October 16 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices

Posted on October 16, 2020 by Venturi

FBN 20200007704
The following entity is doing business as NK JEWELERS 2450 VINEYARD AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761 NOELIA K MORENO 17780 MESA RD FONTANA, CA 92336
Mailing Address: 17780 MESA RD FONTANA, CA 92336
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ NOELIA MORENO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: SEPTEMBER 1, 2015
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/18, 9/25, 10/2, 10/9 & 10/16, 2020.
FBN 20200008485
The following entity is doing business as LANGA CELLARS 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346 LANGA CELLARS LLC 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346
Mailing Address: 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ BARTOLOMEO ROSSO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/15/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 18, 2015
County Clerk, Deputy M0597
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/25, 10/2, 10/9 & 10/16, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008734
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Penn’s Trucking Company, 615 E. Hawthorne St, Ontario, CA 91764, Jose Pantoja Jr, 615 E. Hawthorne St, Ontario, CA 91764
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Jose Pantoja Jr
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/22/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).

9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007979
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Genesis Khari, 1315 S Meadow Lane Apt H252, Colton, CA 92324, Teairra M. Genesis Khari, 1315 S Meadow Lane Apt H252, Colton, CA 92324
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Teairra Rouzan
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/01/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008352
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Advanced Psychological Associates & Wellness Center PC, 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 314-316, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Advanced Psychological Associates & Wellness Center PC, 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 314, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Deborah Seffinger PHD
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/10/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 4/29/20
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20

STATEMENT of Withdrawal From Partnership Operating Under a Fictitious Business Name FILE NO-20200008473
Fictitious Business Name of the Partnership: Pacific Shift, 7149 Powell Pl, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/23/2019
County Clerk File No. FBN201190005040
Name of Person Withdrawing: Carlos Soriano, 7149 Powell Pl, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Carlos Soriano
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
County Clerk, s/ I1327
9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007704
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: NK Jewelers, 2450 Vineyard Ave, Ontario, CA 91761, Mailing Address: 17780 Mesa Rd, Fontana, CA 92336, Noella K. Moreno, 17780 Mesa Rd, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Noella Moreno
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/25/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 09/01/2015
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS 2018773
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner BRETT JONES filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRETT JONES to EEON
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: 11/17/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS 2011221
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner ELIJAH CALEB RAMDIN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ELIJAH CALEB RAMDIN to ELIJAH ANORUE RAMDIN
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: 11/04/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS 2011221
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner ROBERT ANGELO JEFFERS aka PETTEGREW filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ROBERT ANGELO JEFFERS aka PETTEGREW to ROBERT PETTEGREW-HERNANDEZ
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: 11/03/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 2, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020.

FBN 20200008421
The following entity is doing business as TINA’S BARBER & BEAUTY SALON 916 N. MOUNTAIN AVE STE B1 UPLAND, CA 91786
MARTHA MONTES
104 BROWN DR. CLAREMONT, CA 91711
[and] ALFONSO RAMOS
929 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. APC . 121UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ MARTHA MONTES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/14/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JUNE 20, 2010
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on , 10/2, 10/9, 10/16 & 10/25 2020.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JACK ERBE
CASE NO. PROPS 2000704
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JACK ERBE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DARYL ROBERT ERBE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DARYL ROBERT ERBE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 A.M. on NOVEMBER 3, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com

Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERT JOHNSON
CASE NO. PROPS 2000713
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERT JOHNSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by BOBBIE JOHNSON ROBERTSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BOBBIE JOHNSON ROBERTSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 A.M. on NOVEMBER 23, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com

Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2018363
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner KATARZYNA DANIELA PODLECKI filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
LENA PODLECKI to LENA KAROLINA PIETRZYKOWSKA
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: 11/23/2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 2, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16, 10/23 & 10/30, 2020

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2018363
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner KATARZYNA DANIELA PODLECKI filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
LENA PODLECKI to LENA KAROLINA PIETRZYKOWSKA
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: 11/23/2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 2, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16, 10/23 & 10/30, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARIA MENDOZA CORDOVA
CASE NO. PROPS 2000695
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA MENDOZA CORDOVA
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MICHEL S. CORDOVA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHEL S. CORDOVA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 2, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S-36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LAURIE ANN WAKELING
CASE NO. PROPS 2000723
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LAURIE ANN WAKELING
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by RANDY ALLEN WAKELING in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that RANDY ALLEN WAKELING be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S-35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: OCTOBER 5, 2020
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
PAUL E. McDONALD Jr.
NO. PROPS 2000718
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of PAUL E. McDONALD Jr.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AMBER KOIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AMBER KOIS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 On NOVEMBER 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. at the San Bernardino Justice Center, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE, ESQ.
SBN 208603
300 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 475-8800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/09, 10/16 & 10/23, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008966
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Calibeadman, 6274 S Kingsmill Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: 8282 Sierra Ave #3336, Fontana, CA 92334, David B. Griffith, 6274 S Kingsmill Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Jadat D. Griffith, 6274 S Kingsmill Ct, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ David Griffith
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 9/01/20
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 10/16/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2018 MAZDA 3MZBN1V37JM275640 8HHL556 CA
To be sold by Hilo Auto Service 10075 Arrow RTE Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008987
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: American Check Cashing, 8001- Archibald Ave, Ste B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, S& W, Inc., 8001- Archibald Ave, Ste B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Wagar Rasul
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008985
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: American Check Cashing, 8001- Archibald Ave, Ste B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, ISWA, Inc., 8001- Archibald Ave, Ste B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Asma Zahid
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/09/07
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20

FBN 20200007905 The following person is doing business as: SPONGEE, 1515 W ARROW HWY, #18 UPLAND, CALIF 91786, MAILING ADDRESS: 1515 WEST ARROW HIGHWAY SPACE 18 UPLAND, CA 91786, EFREN C. DY AGUILERA, 1515 WEST ARROW HIGHWAY SPACE 18 UPLAND, CAL 91786 This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ EFREN C. DY AGUILERA This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/28/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A County Clerk, Deputy l1327 NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/4, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020 Corrected on: 10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DAVID LOPEZ RAMOS JR.
CASE NO. PROPS 2000720
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DAVID LOPEZ RAMOS JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by RICHARD ROSALES RAMOS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that RICHARD ROSALES RAMOS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 A.M. on NOVEMBER 16, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com

Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/16, 10/23 & 10/30, 2020

FBN 20200008547
The following entity is doing business as CALI HOT DOGS 7345 POPLAR DR FONTANA, CA 92336-1757 LUKE ADESINO 7345 POPLAR DR FONTANA, CA 92336-1757
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ADESINO LUKE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/16/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: June 16, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy M0597
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/16, 10/23, 10/30 & 11/06, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008753
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Pasley Motorsports LLC, 2621 S Sacramento Pl, Ontario, CA 91761, Pasley Motorsports LLC, Ontario, CA 91761
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Preston Pasley
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/22/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 9/8/20
County Clerk, s/ M0597
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008569
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lovers, 495 W Orange Show Rd, Suite A, San Bernardino, CA 92408, Mailing Address: 901 W Main St, Auburn, WA, 98001, TLA Acquisition Corp, 901 W Main St #A, Auburn, WA, 98001
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Jennifer Conner
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/17/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200009399
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Richformation Health And Wellness Coaching, 9860 Galena Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Mailing Address: 9860 Galena Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Katrina M. Richardson, 9860 Galena Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Katrina M Richardson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO20200007278 The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: AR Wiltshire Enterprises; Nubieyan Designs, 7950 Etiwanda Avenue, Apt 24101, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Ann R. Wiltshire, 7950 Etiwanda Avenue, Apt 24101, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Business is Conducted By: An Individual Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. s/ Ann R. Wiltshire This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/12/20 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A County Clerk, s/ D5511 NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). 9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20. Corrected on: 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO20200007273 The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Educational Ties, 7317 Rosebay Place, Fontana, CA 92336, Irishia Williams, 7317 Rosebay Place, Fontana, CA 92336 Business is Conducted By: An Individual Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. s/ Irishia Williams This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/12/20 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 8/6/2020 County Clerk, s/ I1327 NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). 9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20. Corrected on: 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVDS2020338
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Raveen Hailer filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Raveen Hailer to Monica Kaur
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: 12/07/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
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.
Dated: September 23, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/6/20

