaged the district and whether he could provide specific examples of Kraus having done so.
The Sentinel also sought to explore Quiller and the district’s position as to how disparagement is to be defined within the context of the issues that involve the district and Krause and whether there was mutual applicability of the non-disparagement clause. The Sentinel asked if Krause’s statements on the campaign trail could be legitimately construed as disparaging, either of the district or his opponent, that being Board Member Turner. The Sentinel sought from Quiller whether he believed Turner might be deemed to have disparaged Krause by her campaign statements and platform and whether Quiller’s October 18 letter could also be construed to have disparaged Krause.
The Sentinel further sought to involve Quiller in a dialogue pertaining to a set of intriguing journalistic subjects, extending to how free a former employee of a governmental entity is or should be to make use of inside or confidential information obtained in his/her role as an employee in either the context of a reform effort or political campaign. Along this tangent, the Sentinel challenged Quiller as to whether his October 18 letter interfered impermissibly in a political campaign.
The Sentinel noted in its email to Quiller that the most pointed statements made by Krause in the course of the campaign were relatively benign observations pertaining to stalled contract negotiations and the district’s lack of administrative continuity extending back over the last decade.
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause noting that the district has not provided raises to faculty for more than two years running was a disparagement of the district
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause stating that the district has had eight superintendents in the last ten years disparaged the district
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause by stating that if elected he would use his in-depth knowledge of the district gleaned from his time as superintendent to seek to make changes which he felt would enhance the district’s educational mission engaged in disparagement of the district.
The Sentinel moved on to those subjects relating to the district dwelling below the surface that have not been overtly explored in the course of the campaign but which it has now been suggested might explain why the district has taken an aggressive stance toward Krause. Without engaging in hard specifics, the Sentinel noted that the separation agreement contains language which alluded to “guilt or liability on the part of either party,” implying that such guilt exists. The Sentinel asked Quiller if his October 18 letter “was intended as a cudgel, perhaps, to dissuade Mr. Krause from revealing any details relating to that guilt.” Noting that logic dictates that Quiller, as the district counsel is aware of the circumstance relating to district board members having been provided with accommodations that were not given approval by the full board during the course of public meetings or public hearings, the Sentinel asked Quiller if he could make a statement cogently and convincingly refuting that such acts of graft or conflict of interest involving at least some of its board member took place Mr. Krause was in place as superintendent.
Noting that it appeared Krause had been terminated earlier this year because of his opposition to actions or requests by the board collectively or board members individually that were illegal or constituted graft or conflicts of interest which he deemed to be contrary to the interests of the district’s students and the district’s overall educational mission, the Sentinel asked Quiller if it had been his intent, as the board’s legal representative, to prevent an exposure of the facts pertaining to that graft/conflict of interest in writing his October 18 letter?
The Sentinel angled at the blackmail element contained within the October 18 letter of rescission sent to Krause. “If Mr. Krause were to offer you and the district an explicit guarantee that he will remain silent with regard to these acts involving graft and/or conflicts of interest, would you rescind your October 18 letter abrogating the separation agreement between Mr. Krause and the district?” the Sentinel asked Quiller.
The Sentinel offered Quiller an opportunity to deny that he was knowledgeable about instances of graft and/or conflicts of interest on the part of the board members he represents.
It has been suggested that Quiller’s October 18 letter was a bald-faced effort to assist Ms. Turner’s reelection campaign and that Quiller had written the letter as a political favor to Turner and perhaps other board members as a gesture that would ingratiate him with those in the decision-making positions with the district, ensuring that he and his firm, McCune & Harber maintain their $460,000 per year contract for the provision of legal services.
The Sentinel requested of Quiller a convincing refutation of that accusation and asked whether his letter was a prohibited use of district resources in a political effort.
Quiller did not respond to the Sentinel’s initial email.
As the Sentinel’s deadline approached, it sought once more to induce Quiller to respond to the Sentinel’s inquiries. Quiller at that point responded with a proforma email in which said he was to “be out of the office in depositions and will return November 5, 2024” and thanking the Sentinel “for your understanding and patience.”

