Deep file
Frank Lizarraga, El Prado Golf Course, and Alan Wapner: What the Public Record Shows
A document-based account of the County lease history, the Sultana Properties arrears, the El Prado sublease extension, the Shih civil lawsuit, and the campaign contributions connecting Lizarraga-controlled entities to Wapner's campaigns.
Section 1
The County leases: Sultana Properties and El Prado Development
Frank Lizarraga is the managing member of two entities that hold or held leases on San Bernardino County-administered land: Sultana Properties LLC and El Prado Development LLC. The underlying land for El Prado is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and leased to San Bernardino County, which in turn subleases it to El Prado Development.
San Bernardino County's own December 3, 2024 staff report documents that Sultana Properties fell into arrears on its lease payments. The County calculated $22,443 in missed rent plus $16,141 in interest and fees, totaling $38,584 in arrears. The County authorized an amendment permitting Sultana to repay that amount monthly over the remainder of the lease. The County characterized the amended $1,658 monthly base rent as in the "low-range for comparable land in the Chino area."
County records separately confirm that El Prado Development became successor tenant for the approximately 314.21-acre golf-course property in 2023, with Lizarraga identified as managing member.
Sultana arrears — missed rent
$22,443
Per County Dec. 3, 2024 staff report
Sultana arrears — interest & fees
$16,141
Per County Dec. 3, 2024 staff report
Total arrears (corrected)
$38,584
Article cited $38,854; County record is $38,584
El Prado acreage
~314.21 acres
U.S. Army Corps land, leased to County, subleased to El Prado Development
El Prado successor tenancy
2023
Lizarraga identified as managing member
Section 2
The 22-year extension: exclusive negotiation over competitive bidding
County records document two distinct Board of Supervisors votes on the El Prado sublease extension:
- February 11, 2025: The Board authorized an exclusive/alternative negotiation procedure with El Prado Development — bypassing a competitive procurement process.
- April 29, 2025: The Board voted 4–1 to choose the negotiated 22-year extension over competitive bidding. The extension runs through August 31, 2047, with a starting base rent of $11,000 per month, required repairs estimated at $4.1 million, and annual capital-investment requirements.
The Press Enterprise reported that Curt Hagman voted in favor of the extension and had received campaign contributions from Lizarraga-connected entities. The article focuses on Hagman's relationship with Lizarraga; it does not establish that Alan Wapner participated in or influenced these County Board votes. Those decisions were made by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, not the Ontario City Council.
Extension term
22 years
Through August 31, 2047
Starting base rent
$11,000/month
Per County records
Required repairs
~$4.1 million
Plus annual capital-investment requirements
Terminology note
Earlier Wapner Watch materials described this as a "23-year no-bid contract" and in some versions identified February 2025 as the lease-award date. The more precise characterization, based on County records, is a 22-year negotiated extension. The February 11, 2025 Board action (Resolution No. 25-53) authorized sole-source negotiations with the existing operator — it did not itself award the lease extension. The Board approved the negotiated long-term agreement on April 29, 2025, after being presented with the alternative of proceeding with competitive procurement. See the Corrections page for the full correction note.
Section 3
The Shih lawsuit: 50/50 ownership, alleged forgery, and alleged 71% takeover
The allegations below are drawn from civil litigation filed by Phyllis Shih. They are allegations in pending litigation, not established findings. Lizarraga has not been found liable. Wapner Watch presents them as attributed allegations, not facts.
The Press Enterprise reported that Phyllis Shih — previously identified in California Secretary of State records as a manager of El Prado Development LLC alongside Lizarraga — has filed a civil lawsuit against Lizarraga. The lawsuit, as reported, alleges:
- El Prado Development was originally structured as a 50/50 partnership: Lizarraga and Shih each held equal interests.
- Shih supplied the initial $1 million in capital; Lizarraga contributed professional and management services.
- Both partners were originally required to agree on financial decisions.
- Lizarraga allegedly forged Shih's signature on business documents.
- He allegedly altered the operating arrangement so that he claimed 71% control, reducing Shih's interest from 50% to 29%.
- Lizarraga allegedly justified the reduction based on Shih's refusal to pay $709,499 for parking-lot and clubhouse work.
- Shih contends those expenses could have been paid from approximately $2.3 million in golf-course revenue.
- The lawsuit alleges Lizarraga tried to force her out after the business became successful.