FBN 20200007000
The following entity is doing business as CREPAS Y MAS
8538 TAMARIND AVENUE SUITE 1 FONTANA, CALIF 92335
CESAR DIAZ 8538 TAMARIND AVENUE SUITE 1 FONTANA, CALIFO 92335 [and] LAURA DIAZ 8538 TAMARIND AVENUE SUITE 1 FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ MARTHA MONTES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/6/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on , 9/4, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020.
CORRECTED: 10/2, 10/9, 10/16 & 10/25 2020.

FBN 20200008165 The following person is doing business as: SAYER’S MARKET 1459 WEST MISSION BOULEVARD ONTARIO, CA 91762; SAYER’S LLC 1459 WEST MISSION BOULEVARD ONTARIO, CA 91762The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ NORMA VILLAFUERTE, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202001MT
FBN 20200008254 The following person is doing business as: MD MEDICAL TRANSPORT 275 WEST HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 322 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; MD MEDICAL TRANSPORT 1992 N KENWOOD AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ MEDIE PIZARRO VALDEZ, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/08/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202002MT

FBN 20200008328 The following person is doing business as: GOT PLUMBING 14721 CHOKE CHERRY DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392; RYAN S MITCHELL 14721 CHOKE CHERRY DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ RYAN S. MITCHELL, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/10/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202003IR
FBN 20200008169 The following person is doing business as: LIZ TRANSPORT 1855 E. RIVERSIDE DR. #87 ONTARIO, CA 91761; GERARDO A MARTINEZ 1855 E. RIVERSIDE DR. #87 ONTARIO, CA 91761The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 06/25/2009By 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/ GERARDO A. MARTINEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202004IR

FBN 20200008327 The following person is doing business as: DIVERSITY BY DESIGN 16843 VALLEY BLVD UNIT E #511 FONTANA, CA 92335;[ MAILING ADDRESS 7426 CHERRY AVE. BLDG 210 #138 FONTANA, CA 92336]; DIVERISTY BY DESIGN ENTERPRISE,
LLC 16843 VALLEY BLVD UNIT E #511 FONTANA, CA 92335The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DOLLY D. MEDLOCK, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/10/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202005MT

FBN 20200008326 The following person is doing business as: GENESIS HOMES 16843 VALLEY BLVD UNIT E #511 FONTANA, CA 92335; GENESIS HOME FOR HOPE, LLC 16843 VALLEY BLVD UNIT E #511 FONTANA, CA 92335The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DOLLY D. MEDLOCK, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/10/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 09/25/2020, 10/02/2020, 10/09/2020, 10/16/2020 CNBB37202006

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200008421
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Tina’s Barber & Beauty Salon, 916 N. Mountain Ave. STE B1, Upland, CA 91786, Martha Montes, 104 Brown Dr., Claremont, CA 91711, Alfonso Ramos, 929 E. Foothill Blvd SPC. 221, Upland, CA 91786
Business is Conducted By: A General Partnership
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Martha Montes
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/14/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/20/2010
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20

Read The October 9 SBC Sentinel Here

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a copy of the October 9 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 10-09-20

Mayoral Graft Pushes SB City Council To Institute Cannabis Permitting Regulations

