The second edition of the Yucca Valley Film Festival is being held today, tomorrow and Sunday, November 13, 14 and 15.
Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the event is being streamed digitally at Xerb, which is available on the internet at https://xerb.tv/channel/yvff/virtual-events
One must scroll down to near the bottom to access the portal to the Yucca Valley Film Festival.
The event is sponsored and hosted by the Town of Yucca Valley. Festival directors this year are director, scriptwriter and producer Matt Beurois, as well as French producer, performer, singer and songwriter Auregan.
The kick-off for the event will take place today, Friday November 13, 2020, at 6:30 p.m., live on Facebook.
Beginning at 7 p.m. tonight are the opening films, The Music Box (a short) and Sweet Sunshine (a feature). At 8:45 p.m., the team that made Sweet Sunshine will take live questions on Facebook.
On Saturday at 10 a.m. are the documentaries The Maroon Bomber and Iron Duck.
At 1 p.m. the Kids Section, with the animated films Super Generic, My Tagalong, Selfie Cat, Deep Fears, Maestro, Treasure and Krampouezh, will be available.
At 2 p.m. is the hour of the Drone Films, including Bavaria; Unseen Australia, El Valle, A Journey Through the Cocle Province of Panama; Würm – A Scotland Journey; and Inclined to Beauty.
At 3 p.m., the festival goes live with William Baldwin, including the introduction with director Rouald Boulanger, on Facebook, followed by Talk, a short film, whereupon the audience is free to participate via Facebook in “Ask Me Anything, Live with William Baldwin.”
At 7 p.m. is the screening of the Short Films Section, featuring Exit Package, Ms. Rossi, The Matchmaker, Very Nick and Zach: High Desert Day, Lessons With Martha, Rum Go! R.A.S., and the Fixer, followed by a Facebook discussion.
At 9 p.m. the festival will feature Fright Night, consisting of the short films Bench, Vegan’s Blood, Hunters, Old Book, Wild Love and at 9:30 p.m. the feature film Fright Night. A panel is to follow with the lead actors.
On Sunday at 1 p.m. is the Scriptwriters Roundtable on Facebook.
At 2 p.m. five visual arts and experimental films are to be shown: Sand in My Blood, The Dawn, No Runners, Quick Fix and Things I’ve Seen in my Dreams.
At 2:30 p.m. the program will advance to dance films, which are to include Paris You Got Me, Black Canvas, Trapped, Shadow, and De-Eschatology.
At 3 p.m., music videos will be previewed, those being Nice Shoes, Lovemaking and Off the Wall – That One Girl, followed by a Facebook live panel with arts, dance and music video filmmakers.
At 7 p.m., the closing of the festival will ensue, with the awards publication, and a replay of the winners. An audience vote on the films is to take place online.
The Yucca Valley Town Council in June 2019 voted to initiate the Yucca Valley Film Festival as a family-friendly mission to entertain and gather the people of Yucca Valley and the Morongo Basin around a multi-day, annual event, based on a recommendation by the Yucca Valley Parks and Recreation Cultural Commission.

After months of confusion that was exacerbated by the confidentiality requirements that apply to public employees, the status of Morongo Unified School District Superintendent Thomas Baumgarten became clear this week when he resigned from his position November 10, effective immediately.
In the aftermath of the forced exit of former superintendent Cecelia English in June 2014, Baumgarten, then the assistant superintendent of student services, was appointed interim superintendent. Baumgarten’s steady-handed guidance of the district in the immediate aftermath of controversy relating to a move to provide English with a 5.77 percent raise over the $175,000 annual salary conferred upon her the previous year when she left as the director of academics at the Newark School District in Northern California to replace the previous superintendent, Jim Majchrzak was lauded, in particular because Baumgarten appeared to be diligent in looking after the district’s bottom line. Additionally, the greater degree of trust and comity Baumgarten had with the board was generally seen as substantive improvement in the district in terms of function and teacher morale.
The school board dropped the “acting” prefix from Baumgarten’s superintendent title in February 2015. Later that year, Baumgarten initiated an inquiry, which led to a full audit, of Hope Academy Charter School and its executive director, Jared Mecham. Hope Academy had been sponsored by the Morongo Valley Unified School District. That audit uncovered and documented multiple fiscal irregularities, questionable expenditures, nepotistic arrangements and inappropriate related-party transactions at the charter school. Baumgarten said his suspicions had been raised after he learned that Mecham had expanded Hope Academy’s operations into several adjacent and distant districts located in San Bernardino, Kern and Riverside counties without the district’s express permission or knowledge, despite a requirement that any proposed expansion for a new independent study resource center outside the district’s boundaries would be explicitly communicated to the Morongo Unified School District.
Baumgarten appeared to be riding high, but events at Yucca Valley High School last year and early this year undid much of the goodwill toward him. That contretemps grew out of a conflict between Jay Stepp, Yucca Valley High School’s cross country and track coach, and his assistant coach, Holly Brimhall. Stepp felt that Holly Brimhall was undercutting his authority as coach with several of his athletes. This was exacerbated by Brad Brimhall, who had been the Trojans’ baseball coach since October 2019, siding perhaps understandably, with Holly Brimhall and assailing Stepp in several emails, described variously as “unfortunate” or “ill-conceived” and “tartly-worded.” When Baumgarten declined Stepp’s request that Holly Brimhall be relieved of her coaching assignment, Stepp resigned.
Beginning in April, Baumgarten took an unexplained leave of absence. Because of the COVID-19 situation, whether Baumgarten was in place as superintendent or not was unclear as the 2019/20 school year ended at the end of May. The school board, in the meantime, temporarily elevated assistant superintendent of human resources Doug Weller to serve as acting superintendent. The district was less than clear throughout the summer as to whether Baumgarten was functioning in the role of superintendent.
When the 2020/21 school year began in August, it seemed Baugarten was once again back in the saddle at the district. A press release from the district after he tendered his resignation indicated, contrary to the information available publicly from April until recently, that Baumgarten was actively leading the district during the late summer and early fall. The press release maintained that during Baumgarten’s stint as superintendent, the district’s schools were advantaged by his command of the district curriculum, the instructors, his constant assessment, his compassion and commitment to students, noting “His persistence during the COVID-19 pandemic also ensured that all of the students in our district would have access to computers to ensure their education continued.”
Word came in October that Baumgarten had been placed on administrative leave. Thereafter, closed door discussions with regard to Baumgarten’s status ensued. Confidentiality laws prevented any disclosure of what the issues were between the district and Baumgarten. On November 10, the board accepted Baumgarten’s resignation, in which he informed the board that he was departing “for personal reasons.”
Board President Hilary Slotta thanked Baumgarten “for his more than 33 years of exemplary service to the students and staff of Morongo Unified School District.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Six of seven municipal measures on the November 3 ballot that grew out of those cities’ or town’s elected leadership asking their residents to consent to taxing themselves to shore up those respective governments’ financial positions have passed. Two other municipal initiatives in San Bernardino County that did not consist of taxing or tax-raising proposals were on the ballot. One of those was approved and one has been rejected by voters.
In Montclair, Measure L, which calls for levying upon all purchasers of taxable goods in that city an additional one percent sales tax to raise the current 8 percent sales tax to 9 percent, as of 4 p.m. today was headed toward passage, with 7,955 votes or 68.66 percent in favor of it and 3,631 or 31.34 percent opposed.
The City of Chino Hills’ Measure M, which proposed to expand the definition of “hotel” for purposes of the city’s transient occupancy tax, known as the hotel or bed tax, and to increase the current transient occupancy tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent, effective January 1, 2021 was endorsed by 23,072 or 65.05 percent of the city’s voters and rejected by 12,396 or 34.95 percent. In addition to being applicable to hotels, motels and inns, the transient occupancy tax as of January 1 will be levied on those staying in tourist homes or houses, studio hotels, bachelor hotels, lodging houses, rooming houses, apartment houses, dormitories, public or private clubs, mobile homes or house trailers at a fixed location, campgrounds or other similar structures or facilities, or portions thereof, wherein overnight accommodations are offered for hire.
In Apple Valley, Measure O, which related to the imposition of a one percent sales tax that town officials predicted would generate approximately $7 million annually off sales within the town limits, was soundly defeated, with 20,735 voters or 66.28 percent turning thumbs down on the initiative, and 10,547 or 33.72 percent supporting it.
In Victorville, it was nip and tuck as to whether Measure P, which would raise the sales tax in the city another one percent, from the current 7.75 percent to 8.75 percent, would pass. With more than 36,000 voters participating in the referendum, the call for increasing the tax was ahead by a mere seven votes, with 18,250 yes votes or 50.01 percent to 18,233 no votes or 49.99 percent.
In Adelanto, voters were lopsidedly in favor of Measure R, which calls for levying fees on undeveloped property beyond what is already collected from the owners of that land in property tax.
The measure calls for setting a tax of $200 per acre within the city’s airport development district and its airport park; $600 per acre in the city’s business park area; $600 per acre on commercial property; $50 per acre on property zoned for desert living, i.e., residential use; $600 per acre for land zoned for light manufacturing; $600 per acre for land zoned for manufacturing/industrial use; $500 per acre for land zoned for mixed use; $50 per acre for land zoned as open space; no charge for land designated for public utility use; $300 per acre for land designated for development as single family residential homes; $400 per acre for land zoned for medium density residential development; $300 per acre for land designated for high density residential use; and $200 per acre for properties without any fixed zoning. Measure R had the backing of 5,244 or 65.67 percent of the city’s voters, while 2,741 or 34.33 percent were against it.
In the county seat, the City of San Bernardino, which declared bankruptcy in 2012 and did not exit from that status until 2017, has seen the more than $30 million in reserves it accumulated while it was functioning under the protection of the federal bankruptcy court steadily dwindle over the last three years until it is now on the brink of insolvency once again. In 2007, San Bernardino’s voters approved Measure Z, levying a 0.25 percent sales tax throughout the city earmarked exclusively for public safety. With Measure Z scheduled to sunset in 2022, the city council put Measure S on the ballot this year, calling for the extension of the 0.25 cents per dollar Measure Z tax, presumably for another 15 years, as well as the imposition of another 0.75 percent tax on top of that, providing the city with a one percent sales tax that would go into effect as of April 2021. The total sales tax in San Bernardino would then become 8.75 percent per year. The additional 0.75 percent sales tax would translate into $27 million in additional revenue to the city per year, according to projections.
San Bernardino’s voters on November 3 approved Measure S, with 31,881 votes cast or 56.54 percent in favor of the measure and 24,508 or 43.46 percent in opposition.
In Redlands, voters were asked to consider Measure T, which pertained to the enactment of a one percent transactions and use tax – in common parlance referred to as a sales tax – to the cost paid for goods and services in the city, with an “exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property.” Measure T lays out no such exemption for prescription drugs or food, which are both exempt under California’s tax code.
Measure T had, as of today, 19,685 votes or 57.02 percent in favor of it and 14,838 opposed.
There were two non-tax measures pertaining to San Bernardino County cities on this year’s ballot. In Hesperia, Measure N called for changing the zoning on larger parcels of vacant land currently zoned for residential use at densities of up to 8 units per acre, which allows subdivisions into lot sizes which average 4,500 square feet, to a new zoning designation of 14,520 square feet for each single family residential lot, reducing the number of homes per acre to no more than three. The measure leaves untouched the current zoning in some areas of the city where lot sizes of no less than one-half acre are required. Measure N also reduces the number of apartments and multifamily dwellings from 25 to eight units per acre.
Measure N was given a mandate by Hesperia’a voters, with 22,310 votes or 71.59 percent in its favor and 8,855 or 29.41 percent against it.
Measure Q in Upland asked Upland’s voters whether they would approve the sale of 4.631 acres of Memorial Park, which lies adjacent to San Antonio Hospital, to the hospital for $4.3 million. While the first returns on election night with 38 of the city’s 48 precincts reporting showed a narrow vote in favor of Measure Q’s passage, 50.83 percent to 49.17 percent, the majority has reversed until today Measure Q appears to be going down to defeat with 18,427 votes or 51.98 percent against it and 17,022 or 48.02 percent in support of it.
-Mark Gutglueck