The Press Enterprise also reported that Lizarraga allegedly wrote to Shih in 2025 that he had undertaken "considerable and very substantial efforts" to secure County approval of the sublease extension. If accurately quoted from an authenticated letter attached to the litigation, that statement could become a significant primary exhibit.
The Shih lawsuit resolves a documentary anomaly previously noted in Wapner Watch's evidence matrix: California Secretary of State filings showed Shih's name appearing, disappearing, and reappearing as a manager of El Prado Development LLC. The lawsuit now provides a named party's sworn account of why that sequence occurred.
Court record confirmed — complaint not yet obtained
Case No. CIVRS2511060 — Phyllis Shih v. Frank J. Lizarraga Jr., et al. — Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District. Summons electronically filed January 12, 2026. Plaintiff's attorney: James R. Coelho, Phillips Law Partners, LLP. This is an active two-sided dispute: Lizarraga has filed a cross-complaint against Shih; Shih has filed an Answer denying those allegations and asserting five affirmative defenses. El Prado Development LLC is not a named defendant — it is the business at the center of the dispute. The original complaint, Lizarraga's cross-complaint, and all exhibits have not yet been obtained and remain the highest-priority research targets.
Section 4
The campaign money: Sultana, El Prado Development, and El Prado Golf Courses → Wapner
Campaign finance records document contributions from three Lizarraga-connected entities to Alan Wapner's 2026 Ontario mayoral campaign:
Amount
See Form 460
Lizarraga is managing member of Sultana Properties. This contribution occurred approximately eleven months after the County authorized Sultana's arrears repayment plan (December 3, 2024).
Amount
See Form 460
Second Sultana contribution. Same date as El Prado Development LLC contribution below.
Amount
See Form 460
Same date as second Sultana contribution. El Prado Development holds the ~314.21-acre Army Corps sublease. Phyllis Shih is a co-manager per CA SOS records; her lawsuit alleges Lizarraga altered the operating arrangement to claim 71% control.
Amount
Five figures (non-monetary)
Substantial non-monetary contribution. Nature of in-kind contribution not yet confirmed from primary filing. Occurred approximately six weeks before the July 28, 2026 FBI searches.
Relationship map (documented)
This is a documented network of relationships. It does not establish that Wapner influenced the County's treatment of Lizarraga, that campaign money was exchanged for governmental action, or that any contribution was improper under California law.
Section 5
The federal searches: properties connected to both Wapner and Lizarraga
On July 28, 2026, FBI agents executed search warrants at multiple locations connected to this investigation. Reported search locations included:
- Alan Wapner's Ontario residence
- Frank Lizarraga's home
- Frank Lizarraga's office
Separate airport-related subpoenas were also reported. The search warrants remain sealed. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was unclear whether Wapner, Hagman, Lizarraga, or Su were themselves targets of the investigation. Neither Wapner nor Lizarraga has been charged with any crime.
Attorney-client relationship — primary court record: San Bernardino County Superior Court records establish that Frank J. Lizarraga Jr. of Lizarraga Law Firm, APC served as attorney of record for Alan Wapner, Judi Wapner, and Daisy Macias in a verified civil complaint filed July 21, 2026 — seven days before the federal searches (Case No. CIVSB2621487, Wapner et al. v. Garcia). This is a direct attorney-client relationship documented by a primary court record, not a donor or political-network inference. The temporal proximity to the federal searches is noted; no connection between the litigation and the searches has been established in public reporting, and the search warrants remain sealed.
Section 6 — Editorial standard
What the public record does not establish
Wapner Watch presents documented facts and attributed allegations. The following limitations apply to everything on this page.
- —No public evidence presently establishes that Wapner influenced the County's El Prado or Sultana decisions. Those decisions were made by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
- —No public evidence establishes that campaign contributions from Lizarraga-controlled entities were exchanged for governmental favors.
- —Shih's accusations against Lizarraga are allegations in pending civil litigation. Lizarraga has not been found liable.
- —The federal search warrants remain sealed. Neither Wapner nor Lizarraga has been charged with any crime. The FBI has not publicly identified any targets.
- —The Press Enterprise article contains a minor arithmetic error: it states Sultana was $38,854 in arrears, but its own component figures ($22,443 + $16,141) total $38,584, which matches the County's December 3, 2024 staff report. Wapner Watch uses $38,584.