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

By Mark Gutglueck
Mayor John Valdivia’s graft-ridden administration of San Bernardino’s municipal government has resulted in further structural changes in the way business is being conducted at City Hall. As a consequence of Valdivia’s ploy to enrich himself by offering his services as a consultant to individuals and companies seeking to obtain permits to operate marijuana/cannabis-related businesses under the city’s now-liberalized policy regarding that once-banned substance, the city council this week voted to require that all city officials who have contact with or receive remuneration or campaign contributions from a commercial cannabis license applicant make specific disclosure of that contact or exchange of money prior to any official action with regard to the granting of those permits.
Ironically, the two members of the city council who have been most heavily critical of the manner in which Valdivia has conducted himself – Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill – were the lone members of the panel who opposed the reform measure. Valdivia’s five one-time allies on the council – First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez, Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, Third Ward Councilman Juan Figueroa, Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel and Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard – uniformly supported the ordinance. This is quite possibly because the manner in which they associated themselves closely with Valdivia and supported him with their votes on the council during his first year as mayor, in the aftermath of revelations of how he has in large measure successfully sought to personally profit by exploiting his mayoral power and position, is threatening to tar their own reputations. Valdivia, who from 2012 until 2018 was the city’s Third Ward councilman, in 2018 successfully vied for mayor against then-incumbent Carey Davis. Also elected that year were political newcomers Sanchez and Ibarra, both of whom were assisted in their successful electioneering efforts to greater and lesser extents by Valdivia or elements of his political machine. Prior to his election as mayor, Valdivia had established an extremely close alliance with Richard and a reliable affinity with Nickel on the vast majority of issues that came before the council. Thus, upon Valdivia’s installation as mayor in December 2018, he enjoyed control over the city’s highest functioning decision-making body, which was demonstrated by a move he made the day he, Ibarra and Sanchez were sworn into office, to fire then-City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller, with whom Valdivia had differences. That maneuver was supported by Sanchez and Ibarra from the outset. Over the ensuing months Richard joined with them, giving Valdivia in April 2019 the needed three votes on the six-sevenths strength council to put Travis-Miller on administrative leave.
The following month, in a special election to fill the vacancy on the council brought about as a consequence of Valdivia’s resignation as Third Ward councilman to accede to the mayor’s post, Figueroa, who was heavily supported by Valdivia in his campaign effort, was elected. This gave Valdivia four solid votes on the seven-member panel – those of Richard, Figueroa, Ibarra and Sanchez – as well as the general support of Nickel, at which point Valdivia found himself at the pinnacle of his apex power. Unchecked by any effective opposition, Valdivia was in a position to make commitments to virtually any individuals, parties, companies, or entities interested in doing business with or in the city that he could deliver the necessary votes on the council to get those individuals’ projects in the city, their contracts with the city or their permit applications approved. Having established a consulting business – AAdvantage Comm LLC – Valdivia used that entity to engage with those business entities and businessmen and businesswomen who had a dog in the hunt at City Hall. As the mayor in San Bernardino under normal circumstances is not empowered to vote with the rest of the council but rather has the authority to veto 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 outcomes and cast a vote to break a tie, Valdivia was able to, he calculated, avoid involvement in a criminal conflict of interest by manipulating his council allies to provide the approvals that those who had retained him as a consultant needed to get their projects underway, their service or good-provision contracts with the city in place or the licensing or permits they sought.
So confident was Valdivia that he could orchestrate things from his perch as mayor, he routinely absented himself from any issues relating to the permitting and licensing of marijuana/cannabis-related businesses seeking to set up shop in the city. San Bernardino’s municipal leaders for years had resisted the societal evolution that has come to accept marijuana as both a therapeutic drug and one which can be used for recreational purposes. In 2016, however, a group of San Bernardino residents qualified for the municipal ballot Measure O, calling for allowing the retail sale of marijuana and its derivatives and byproducts, both for medical and recreational purposes. The citywide vote on Measure O coincided with the statewide initiative Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, calling for the legalization of marijuana use for its intoxicative effect. Both passed. In the aftermath of Measure O’s passage, city officials, long philosophically opposed to having marijuana openly available in the city, dragged their feet for more than a year in actuating it.
Ultimately, as the Davis administration was drawing to a close, the city and city council undertook to formulate an ordinance that was based upon Measure O and the refinements of city marijuana policy that the city claimed were the byproduct of litigation it was met with in the aftermath of Measure O’s passage. In February 2018, the San Bernardino City Council passed an ordinance of its own creation, intended to supersede Measure O, allowing up to 17 cannabis-based commercial businesses within the city to function on limited duration permits that were to be renewed or discontinued annually, dependent upon whether their owners and operators complied with state and local law. The ordinance set a ratio of one cannabis-oriented business per 12,500 residents, which translates into a maximum of 17 marijuana concerns. The city thereafter began to accept applications for the licenses, but throughout the remainder of Davis’s term in office, the progression toward having licensed and permitted cannabis-based concerns functioning in the city bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.
While earlier in his political career, Valdivia had postured as a conservative, mouthing along with the majority of the city council as it was then composed anti-marijuana platitudes, upon preparing for his 2018 mayoral campaign he turned on a dime when he recognized that the marijuaniification of California had begun in earnest and that Measure O’s passage together with his position leading the city could provide him with an opportunity to cash in in a big way. Using the imperfect permitting/licensing process that had been put in place under Davis, Valdivia even before he was sworn in as mayor was aggressively reaching out to the applicants for city licenses, letting them know that he could assist them in achieving approval for their business models for a fee. Valdivia did not openly reveal to those in the city – either staff or the council – exactly what he was doing. Those who had the best window on his activity were those in the cannabis industry. When he would absent himself from the council dais as cannabis licensing issues came before the city council, he offered no explanation. Word, however, about what was happening began to emanate around the community. And while Valdivia delivered on many of his commitments to those who had retained him, in other cases he did not. Indeed, it appears that though he knew there was to be an upward limitation on the number of cannabis/marijuana-related businesses in the city altogether as well as limitations on the number of the differing types of these businesses – which included retail establishments, cultivation operations, product and by-product derivation and manufacturing businesses, packagers, deliverers, and research operations as well as so-called microbusinesses, which are a combination of at least three of the former – he made representations to far more than 17 different permit applicants that he could get them the entitlements to operate they were seeking. What has now become clear is that in his interaction with at least some of those who had retained him, he made claims that simply were not true. When some of those who had been promised a permit did not get one, they began to openly talk about the deals Valdivia had cut, quid pro quos in which he had said he would ensure that those who paid him would obtain permits.
A case in point is the experience of Victor Munoz, who on May 5 of this year made a sworn declaration relating to his interaction with Valdivia in his efforts to obtain permitting/licensing for a marijuana based business while Valdivia was yet a councilman and after he became mayor.
“I was introduced to Mayor John Valdivia by a mutual friend around 2017 for the purpose of obtaining a marijuana retail license within the City of San Bernardino,” Munoz’s declaration states. “It was explained to me by Valdivia that in order to get my license, the system was set up like a lottery point system and I had to pay for extra points to better my chances. Valdivia guaranteed me a license as long as I did what he told me to do and I donated to his campaign and to his personal needs. Based on Valdivia’s representation, I leased a large 16-acre commercial lot for the purpose of the retail marijuana license. Thereafter, I met up with Valdivia a few times for coffee or lunch to discuss the license and business plans. Valdivia always had ways of indirectly collecting funds so he would not incriminate himself.”
According to Munoz, on the day of the deadline for permit applications to be filed with the city, “Valdivia called me on my mobile phone and told me he needed by help and support and needed me to deposit money into his campaign fund. Based on the request by Valdivia, I wired $2,500 to Valdivia’s campaign fund through his website. Nevertheless, I ultimately lost my bid for the city license and found out that most of the licenses went to Valdivia’s family and friends.”
Shortly thereafter, Munoz confronted Valdivia about what had occurred, only to be rebuked with a vulgar insult belittling his masculinity.
“Valdivia then proceeded to tell me we were all a bunch of ‘whining bitches’ because we did not wait our turn for licenses,” Munoz’s declaration continues. Munoz said he told the mayor that he had done everything that had been asked of him, but that “he never kept his promise. Instead, Valdivia gave licenses to people that were not even zoned for retail sales of marijuana. Valdivia then asked me for more money to get my license, and at that point he brought in and introduced me to Council Member Juan Figueroa. Valdivia said everything will go through Figueroa, and that was the only way I was going to get my license. Valdivia then asked me for more money and funding in the presence of Juan Figueroa if I wanted to get my license. I got angry and told Valdivia and Figueroa I was not giving them any more money. Valdivia told me I was ‘cut off’ and ‘done,’ and that he was not helping me with anything anymore.”
Valdivia’s efforts to profit by means of his elected position and his willingness to impose himself as an invisible hand guiding the city’s approval processes were by no means limited to shaking down cannabis project applicants, though because of the sheer numbers of those competing for those permits, the cannabis industry appears to have been the most lucrative source of Valdivia’s extracurricular activities while he has served in the capacity of an elected official.
Valdivia’s former legislative field representative, Don Smith, has stated in a sworn affidavit that he was present in 2018 when Valdivia was handed an envelope full of cash by Danny Alcarez, who holds one of the franchises for tow service with the City of San Bernardino. Smith characterized the money provided to Valdivia as a bribe made in exchange for Valdivia maintaining the status quo with regard to the city’s towing franchises.