FBN 20200008418
The following entity is doing business as OPTIMIST PACKAGING 206 E MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766 MARTIN HERNANDEZ 206 E MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766
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/ MARTIN HERNANDEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/15/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 31, 2020
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 9/25, 10/02, 10/09 & 10/16, 2020. CORRECTED 10/23, 10/30. 11/06 & 11/13, 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.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS 2021647
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner ERIC JON ZUCK filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: ERIC JON ZUCK
to ERIC JON OATES
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: OCTOBER 5, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20 & 11/13/20, 2020.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS 2020684
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner FRANK HURTADO JR. filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: FRANK HURTADO JR. to FRANK MACIAS
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: 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: OCTOBER 8, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20 & 11/13/20, 2020.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS20121410
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner JAVIER BRIZUELA C filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: JAVIER BRIZUELA C to JAVIER BRIZUELA ORTEGA
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: 12/02/20
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: OCTOBER 14, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/23/20, 10/30/20, 11/06/20 & 11/13/20, 2020.
FBN 20200009420
The following entity is doing business as KERRY APEX (KUL) 5490 EAST FRANCIS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91761 KULS, LLC 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 BURLINGAME, CA 94010
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/ LENA CHEUNG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
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 I5199
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 10/23, 10/30. 11/06 & 11/13, 2020.

FBN 20200009279
The following entity is doing business as EQUITY LAW GROUP 5862 PINE AVE UNIT B8 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 DAVID S KOZICH 5862 PINE AVE UNIT B8 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
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/ DAVID S KOZICH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/07/2020
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 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 10/23, 10/30. 11/06 & 11/13, 2020.
FBN 20200009686
The following entity is doing business as BEST BUILDING SERVICES 875 W. 23RD STREET UPLAND, CA 91784 HECTOR A. MOLINA 875 W. 23RD STREET UPLAND, CA 91784
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/ HECTOR A. MOLINA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/07/2020
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 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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/23, 10/30. 11/06 & 11/13, 2020.
FBN 20200009056
The following entity is doing business as BAM BALLOONS 26495 VERONICA CT LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 ANICA M TIJERINA 26495 VERONICA CT LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
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/ ANICA M TIJERINA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/02/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 3, 2020
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 10/23, 10/30. 11/06 & 11/13, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOHN CHARLES ANICIC JR,
CASE NO. PROPS2000803
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of JOHN CHARLES ANICIC JR, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by JOHN CHARLES ANICIC III in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JOHN CHARLES ANICIC III be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of JOHN CHARLES ANICIC JR. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.) The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S35 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on December 10, 2020 at 09:00 AM 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 deceased, 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 subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code. Petitioner: JOHN CHARLES ANICIC III 1080 E 9TH ST SPC 19 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 Telephone: 909-547-9918
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/30, 11/06 & 11/13, 2020
FBN 20200008485
The following entity is doing business as LANGA CELLARS 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346 LANGA CELLARS LLC 3002 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 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

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. FBN20190005040 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 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO20200007704 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, Noeila 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/ Noeila 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 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

FBN 20200009910 The following person is doing business as: BLUE SKY MASSAGE 1964 W 9TH ST, SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786 APE MEDICAL INC. 243 S ROSEMEAD BLVD PASADENA, CA 91107
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ CHARLES CHAO PANG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/26/2020 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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
FBN 20200009950 The following person is doing business as: PRO DIAMOND CLEAN LLC 3894 N. MOUNTAIN AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 PRO DIAMOND CLEAN LLC 3894 N. MOUNTAIN AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
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/ DENISE URRUTIA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 30, 2020
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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20

FBN 20200009949
The following person is doing business as: HOMETOWN REALTY 23570 KNAPPS CUTOFF CRESTLINE, CA 92404 ROSEMARIE LABADIE 23570 KNAPPS CUTOFF CRESTLINE, CA 92325
Mailing Address: PO BOX 3046 CRESTLINE, CA 92325
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/ DENISE URRUTIA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 21, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy 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). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
FBN 20200009932 The following person is doing business as: I’M SO INTO ME [and] UNITY NOW OFFICIAL 301 S LILAC AVE, SUITE #23 RIALTO, CA 92376 MIA D JACKSON 301 S LILAC AVE, SUITE #23 RIALTO, CA 92376
Mailing Address: 219 S RIVERSIDE AVE, SUITE #221 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ MIA D JACKSON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/26/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 1, 2020
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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA, CASE NO. PROPS2000838 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by JENNY LYNN LIZARDE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JENNY LYNN LIZARDE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.) The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S37 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on December 29, 2020 at 09:00 AM 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 deceased, 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 subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Petitioner: JENNY LYNN LIZARDE
789 S 7TH ST COLTON, CA 92324
Telephone: 909-310-1823
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/06, 11/13 & 11/20, 2020

