How To Change A Code Enforcement Misdemeanor Into An Infraction

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I was a Deputy City Attorney in San Bernardino and the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, many of the code sections I prosecuted were alternate misdemeanors/infractions, also known as wobblettes to distinguish them from alternate felony/misdemeanors, which are known as wobblers. Usually, the code section will designate punishment and note if the charge is an alternate misdemeanor/infraction, or a code will have a general penalty section. Typically, the city prosecutor will have prosecutorial discretion on how to charge the violation or how to plea it out. If it is a straight misdemeanor, and the code does not have a provision allowing prosecutorial discretion in reducing it to an infraction, the prosecutor does not have the ability to reduce the charge to an infraction. Similarly, if it is a straight infraction, which are never punishable by jail time, the city prosecutor does not have the ability to make the charge a misdemeanor. Why would someone want a misdemeanor instead of an infraction? Perhaps they served jail time, possibly on a bench warrant, possibly on some other charge, and they want credit for time served in lieu of a fine.

Can a court reduce a code enforcement misdemeanor to an infraction? I have seen it done in San Bernardino both to straight misdemeanors and alternative misdemeanor/infraction cases. Penal Code section 17(b) is the authority many criminal judges are familiar with regarding wobblers. But what about wobblettes? Penal Code section 17(d) reads:

A violation of any code section listed in Section 19.8 is an infraction subject to the procedures described in Sections 19.6 and 19.7 when: (1) The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time he or she is arraigned, after being informed of his or her rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor, or; (2) The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint.

Penal Code section 19.8 refers to a variety of California code sections, but does not reference Municipal Code violations. Penal Code section 19.8 does refer to other offenses made subject to 17(d) by the Legislature, but presumably that means the California Legislature, and not a legislative body like a city council.

Straight misdemeanors were difficult at times, particularly violations of the California Fire Code. Sometimes a barrier to settlement was not the punishment (as far as fines), but the fact that the charge was a misdemeanor. The work-around was finding an alternate violation for the same conduct.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP
A: 1447 Ford St. #201
      Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 296-6708

In-House City Attorneys in Southern California: When Were They Admitted, Where Did They Attend Law School, and What University Did They Attend?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

 

This is a continuation of my series about Southern California In-House City Attorneys in California.  This information is gleaned from open and public sources, all online, including the State of California’s website.  This may seem like very personal information, but it is not.  Each of these attorneys are public officials and public figures.  They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

 

City Name Name of City Attorney Tenure Law School Undergrad Admitted in CA
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino James F. Penman 1987 Western State Univ. CSU San Bernardino 1980
Redlands Daniel J. McHugh 1994 McGeorge SOL Rutgers 1983
Riverside County
Moreno Valley Robert Hansen 2010 Southwestern Univ. Brigham Young Univ. 1987
Riverside Gregory Priamos 2001 Loyola Law School U.S.C. 1988
Los Angeles County
Burbank Dennis Barlow 1997 Univ. of San Diego Brigham Young Univ. 1975
Compton Craig J. Cornwell 2008 Whittier College SOL U.C. Santa Barbara 1994
Culver City Carol Schwab 1997 U.C. Hastings SOL U.C. Berkeley 1985
Glendale Scott H. Howard 1990 Southwestern Univ. U.S.C. 1976
Hawthorne Russell I. Miyahira 2009 U.C. Hastings SOL U.C.L.A. 1986
Inglewood Cal P. Saunders 2006 U.C. Hastings SOL CSU Long Beach 1975
Long Beach Robert E. Shannon 1998 U.C.L.A. SOL U.C.L.A. 1969
Long Beach City Prosecutor Doug Haubert 2010 McGeorge SOL U.C. Santa Barbara 1999
Los Angeles Carmen Trutanich 2009 South Bay Univ., Harbour City, CA U.S.C. 1979
Palmdale Wm. Matthew Ditzhazy 1994 Michigan State Univ. Univ. of Michigan 1985
Pasadena Michele Beal Bagneris 1997 UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall Stanford 1984
Redondo Beach Michael W. Webb 2005 U.C. Hastings SOL U.C. Santa Barbara 1987
Santa Monica Marsha Jones Moutrie 1993 U.C.L.A. SOL U.C.L.A. 1976
Torrance John L. Fellowes III 1993 U.S.C. Law School U.C. Irvine 1981
Orange
Anaheim Cristina Talley 2009 U.C.L.A. SOL Cal. Poly Pomona 1982
Huntington Beach Jennifer McGrath 2002 McGeorge SOL U.C.L.A. 1995
Newport Beach David R. Hunt 2008 McGeorge SOL U.C. Irvine 1983
Orange David A. DeBerry Western State Univ. San Diego State 1989
Santa Ana Joe Straka 2011 Cleveland-Marshall SOL Kent State 1987
Ventura County
Oxnard Alan Holmberg 2008 U.S.C. Law School Oberlin 1975
Simi Valley  Tracy M. Noonan 2009 Southwestern Univ. CSU Long Beach 1994
Thousand Oaks Amy Albano Albany Law School S.U.N.Y (Unknown Location) 1982
Ventura Ariel P. Calonne 2007 U.C. Hastings SOL U.C. Riverside 1983
San Diego County
Carlsbad Ronald R. Ball Santa Clara Univ. Stanford 1977
Chula Vista Glen R. Googins 2010 UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall Dartmouth 1988
Escondido Jeffrey R. Epp 1996 Univ. of Wyoming COL Univ. of Wyoming 1986
National City Claudia Silva 2010 Univ. of San Diego U.C.L.A. 1993
Oceanside John P. Mullen 2006 Univ. of San Diego U.C. San Diego 1992
San Diego Jan Goldsmith 2008 Univ. of San Diego American Univ. 1976
Vista Darold Pieper 2005 U.S.C. Law School U.C.L.A. 1971
Imperial
El Centro Luis F. Hernandez 2008 UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall Santa Clara Univ. 1979