Yucaipa authorities are refusing to discuss what is rumored to be Premium Land Development’s decision to walk away from the Serrano Estates project more than 18 months after it was given narrow approval by the city council amid multiple charges of improprieties involving the developer and city officials.
The project was given a 3-to-2 approval by the city council on April 17, 2023 after the planning commission the previous year had rejected the project, which was not provided with a comprehensive environmental impact report despite involving an intensity of land use greater than what was envisioned for the property in the city’s general plan.
A lack of transparency with regard to the current situation has triggered widespread speculation about what is afoot. One unconfirmed report is that the city, after kowtowing to the project proponent, Craig Heaps, on multiple occasions in 2022 and 2023 by suspending several regulations and standards that would have otherwise applied to the property, is now going to impose on him a substantial monetary penalty for nonperformance after he provided assurances the development program for 51 units on 52 acres would have progressed toward substantial or full completion by now.
Other reports had it that Heaps never intended to perform, but was merely seeking an entitlement to develop the property, and that city officials were aware of his agenda all along, having abetted him in it.
Despite repeated efforts by the Sentinel to learn from City Manager Chris Mann, Yucaipa Director of Development Services Fermin Preciado and Yucaipa City Planner Ben Matlock what the actual status of the project is, City Hall is electing, at present, to keep the public in the dark.
The project, located in the city district referred to as the north bench, was set to be constructed on 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, north of Ivy Avenue, directly adjacent to Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The project site consists of undeveloped property and was under the city’s general plan slated for single family homes on lot sizes of at least one acre in conjunction with the city’s Rural Living or RL-1 zoning. The property falls within Yucaipa’s Custom Home (CH) Overlay District, in which cookie-cutter subdivisions typical of urban areas are discouraged. The area is likewise surrounded by low density zones.
There was concern on the part of many people that what Heaps and his company, Premium Land Development, were attempting to do was to get the city to okay the project, which was to confine 51 homes to 51 lots compressed on 27 acres, such that the lots to be developed would be more like 23,061.17 square feet or 0.529 of an acre, using questionable standards that were far more favorable to Heaps than the community. An acre consists of 43,560 square feet.
Heaps and Premium Land Development had also included in the project a 52nd lot consisting of 12 acres, on which it was not really clear whether, perhaps, another home would be built, and 13 acres of “open space.”
Instead of requiring that Premium Land Develpment perform an environmental impact report in order to obtain certification for the project, city officials agreed to sign off on the proposal using a far less exacting process known as mitigated negative declaration.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the impacts of a development project must be evaluated as part of the approval process for that undertaking before the proponent can be clearance to proceed. Different types of certification can be made, some of which are more intensive than others. Those include, at the most intensive end of the scale, an environmental impact report, followed by an environmental impact study, then an environmental impact assessment, after which is a mitigated negative declaration and at the low end, a negative declaration.
Those differing types of certifications are normally performed by an independent entity and paid for by the proponent, with the expense greatest at the top end of the scale and lowest at the bottom.
An environmental impact report is an involved study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. It specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. A mitigated negative declaration is a far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project, by which the panel entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the city council, issues a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
The approach Heaps was taking and which the city was allowing him to proceed with left open the possibility that in the future, when memories have faded and there have been personnel changes on the city council, Premium Land and Heaps or their corporate successor will come in with another proposal to develop the 12-acre Lot 52 or perhaps the combined 25 acres consisting of Lot 52 and the area’s open space.