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BRYANT STANLEY
CASE NO. PROPS 2000798
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BRYANT STANLEY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TIFFANY STANLEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TIFFANY STANLEY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held DECEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S-37 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 26, 2020
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 11/06, 11/13 & 11/20, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERT GERALD LIGHTFOOT
CASE NO. PROPS 2000021
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERT GERALD LIGHTFOOT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by REBECCA ANN LIGHTFOOT in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that REBECCA ANN LIGHTFOOT 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 JANUARY 7, 2021 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: NOVEMBER 2, 2020
Attorney for the Petitioner:
TYLER H. BROWN, ESQ.
1152 N. MOUNTAIN AVE, SUITE 210
UPLAND, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 982-5086
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/13, 11/20 & 11/27, 2020

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200009425
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Holiday Pet Grooming Spa, 116 N. Riverside, Rialto, CA 92376, Wendy L. Hackett, 2955 Bautista Street, Riverside, CA 92506
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/ Wendy L Hackett
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: 10/09/2015
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).
11/06/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010172
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: AZQ Photobooth, 17631 Valley Blvd Suit A, Fontana, CALIF 92316, Mailing Address: 13214 Kochi Dr, Moreno Valley, CALIF 92553, Antoni Z. Quebec, 13214 Kochi Dr, Moreno Valley, CALIFO 92553
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/ Antoni Quebec
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/29/20
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).
11/06/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20
Foreclosure Notice
A.P.N.: 1005-311-53-0-000 Trustee Sale No.:2019-2412 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE UNDER A NOTICE OF A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM OF LIEN. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT DATED 2/18/2020 UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. Notice is hereby given that on 12/7/2020 at 1:00 PM, S.B.S. Lien Services As the duly appointed Trustee under and pursuant to Notice of Delinquent Assessment, recorded on 2/24/2020 as Document No. 2020-0063515 Book Page of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, The original owner: LESLIE A WRIGHT The purported new owner: LESLIE A WRIGHT WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER payable at time of sale in lawful money of the United States, by a cashier’s check drawn by a State or national bank, a check drawn by a state of federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state.: NEAR THE FRONT STEPS LEADING UP TO THE CITY OF CHINO CIVIC CENTER, 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO, CALIFORNIA 91710 All right, title and interest under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment in the property situated in said County, as more fully described on the above referenced assessment lien. The street address and other common designation, if any of the real property described above is purported to be: 1333 NORTH HILLS DR UPLAND CA 91784 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein. Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum due under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment, with interest thereon, as provided in said notice, advances, if any, estimated fees, charges, and expenses of the Trustee, to-wit: $8,932.16 accrued interest and additional advances, if any, will increase this figure prior to sale. The claimant, UPLAND NORTH HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a written Notice of Default and Election to Sell. The undersigned caused said Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located and more than three months have elapsed since such recordation. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call FOR SALES INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL (855) 986-9342 or visit this Internet Web site www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 2019-2412. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction if conducted after January 1, 2021, pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call FOR SALES INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL (855) 986-9342, or visit this internet website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 2019-2412 to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD SUBJECT TO THE NINETY DAY RIGHT OF REDEMPTION CONTAINED IN CIVIL CODE SECTION 5715(b). Date: 11/2/2020. S.B.S LIEN SERVICES, 31194 La Baya Drive, Suite 106, Westlake Village, California, 91362. By: Annissa Young, Sr. Trustee Sale Officer (11/13/2020, 11/220/2020, 11/27/2020 | TS#2019-2412 SDI-19730)
SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): SHARON JOY PEDIGO
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): LAWRENCE ROBERT BOYER, JR.
CASE NUMBER 20PSFL00848
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgement is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] have been residents of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
3. STATISTICAL FACTS
A (1) Date of marriage: March 8, 2003 (2) Date of separation: September 11, 2011 (3) Time from date of marriage to date of separation: 8 years 6 Months
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: Irreconcilable Differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to ward support to Petitioner [and] Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be confirmed by the court.
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
OTHER REQUESTS: Such other and further orders as the court deems just and proper.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
400 Civic Center Plaza
Pomona, California 91766
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
LAWRENCE ROBERT BOYER, JR.
IN PRO PER
417 S. SHELLMAN AVENUE
SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773
DATE (Fecha): July 13, 2020
by O Navarro, Deputy (Asistente) for Sherri R. Carter Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/13, 1120, 11/27 & 12/04, 2020

FBN 20200010183
The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH BRADY, INC. [and] ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT GROUP [and] BARSTOW REAL ESTATE GROUP 240 E WILLIAMS ST BARSTOW, CA 92311 JOSEPH BRADY, INC., 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
Mailing Address: PO BOX 2710 VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-2710
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ JOSEPH W. BRADY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 4, 1989
County Clerk, Deputy A9730
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 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20 & 12/04/20.

FBN 20200010182
The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH BRADY, INC. [and] THE BRADCO COMPANIES [and] BRADCO HIGH DESERT REPORT [and] THE SHOPS AT SPANISH TRAIL [and] THE SHOPPES AT SPANISH TRAIL [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY REAL ESTATE GROUP [and] BRADCO COMMERCIAL LEASING GROUP [and] BRADCO DEVELOPMENT [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE [and] BRADCO MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE [and] HIGH DESERT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL [and] MOJAVE RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT [and] MOJAVE RIVER ECONOMIC GROUP [and] HIGH DESERT VALLEY SURVEY (which began transacting business 08/01/2019) [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY SURVEY (for which no date for commencing service is provided) 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395 JOSEPH BRADY, INC., 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
Mailing Address: PO BOX 2710 VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-2710
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ JOSEPH W. BRADY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 4, 1989
County Clerk, Deputy A9730
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 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20 & 12/04/20.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010303

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Talamanca’s Products, 203 E Park St, Ontario, CALIF, 91761, Javier Castillo, 203 E Park St, Ontario, CALIFO 91761

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/ Javier Castillo

This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/05/20

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).

11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20, 12/04/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010078
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: KA Brand Shop Online USA, 7360 GUTHRIE ST, San Bernardino, CA 92410, Kimath Im, 7360 GUTHRIE ST, San Bernardino, CA 92410
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/ Kimath Im
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/22/20
County Clerk, s/ E4004
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).
11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20, 12/04/20

FBN 20200008679
The following person is doing business as: SB CASH AND CARRY 240 N. WATERMAN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; SB CASH AND CARRY 240 N. WATERMAN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 9240
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 07/13/2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOUN SEDER, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202001MT

FBN 20200009340
The following person is doing business as: BEACH TO HILLS HOMES 15931 JANINE DRIVE WHITTIER, CALIF 90603; SHANON BROWN REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. 15931 JANINE DRIVE WHITTIER, CALIFO 90603
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/18/2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SHANNON COLETTE BROWN, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202002IR

FBN 20200009343
The following person is doing business as: YUMMY BITES FONTANA 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337; RADCHI A FLORES 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337; VIOLA M FLORES 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RADCHI A. FLORES, HUSBAND Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202003MT

FBN 20200009344
The following person is doing business as: LEGACY SMOKERS 1091 S MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1501 COLTON, CA 92324]; DINA A ABDELHADI 1091 S MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DINA A. ABDELHADI, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202004IR

FBN 20200009415
The following person is doing business as: ROYALCLD$ 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHALYSA L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHALARRA L DIXON-SESSION 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHADONA L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHADEN L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHALYSA L. DIXON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202005MT

FBN 20200009404
The following person is doing business as: MARINE’S TAX SERVICE 390 N PALM AVE STE A RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1868 RIALTO, CA 92371]; MARGARITA MARINELARENA 390 N PALM AVE STE A RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 11/20/2014
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARGARITA MARINELARENA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202006IR

FBN 20200009414
The following person is doing business as: DUARTE’S MITIGATION 777 S. TEMESCAL ST. SPC. 13 CORONA, CA 92879; VANESSA DUARTE 777 S. TEMESCAL ST. SPC. 13 CORONA, CA 92879
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ VANESSA DUARTE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202007IR