For Law Schools, this is the tally:   U.C. Hastings has  five active in-house City Attorneys,  University of San Diego School of Law has four, McGeorge has four, Boalt Hall (U.C. Berkeley) has three, U.C.L.A. has three, U.S.C. has three, Southwestern has three, Western State University has two, Loyola, Santa Clara, Albany, Whittier, Michigan State, Univ. of Wyoming, Cleveland-Marshall, South Bay University are tied for one a piece.

I am not an in-house City Attorney, but as frequent readers of this site will note, I am a former Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, and a former Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.  Roughly, I worked about nine and a half years for those cities, and I was also a clerk in law school for the City of Santa Clara.  I graduated from the Santa Clara University School of Law and the University of California, Berkeley.  I have been admitted in the State of California to practice continuously since 1998.  In private practice, I work in municipal law both for the public and on behalf of public agencies.

Previous posts in the series of In-House City Attorneys in Southern California:

Cost Per Attorney for In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

Ratio of Attorneys to Population in In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

An Abbreviated Version of the Chart of In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Address : 300 E. State St. Suite 517

                  Redlands CA 92373-5235
Telephone: (909) 708-6055

 

County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors Give Staff Direction on Hot Food Trucks.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

According to the newspaper (for when the link vanishes, San Bernardino Sun (online), “Food truck rules eased” by Joe Nelson, posted 8/9/2011 at 06:35:42 PDT, accessed 8/10/2011), the Board of Supervisors chose option 2:

In general, three options identified relative to the County’s regulation of hot food truck operations
in the County are outlined below followed by detailed descriptions, impacts and summaries for
each option:
1. Maintain the existing County health and safety ordinance and prohibition of hot food trucks
except when operating as a temporary food facility at an approved community event.
2. Amend the existing County health and safety ordinance to establish a new category of
“hot foot truck events.”
3. Amend the existing County health and safety ordinance to permit hot food trucks to
operate throughout the County.

Staff will bring back an ordinance for the Supervisors to vote on.  Stay tuned.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave., Suite 104
Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 708-6055

County of San Bernardino To Consider Allowing Mobile Gourmet (or at least Hot) Food Trucks At August 9, 2011 Board of Supervisors Meeting

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

The Board of Supervisors, at their August 9, 2011 meeting, have an agenda item regarding allowing food trucks.   This is a follow-up on Supervisor Janice Rutherford’s call regarding food trucks.  There will be a staff report at the meeting with a request for direction by the Board of Supervisors.  If you want to be heard on this issue, now is the time to do so, by calling your Supervisor (or at least a Supervisor), or by sending electronic mail, or attending the meeting and speaking on the agenda item.

The staff report suggests these possible actions by the County of San Bernardino and seeks the Board’s direction on the issue:

 

In general, three options identified relative to the County’s regulation of hot food truck operations
in the County are outlined below followed by detailed descriptions, impacts and summaries for
each option:
1. Maintain the existing County health and safety ordinance and prohibition of hot food trucks
except when operating as a temporary food facility at an approved community event.
2. Amend the existing County health and safety ordinance to establish a new category of
“hot foot truck events.”
3. Amend the existing County health and safety ordinance to permit hot food trucks to
operate throughout the County.

 

The report acknowledges that San Bernardino and Riverside are believed to be the only California counties that prohibit mobile food trucks.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

     Redlands CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 708-6055

 

The Religous Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and Zoning in the Inland Empire

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

What is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)?