Mirna Cisneros, who worked in the mayor’s office as Valdivia’s citizens relations specialist, has publicly related incidences of Valdivia accepting gratuities, tantamount to bribes, from individuals and business owners, and that he told her he routinely did not report the reception of those, as is required of elected officials by state law. Cisneros further related that Valdivia took public agency reimbursements for travel and other activities he was engaged in, such as breakfast, lunch and dinner meetings at which he was making an effort to raise political funds or take care of personal business.
It is of note that in 2015, while Valdivia was yet a councilman and during the bidding process for the city’s trash franchise, corporate officials with one of the competitors, Athens Services, reported Valdivia solicited a $10,000 donation to his campaign fund. When Athens declined, Valdivia opposed awarding the contract to Athens.
San Bernardino’s transition from a jurisdiction in which marijuana and its multiple byproducts were absolutely prohibited to one in which a multitude of entrepreneurs were competing for permits and licensing to engage in the highly lucrative provision of those substances created a situation rife with the potential for graft. Similar manifestations occurred elsewhere in San Bernardino County, such as in Adelanto and Hesperia, where a pattern of the applicants for cannabis/marijuana permits providing the elected decision-makers in those communities with gratuities, gifts and bribes had developed.
In recent months, the degree to which Valdivia is on the take became more apparent in the aftermath of five separate claims lodged against him and the city by five of the former city staff members assigned to his mayoral office – Smith, Cisneros, Valdivia’s executive assistant Karen Cervantes, Valdivia’s field representative Jackie Aboud and Matt Brown, Valdivia’s chief of staff.
Valdivia’s hold on the city council had reached its apex around June of 2019. Thereafter came defections from his ruling coalition. The first member of the council to break with Valdivia was Ibarra. Over the next several months, as both Sanchez and Nickel chaffed at the mayor’s dictatorial approach and his sense of arrogant entitlement in assuming that the balance of the council was in line with his agenda in clearing the way for those who were endowing his political and personal coffers with capital to move forward with their entrepreneurial, business and contractual proposals, they too found themselves at increasing odds with the mayor. The claims filed by Cisneros, Cervantes, Aboud, Smith and Brown, as well as the marshaling of evidence to back those claims, caused further deterioration in the relationship between Valdivia and his three former political associates.
With the surfacing of information which brought the integrity of the city’s governmental processes into question, the council, in some measure led by Councilman Sanchez, has cast about for some way to reassure the public that things remain on the up and up in San Bernardino.
Accordingly, at the council’s direction, city staff this week provided the council with what was entitled “integrity standards” pertaining to the city’s decision-making processes relating to the granting of marijuana/cannabis-related business licenses. One of those provisions was that “All applicants listed on an application for a commercial cannabis business permit or any persons representing or lobbying on their behalf shall comply with the integrity standards adopted by separate resolution of the city council. Failure to abide by the integrity standards may result in disqualification from a commercial cannabis business (CCB) permit review process or revocation if it is later determined that the applicant or any person associated with the application or any third party lobbying on their behalf has violated the standards.” A second provision was that “Prior to voting on the approval of an application of any kind related to a commercial cannabis business (CCB) permit, all members of the city council shall disclose, in public, immediately before the vote, whether they have had any communications directly or through an intermediary with the commercial cannabis business applicant or a representative of or a lobbyist for a CCB applicant.”
These reforms, Sanchez insisted, would demonstrate that the city is committed to transparency in the deliberative process and simultaneously ensure that there is no favoritism involved in evaluating whether the individual applicants are qualified for a permit, subjecting all applicants to a fair process.
“We have had pay-to-play for too long,” Sanchez said, offering his perspective that money was tainting the political process. He noted that in eight of the last ten municipal elections, the candidate who “has raised the most money has won the election. [That] means special interest money runs the politics in this city.”
Ultimately, the integrity standards were endorsed by Ibarra, Figueroa, Nickel and Richard in addition to Sanchez. Voting against their adoption were councilmen Shorett and Mulvihill, who consistently have been critical of Valdivia, including suggesting that he has sold his votes while he was a councilman and his influence over the city council while he has been mayor to the highest bidder.
A number of city residents, including Shorett’s and Mulvihill’s supporters, expressed surprise at their unwillingness to embrace the reforms, particularly given the consideration that they have been the city officials most critical of the way in which Valdivia has evinced a willingness to make the city’s permitting processes conditional upon the generosity applicants show toward the city’s elected leadership, Valdivia in particular.
“It is the bad apple that spoils the barrel,” Shorett said, acknowledging that Valdivia had played fast and loose with the rules, but he asserted that the mayor taking bribes was not reason to hamstring other officials who do not engage in violations of the public trust with rules that crowded the way they function.
“I understand perfectly that if someone gives me money, that is fine,” Shorett said, “but I’m not going to support them just because they give me money. If what they are proposing is good for the community and it has merit, then I will support it. If the council wants to have a rule that when a project comes before us that we have to disclose whether the applicant has given us money, then let’s do that. But this is only about the cannabis industry. It doesn’t apply to the building industry or tire stores or restaurants. This is not about anything else but the cannabis industry. If we are about to vote on putting in a new development at the corner of 40th Street and Sierra Way, I have no problem disclosing if I have gotten money from that particular developer, and if it is a good project I will support it and if it does nothing for the community, I will vote against it. What you should do is go through the process and get approval based upon the merit of what you propose. If staff provides a recommendation in the applicant’s favor and he has done everything he is supposed to do according to the rules and I think the project adds to the community, it doesn’t matter if the proponent has given me ten cents or $10,000, I will vote to approve the project. If it is not in my judgment good for the community, I will vote against it. I am against the idea that somebody can’t talk to me.”
Shorett said, “I voted against this integrity standard because I don’t think I should have to estimate about whether in the future who might give me money and who might not give me money. I don’t think I should have to say to someone, ‘You might give me money so I can’t talk to you’ or ‘You gave me money in the past, so I can’t talk to you.’ That is what I am against. I am against people not being able to talk. This has come up because [Mayor] Valdivia had a cannabis project consulting company. At least that was what it seemed to be when he wasn’t participating in the council’s discussions about cannabis operations in the city. And then one day he stood up and said he had no conflicts anymore. But there were all sorts of people who said he made promises to the cannabis project applicants and got money from them. I understand that it is against the law if someone says ‘I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you vote for my project,’ and then I vote for that project. But that is already against the law. It would be foolishness for someone to do that, because I am just one of seven votes. I think it is a really bad idea to put all of these restrictions on us because of that one bad apple.”
Shorett added, “I don’t think it fair that we single out one industry. We don’t do that to someone who will open a 7-11 or a store that is going to sell liquor or what have you. To do that, the applicant must go through a CUP [conditional use permit] process. That is the American way. People have a right to talk to their representatives.”
The council’s action on Wednesday gave the ordinance what is called a “first reading” and initial approval. After it is given a second and final reading and presumably a second vote of approval, it will go into effect 30 days later.
“Right now there is not a law that we can’t talk to cannabis applicants,” Shorett said. “Right now there is not a law that we can’t talk to any project applicants. I want to be able to talk to all business applicants in the city. I want to be able to know about the projects I am going to vote on. That’s why there is a city council, so we can make decisions that are informed and are based on our judgment of what is good for the city and what isn’t. I want to be able to talk to business applicants in the city. That said, there is soon to be a law that we can’t talk to cannabis applicants, and I didn’t vote to support that being the law. But if that is the law, I will abide by it.”
Shorett asked, “Why is Ted [Sanchez] bringing transparency forward at this time?” He then answered his own question. “Because the public won’t elect qualified people,” he said. “I understand why Theodore is going after Valdivia at this point, because after he [Sanchez] went along with him [Valdivia] for so long, he [Sanchez] sees now that he [Valdivia] is dishonest. I am not against transparency. I fill out 460s every six months, like every other elected official. You can go look at them.”
Form 460s are the State of California’s documents that elected officials are required to fill out and file to show from whom they are receiving political donations.
“I can’t be bought and I can’t be bossed,” Shorett said. “I am not against transparency. I am not against disclosure. I’m not against being up front and honest. If something comes up where I have a conflict, or I have an interest in what we are voting on, I will recuse myself. If you have a project, you should be able to call me any time you want and give me money, but there is not enough money on this earth to buy my vote. If you have a decent project, I will support it. If not, I am not going to support it. I want to do what is best for the community. I represent the people and I want the businessmen who are looking to do business here to be able to communicate with me and I want to be trusted by the public that I am not engaging in pay-to-play or graft or bribes We should not be making laws to take care of a few bad apples. What we need is the people of this city to wake up and vote those bad apples out of office. If someone is doing a bad job, or if that person is dishonest, or that person is corrupt, then he should be tossed out of office. But if someone has been elected, we have to, and everybody else has to, live by that. I wish he [Valdivia] wasn’t in office. I wish he wasn’t the mayor, I really do. But as a city council, we can’t change that. We shouldn’t be passing an ordinance because the voters of the city didn’t get engaged. The public got what it voted for. The people of this city don’t necessarily deserve someone like Valdivia, but they let this situation come about where he is mayor. A majority voted him into office. The public needs to get engaged. There has not been a letter to the editor in the [San Bernardino] Sun that I can recall about Valdivia. There have been some editorials that show the news reporters and their editors know what is going on, but the public is not going against him [Valdivia]. There are some residents who have called the city council and asked, ‘Why don’t you censure him?’ A censure means nothing. It is saying, ‘We are really disappointed in your behavior and you shouldn’t have done those things you are doing.’ A censure has no teeth in it. As a council, we have no jurisdiction over Valdivia. Censuring him would be meaningless. It would be window dressing.”