Incumbent Barstow Councilwoman Carmen Hernandez, who had led Marilyn Dyer Kruse by a close margin since the election returns first began coming in on election November 3, has seen that lead erode until at this point,  she and Kruse are tied with 464 votes apiece.
On election night, November 3 at 10:30 p.m., with 12 of 19 precincts reporting, Hernandez had jumped off to a 10 vote lead, with with 292 votes or 37.58 percent to Kruse’s 282 votes or 36.29 percent. In third place was Martha O’Brien, with 203 votes or 26.13 percent.
Wednesday morning, at 4 a.m. November 4, after all 19 of the precincts in District 4 had reported to the registrar of voters office, Hernandez retained her lead, but Kruse had picked up a single net vote in the overall polling. The incumbent had 379 votes to Kruse’s 370 votes, a lead of 37.64 percent to 36.74 percent. O’Brien had 25.52 percent. Later that day, at 4 p.m., the vote count showed Hernandez had increased her lead. The councilwoman had 384 votes or 37.83 percent and Kruse had 371 or 36.55 percent. O’Brien’s percentage stood at 25.52.
At 4 p.m. on November 5, Kruse was again gaining on Hernandez. The at-that-time second-place challenger had 400 votes for 36.93 percent and Hernandez was eight votes up at 408, with 37.67 percent. O’Brien was at 25.3 percent.
On Friday November 6 at 4 p.m., Hernandez appeared to be accelerating ahead of Kruse once more, as she at that point had laid claim to 427 votes or 38.13 percent to Kruse’s 412 votes or 36.79 percent. O’Brien was yet well off the pace at 25 percent. There was a single write-in vote that had been received.
After the week-end break, on Monday November 9, the registrar of voters office’s tally, released at 4 p.m., showed Hernandez unable to shake Kruse’s close and relentless pursuit. Hernandez was up by just seven votes at that point, with 458 votes or 37.66 percent to Kruse’s 451 votes or 37.09 percent. O’Brien was 25.25 percent.
On November 10, Tuesday at 4 p.m., the incoming ballots over the previous 24 hours ran in Kruse’s favor, as 13 ballots for Kruse came in as opposed to six for Hernandez, such that each had a total 464 or 37.21 percent. O’Brien had 319 votes or 25.58 percent.
The next update on the tallying of the votes is due to be released at 4 p.m. on Thursday, November 12.

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the November 6 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 11-06-20

By Mark Gutglueck
In an historic vote of potentially far-reaching consequence with regard to governance and governmental structure in San Bernardino County generally, voters countywide passed by an overwhelming margin Measure K, which going forward reduces the members of the county board of supervisors to part-time status and reduces their pay and benefits, which is at present approaching $300,000 per year, to roughly one quarter of what they are receiving.
The backdrop to the Measure K reform movement included a circumstance in which county elected officials found themselves mired in demonstrable instances of corruption brought on by their reception of massive campaign donations from individuals and business entities with an interest in county policy and decisions made by the board of supervisors. In this way, the supervisors, beholden to their campaign donors for providing them with the electioneering wherewithal to remain in an office that in most cases provided the individual supervisors with an income that dwarfed anything they could make while employed in the private sector, routinely voted to support the provision of contracts, franchises or project approvals sought by those donors.
In years past the supervisors had either been able to utilize their administrative authority and command over the county’s stable of attorneys to legally challenge such previous reform measures from being placed on the ballot or had had relied upon their donors and supporters to bankroll and carry out campaigns to convince the county’s voters to reject or water down any revision of how the government operates that would impact their authority or remuneration that managed to make it onto the ballot. This time, however, after using the county’s lawyers in 2017 to effectively block an initiative similar to Measure K that its sponsors, the Red Brennan Group, was attempting to put on the 2018 countywide ballot, the board of supervisors used the county’s lawyers, referred to as the office of county counsel, to strew further obstacles in the path of the reform advocates, the most formidable of which was insisting, contrary to state law, that they would need to gather over 70,000 valid signatures of the county’s voters on the petition requesting the measure to be put on the ballot, a daunting task. To the astonishment of the board, the Red Brennan Group did just that, collecting 75,132 signatures which were affixed to copies of the petition and contained on 10,121 pages, which were turned over to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office on March 20, 2020. Upon examination of those documents, San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Bob Page deemed the signatures and the petition they endorsed sufficient to qualify the measure for the ballot.
The language of the Red Brennan Group’s initiative stated: “The total compensation of each member of the board of supervisors shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month, which amount shall include the actual cost to the county of all benefits of whatever kind or nature including but not limited to salary, allowances, credit cards, health insurance, life insurance, leave, retirement, memberships, portable communications devices, and vehicle allowances. This compensation shall be in full compensation for all services by the respective member of the board of supervisors.”
Furthermore, the initiative calls for limiting board members from serving more than six years on the board altogether, allowing them one elected term of four years, while permitting them to also serve an additional half term of up to two years if the officeholder is appointed or elected to the unexpired term of another officeholder who left office.
Caught flat-footed, the board of supervisors for two months, throughout April and May, delayed certifying the measure. Its members at first sought to have then-County Chief Executive Officer Gary McBride, then-County Chief Operating Officer Leonard Hernandez and County Counsel Michelle Blakemore and their staffs find some administrative flaw or legal fault in the process that the Red Brennan Group pursued in qualifying the measure for the November election to justify disqualifying the measure from appearing on the ballot. Similarly, county staff sought to summon up sufficient facts to support a determination that the measure might adversely impact the county’s operations or have a fiscal impact on the county which could be used as a pretext to prevent the voters from considering it.
After each of its members resigned themselves to the fact that the county’s administrators and lawyers could not find adequate grounds to keep the measure off the ballot, the board at last took the matter up at its June 9 meeting, reluctantly certifying the measure for inclusion on the November 3 ballot. Simultaneously, however, the board cast about for some further stratagem by which it might prevent the eventuality the Red Brennan Group was seeking – the reduction of the board from its imperial status – from being activated via the voters’ mandate. Harkening back to what had occurred eight years previously, when a similar reform measure had made it onto the ballot, the current board took a leaf out of the previous board’s book, attempting to reapply the means the previous board had used to sidestep that proposed reform.
In 2012, government reform advocate Kiernan “Red” Brennan and Eric Steinmann gathered the signatures of 73,672 county voters to qualify a countywide ballot initiative intended to bring the remuneration of the county government’s ultimate decision-makers into line with the residents they govern and discourage career politicians fixated on money and thereby influenced by political donations from monopolizing the positions on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
Brennan’s and Steinman’s initiative, designated as Measure R on the November 2012 ballot, called for downscaling the five individual San Bernardino County supervisors’ then-yearly $151,971 salaries and $67,500 in benefits to $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in benefits annually, a drop in total compensation from $219,471 per year to $60,000.