The overwhelming majority of the public speakers at the April 17 special meeting went on record against the project, including former Planning Commission Chairwoman Denise Work and former Planning Commissioner Dennis Miller. Only two public speakers expressed support of the proposal. There was substantial sentiment among the members of the public present that Premium Land Development and Heaps were not living up to either the spirit or the letter of the one-acre lot minimum inherent in RL-1 zoning with the way the lots were arranged on the Serrano Estates tract map. The meeting had the distinction of being the first major test of what developmental standards the City of Yucaipa will live up to under Chris Mann’s guidance as city manager. Mann had been installed as city manager a little more than three months previously, when the 3-to-2 council majority of Justin Beaver, Bobby Duncan and Matt Garner had forced Mann’s predecessor as city manager, Ray Casey, to resign. Contained in the citizen opposition at the April 17, 2023 meeting was the belief by some that members of the city council were on the take, receiving bribes from the development community in exchange for accommodating construction project proposals. This dovetailed with the outrage over the Casey firing, as Mann, through his company, Mann Communications, served as as representative for multiple companies in the construction industry. Mann at one time was the chief political strategist at O’Reilly Public Relations working upon obtaining land-use entitlements.
Seven days after the meeting at which the Serrano Estates project was being considered, on April 24, recall petitions signed by 193 city residents would be turned over to the city clerk, qualifying an effort to removed Beaver, Duncan and Garner from office.
Despite what appeared to be the overwhelming citizen resistance to the project, the 3-to-2 vote in favor of the project took place. Beaver, perhaps mindful that he was already on thin ice because of the Casey sacking, joined with Councilman Jon Thorp in opposing the project. Duncan and Garner joined with Venable in giving the project a thumbs up.
Some suggested that Beaver was in support of the project as well, but that he voted against it in the knowledge that it had three votes without his support.
After the passage of a year-and-a-half, the project has not come to fruition and work is emanating, from a source apparently close to City Hall but which has not been identified, that Heaps and Premium Land Development are not going to proceed with the project.
The Sentinel sought to confirm that Heaps and Premium Land Development were pulling the plug on the project, but no one in a position to know – Heaps, Mann, Preciado or Matlock – are talking.
Of note is that Heaps is now identified as being the principal in an outfit calling itself West Coast Entitlement, LLC.
Accordingly, the Sentinel sought from Mann whether Premium Land Development’s entitlement to build remains intact, such that it is just going to hand that entitlement off to another entity and, if so, to whom. The Sentinel further sought from Mann if he knew how much Heaps and Premium Land Development were selling that entitlement for.
Mann did not respond to the Sentinel’s inquiry.
The Sentinel also sought to find out if Heaps had perhaps temporized and thereby allowed a deadline by which he was supposed to achieve some milestone elapse and, if so, what it was he was supposed to do that he didn’t do. The Sentinel failed in finding out what that failure consisted of if in fact there was such a failure.
The Sentinel also looked into the report that the city had assessed a monetary penalty against Heaps and/or Premium Land Development and how much that penalty was. Likewise the Sentinel was able to make no definitive determination.
The Sentinel was able to research, however, some of the requirements that Premium Land Development was supposed to live up to, which included paying to the city $1,207,229.73 in development impact fees, consisting of drainage facilities fees of $401,745.42; traffic facilities fees of $532,144.20; public facilities fees of $73,675.62; fire facilities fees of $46,726.71 and park facilities fees of $152,937.78.
In addition, Heaps and Premium Land Development were responsible for fees to be collected by other agencies, such as the Yucaipa Valley Water District and Yucaipa Calimesa School District beyond the $1,207,229.73 to be paid to the city, which the Sentinel was unable to quantify. Moreover, the company was required to make make good on fees imposed by the California Department of Fish & Game.

In a further blow to the prestige of both the City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino County, California Governor Gavin Newsom has arranged to have the California Highway Patrol step in to assist the City of San Bernardino with its burgeoning homicide rate, which is over three times the statewide average, and general level of crime that is raging beyond the control of the police department at nearly double the statewide average.
San Bernardino, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2012 and then stiffed its vendors and creditors to the tune of more than $200 million while it lingered in an insolvent state for five years thereafter, has appalling levels of poverty among its 224,000 population and a violent crime level that is twice that of the state average, along with sharply elevated incidences of theft and other property crime.
Governor Newsom on Monday, October 28 declared San Bernardino to be the most recent “hot spot” upon which state officials will concentrate resources in an effort to combat crime and enhance public safety.