In RC Council Reelection Bid, Kennedy Cites Her Experience & Compassion

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

Observing that “Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership at the local, state and national levels,” Rancho Cucamonga Councilwoman Lynne Kennedy said she is for that reason seeking four more years on the city council.
“I believe I have the skill set and experience to provide strong leadership for Rancho Cucamonga,” Kennedy said. “I have spent my entire life in public service, whether it is my career as an educator for 40 years or the last six years as a Rancho Cucamonga council member and currently as mayor pro tem. I have called Rancho Cucamonga home for 40 years. Rancho Cucamonga is a well-planned, safe and financially stable city that was selected as one of the best places in California to live and raise a family. Additionally, the city was named an All-America city by the National Civic League. I am running for another term on the city council because I have a vision for our city for 2020 and beyond. That vision includes maintaining a balanced budget with a healthy reserve fund, keeping our city one of the safest in California and ensuring economic prosperity through strong local businesses and strategic economic development.”
For the first four decades of its existence, Rancho Cucamonga elected its council members in at-large elections. In 2018, it began the transition to by-district contests, holding elections that year in its newly formed districts 2 and 3. This year, as a resident of District 4, Kennedy is vying to remain on the council, facing challenges from William Smith and Roger Wong.
She can be differentiated from her colleagues and her opponents on multiple bases, Kennedy said.
“Other than the fact that I am the only woman, I believe I am distinguished from the other two candidates as a result of my broad experiences at all levels within the educational structure – classroom teacher, school-site administrator, district-office administrator and superintendent,” she said. “These experiences coupled with my six years of experience as a Rancho Cucamonga council member have equipped me with the skill set needed to engage all stakeholder groups in my community and make sound decisions for now and the future of our city.”
In sizing up the major challenges facing the city at present, Kennedy said, “Currently, the most important issue facing Rancho Cucamonga is to ensure our city – including businesses and residents – has a strong, healthy and speedy recovery from the COVID pandemic. The other priorities are updating the general plan and developing an economic development plan that will increase revenue without raising taxes.”
With continued sensible direction and management, Kennedy said, the city should be able to sustain itself through its current difficulties.
“Fortunately, Rancho Cucamonga has been proactive in positioning the city for a strong and expedient recovery from the pandemic,” she said. “City Hall never closed, which allowed businesses and residents to receive support, up-to-date information and essential services. The library remained open for curb-side pickup, benefiting students, parents, teachers and residents. Additionally, the library recently added JOBNOW, a workforce development resource to assist those seeking employment opportunities. There were no cuts to our police and fire services, safeguarding community safety and medical responsiveness. Our Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce assisted businesses in advertising and staying open for business. We utilized CARES, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security funding and grants to offer funds for rent forgiveness and/or assistance for businesses and residents. We continued to provide meals and services for our seniors, such as drive-through meal pickups, home deliveries for home-bound seniors and opportunities to stay connected via virtual programs and activities. The Healthy RC program hosted webinars and resources to help residents deal with isolation, depression, and grief. Our community services division delivered activity packets to families, encouraging them to remain physically active and healthy. These are just a few examples of why Rancho Cucamonga will emerge from the pandemic with strength and unity.”
Kennedy said, “The process for updating the general plan is currently underway and we are actively seeking input from the community. Regarding economic development, the city council, city manager, and staff are utilizing Urban3, a private consulting firm specializing in land value economics, property tax analysis and community design, to identify standards and metrics for evaluating future projects based on the economics of land use development patterns.”
Kennedy said she believed her mastery of the processes at City Hall and her close familiarity with its key personnel has positioned her to work seamlessly with an efficient team that has a demonstrated commitment to making Rancho Cucamonga’s municipal resources responsive to the collective and individual needs of the city’s residents.
“As a result of the vision, hard work and fiscal responsibility of the city manager, staff and city council, Rancho Cucamonga was financially prepared to withstand the financial impact of the pandemic,” Kennedy said. “Additionally, funding for the general plan update and economic development plan was included in the annual budget.”
She takes pride in being a resource that her constituents can count on, Kennedy said.
“I believe my 40 years in the K-12 public school system has given me extensive experience in governance and administration in the areas of human resources, budget development, facilities, transportation and long-term planning. These experiences have equipped me with a robust, diverse skill set and the ability to make tough decisions. Additionally, my work with children and families gives me insight into the components of creating an environment conducive to strong relationships, collaboration and transparency.”
A graduate of San Bernardino High School, Kennedy attained a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Redlands, her master’s degree in school administration from Cal State San Bernardino, and a Ph.D. in Urban Education from Claremont Graduate University. Her dissertation, Selection Criteria and Student Access to Algebra I, was selected for the Urban Leadership Achievement award and recognition by Phi Delta Kappa as the dissertation of the year.
“I moved to Rancho Cucamonga in 1980, three years after incorporation, and have lived in this great city for 40 years,” she said.
Kennedy was principal of Rancho Cucamonga Middle School from 1990 until 1996. She also held multiple other positions in the educational field, including being a math teacher, junior high assistant principal and high school assistant principal with the Rialto Unified School District; the director of student achievement and assistant superintendent and associate superintendent with the Baldwin Park Unified School District; the superintendent of the Banning Unified School District; and the executive director of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools’ Alliance for Education. Retired, she is currently working as a consultant for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, focusing on equity, access and inclusion.
Her husband, Michael, is an attorney and senior partner at Estelle & Kennedy, A Professional Law Corporation.
She said, “I want the Sentinel’s readers to know that serving on the Rancho Cucamonga City Council has been the honor of a lifetime. If reelected, I will work to build on our past success and continue to make Rancho Cucamonga a safe, prosperous and world-class community.”
-M.G.

In Grand Terrace, 8-Year Councilor Robles Says Her Fiscal Guidance Remains A Must