The members of the board of supervisors, alarmed at the prospect that they would be subject to seeing their pay reduced by more than two-thirds but simultaneously recognizing that the public’s appetite for reform was intense, used their authority as government officials to place what they said was a “substitute reform” initiative onto the ballot. That initiative, Measure Q, called for instituting reform by reducing the supervisors’ individual salaries by $5,269 to $146,702 per year, while allowing their annual benefits then valued at $67,500 to remain in place. Because of their status as supervisors, they did not need to gather any signatures to put the Measure Q “reform” initiative reducing their total annual compensation to $214,202 on the ballot.
Adopting the Measure R advocates’ calls for reform, the supervisors and their supporters, as the proponents of Measure Q, did not in any overt fashion campaign against Measure R, but rather expounded in generic terms what they represented as Measure Q’s “sensible” and “moderate” approach for achieving salary reduction for the supervisors.
In the November 2012 election, Measure R passed by a convincing 64.25 percent to 35.75 percent, with 326,939 voters in favor of it and 181,907 opposed. Measure Q passed as well, by a 67.28 percent to 32.72 percent margin, 344,226 votes in support to 157,369 against it. Because Measure Q garnered more votes than Measure R, the former went into effect rather than the latter. Instead of the supervisors seeing their $219,471 per year total compensation packages reduced to $60,000, they were instead cut back to $214,202.
This summer, the board of supervisors, again on the basis of its own authority and without having to obtain signatures of the county’s voters as had been required of the Red Brennan Group, after coming to a determination that the county’s existing charter is antiquated and in need of a redraft, placed a measure aimed at what was called the reform of the county charter on the ballot, doing so at the last possible moment, at the July 14 board meeting, allowing the first board vote to schedule the county residents’ vote for the November election to be confirmed with a requisite second board vote at the July 28 board meeting, just before the county registrar of voters office’s August 7 deadline for the submission of items to be placed onto the ballot. Though there had been scant discussion of charter changes previously and no expression of a public consensus on what elements of the charter should be redressed, the office of county counsel virtually overnight delivered the language for the charter reform initiative for the board to approve on July 14.
Of tremendous importance, the board said, was modernizing the charter to eliminate what is now considered outdated and genderist language, such as the charter’s reference to the board’s designated leader as “chairman” and what “his” duties consist of. Further, since the current charter did not directly address the compensation the supervisors receive, their level of pay was deemed an important issue for the redraft. There was no public discussion of an appropriate remuneration level. Rather, the office of county counsel, working from the premise that the supervisors current salary of $163,000, further/add-on pay of roughly $17,000 and benefits of $77,000 for a total annual compensation of $257,000 is what the supervisors deserve, hit upon setting the supervisors’ salaries at 80 percent of the salary of a Superior Court judge and benefits equal to county department heads. In this way, if the charter reform measure is passed and put into effect, the supervisors would stand to make $260,000 to $290,000 per year in total annual compensation, depending upon the amount of further/add-on pay they are provided with.
The supervisors directed the county registrar of voters to put the charter reform measure on the ballot.
At the time of Red Brennan’s and Eric Steinmann’s initial reform proposal in 2012, there were four members of the board – Fifth District Josie Gonzales, Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt, Third District Supervisor Neil Derry and Second District Supervisor Janice Rutherford – who had an immediate, direct and personal interest in preventing the reduction in the supervisors’ pay to $60,000 going into effect. Gonzales was not scheduled to be termed out of office until 2020, Ovitt and Rutherford were not scheduled to be termed out of office until 2022, and Derry was not scheduled to be termed out of office until 2020. The remaining incumbent on the board at that time, Brad Mitzelfelt, was vying for Congress that year and, accordingly, was not seeking reelection in 2012. Rather than acquiesce in the reform package that Brennan and Steinmann were pushing the voters to adopt, Gonzales, Ovitt, Derry and Rutherford instead sought to prevent the adoption of a measure that would reduce their total compensation to between one-third and one-fourth of what they were then receiving.
Brennan died in 2013, a year after his and Steinmann’s measure came up short. Those involved with him in his government reform efforts founded the Red Brennan Group shortly thereafter, dedicating it to reducing the depth, breadth and cost of county government while aiming at improving its efficiency.
For many in the Red Brennan Group, there was lingering resentment over the manner in which the board of supervisors in 2012 had diverted what they considered to be a legitimate reform effort that was aimed at breaking the hold that money has on politics and elected officials. The were stymied in an effort to re-present what was very similar to the 2012 reform initiative to the voters in 2018, but succeeded in getting it on the ballot this year.
Upon Measure K being qualified for being considered by the county’s voters this year, only two current members of the board – Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman, who had succeeded in intimidating Ovitt from seeking reelection in 2014 and had thereby succeeded him that year upon facing weak/ineffective opposition in the election, and Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe, who had been appointed to the board in 2018 and was elected to the board in her own right during this year’s March 3 race – had an immediate, direct and personal interest in preventing the resurrected Red Brennan Group-sponsored reduction in the supervisors’ pay to $60,000 from going into effect. Gonzales is termed out this year. Rutherford is termed out in 2022, and Measure K will not go into effect until the last term she was elected to in 2018 ends. First District Supervisor Robert Lovingood, who succeeded Mitzelfelt in 2012, would have been beyond Measure K’s reach, as he was due for reelection this year, and as such would not have been subject to the conditions of the measure if he had run and was reelected to his final term in office before its conditions went into effect. As it turned out, Lovingood opted not to seek reelection this year.
While all of the current members of the board, especially Gonzales and Rowe, expressed openly their beliefs that Measure K’s reduction in salary and one term restriction on the time a member of the board can serve is contrary to the principles of good governance and the interests of San Bernardino County’s residents, the board beyond offering the voters the alternative “charter reform” Measure J, did not make a well-coordinated and concerted effort to campaign on behalf of Measure J nor against Measure K, and no energetic or effective outside support for Measure J nor against Measure K manifested, in part because the COVID pandemic discouraged heavy public participation in election activity pertaining to measures or initiatives.
Ultimately, the county’s voters on Tuesday sided with the Red Brennan Group and against the board of supervisors’ unbridled power as represented by their total taxpayer-defrayed compensation climbing toward $300,000 per year.
As of this afternoon, with 530,787 votes having been tallied countywide, Measure K was on an easy course to prevailing with 357,126 votes or 67.28 percent in favor and 173,661 votes or 32.72 percent against it.
Meanwhile, Measure J, the ersatz reform measure put on the ballot by the board of supervisors as a ploy to sidetrack the voters and allow the board members to keep their lucrative salaries and benefits was not receiving the same level of support. On election night, in the first count of ballots coming in, with 1,343 of the county’s 2,327 precincts reporting, Measure J was passing with 178,442 votes or 50.4 percent in favor and 175,638 or 49.6 percent against it. At 4 a.m. the morning of November 4, with all 2,327 of the county’s 2,327 precincts reporting, Measure J had slipped behind, with 211,453 votes or 49.89 percent in favor of it and 212,373 or 50.11 percent against it. That afternoon, the votes for and against it were in a dead heat, as 216,914 votes or 49.99 percent were counted in favor of it and 216,976 votes or 50.01 were tallied against it.

