FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION SERVICES 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA  92335
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/ Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
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 7/30, 8/06, 8/13 & 8/20, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007776
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Horizon Real Estate Investments, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730, Chris Butner Mortgages LLC, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Christopher Butner
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007712
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Swirls Soft Serve, 1217 W. Foothill Blvd, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786, Gazar Investments LLC, 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Gerard Azar
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007572
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Express Notary; Mountain Express Notary; Express Notary & Scan; Mountain Express Notary & Scan, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382, Mailing Address: PO Box 1948, Running Springs, CA 92382, Rita C. Nelson, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382
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/Rita C. Nelson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/02/2021
County Clerk, s/ 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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007551
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: MRC Financial Services; MRC Insurance Services, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Richa G Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Ravi S Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Ravi S. Chand
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ 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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LARRY VERNON JUDKINS
CASE NO. PROSB2100331
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LARRY VERNON JUDKINS has been filed by BARBARA L. NEWMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BARBARA L. NEWMAN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils 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.
THE PETITION requests a $350,000 bond fixed. The bond will be admitted by an admitted surety insuere or as otherwise provided by law.
Decedent died on 1/08/2021 in HELENDALE, CA, a resident of San Bernardino County.
A hearing on the petition will be held SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
MAY 6, 2021
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.
The petition requests that a bond not be required.
The character and estimated value of the property of the estate is estimated at $464,000.
Filed: JULY 26, 2021
Attorney for Barbara L. Newman
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 6, 13 & 20, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CESAR OSORIO
NO. PROSB 2100339
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CESAR OSORIO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JULIUS OSORIO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JULIUS OSORIO be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 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: JULY 20, 2021
Judge Tara Reilly
Attorney for Julius Osorio:
Jennifer Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 6, 13 & 20, 27 & September 3, 2021.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2119271
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: KHAREY JAMAL PERRY filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
KHAREY JAMAL PERRY to KHOREY JAMAL PERRY
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: 09/15/21
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, 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: July 23, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2120307
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:
RUDOLPH GONZALEZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
RODOLFO CLEMENTE GONZALEZ to RUDOLPH CLEMENTE GONZALEZ
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: 09/14/21
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, 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.
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21, 09/03/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210007348
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DYNAMIC SPA 1955 E FOURTH ST ONTARIO, CA 91764: YUEQING, INC. 8191 BOLSA AVE MIDWAY CITY, CA 92655
Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/YAN QING DONG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/12/2021
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210008133
The following person is doing business as: GOT COOKIES? 6826 LUCERO DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336:
JENNIFER L. JEEVES 6826 LUCERO DRIVE 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/ JENNIFER L. JEEVES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/13/2021
County Clerk, s/ I7122
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 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007343
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Sky Spa, 4012 Grand Ave, STE E, Chino, CA 91710, Mailing Address: 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773, AGX Group LL, 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Wei Xin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/08/21
County Clerk, s/ 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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007868
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DVK Consulting & Financial Svcs, 1128 W. Mission Blvd, Suite C, Ontario, CA 91762, Deyanira Brandon, 875 S. Mountain Ave., Ontario, CA 91762
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/Deyanira Brandon
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/30/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/22/21
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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007242
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: On Time Home Inspections, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Mailing Address: 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Juan J. Tobin, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Juan J Tojin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/21
County Clerk, s/ 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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF HOLLY NICOLETTE HOLMES aka HOLLY N. HOLMES, aka HOLLY HOLMES
Case No. PROSB 2100340
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of HOLLY NICOLETTE HOLMES aka HOLLY N. HOLMES, aka HOLLY HOLMES
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JOHN HOLMES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JOHN HOLMES 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 on September 20, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S36 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
LEAH LARKIN
LAW OFFICES OF LEAH LARKIN
873 BEAUMONT AVENUE
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA   92223
Telephone: 951-845-5930
Facsimile: 951-845-5407
Email: Leah@inlandlaw.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 13, 20 & 27, 2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DAVID JOHN DONALDSON
CASE NO. PROSB2100184
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DAVID JOHN DONALDSON has been filed by DAWN LEA DONALDSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DAWN LEA DONALDSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils 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 OCTOBER 7, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35P at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Brittney Spears, Deputy
MAY 6, 2021
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: August 5, 2021
Self-represented:
DAWN LEA DONALDSON
11560 CRAFTON AVENUE
REDLANDS, CA 92374
(951) 265 5849
ddonaldson@sbccd.cc.ca.us
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 13, 20 & 27, 2021.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
Jose Antonio DelValle, Jr.