“We are sending additional CHP support to help local law enforcement aggressively suppress criminal activity and provide this community with a new level of safety and accountability,” Newsom said.
The California Highway Patrol’s operation will add special law enforcement units on the ground and in the air — targeting sideshow activities and stolen vehicles, according to the governor’s office. The Highway Patrol is also providing San Bernardino Police Department with additional investigative support to disrupt organized criminal activity and violent street gangs, get illegal guns off the street and help prevent gun violence.
“Our partnership with the city of San Bernardino strengthens our efforts to enhance public safety,” said California Highway Patrol Commissioner Sean Duryee. “This collaboration allows us to share resources, intelligence, and expertise, enhancing our ability to reduce crime and create a safer environment for all members of the community.”

Car theft in San Bernardino continues as a nearly unprecedented pace. In addition, San Bernardino has been plagued with street takeovers and sideshows.
Sideshows and/or street takeovers involve impromptu illegal gatherings of motorists, in most cases teenagers and ones in their twenties, who engage in automotive stunts such as skidding, doing donuts and ghostriding, often in vacant lots, parking lots and street intersections. Donuts consist of a maneuver which involves rotating the rear or front of the vehicle around the opposite set of wheels in a continuous motion to effectuate a circular skid-mark pattern. Ghostriding takes place when a driver opens the passenger side door, climbs out, sometimes onto the hood or onto the frame of the open door, while the car continues in motion. Sideshows often devolve into fights among the participants, and occasionally devolve into shootings.
The most recently available crime statistics extrapolated from figures provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and the San Bernardino Police Department, within the 62.45-square mile confines of San Bernardino, there were 1,059 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2023, almost double the California state average of 511 crimes per 100,000 residents. Over the same 12-month period in 2023, residents ran one of the highest risks among all of California’s residents of being murdered. For the year, there were 16.2 homicides per 100,000 residents. Overall in California, the risk of being killed by another person wa less than a third of that, at 4.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.
And although those numbers are dire, they mark a notable improvement from 2022.
If there is a silver lining to those statistics, it is that last year they were not as bad as they had been the year before that, 2022.
While there were 36 murders in 2023, there were twice that, 72, in 2022. There were 675 robberies in 2022 and 667 in 2023; 1781aggravated assaults in 2022 and 667 in 2023; 678 assaults with a firearm in in 2022 and 491 in 2023; and 2,640 vilent crimes overall in San Bernardino compared to 2,352 in 2023. The only area in which violent crime was up in 2023 over 2022 was the slight rise in rapes from 112 in 2022 to 116 in 2023.
Despite that improvement, if it can be cataloged as such, San Bernardino remains a dangerous place.
San Bernardino has also had a serious problem with ghost guns, illegal firearms from which the serial numbers have been removed. In 2023, a record 4,700 ghost guns were seized by authorities in San Bernardino County, more than any other county in California per capita.
Though officials talked about a “surge” in the number of Highway Patrol officers that will be deployed to San Bernardino, they were not willing to give precise numbers or say into which zones they weill be inserted.
San Bernardino has struggled with crime for quite some time. In 2022, it lured then-Upland Police Chief Darren Goodman to take on the police chief position.
It did so by offering him the position and then getting in a bidding war with Upland for his services. Upland had been paying him a salary of $231,771.97 in addition to to $159,332.90 in perks and benefits for a total annual compensation of $391,104.87. San Bernardino is now paying him $337,513.49 in salary and $192,085.52 in perks and benefits for a total annual compensation of $529,599.01.
The department under Goodman aggressified its enforcement, almost immediately upon Goodman taking the helm. That approach was less than fully successful and has entailed expense and difficulty for the city. On July 16, 2022, 31 days after Goodman officially began as police chief, during a confrontation with two of the department’s officers, Rob Marquise Adams, who was apparently on the prowl in the back parking lot shared by several commercial establishments, including an illegal online gambling business located in the 400 block of West Highland Street where illegal activity proliferates, was shot and killed. A lawsuit ensued, which the city settled for $4 million less than two years later.