RLUIPA was enacted by Congress in 2000.  RLUIPA states, regarding land use,  that the government may not “impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of that regulation (and its accompanying “burden”) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest,” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc.  RLUIPA broadly defines the term “religious exercise,” to include “the use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc-5(7)(B).   The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “for a land use regulation to impose a ‘substantial burden’ it must be ‘oppressive’ to a ‘significantly great’ extent.  That is, a ‘substantial burden’ on ‘religious exercise’ must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.”  San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3d 1024, 1034.

RLUIPA also states that “no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc(b)(1).  The “equal terms” section requires the government to treat religious assembly uses in the same way it would a non-religious use.

RLUIPA adds a layer of federal regulation to local Inland Empire government’s land use authority.  In discretionary land use decisions involving religious uses, local governments need to be familiar with the requirements of RLUIPA.  When I was Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, RLUIPA was an issue that arose from time to time in City Council and Planning Commission land use decision-making.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog.  You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.
A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

What is “inverse condemnation” in California?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:  No person shall be. . . deprived of  . . . property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  Similarly, the California Constitution, Article I, Section 19 reads “Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation . . . for, the owner.”

These provisions are the constitutional basis for both eminent domain and inverse condemnation.

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, and later Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, I was involved in both eminent domain defense and defending the cities from inverse condemnation liability.  Now, as a private attorney, I represent clients in inverse condemnation claims against public agencies in California.

Most people know eminent domain is the taking of private property by the government (or in some cases a private entity such as an electric utility or a railroad) for a public use.   What, then is inverse condemnation?  Inverse condemnation is when a private party sues the government for the government’s taking of private property for a public use.

Some common areas an individual might sue a public entity for inverse condemnation include flooding, mud slides and debris flow, backed up sewer lines, broken water mains, landslides, brush fires, emission of noxious gas, and other similar disasters.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

What County is Redlands, California In?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

There seems to be some confusion as to which of California’s 58 counties, Redlands, California is located in.  The short answer: San Bernardino County.  The long answer is more interesting. I think the confusion comes from people from Los Angeles, as you can see in the media, they sometimes publish “Redlands, Riverside County.”  Here is an example from Fox LA (Channel 11): Earthquake Rattles Redlands Area of Riverside County.

I have lived near or in Redlands, California almost my entire life.  I have family members and friends born in Redlands.  Since 2006, I have been practicing law in Redlands.  And currently, my law firm is located at 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands, California 92373

Has Redlands always been in San Bernardino County?  Yes, and no, and almost no.   You can see from this map in the Bancroft Library at my alma mater, the University of California,  Berkeley,  from the 1840s, Redlands was part of Rancho San Bernardino.  Upon statehood, the area comprising Redlands and San Bernardino and Riverside and Moreno Valley was a part of a super-sized Los Angeles County.  That super-sized Los Angeles County also included Orange County.  On  April 23, 1853, the County of San Bernardino was formed from Los Angeles, San Diego and Mariposa County.  The City of Redlands, for which I was Assistant City Attorney for almost four and one half years, was incorporated in 1888.  The County of Riverside split from San Bernardino County and San Diego County in 1893.  Today, the San Bernardino / Riverside County line is the southern border of the City of Redlands.

Because this is a legal blog, I have bolded the portion  of the Government Code which describes the boundaries of San Bernardino County (California Government Code section 23136):