Upland city officials, including the city manager, finance manager and members of the city council disenfranchised the city treasurer to prevent him from vectoring public scrutiny of the city’s burgeoning pension crisis, action which included the alteration of public documents and forgery, the San Bernardino County Grand Jury determined in an investigation it conducted.
The grand jury’s conclusion was provided in a report belatedly released on Monday.
When Upland’s city officials prevented Larry Kinley from performing his duties as treasurer, the grand jury concluded, they were in violation of the city’s policies, disregarded or were out of compliance with state law and the California Government Code, and in some instances quite likely crossed the line into outright criminal conduct.
According to the report, “The 2019-2020 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury discovered evidence that in 2019 the City of Upland purposely covered up, on no fewer than five treasury reports, a handwritten notation made by the elected city treasurer of $112,039,675.00 regarding the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liabilities. The city’s management personnel then forwarded the treasury report without the handwritten note to the city council as unaltered. The evidence established that, eventually, the cover-up of the unfunded pension liabilities notation was discovered, but that the City of Upland failed to take any disciplinary action. Instead, they decided to permanently remove the elected city treasurer’s signature from the treasury report. The evidence further established that masking of the hand-written notation was then supported by the City of Upland’s motivation to prevent the citizens of Upland from asking questions about the status of the city’s unfunded pension liabilities. The civil grand jury also discovered evidence that when the city treasurer submitted an appointment for [the] deputy treasurer’s position to the City of Upland, city management personnel denied the request without statutory authority. Evidence established that the city council was not made aware of the appointment. California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 41006, states that ‘The city treasurer may appoint deputies.’ Evidence established that the City of Upland City Council determines what compensation is provided for a deputy treasurer. The civil grand jury found evidence that members of the City of Upland Finance Committee were confused about their responsibilities. Evidence established that finance committee members differed as to who did and who did not have voting rights. Evidence also established that finance committee members did not have an accurate assessment of pension costs related to the City of Upland.”
While noting that “The civil grand jury found that most actions mentioned in this report may not violate the law,” the report states, “The San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury is aware that there potentially may be criminal activity associated with these actions that are not within the jurisdiction of the civil grand jury. The civil grand jury does, however, view these practices as deceptive. These actions also demonstrate a lack of proper government practices and transparency to the citizens of Upland.”
There were indications, according to the grand jury report, “that the elected treasurer of the City of Upland is not being allowed to perform many of his duties by the City of Upland.” Without referring to Kinley by name, the grand jury report said that shortly after being sworn into office, Kinley was informed by the city’s management personnel that one of several responsibilities he had included signing the monthly treasury report as outlined in California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 41004, and that his other duties and authority as treasurer were outlined in California Government Code Sections 41001- 41007.
Under Section 41002 the city treasurer is required to “receive and safely keep all money coming into his hands as treasurer.”
Section 41003 requires that the treasurer must “comply with all laws governing the deposit and securing of public funds and the handling of trust funds in his possession.”
Under California Government Code Section 41004, the treasurer is restricted from paying out a municipality’s money to any entity other than those for warrants “signed by legally designated persons.”
Government Code Section 41005 mandates that “Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements and fund balances” and that “He shall file a copy with the legislative body.”
Government Code Section 41006 specifies that a treasurer is to “perform such duties relative to the collection of city taxes and license fees.”
California Government Code Section 41007 states that “The city treasurer may appoint deputies for whose acts he and his bondsmen are responsible” and that “The deputies shall hold office at the pleasure of the city treasurer and receive such compensation as is provided by the legislative body.”
“Evidence revealed that with the exception of signing the monthly treasury report, the city treasurer rarely, if ever, performed these duties,” the report states. “The evidence revealed that the role and scope of the newly elected city treasurer’s duties were significantly reduced from the role played by former city treasurers, and that the treasurer’s activities were limited to oversight of the city’s investments, and reviewing and signing the monthly treasury report. The evidence showed that taking action to limit the city treasurer’s scope of authority from the outset of his tenure was motivated by the city management’s desire to suppress the city treasurer’s pre-election and post-election oral and written communications concerning the city’s unfunded pension liabilities, because it would result in the public asking too many questions of management personnel and elected city officials. The evidence revealed that management personnel were of the opinion that the unfunded pension liabilities were noted in the city’s consolidated annual financial report, and that the calculation of the unfunded pension liabilities did not constitute a real number and therefore, should not be noted on the treasury report, nor anywhere else, because it would result in the public asking too many questions of management employees and management personnel.”
Further, the grand jury report states, “The evidence established that the city treasurer was responsible for reviewing and signing the treasury report. The evidence revealed that the treasury reports were prepared by city employees and forwarded to the city treasurer for review and approval. This is consistent with statutory authority and long-standing practice of management personnel and the city council. Once the city treasurer signed the treasury report, it was forwarded to the city manager’s office and then placed on the city council’s consent agenda. The evidence revealed that the city treasurer sought to inform the citizens of Upland on numerous occasions by making a handwritten notation on the monthly treasury report that the city’s unfunded pension liabilities exceeded $112 million. The evidence established that as far back as January 2019, management personnel began covering up the city treasurer’s handwritten notation on the treasury report concerning the unfunded pension liabilities. The altered treasury reports were then filed with the city clerk on no fewer than five occasions between January 2019 and June 2019, and were included in the council’s monthly consent agenda. The evidence revealed that both versions of the treasury reports were in the city’s files. However, only the copies that covered up the city treasurer’s notation of the unfunded pension liabilities were sent to the city council. The evidence established that making a notation on the treasury report regarding unfunded pension liabilities is within the elected city treasurer’s authority. Additionally, there was near unanimous agreement from witnesses interviewed that the city’s unfunded pension liabilities posed both a serious threat and a financial liability to the citizens of the city. The evidence established that management personnel did not inform either their superiors or city council that a staff member covered up the city treasurer’s handwritten notation concerning the unfunded pension liabilities prior to submission to the city council.”
According to the grand jury, the city council at that point elected to back city staff in it’s action to disenfranchise Kinley.
“The finance committee met in October 2019, and voted that the unfunded pension liabilities should not be included on the treasury report,” according to the grand jury. “The evidence showed that once the city treasurer learned that the handwritten unfunded pension liabilities note on the treasury report was not going to be included on the monthly treasury reports, he refused to sign the treasury report, and has never signed another treasury report. The evidence showed that if the treasurer did not sign the October 2019 Treasury Report without the handwritten note concerning the city’s unfunded pension liabilities, then his signature block would be removed from the treasurer’s report altogether. In place of the city treasurer’s signature, both management personnel and senior management personnel would sign the report, effectively making the treasury report no longer the city treasurer’s report. This is contrary to the city’s statement of investment policy. In November of 2019, members of the management personnel did, in fact, remove the city treasurer’s signature block entirely from the treasury report, and replaced it with their own signatures. The evidence revealed that members of the city’s management personnel unilaterally took this action without informing members of city council of their decision(s) regarding another elected city official. Evidence also determined that city officials mismanaged this matter, in that there were alternate solutions to the problem of noting the city’s unfunded pension liabilities on the treasury report, other than covering up the notation, but they were not pursued. For example, a simple memo attached to the treasury report concerning the city’s unfunded pension liabilities would have sufficed to address the matter. This mismanagement was due in part to confusion among city officials about the responsibilities and duties of an elected city treasurer, and determined actions to prevent the citizens of Upland from seeing the city treasurer’s messaging regarding the unfunded pension liabilities.”
City officials also preempted Kinley in his effort to utilize his authority to augment city staff with a deputy city treasurer to ensure that he would be able to engage in his capacity to exercise oversight of the city’s financial situation.
“Evidence also showed that the city treasurer appointed a deputy city treasurer, in keeping with the city treasurer’s statutory authority,” according to the grand jury. The city treasurer’s appointment was denied by the city’s management personnel. California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 41006 states that ‘The city treasurer may appoint deputies.’ The evidence revealed that management personnel acted unilaterally in denying the appointment. The evidence revealed that elected city council and management personnel did not have a complete understanding and/or were confused about the role and responsibilities of the city treasurer… [and] that not all finance committee members were familiar with the city’s statement of investment policy.”
The city has no formal orientation process in place for newly elected officials at the City of Upland, according to the grand jury, and “As a consequence, the evidence revealed that management personnel took steps to limit the roles and responsibilities of the city treasurer in an effort to suppress his messaging on the city’s unfunded pension liabilities from public inquiry.”
City officials’ suppression of Kinley’s function as city treasurer can not be attributed solely to ignorance, the grand jury said, as a good measure of the violation of policy and the law was done deliberately by the council and senior staff.