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

After nearly 8 years on the Grand Terrace City Council Sylvia Robles is seeking reelection, she said, because the financial challenges besetting the city demand that a steady hand knowledgeable with regard to public agency fiscal operations remains on the city’s tiller.
After graduating from San Gorgonio High School in San Bernardino, Robles attended the University of Redlands, graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in business. Subsequently, she obtained her master’s degree in public administration from Cal State University San Bernardino.
She went to work for San Bernardino County, working as a field representative for then-Supervisor Barbara Cram-Riordan, eventually moving over to the county’s special districts department as a budget analyst.
“My work experience as a budget analyst for the department of special districts and my higher education relating to public policy have prepared me to deal with a wide scope of municipal services, from complex fiscal policy to parks, sewers, roads, fire and sheriff services,” she said. “One of my peers has said on numerous occasions: ‘We don’t need folks like this on the council. This is why we have staff.’ With two major deeply structural finance issues, I’ve had to wrestle staff to extinguish bonds that were useless. We incurred a general fund deficit and pension liability by spending tax money to subsidize the child care program for middle income families. After more than $300,000 in cash went to a program of free taxpayer-subsidized support not available to any other families in need of child care, I asked, ‘Why?’ The response was stunning. Staff never asked for guidance on this project because long-term staff had advised, ‘Some in the city would strongly object.’ I was elected to see these issues and deliberate with the residents, not some nameless phantom group.”
Robles elaborated, “Childcare is not a core city service. Cities offering childcare are most often providing some kind of state-funded service to assist low-income families. The city got into the daycare business to drive traffic to a redevelopment agency shopping center to make the bond issue more appealing for the bond market sale. Unfortunately, the childcare center could not keep enrollment and fees adequate to be self-supporting. Time after time, staff presented the council the option of increasing fees. After more than $300,000 in general fund borrowing and increased unfunded pension liability to a staff larger than core city staff, I raised the alarm.”
The city needs someone who is knowledgeable about financial issues to remain focused on the city’s bottom line, Robles said.
“In 2011, the city council as it was then composed tried to beat the clock with the imminent termination of redevelopment powers by the state’s closure of redevelopment agencies throughout the state by passing the issuance of $29 million in redevelopment agency bonds,” she said. “I was able to push for the elimination of those bonds in 2019. Over $1.5 million in interest payments were being paid for bonds we had no legal authority to spend. We now have freed up from our city’s former redevelopment agency $500,000 every year going forward for the general fund. If not for this infusion of cash we would be in horrible shape. I must stay and implement economic development projects moving through the entitlement process.”
Robles said, “I’m running for reelection because of my deep concern in the aftermath of COVID-19 on municipal budgets. I have 25 years of local government experience and eight years council experience. I ran on a platform against the foolish spending by redevelopment agencies. I lost my first campaign for city council in 2010. Since that time, I believe the city’s residents who are paying attention recognize the wisdom of what I was saying.”
Under her watch, Grand Terrace, the third-smallest city in San Bernardino County population-wise, the smallest city in the county in terms of geographical area and the second-smallest city in terms of its combined tax base, has radically reduced its staff, dispensing with nonessential elements of the city’s previous operations that were not befitting of a city of Grand Terrace’s limited means, she said.
“We were able to sell the childcare center,” she said. “The private sector was able to provide this service. We still have some unfunded pension liability for past childcare staff. The sale of the childcare facility extinguished the general fund debt.”
It is a reality that the viability of the city in many tangible ways comes down to dollars and cents, Robles said, pointing out that among the council incumbents and those vying in this year’s election, “No one has the financial expertise I bring to the council. I had to fight to get our useless bonds extinguished. My peers thought, erroneously, the perpetuation of those bonds was going to result in a one-time contribution of $500,000 to our general fund. I read through the red tape, and sidestepping bureaucracy-speak, handed off to the private sector a childcare program they could best provide to middle income families well suited to pay the fees. Families got needed daycare and taxpayers got back general fund cash to pay for sheriff services.”
While working to end the squandering of city funds and the expenditure of money the city simply does not have, Robles has taken part in efforts to spur economic development in the 3.5-square mile, 12,600-population municipality.
“We have two major development projects in the pipeline,” she said, “potentially a hotel, an upscale apartment complex, and some restaurants and retail space. We must work to increase our tax base by putting idle empty lots to work. Improving the land will increase the property tax base. California is suffering from a severe housing shortage. If we can usher through more quality development projects, we can help ease that. The sales tax generated by restaurants and retail are a help.”
Robles said, “The council must sell any development to the residents while providing the most transparent information surrounding any such projects and getting and incorporating our residents’ vision for Grand Terrace. These projects pay for themselves. We do have some residual redevelopment funds, but plans to revisit how to best spend these funds were crowded out by the COVID crisis. I yet hope we can still get this done immediately after the election.”
Robles has lived in Grand Terrace since June 1977. She was employed five years with a county community services agency, seven years as field representative for a member of the board of supervisors, and 13 years as a budget analyst in San Bernardino County’s special districts division, overseeing the provision of services to the county’s unincorporated areas.
She and her husband, Bob, have three adult children and several grandchildren.
-M.G.

Marsh Says His Election & Sales Tax Are Key To Victorville Advancing

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

Victorville Planning Commissioner Paul Marsh, who is seeking one of three positions on the Victorville City Council being contested in this year’s election, is making his campaign synonymous with a call for civic engagement.
With 21 hopefuls engaged in the race, Marsh said he is making a direct appeal to those elements of the Victorville community who believe in the ability of good government directed by a core of well-meaning, dedicated and farseeing elected officials to improve the quality of life of the local populace and transform neighborhoods into living environments in which parents can raise children in safety and confidence.
“Victorville, the Key City of the High Desert, offers many opportunities for business, E-commerce and families,” Marsh said. “With I-15 Freeway access, railway spurs and approved transportation routes, Victorville should be a sought-after location for businesses to locate in.”
In addition to Marsh, this year’s Victorville City Council contest features incumbents Blanca Gomez and Gloria Garcia, as well as Lionel Dew, Terrance Stone, Robert Bowen, Frank Kelly, Elizabeth Becerra, Lizet Angulo, Roger LaPlante, Adam Verduzco Jr., Craig Timchak, Webster Thomas, Ashiko Newman, Mike Stevens, Kimberly Mesen, Eric Negrete, Kareema Abdul, Ryan McEachron, Valentin Godina and Jerry Laws. Incumbent Councilman Jim Cox, whose term will elapse in December, is not seeking reelection.
Marsh said he believed that “Our city can do better. With the increase in crime, traffic accidents, and homelessness, Victorville does not have adequate law enforcement coverage. Vacant commercial buildings, poorly maintained parking lots and some neighborhoods have become eyesores.”
Two remedies to that dilemma exist on this year’s ballot, Marsh said, consisting of his candidacy for the city council and Measure P, which would impose an additional 1 percent sales tax on all purchases made in the city which are already subject to the statewide California sales tax. Marsh encouraged Victorville’s residents to support both. Measure P will give the city adequate means to deal with the issues it faces and his presence on the council will ensure that the money the city’s residents entrust to City Hall will be spent wisely and on those programs which will best address the community’s shortcomings, he said.
“In order for the city to address its challenges, more personnel must be added,” he said. “I support Measure P on Victorville’s November ballot that would add revenue to the city. This along with the revenue that will be generated by the new homes that are being built will boost the city’s financial position. Hiring more police to address rising crime and enable more traffic control will expand and extend public safety. Additional code enforcement officers will permit our city to address blight in Victorville. Homelessness, a huge problem with Victorville having the second highest number of those living on the streets among all the cities in the county, is in the process of being addressed. We’ve all seen the devastation caused by the homeless, including the destruction and serious damage to historical landmarks in our city. The Victorville City Council has approved a plan that will provide necessary services once funding/resource money for it is approved. After that assistance is in place, the city will be allowed to enforce our ordinances which will eliminate the encampments that exist all over our city for those who choose not to participate in a recognized program.”
Marsh offered a brief biographical overview.
“I moved to Victorville in 1962 when my father was assigned to George Air Force Base,” he said. “My mother taught at Park View School. I graduated from Victor Valley High School. My wife Lenita and I have been married 40 years. We have three children and four grandchildren. Being a self-employed loan officer affiliated with Home Funding Corporation, I originate home, commercial and hard money loans. Currently, I’m the vice-chair of the Victorville Planning Commission.”
He is the candidate for those who see local government as the most direct way to make a positive change in their environment and calibrate public services to meet everyday citizens’ needs, he said.
“The Victorville City Council needs members who can evaluate issues logically and offer commonsense solutions,” Marsh said. “I am running because I understand this election is pivotal. I will bring decorum and civility with consistency to the council. I am committed to make Victorville a safe and family-friendly city. My commitment is to return the tradition of vision and planning to Victorville.”
-M.G.