San Bernardino is the seat of San Bernardino County, which has undergone substantial embarrassment in recent months and weeks over is dysfunctionality and inability to fend for itself. In 2022, one of the county’s leading citizens and a primary financial baker of the county’s politicians, prompted public officials to sponsor a voter initiative to have San Bernardino County secede from California, largely on Burum’s assertion that Democratic politicians in Sacramento were withholding funding from the county government and the county’s cities because San Bernardino County is one of the last bastions of Republicanism in the state. That initiative proved successful, and the county’s voters authorized the county’s political leadership to initiate the county’s withdrawal from California.
Before doing so, however, county officials, at a cost of $192,000 hired a consulting firm to analyze the political prospect and actual financial considerations relating to San Bernardino County becoming the 51st state of the union. That study revealed that San Bernardino County and its residents and businesses, rather than pulling more than their own weight financially within the context of California’s taxation regime, actually contributes less toward the funding of state, county and local governance than to the remainder of the state’s counties, cities and citizens as a whole and on average. According to those analysts, San Bernardino County is not fiscally independent and is actually freeloading on a handful of far more financially successful counties and areas throughout California.
The City of San Bernardino is, within the context of San Bernardino County, one of the, or actually the, most dysfunctional jurisdiction within it.
San Bernardino Mayor Helen Chan tried to make the best of being singled out by the governor for special assistance with redressing its intractable problems with its criminal element.
San Bernardino Mayor Helen Tran said she was grateful for the support of the CHP to help the city continue decreasing crime rates and apprehending criminal enterprises targeting neighborhoods and businesses. She sought to put the best face she could on the consideration that the government she heads is not strong enough to stand on its own and deal with the issues that face it.
“We are grateful to Governor Newsom for providing additional support from the California Highway Patrol to the City of San Bernardino,” Tran said. “This year, our City Police Department’s efforts have led to a 13% reduction in violent crime, and the extra support will strengthen public safety in our community. With this new state and local collaboration in San Bernardino, we can continue to impact criminal enterprises targeting our neighborhoods and businesses.”

With or without Elon Musk’s participation, local transportation officials are purposed to proceed with the underground shuttle system that would carry passengers between a Rancho Cucamonga train station and Ontario airport that the quirky billionaire proposed to construct more than four years years ago.
In May 2020, through one of his corporate holdings, the Boring Company, Musk proposed excavating a 2.8-mile underground tunnel linking Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario International Airport, and then using modified Tesla Model X electric vehicles to convey passengers through the tunnel at speeds reaching more than 100 miles per hour.
Musk, who initially earned his fortune as a cofounder of the on-line money exchange system PayPal, is the founder of the Tesla automobile company and the founder of the private sector space exploration company SpaceX.
As originally conceived, Musk’s brainchild was to serve as the final span in the transportation system that is intended to link Los Angeles with Ontario Airport. A significant portion of that yet-to-fully-achieved transportation mode – composed of a light rail system known as the Metro Gold Line – already stretched at that point 24 miles eastward across Los Angeles County from Union Station to Azusa. The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Board in Los Angeles County is committed committed to extending it to Pomona and ultimately Claremont. Before reachin Claremont it is to be extended to a station now under preparation in Glendora. There was an understanding at one time that the Gold Line, now sometimes referred to as the A-Line, would cross into San Bernardino County, with the first extension to be completed terminating at the Montclair Transit Center. Thereafter, it was to eventually reach Ontario International Airport and then, by mid-century or beyond, extend out to San Bernardino, Redlands and Yucaipa and by the late 21st Century, all the way to Palm Springs. In 2019, however, at the prompting of San Bernardino County Transportation Executive Director Raymond Wolfe, San Bernardino County transportation officials abandoned the construction plans on the east side of the San Bernardino County/Los Angeles County line at the Claremont/Montclair border.
While there is the potential that at some point San Bernardino County transportation officials will renew their joint efforts with Los Angeles County transportation officials to undertake a continuation of the Gold Line/A-Line from its eventual terminus at the county boundary and take it to Ontario Airport and beyond, at this point those plans are on indefinite hold. Over $1 billion has been expended extending the Gold Line, consisting of a light rail train on two separate tracks running generally east west, currently to Azusa.