23136. The boundaries of San Bernardino County are as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence east along the township line between T. 24 and 25 S. of the Mount Diablo base line, being the sixth standard south, Mount Diablo Base, and continuing east by said standard line and extension thereof, to the western boundary of T. 19 N., R. 12 E., San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence north along said western boundary to the northern line of said township; thence east along the northern line of said township to the eastern boundary of the State of California, being the oblique boundary line between the states of California and Nevada, as surveyed and monumented by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1899 and approved by Act of the California Legislature on March 1, 1901, and by the state of Nevada on February 27, 1903; thence southeasterly along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the centerline of the channel of the Colorado River as constructed by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, said point being common to the boundaries of Arizona, California, and Nevada, where the 35th degree of north latitude intersects the centerline of said channel, the above mentioned centerline being a portion of the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California as described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County; thence downstream along said centerline to the southerly end of construction; thence, continuing downstream, along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the east and west center line of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the northern boundary of Riverside County to the corner common to Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; thence northwesterly along the boundary line established by joint survey in December, 1876, and January, 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties to the corner common to San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties; thence northerly along the eastern boundary of Los Angeles County to the corner common to Los Angeles, Kern and San Bernardino Counties; situated at the northeast corner of T. 8 N., R. 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence east on the township line between T. 8 and 9 N. of San Bernardino base line to the section line between Secs. 32 and 33, T. 9 N., R. 7 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north following section lines to the eighth standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence east along said eighth standard parallel to the southwest corner of T. 32 S., R. 41 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along the township line to the seventh standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence along said standard parallel to the southwest corner of Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along section lines to the southwest corner of Section 24, T. 26 S., R. 40 E; thence east along the south line of said Section 24 to an intersection with the east line of said Section 24; thence north along said east line, and continuing north along the east line of Section 13, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 13; thence west along said north line and continuing west along the south line of Section 11, same township and range, to an intersection with the west line of said Section 11; thence north along said west line and continuing north along the west line of Section 2, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 2; thence east along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 2; thence north along section lines to the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M., said point being the place of beginning. That portion of the San Bernardino County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of above mentioned Interstate Compact. Geographic Positions and Plane Coordinates of all boundary points mentioned in above description are listed in Exhibit “A” of said Interstate Compact That means you have to look at the legal description of Riverside County to find if it defines the county line between Riverside and San Bernardino. I’ve bolded the relevant portion. 23133. The boundaries of Riverside County are as follows: Beginning at the corner common to Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, being located at the point of intersection of the easterly boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho with course number seven of the boundary line, established by joint survey in December 1876, and January 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence southeasterly along said line of survey to the most northerly point of that survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence south 68 49´57″ west a distance of 35.37 feet; thence south 48 16´56″ west a distance of 150.70 feet; thence south 65 40´06″ west a distance of 75.15 feet; thence north 84 32´29″ west a distance of 155.61 feet to the beginning of a nontangent curve, concave to the northwest, with a radial bearing north 29 06´47″ west and a radius of 1,550.00 feet; thence along said curve through an angle of 15 01´17″ a distance of 406.35 feet to the easterly line of the Rancho Lomas de Santiago; thence south 02 53´27″ east, along said easterly line, a distance of 3,273.18 feet to the south line of Sec. 36 T. 3 S., 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 07´27″ east, along said south line, a distance of 818.46 feet; thence south 89 05´38″ east, continuing along said south line, a distance of 2,484.00 feet to the southerly most point on said survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, said point also being on said line of survey between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence continuing southeasterly on said line of survey to the point of beginning of said joint survey, it being upon the northern boundary of San Diego County, as it was then established; thence southwesterly to a point on the eastern line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz two miles north of the south boundary of T. 7 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence south along said boundary to the point of intersection of said line and the northwest corner of Lot 1 of Sec. 33, T. 7 S., R. 6 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 16´14″ east along the north line of said Lot 1 and the north section line of said Sec. 33 a distance of 2,086.39 feet to the northeast section corner thereof; thence south 00 27´14″ west, along the east section line of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,647.46 feet to the east quarter corner of said Sec. 33; then south 01 00´50″ west, continuing along said east section line, a distance of 1,320.33 feet to the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; thence north 89 25´11″ west, along the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the south line of Lot 3 of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,042.68 feet to the eastern boundary line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz; thence 00 00´35″ east, along said boundary, a distance of 1,324.46 feet to the point of intersection with said line with the township line between T. 7 S. and T. 8 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence easterly along said township line to its intersection with the western boundary of Santa Rosa Rancho; thence southerly along the boundary of said rancho to where said boundary of said rancho intersects the range line between T. 8 S., T. 3 W., and T. 8 S., T. 4 W.; thence south on said range line to the point of intersection of the said line with the second standard parallel south; thence east along said parallel to its intersection with the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California on the centerline of the Colorado River, said interstate boundary and centerline being described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence northerly along said interstate boundary to its point of intersection with the east and west centerline of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the section lines to the southeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 1 S., R. 16 E., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 32, same township and range, said point being on the township line between T. 1 and 2 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence west on said township line to the northeast corner of T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 12, T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 2 S., R. 3 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the northwest corner of said Sec. 8; thence west to the quarter corner of the south line of Sec. 2, T. 2 S., R. 5 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the quarter corner on the north line of said Sec. 2; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 6 W.; thence south along the section lines to the northern boundary of the Jurupa Rancho; thence southwesterly along said north boundary to the northwest corner of said Rancho; thence south along the west boundary of said Jurupa Rancho to the quarter corner on the east line of Sec. 9, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west in a direct line to the center of Sec. 7, same township and range; thence south in a direct line, to the quarter corner on the south line of Sec. 19, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west to the east boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Rancho to the place of beginning. That portion of the Riverside County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of the above-mentioned Interstate Compact.

If you plotted that on the survey of California along the San Bernardino Base & Meridian, you would find that the City of Redlands is in San Bernardino County, California.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708