“Even before the city treasurer was sworn into office in December 2016, the evidence revealed that management personnel, motivated by a desire to suppress the city treasurer’s messaging concerning the city’s unfunded pension liabilities, limited the input of the city treasurer by dissolving the finance committee,” according to the grand jury. “Officially, the finance committee was dissolved on March 13, 2017 at a city council meeting. The evidence revealed that the dissolution of the finance committee by the city council was based on the recommendation of management personnel. The minutes of this meeting reflected no discussion on this topic from the city council members. Historically, the city treasurer was always an active member of the finance committee, and gave input on a broad range of financial matters as outlined in California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Sections 41001 – 41007, California Government Code Title 5, Division 2 53646, and the city’s statement of investment policy. The evidence revealed that the only committee the city treasurer was a member of was the city’s investment committee. The evidence disclosed that the city treasurer was not invited to other meetings involving discussion of the city’s finances. The evidence further revealed that by taking these actions, the city’s management personnel sought to limit the roles and responsibilities of the city treasurer in an effort to suppress his messaging on the city’s unfunded pension liabilities from public inquiry.”
The city council and senior city staff eventually reestablished the finance committee, but in doing so structured in in such a way that it abridged Kinley’s purview as city treasurer in a way that was out of keeping with state law.
“Ironically, by Resolution 6504 being passed, approved, and adopted by city council on August 12, 2019, the finance committee was reinstated,” according to the grand jury report. “In reinstating the finance committee, the city council gave wide parameters to members of the finance committee by stating that, ‘The committee shall be responsible for reviewing matters pertaining to the finances of the city.’ However, even though the city treasurer was renamed as a member of the finance committee, the language of the resolution specifically limited the duties of the city treasurer to the ‘review of quarterly investment reports’ per Resolution 6504. The finance committee is composed of two city council members appointed by the mayor, the city treasurer, and the finance officer. The evidence revealed that the voting responsibility of the city treasurer as a member of the finance committee ranged from full voting authority, limited voting authority and no voting authority. As a result, the views of the city treasurer are nullified and easily ignored. The evidence supported that minutes of the finance committee meetings are recorded. Evidence also supported that the minutes are not detailed and appear to not change substantially from meeting to meeting. The evidence established that City of Upland elected officials did not understand the calculation nor the financial impact of the pension liabilities facing the city. For example, evidence determined that a finance committee member thought that the City of Upland expends approximately 2 million dollars annually on pension costs. Evidence reveals that the City of Upland’s 2019 projection of pension costs exceeded 11 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2019-20 and is projected to reach 15 million dollars annually in Fiscal Year 2027-28. In the end, evidence supported a strong motive for management personnel and elected officials at the city to take steps to prevent this information being brought forward in the treasury report for public scrutiny.”
According to the grand jury, “The City of Upland considers actions of publicly addressing the unfunded pension liability as inviting negative criticisms and questions from the citizens of Upland, and not being part of the solution. The duties of the elected city treasurer have been reduced or limited to simply overseeing the investment funds, rather than overseeing all funds received and paid out by the city, as specified by California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Sections 41001 – 41005 and the city’s statement of investment policy. The City of Upland does not have a clear understanding of the amount of annual pension cost and seriousness of the unfunded pension liabilities threatening the City of Upland.”
The grand jury recommended that “The Upland City Council investigate and make public, at an open public city council meeting and on the Upland city webpage, how city staff covered up the notation of unfunded pension liability made by the city treasurer on the monthly treasury report [and] make public, at an open public city council meeting and on the Upland city webpage, what disciplinary action was taken addressing the alteration of the treasury report after it was signed by the city treasurer.”
The grand jury further recommended that the “Upland City Council make public, at an open public city council meeting and on the Upland city webpage, the actions taken to assure that this type of incident, the altering of a signed report will not recur” and that “Any changes made to the city treasury report, after the document is signed by the city treasurer and submitted to the city clerk, must be documented in writing with the city treasurer, the city manager, and the mayor, to be implemented immediately.”
The grand jury called upon the city to reinstate the practice of having the city treasurer sign the treasury report, which was formerly known as the treasurer’s report, and provide him with a forum at one city council meeting per month to present the treasury report and the submitted financial status including, but not limited to, those responsibilities as outlined in California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 41004 and California Government Code Title 5, Division 2 53646. The city should also clearly outline the role of the city treasurer and establish a structured orientation process defining his duties, responsibilities, authority, and his expected interactions as a member of the City of Upland’s management team, consistent with what is the specified role of a city treasurer under California regulations relating to the structure of general law cities.
The grand jury said “In the best interests of the citizens of Upland, management personnel, both elected and appointed [should] reinstate all fiduciary duties to the elected city treasurer, as outlined in California Government Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Sections 41001-41005” and “establish guidelines and practices which support the appointment of a deputy city treasurer by the city treasurer, should the city treasurer so desire, for the proper fulfillment of the city treasurer’s financial duties and responsibilities.” In addition, the grand jury directed that the “city establish guidelines/practices and training for management personnel at the City of Upland and elected city council members of the amount of and a full understanding of the unfunded pension liabilities facing the city.”
The City of Upland should also, the grand jury said, “publish a comprehensive quarterly report on the city website that lists current pension costs, plus a ten-year pension cost projection. This report, in addition to the city’s comprehensive annual financial report, should include the most current unfunded pension liability information, including the city’s comprehensive plan addressing the escalation of the unfunded pension liability.”
The grand jury report, which became publicly available on Monday, November 2, one day before the Upland Municipal Election coinciding with the Presidential General Election, came too late to preserve Kinley in his role as city treasurer. This summer, dismayed and discouraged by the degree of disrespect he had been accorded by the city council and city staff, Kinley resigned, effective August 10, 2020.
In the aftermath of his resignation announcement and indication that he would not seek reelection, three candidates to succeed him as treasurer emerged: Stephen Dunn, Upland’s former city manager and one-time finance director; Darwin Cruz, a credit analyst with Poppy Bank who previously worked as a commercial loan processor and loan administrator, and Greg Bradley, who owns an Upland-based specialty vehicle repair and restoration business. Ultimately, Bradley, with 9,683 or 42.31 percent of the 22,886 votes cast in the race, prevailed.
In a prepared statement released on Monday, Upland City Manager Rosemary Hoerning said, “The City of Upland strives for financial transparency and has taken steps in recent years to report and address its unfunded pension liability, which is the actuarially-determined liability associated with future pension costs. In just the last two months, the city council held a public workshop to highlight and review approaches to addressing the unfunded pension liability, and the finance committee hosted a public presentation by the city’s California Public Employee Retirement System actuary. The city also regularly identifies the unfunded pension liability in its award-winning comprehensive annual financial report and makes all required annual unfunded pension liability payments. The city also complied with all of the grand jury’s requests for interviews, information, and documents on the subject, and is pleased to see its cooperation acknowledged in the grand jury’s report. Despite the challenges posed by the unfunded pension liability and the negative economic impacts of the COVID pandemic, the city’s finances look reasonably strong due to the direction of the city council and the proactive, yet conservative steps taken by city management. This includes prudent management of the city’s investments, which are disclosed in a public treasury report on a monthly basis instead of the quarterly basis suggested by state law. As reported to [the] city council on October 26, 2020 with unaudited numbers, the city’s unassigned fund balance in the general fund is 38.7% of the city’s operating budget.”
Any controversy over the unfunded pension liability in Upland and city management’s and the city council’s move to prevent Kinley from subjecting the city to his unduly alarmist warnings about it were an outgrowth of Kinley’s obsessive focus on the city’s pension debt, Hoerning asserted, and it was Kinley who unjustifiably changed the treasurer’s report from its proper format than the other way around, she said. References to the city’s unfunded pension liability had no place in the monthly treasurer’s report, she insisted.
“The former city treasurer unfortunately insisted on altering the treasury report by inserting the amount of the city’s unfunded pension liability, which is irrelevant to the status of the city’s investment portfolio,” Hoerning said, explaining that she had “explained this publicly during the city council’s November 10, 2019 meeting, and even the grand jury’s report acknowledges it is not a best practice.” Neither she nor the rest of senior staff and the city had muzzled Kinley, Hoerning said.
“The city treasurer was informed he could submit a written or oral report on the city’s unfunded pension liability at any scheduled city council meeting, but he refused to ever do so and ultimately resigned before the end of his term,” Hoerning said. “The city will review the grand jury’s particular findings and recommendations in coming days and looks forward to providing a detailed response in due time.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Joe Baca Jr. made a convincing showing in capturing victory in Tuesday’s race for Fifth District San Bernardino County supervisor, turning back an effort by a renegade faction of the Republican Party to leapfrog Fontana City Councilman Jesse Armendarez into the position now held by Josie Gonzales, the sole Democrat on the board of supervisors.
Baca’s victory ensures Democratic representation on the panel overseeing the county for at least the next four years.
Democrats have a registration advantage overall among the 1,107,123 voters throughout the county. The 451,848 registered Democrats or 40.8 percent of the county electorate outnumber the county’s 328,745 registered Republicans, who represent 29.8 percent of the body politic.
The county is divided into five supervisorial districts. In only one of those, the First District, the county’s largest subdivision geographically covering most of the desert area, do Republicans outnumber Democrats, 77,076 or 35.6 percent to 74,930 or 34.6 percent. In all of the other county districts, Democrats outnumber their Republican counterparts. In the Second District, there are 98,064 Democrats, representing 40.5 percent of the district’s electorate, and 75,033 Republicans, accounting for 31 percent of that district’s voters. In the Third District, Democrats narrowly outnumber the Republicans, 84,904 voters or 36.1 percent to 83,032 or 35.3 percent. In the Fourth District, the Democrats have widened their voter registration advantage over the GOP in recent years, such that at this point 94,412 or 43.7 percent of the district’s voters are Democrats and 57,438 or 26.6 are Republicans. In the Fifth District, the registration advantage is even more lopsidedly in favor of the Democrats, as 99,538 or 50.5 percent of the district’s 192,218 total voters are Democrats and 37,166 or 18.8 percent are Republicans. In the Fifth District, those voters with no declared party affiliation, 47,577 or 24.1 percent, outnumber Republicans.