Reyes Makes Financial Accountability And Helping The Unfortunate His Campaign Goal

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

Edward Reyes said “I am running for Adelanto City Council to bring financial accountability to the office.”
In making a case for his election to the city council, Reyes was concise, to the point and straightforward.
“I have an honest, up front demeanor and enjoy helping others, working for free in the substance abuse field,” he said. “I have years of experience in the substance abuse field and started two nonprofit substance abuse programs.”
He is distinguished from his opponents for a position on the council, Reyes said, by his “honesty and being goal oriented.”
The major issues facing Adelanto presently, Reyes said, are “taxes and financial accountability from elected public officials.”
He said these challenges can be redressed in considerable measure “by legislation to require public bidding on large financial disbursements/contracts.”
Reyes said, “Financial accountability does not require taxpayer investments. It requires a strong investigation into what is wrong and how to correct it, so that we don’t keep making the same mistakes over and over again.”
Reyes possesses substantial previous experience relating to government, he said, as a result of “my previous employment as a building inspector for the City of Los Angeles dealing with the public and solving/resolving code issues.”
Reyes has lived in Adelanto for twenty years. He attended Benjamin Franklin High School in Los Angeles, graduating in the summer of 1962. He subsequently obtained an associate of arts degree from Citrus College in Azusa. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science and criminal justice from California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He also attended Los Angeles Trade Technical College in Los Angeles and Mount San Antonio College in Walnut.
In addition to his work as a public agency building inspector, Reyes has worked as an interpreter and as an entrepreneur with his Reyes Interpretation Services, which he owned and operated.
Reyes is married with four grown children. He has suffered the loss of one daughter, who is deceased from cancer. He has eight grandchildren.
A polio survivor, at the age of three-and-a-half he spent a considerable amount of time in an iron lung. “I recently raised over $21,000 for the Shriners Hospital, which helped me with braces, medical rehab, and counseling as a child.”
As a military veteran, Reyes said, “I have never backed down from fighting for that which is right or helping my fellow man, either here in America, or in foreign lands.”
-M.G.

Even As Upland’s Population Grows & Yard Sizes Shrink, City Mulls Selling Parkland