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, as its name implies, is San Bernardino County’s regional transportation agency. With a board composed of representatives from all 24 of the county’s cities as well as its five county supervisors, the agency, known by its acronym SBCTA, is charged with managing the expenditure of Measure I money. Measure I was first passed by San Bernardino County’s voters in 1989, providing for a half-cent sales tax override countywide, with the proceeds dedicated to paying for road improvements.
Another commuter rail system running from Los Angeles County into San Bernardino County – MetroLink – already exists and that there is an existing freight-carrying rail line linking the two counties as well. MetroLink commuter trains, however, run at a rate no more rapidly than one every 72 minutes, considerably less frequency than the Gold Line, which has with departures and arrivals every five to seven minutes during peak commuting hours and every 12 to 15 minutes during off-peak hours. Because of that, ridership on the MetroLink is relatively poor and Gold Line use is approaching capacity on its current schedule. If the goal of transitioning commuters from their automobiles to trains is to be effectuated, these advocates say, the Gold Line needs to be completed.
In the meantime, Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-41st District) and State Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D-25th District), whose districts straddle east Los Angeles County and west San Bernardino County, introduced legislation aimed at providing financial mechanisms to complete the faster rail travel methodologies in the region, most notably the Gold Line. With the Gold Line project have stalled out, however, Elon Musk, without actually having been asked to, in 2020 leapt into the breach and acting entirely on his own initiative had one of his corporate entities, the Boring Company, provide the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency with a proposal to undertake the underground tunnel project, one that would either use, partially use or parallel the existing flood control channelization constructed decades ago by the Army Corps of Engineers, and run from a station near Foothill Boulevard and the Day Creek flood control channel in Rancho Cucamonga to Terminal 2 at Ontario International Airport. That would have in some fashion dovetailed with the efforts to extend the Southern California region’s west-east commuting options that had at one time centered on the Gold Line extension, ultimately to Palm Springs.
Musk calculated the Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario Airport project could be completed for $60 million, largely because the purchase and monopolization of above-ground real estate would be bypassed and no construction of a rail system or purchase of trains would be necessary. Off-the-shelf or adapted Tesla Model X vehicles were to be used to provide transportation.
He proposed that a Musk-owned company operate the system.
In 2022, for reasons that are not altogether clear, Musk and Boring abandoned the project. Still, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority decision-makers remain convinced that Musk’s approach represents a far less-costly means of creating a usable public transportation system between Rancho Cuamonga and Ontario Airport than a rail system. One estimate is that extending the Gold Line to the airport would cost at least $1.1 billion and more likely closer to $1.5 billion.
On Wednesday, November 13, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority will conduct an online public hearing that is to begin at 6 p.m. in which a proposal to .,as it evaluates the project’s
. Residents can share their opinions next month on a construct a 4.2-mile underground shuttle system running from the Rancho Cucamonga rail plaza to Ontario Airport, one that will cost in the neighborhood of $538.5 million to complete, will be previewed. Thereafter, input from any who are logged in with regard to the project, extending to potential environmental impacts, including those on the general ambiance, ground stability, air quality, flora and fauna and any random or specific consideration, will be invited. What is known at present about the plan is it will use what are termed “fuel-free-autonomous, zero-emission shuttles” to carry passengers, luggage and baggage through a tunnel 65 to 70 feet beneath or below and paralleling Milliken Avenue and East Airport Drive that is to stretch between Rancho Cucamonga’s Metrolink Station, which is ultimately to become a station for the high-speed train linking Southern California with Las Vegas, and Ontario International Airport.
Unless Musk agrees to return to the fold and have his company become involved again, Omnitrans, San Bernardino County’s public transportation agency which runs the area’s busses, would operate the system.