Josie Gonzales, who has been Fifth District supervisor since 2004 and is now completing her fourth term, was barred by the county’s term limit regulation from again seeking the Fifth District supervisorial post. Since 2018, when Third District Supervisor James Ramos was elected to the California Assembly, Gonzales has been the only Democrat on the board. Between 2004 and 2012, when Ramos was first elected, Gonzales was the lone Democrat on the board.
Though municipal and county offices are officially considered to be nonpartisan ones, in San Bernardino County virtually all elections are influenced by party affiliation. Despite their greater voter registration numbers in all but the First Supervisorial District, the Democrats throughout most of San Bernardino County have consistently been outhustled by the Republicans in contests for local and even state political office, leaving San Bernardino County as one of the last bastions of the GOP in California.
Beginning nearly two years ago, there was talk among Republicans that despite the Fifth District’s overwhelming Democratic demographics, once Gonzales, with her incumbency, name recognition and the $684,046.65 in her various political war chests, was out of the way a concerted effort by the Republicans thrown behind a charismatic candidate in the Fifth District could result in the board of supervisors being dominated 5-to-0 by the Republicans. Though no consensus on precisely who that candidate would be had formed among the Republicans and their strategists, one name that surfaced continually was that of Dr. Clifford Young, who stands as one of San Bernardino County’s leading African-American Republicans. Young presented multiple advantages with respect to a Republican making an attempt at capturing the Fifth District supervisorial post. He was the last person and the last Republican to hold the Fifth District position before Gonzales, as he had been selected by the board of supervisors in 2004 to finish out the term of then-Supervisor Jerry Eaves, a Democrat, when Eaves had been forced into resigning after his conviction in a bribery and political corruption scandal. Young has name recognition and is currently an officeholder as a member of the board of directors of the West Valley Water District. The Fifth District, which stretches from the eastern half of Fontana on the west, through Rialto, Bloomington, Colton, El Rancho Verde, Glen Helen, Arrowhead Farms, Muscoy, Little Third and Rosena Ranch and extends to include the western half of San Bernardino, is a heavily blue collar area, with strong Latino and African-American demographics.
Gonzales, who at this point is considering vying for San Bernardino County assessor, resolved some time ago that her legacy would be enhanced by her chief of staff, Dan Flores, succeeding her as Fifth District Supervisor. She supported him. He already held an elected office, as a member of the board of trustees for the Colton Joint Unified School District. Flores was a Democrat, and as a Latino in a district with a substantial Hispanic population, he was deemed a viable candidate to succeed his boss. This was enhanced when an aggressive fundraising effort on his behalf ultimately brought in $312,966.39, including a $15,000 loan to himself, to assist him in that effort.
A major obstacle to Flores’ path to becoming Fifth District supervisor, however, emerged in the person of Joe Baca, Jr. Baca, whose father had been a California Assemblyman from 1992 until 1998, a state senator briefly from 1998 until 1999 and then a congressman from 1999 until 2013, inherited strong familial name recognition and positive name identification. He had capitalized on that when he was a relatively young man, gaining election to the California Assembly in the 62nd Assembly District in 2004, but then saw his political career temporarily stymied two years later when he sought to move up the political evolutionary chain, and ran for the state senate in the 32nd California Senatorial District, losing to Gloria Negrete-McLeod.
Immediately, however, he and his supporters regrouped and he ran for a position on the Rialto City Council in the November 2006 election, and won. He has remained in that position ever since, patiently biding his time, not rushing in the fashion he had after he was elected to the Assembly in 2004. He has thoroughly familiarized himself with the minutiae of city government, and worked well with the Democrats and Republicans on that panel. He has cultivated most or all of his father’s positive political attributes, few or none of the less favorable elements of his father’s aspect, and he has shunned being being divisive and argumentative, seeking to advocate for the positions he has adopted rationally, showing magnanimity when he prevails while accepting being on the losing side of votes without rancor. He has proven responsive to constituents seeking assistance and to those looking for information as well as to members of the press inquiring with regard to developments that have put him in both a positive and negative light. He possesses a calm and deliberative demeanor, among a multitude of other faculties that are desirable in a politician.
On the Republican side of the partisan divide in the Fifth District, a group of energetic activists and political operatives, evincing impatience with the county central committee leadership’s complacency in accepting that the Fifth District was the one Democratic stronghold in the county where it would be ill-advised and futile to commit Republican resources, in a dynamic move last year staged something of a mini-coup, one in which they sought to redirect the party’s collective thinking away from perceiving that Clifford Young would be the logical Republican-backed candidate in this year’s Fifth District supervisors race and instead substituting Fontana City Councilman Jesse Armendarez. Armenderaz presented certain advantages, including the immediate one of being a financially successful real estate professional who was not afraid to invest a generous portion of his personal wealth in his effort to further his political career. This meant that the people coalescing around him would need not spend a lot of time seeking out the capital needed to initiate and carry out a campaign and could, instead, get right to work promoting their candidate. Last fall, this group, largely consisting of a younger set of Republicans but also counting within its ranks Phil Cothran, Sr., a major political donor and the father of Fontana City Councilman Phil Cothran, Jr; Michael Taylor, the former Baldwin Park police chief who is a member of the West Valley Water District Board of Directors; Hesperia Councilwoman and Republican Central Committee Member Rebekah Swanson; and her husband, Hesperia School Board Trustee and Republican Central Committee Member Eric Swanson, moved to advance Armendarez. Working with stealth and then quickly once their plan was advancing, Jeremiah Brosowske, Christopher Dustin, Ross Sevy, Naseem Farooqi, Cameron Wessel and a handful of others convinced the Republican Central Committee to endorse Armendarez protégé Angel Ramirez in his challenge of Greg Young, who is no blood relation to Clifford Young, for Greg Young’s position on the West Valley Water District’s board of directors in the November 2019 election. The move to cut Greg Young off was meant as a show of force and power, as Greg Young had been a diligent and hardworking member of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee for over two decades and had shown himself to be committed to promoting Republican causes and candidates. By demonstrating that they could wrest the party’s endorsement from Greg Young and give it to the 22-year-old unproven Angel Ramirez, the cabal pushing the advance of Armendarez intimidated members of Republican Central Committee. It was lost on very few people that Clifford Young and Greg Young were political allies. The cabal, whose moves were being masterminded by Brosowske, then turned its attention to having the central committee step over Clifford Young. In short order that is what occurred, and in the blink of an eye, the central committee, led by its relatively weak chairwoman, Jan Leja, endorsed Armendarez.
This set the stage for the March 3 primary race in which the Democrats Baca and Flores, the Republican Armendarez and a fourth candidate, Nadia Renner, who claimed no party affiliation, were to vie against one another. By the time of the March election, $336,299.86 had been deposited in Armendarez’s election fund, of which $91,076.83 was a loan to himself. Flores had $312,966.39 in his campaign war chest. Baca had deposited a total of $116,443 in political donations into his campaign fund. Renner had $19,100 to carry out her campaign.
When the March 3 vote in the Fifth District race was tallied, Joe Baca Jr. came out on top with 19,948 of the 49,595 votes cast or 40.22 percent. Armendarez ran second, with 13,330 votes or 26.88 percent. Flores came in a distant and disappointing third, with 8,998 votes or 18.14 percent. Renner recorded 7,319 votes for 14.76 percent.
As the 2020 Presidential General election approached, the sheer enormity of what Armendarez was attempting to do at some point registered with his political team. Shortly after the primary, Flores endorsed Baca. Renner made no endorsement either way. With 40 percent of the electorate in the Fifth District having already shown it was inclined to support Baca, Armendarez found himself in the position of having to pick up something approaching 73 percent of the vote that had gone to Flores and Renner in the primary to be able to win. Ultimately in a desperation move toward the end of the election campaign, the Armendarez camp found itself in the position of having to associate Baca with President Donald Trump to convince Democratic voters in the district not to vote for Baca and instead vote for Armendarez. In doing so, hit pieces were sent out making the rather dubious claim that “Joe Baca, Jr. is Team Trump approved” and that “Joe Baca, Jr. earned the support of the same right-wing special interests that put Trump in the White House.” The mailers were not credited to the Armendarez campaign but originated from an outfit identified as the California Taxpayers Alliance. The hope was that the Democratic voters in the Fifth District would forget that Armendarez was a Republican and somehow be conned or confused into thinking that Baca was a Republican.
Ultimately, the voters of the Fifth District spoke at the ballot box this week. As of today, Friday, November 6, Baca claimed 46,537 of the 79,217 votes cast so far, or 58.75 percent. Armendarez had 32,642 votes or 41.21 percent. There were 38 write in votes for neither candidate.
There are several footnotes to the contest. One is that since January 1, 2020, $507,164.08 was contributed to Armendarez’s supervisorial campaign fund in what was a losing cause. By contrast, since January 1, 2020, Baca raised $353,450. It would appear that having reached for the brass ring, Armendarez might have fallen off the political merry-go-round entirely. Other than his willingness to spend his own money in promoting himself, Armendarez’s base of power had been his position on the Fontana City Council and as a member of Mayor Warren’s political machine. The ruthless manner in which he and his associates cut Clifford Young off at the knees to gain the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee’s endorsement, however, did not please Warren. Warren, who is herself one of the leading African-American Republican politicians in San Bernardino County, was one of Clifford Young’s closest political allies. After Armendarez, working with Brosowske, Farooqi, Phil Cothran, Sr., Taylor, Dustin, Ramirez, Sevy and Wessel, dry-gulched Clifford Young, Warren was shaken. She masked her anger at the way in which Armendarez allowed his ambition override a more rational and respectful approach to promoting GOP candidates, which includes demonstrating commitment and loyalty within a recognized hierarchy. Once the destruction of Clifford Young’s contemplated 2020 candidacy for supervisor was a fait accompli, Warren went along with the inevitable, and even transferred $4,700 earlier this year from her committee, Citizens and Friends of Acquanetta Warren for Mayor 2022, into Armendarez’s political war chest. But with Armendarez’s supervisorial campaign having gone down in flames, she in private this week expressed that she is shedding no tears that Armendarez, who had openly defied her by his destruction of Clifford Young, is no longer a member of her council coalition.
-Mark Gutglueck