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

“Don’t it always seem to go…That you don’t know what you’ve got…’Til it’s gone…They paved paradise…Put up a parking lot…” Joni Mitchell
By Kenneth Mays
Parklands are a public treasure, at the federal, state, county or city level. They are a precious commodity and of limited quantity. Parks are the exclusive property of the public, and are essential to the quality of life. They provide an environment that is both healthy and diverse, which is critical to the physical and emotional health of people. In addition to those benefits to humans, parks provide a sanctuary for a wide variety of plant and animal life as well. The benefits of parks are universal and all encompassing, from insects to birds, from grass blades to flower petals, from brambly bushes to broad leaf trees, and in Upland’s case, from rabbits to coyotes with a bevy of squirrels and raccoons in between. All exist in a careful balance with humanity.
In 1975, in recognition of the universal importance of parkland, the California State Legislature enacted California Government Code section 66477, commonly called the “Quimby Act.” That provision in state law sets a requirement that for each 1,000 people in a city a minimum of three acres of parkland be set aside and protected and prohibited from development for other use. The Quimby Act also allows a city to set its own standard with a maximum of up to five acres per 1,000 persons being required.
Upland’s District 1 in the city’s northeastern corner has a total of 23.82 park acres, consisting of 9.51-acre Greenbelt Park and 14.31-acre San Antonio Park. Upland’s District 2, located in the northwest quadrant, has three parks totaling 19.11 acres: Magnolia Park at 6.89 acres, McCarthy Park comprising 5.41 acres, and Sierra Vista Park encompassing 6.81 acres. District 3, which comprises Upland’s southwest alcove, boasts 29.12 acres of parks, those being the five-acre Baldy View Dog Park, 18.28-acre Cabrillo Park and 5.84-acre Citrus Park. District 4, covering Upland’s southeast sector, features Memorial Park, the city’s largest public recreational amenity at 38.5 acres, along with Olivedale Park, spanning 6.35 acres, entailing a combined 44.9 acres.
When considering the standard contained in the Quimby Act relating to the three acres per 1,000 population ratio of parkland to people, Upland does not meet that requirement. To meet the minimum criteria, Upland’s 77,000 population should have access to 231 acres of parks. The city’s 116.9 acres represents just 50.6 percent of the Quimby standard. Moreover, not even one of of Upland’s four districts meets the requirement. Each district accounts for very close to one-quarter of the city’s population. District 4, which has the most park acreage of any of the city’s political divisions, comes closest to the standard, with 77.75 percent of the minimum. Stated another way, District 4 has 2.273 acres of parks for every 1,000 population.
At one time the City of Upland was considering developing a 57-acre sports park in District 1 as part of a large 99-acre project which involved both the cities of Upland and Claremont. That project, labeled Sycamore Hills, never came to fruition. Even if that never-realized park had been added to the city’s park roster, it yet would have fallen short of the 3 acres per 1,000-person ratio in the Quimby standard.
Now, Measure Q, which is to be decided by Upland’s voters as part of the ballot in this year’s election cycle, is asking if Upland residents are amenable to selling 4.631 acres of Memorial Park. If Measure Q passes, Upland will see its area devoted to parks drop from 116.9 acres to 112.3 acres.
While the Quimby Act does provide developers and builders the means to relieve themselves of the responsibility to provide parkland through the payment of an “in-lieu fee,” such payments are not an act of total “absolution” for the city at large. In fact, this “payment” has become so commonplace as to be considered nearly a standard practice. For one thing, it is technically not a fee the developer pays at all. The fee is simply added to the cost to the residential units being built and ultimately paid by the buyer. An important consideration in deciding what the fate of Measure Q should be is the continuing proliferation of building that has resulted in a higher and higher population density, with virtually little to no yard space for the units now being built in Upland, including those listed as “single detached residences.” This so-called “stack & pack” building trend can be seen in construction popping up all over the city, even in the midst of more traditional housing areas where the density is not as intense as that of the newly added neighborhoods. Projects such as the displacement of the old Upland Tennis Club on 15th Street, and the apartment project at The Colonies at San Antonio subdivision are examples of this.
Residential projects currently in various stages of development in the City of Upland are the Harvest-Arbor Square/Sunflower subdivision consisting of 193 single family detached and attached homes; the Villa Serena development, involving 65 single-family detached residential units; phases one and two of the Sycamore Hills project consisting of 145 detached single-family homes, to be followed by phase three of Sycamore Hills, with 176 detached homes and attached townhomes; the Courtyard at Upland Hills, which will bring into the city another 68 residential units/condominiums; the Mesa Court Apartments, described as 60 townhouses and apartments; Ridgecrest Upland, entailing 52 townhomes on three acres; the Alta, 203 apartments at the Colonies at San Antonio; the Magnolias, 37 condominiums; the Commons, which is to consist of 48 dwelling units; the Highline, which will be comprised of 48 three-story townhomes; the 7th Street Apartments, 64 two-story and three-story townhouse-style apartments; phase two of Ridgecrest, consisting of 26 townhomes on three acres; the Colony Condos, 60 condominiums; Lennar at Harvest, a 147-unit single-family detached and attached home project; College Heights, a 192-unit development; Tierras Atlas, composed of 61 units; Citrus Village, to provide 199 senior citizen crackerbox quarters; and the 6th Avenue Apartments, slated for 88 units. The total number of units anticipated for completion over the next two years thus stands at 1,932. Currently there are two legal battles brewing over two of the aforementioned development projects.
It is anticipated that the 2020 Census will demonstrate that Upland’s population has zoomed beyond the official 77,000 population count now credited to the City of Gracious Living. The eventual completion of the 1,932 units now on the drawing boards or underway will likely result in an influx of something on the order of another 8,000 residents, further distancing Upland from the park acreage-to-person ratio standard specified in the Quimby Act. With no additional parkland and no yards to speak of for children, adults and pets to exercise and play in, these current and many past projects have already and in the future will only serve to make the disparity between the acre-to-population disparity worse.
Two years ago, a “trade” proposal was afoot to sell Cabrillo Park to Lewis Homes, which intended to develop the 18.28-acre park. Fortunately, that deal was stopped by the outcry of Upland residents. Representations were that the trade would have provided the city with a net gain in park acreage, as Lewis Homes indicated it would make a 44-acre span of property located in an existing quarry next to the 210 Freeway available to the city, upon which a sports complex would be developed. That gain in park acreage in District 1 would have meant a substantial loss of parkland in District 3, and also would have resulted in the loss of 32 acres of undeveloped land in the Sycamore Hills area already owned by the city. Previously, the city council had deemed that open space to be “…not appropriate, convenient or necessary for park purposes.” Like Memorial Park, that open space was supposed to be here for generations to come. This cavalier attitude toward breaking these commitments is nothing new in Upland. More than a decade ago, Mayor John Pomierski engineered the sale of more than ten acres of parkland, known as Pioneer Park, located on the north side of 18th Street between Pioneer Junior High School on the east and the Chaffey Communities Cultural Center on the west. This loss of what could have remained as a viable park renders what parkland Upland still has even more precious and valuable than it ever was.
As previously stated, in-lieu fee payments made by a developer do not alleviate the onerousness of past behavior by the city. Nor do they absolve the city of any responsibility for the parks now. In fact, given the current status of Upland’s parkland, the city’s responsibility is even greater. A basic element of the city’s charter is that it preserve parkland for posterity, not just for those residents who make use of the municipal recreational amenities that, thankfully, are here today. In short, city officials are both the caretakers of the present and the guardians of the future. In recognition of that greater responsibility and to direct and regulate the city’s responsibility in this matter, the city established a general plan, a blueprint of what the city’s current land uses are and what development is to take place going forward. Dating back at least until 1982, that plan was to serve as an…“integrated constitution for growth and preservation in the city.” One of the first chapters enunciating the city’s professed philosophies, called “elements” throughout the general plan document, is “The Community Character and Urban Design Element.” The stated purpose of this “element” is to “preserve and build upon Upland’s sense of place and unique identity” and “to guide the character of future development, and protect… important aspects of the natural and built environment that define the image and spirit of Upland.”
The general plan states, “This element gets to the heart of Upland’s vision statement, which is to preserve and enhance Upland’s small town community character and the attributes that evoke a unique sense of place…(including) beautiful and safe neighborhoods…quality parks and open spaces, a scenic and natural environment…”
Perhaps this statement is the defining clause for Upland’s motto, “The City of Gracious Living.” This was once exemplified by spacious yards and diverse landscapes of past residential projects and was anchored in the example that is Memorial Park. Were one to review virtually all of the 19 projects involving the 1,932 units to be developed in Upland over the next two years and compare them to the “elements” in the referred section of the “development plan,” one would find these projects to be in direct contradiction to the city’s own stated goals and objectives. And that standard enunciated in 1982 is maintained in the city’s general plan, which was most recently updated in 2015.
Overall, the city’s general plan encompasses many topics and areas. Of the general plan’s nine chapters, Chapter 6 is devoted to “Open Space – Conservation Element.” Relative to the “goals, policies and actions” sections of that chapter, one finds the following areas of concern: open space and natural resources; parks and recreation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; non-renewable energy; and mineral resources. The “parks and recreation” section of Chapter 6 of the 2015 Upland General Plan is the most pertinent passage in that document with regard to the matter herein under contemplation. In that section, one finds a series of statements within the category of “open space and conservation elements,” which were developed to regulate and direct the city’s actions in each of the areas listed. Relative to “open space & natural resources” the very first goal of the city’s Open Space and Conservation-1 statement is thus articulated: “Upland’s natural resources such as open space, wildlife and vegetation, are protected and enjoyed as limited and valuable resources and integral parts of a sustainable environment.” Relative to the section on “Parks & Recreation” one will also find the following policies in the Open Space and Conservation-3.1 statement: “Park Preservation. Preserve existing park space and discourage the use of parkland for non-park related uses or facilities.” The Open Space and Conservation-3.2 statement holds: “Existing Parks. Upgrade and rehabilitate existing parks as necessary to meet the changing needs of the community.” The Open Space and Conservation-3.3 statement maintains “New Parks and Recreational Facilities. Ensure that the provision of parks and recreational facilities and services keep pace with population growth…” The Open Space and Conservation-3.4 statement relates to “Underserved Areas. Prioritize the development of new parks in underserved areas and low-income neighborhoods.” The Open Space and Conservation-3.5 statement cites the “Quimby Act. Continue to require residential subdivisions to provide at least 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents or pay an in-lieu fee or some combination thereof, pursuant to Section 66477 of the California Government Code (the Quimby Act).”
It thus follows that the current state of municipal parks in Upland puts the city in violation of every single one of the city’s own stated policies. It is more than past time for city officials to practice what they preach.
However one defines “progress,” going backward is not it. For several decades now, park acreage and the land available for park use has steadily declined. The imbalance between park-acreage and population is already at a critical level, indeed approaching the point of no return. It is highly unlikely this situation will resolve itself, and the prospect is that crisis will only become more certain with developers gobbling up more and more of the available land and the proposed sale of parkland Upland already owns. As for that “parcel” in Memorial Park – the 4.631 acres that is the subject of Measure Q – being “discontinued and abandoned,”questions remain. Is the term “abandoned” being used as an underhanded ploy to get the people of Upland to “legally” relinquish ownership and control of that parcel to city officials so that it can then be sold to whomever they want? Already we are experiencing a sort of “seller’s remorse” with how the sale of parkland just a few short decades ago has contributed to a steady erosion in the park acreage-per-person ratio. And why a sale to begin with? The city already leases out some areas of the park now. Why hasn’t a lease agreement been explored with this parcel? How about a long-term lease with the hospital building a shared underground parking facility with a “splashpad” on top for residents to enjoy? None of those options can be explored, however, unless the people of Upland retain ownership of that property.
As for San Antonio Regional Hospital’s “plea” for a “yes” vote; the hospital has alternative land holdings in the immediate area on which it can develop parking and/or anything else it may need. The hospital is not solely dependent on this chunk of Memorial Park. In fact, as recently as July 2020, in an open session city council meeting, a representative of the hospital revealed that the hospital’s board and management are already talking about using the parcel for purposes other than the previously promised parking lot. They want it because it’s the least expensive and easiest way for them to do what they want. As for park improvements, the City of Upland is not as “desperate” for San Antonio Hospital’s money as the hospital and others make it sound. In fact, as stated in Upland’s budget for 2020-2021, on line 421 listed as “park acquisition & development fund,” the city has a balance of $10,400,370. Besides, an upfront lease fee with a monthly lease payment and park improvement stipulations can all be part of a negotiated deal, and not some ballot ultimatum. So, the money that San Antonio Regional Hospital and others claim to be a “critical” issue, is not actually all that critical. Parkland is the critical issue.

Ken Mays, a retired correctional officer, has lived with his wife Mary, a retired Upland Police Department dispatcher, in District 1 of Upland since 1988. Mays also served on the 2018-19 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury and was instrumental in the grand jury’s investigation of the San Bernardino County Regional Parks Department.

Don Smith

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

Erica Lloyd

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Venturi

SBCSentinel

News of note from around the largest county in the lower 48 states.

Monthly Archives: October 2020

October 16 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices

Read The October 9 SBC Sentinel Here

Mayoral Graft Pushes SB City Council To Institute Cannabis Permitting Regulations

In RC Council Reelection Bid, Kennedy Cites Her Experience & Compassion

In Grand Terrace, 8-Year Councilor Robles Says Her Fiscal Guidance Remains A Must

Marsh Says His Election & Sales Tax Are Key To Victorville Advancing

Reyes Makes Financial Accountability And Helping The Unfortunate His Campaign Goal

Even As Upland’s Population Grows & Yard Sizes Shrink, City Mulls Selling Parkland

Don Smith

Erica Lloyd