An 18,000 square-foot station and an adjacent maintenance facility are set to be built at the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station in Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally, two 10,000 square-foot stations would be constructed at ONT, located across from terminals 2 and 4 in the city of Ontario.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, a draft environmental impact report has been prepared for the project. In addition, in compliance with the the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment has also been prepared. Both the California and the federal documents are available for public review and comment between October 18 and December 2, 2024. All input must be received by December. 2, for consideration during the environmental phase. To Visit  goSBCTA.com/ONTConnector  To view the draft environmental impact report and the environmental assessment or to find a list of locations with printed copies publicly available, visit goSBCTA.com/ONTConnector.
San Bernardino County transportation officials invited members of the public to attend the on-line hearing on November 13 or peruse the environmental documents as “an opportunity to learn more about the project and the environmental studies, and to provide feedback.”

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CIV SB 2428772
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:
Petitioner JUDITH LEE HOFMANN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JUDITH LEE HOFMANN to JUDITH LEE HOFMANN WADE
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: NOVEMBER 18, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: S32
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Gilbert G. Ochoa
Judge of the Superior Court.
Filed: August 29, 2024 by
Alyssa Leber, Deputy Court Clerk
Attorney for Judith Lee Hofmann
Jennifer M. Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on October 11, 18 & 25 and November 1, 2024.

FBN 20240008979
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
C S M WATERWORK 12323 MEADOWLARK AVE OAK HILLS, CA 92344: ELAINA Y LEYVA
Business Mailing Address: 12323 MEADOWLARK AVE OAK HILLS, CA 92344
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/ ELAINA Y LEYVA, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: OCTOBER 4, 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 J6638 Hesperia
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 October 11, 18, 25 and November 1, 2024.

Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
BlueTrition Brands’ lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s order that the company discontinue the diversion of water out of Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in August, must be heard in Riverside Federal Court, a federal judge ruled this week.
For more than 90 years, BlueTriton and its corporate predecessors, including Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc., Nestlé, Perrier, BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, Beatrice Foods, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Rheem, Arrowhead® Mountain Spring Water Company, California Consolidated Water, Arrowhead Water Corporation, Arrowhead Springs Corporation and Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, diverted water from Strawberry Creek and one of its tributaries located between the 5,200-foot and 5,600-foot elevation in the San Bernardino National Forest, using the water for their bottling operations. That diversion began in August 1930, originally involving water taken from a single “bedrock crevice” spring along Strawberry Creek at an elevation of 5,600 feet. Subsequently, in 1933 and 1934, California Consolidated Waters developed three springs using adits – horizontal borings – and then added 10 further horizontal borehole wells to tap spring water aquifers in the mountainside, thereupon transporting the forest spring water through a pipeline down the mountain, giving twenty percent to half of the water thus obtained to the Arrowhead Springs Hotel and then bottling and selling the rest, marketing it under various names, including Arrowhead, Puritas, Arrowhead and Puritas, Arrowhead Puritas, Arrowhead® Spring Water and Arrowhead® Mountain Spring Water among them.
Because a private entity cannot claim water rights on federal forest land that did not exist prior to the dedication of the forest as a national asset, the companies in question had to apply on a continuous basis for a water drafting permit to take the water, renewing it on an annual basis for a $524 fee.
While the Arrowhead Puritas Water Bottling operation was yet under BCI’s control in the mid-1980s, Arrowhead Puritas’s U.S. Forest Service-issued water drafting permit in Strawberry Canyon expired, and the BCI-Arrowhead® Drinking Water Company applied to extend the permit. In 1987, while that application was yet being processed, Perrier purchased the BCI-Arrowhead® Drinking Water Company.
The then-pending water extraction permit renewal required a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement and its environmental/ecological impact, which the U.S. Forest Service then did not have the immediately available resources to carry out. In a gesture of compromise, Perrier was allowed, pending the eventual Forest Service review, to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon by simply continuing to pay the $524-per year fee to perpetuate the water extraction under the terms of the expired permit. In 1992, Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier. Nestlé continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the Strawberry Canyon operation permit, which at that time existed under the name of the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co,” one that was never listed legally in corporate filings, but which operated under Nestlé and then what became Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc. Continue reading →