CASE NUMBER:
FFCSB 2100004
CITATION – FREEDOM FROM PARENTAL CUSTODY AND CONTROL
To JACOB ANDREW SWANSON and to all persons claiming to be the father or mother of minor person named MONIQUE ALYSSA- SWANSON SIMPSON
By order of this Court you are hereby cited and advised that you may appear before the Judge Presiding in
Department S44 of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CENTRAL DISTRICT
351 N. ARROWHEAD AVE.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0245
on SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
of that day, then and there to show cause, if any you have, why said person should not be declared free from the control of her parent according to the petition on file herein.
If the Court finds that the interest of the minor requires his or her protection, the Court shall appoint counsel to represent the minor. Such counsel shall be appointed whether or not the minor is able to afford counsel. If you appear without counsel and are unable to afford counsel, the Court shall appoint counsel for you if you request appointed counsel.
The purpose of this action, to free the minor from the custody of her parent, is to permit the adoption of said minor to a suitable adopting parent.
Attorney for Jose Antonio DelValle, Jr:
CHRISTINA FERRANTE SBN 80030
ATTORNEY AT LAW
10700 CIVIC CENTER DR., SUITE 200
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
TELEPHONE NO (909) 989 – 9923 FAX NO (909) 466 – 0318.
The Court may continue these proceedings, not to exceed thirty (30) days, as necessary to appoint counsel and enable counsel to become familiar with these proceedings.
Given under my hand and seal of the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, this 15th day of June, 2021.
Clerk of the Court, Iris Mondragon, Deputy
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 13, 20, 27 & September 3, 2019.
NEW NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
CASE NO. PROPS 2100088
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by VICTOR FELIPE ROMERO and DEBRA KAY HANES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that VICTOR FELIPE ROMERO and DEBRA KAY HANES be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 7, 2021 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.
Attorneys for the Petitioners: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
and
MARIVEL M. ZIALCITA
341 W. FIRST STREET
CLAREMONT, CA 91711
(909) 256 6702
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/13, 8/20 &8/27, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210007493
The following person is doing business as: DSOCONCEPTS 6746 TREELINE PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701: DARLENE S ORDONEZ 6746 TREELINE PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701-5167
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/ DARLENE ORDONEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/21/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/13/2021
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21 & 09/03/21.
T.S. No. 19-20943-SP-CA Title No. 191126841-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1004-231-44-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 08/13/2003. 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. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or 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; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Gerald W. Cook and Linda J. Cook, Co-Trustees of The Gerald W. Cook and Linda J. Cook 2001 Living Trust, UTD July 10, 2001. Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 08/22/2003 as Instrument No. 2003-0627799 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 09/07/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: At the Main (South) Entrance to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA. 91710 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $71,739.03 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 1171 Deborah Street Upland, CA 91784 A.P.N.: 1004-231-44-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. 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 or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-20943-SP-CA. 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. Date: 08/03/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CPP351228
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007409
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Look Salon, 253 No Mountain, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 577 East Montrose, Rialto, CA 92376, Tonya Johnson, 577 East Montrose, Rialto, CA 92376
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/Tonya Johnson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/19/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/10/21
County Clerk, s/ 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).
08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21, 09/03/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007962
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Love Sweets, 7431 Hyssop Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Latunya D. Love-Banks, 7431 Hyssop Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Latunya D. Love-Banks
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/03/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/21
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).
08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21, 09/03/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008339
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Just Peached, 325 N. 2nd Ave Suite A, Upland, CA 91786, Adrian P. Alvarez, 1412 N Grand Ave O, Covina, CA 91724
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/Adrian P Alvarez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/12/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/23/21
County Clerk, s/ I7122
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).
08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21, 09/03/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007417
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Detumiel, 11966 Cypress Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345, Mailing Address: 11966 Cypress Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345, Yulissa Y. Lopez-Nunez, 11966 Cypress Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345
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/ Yulissa Y Lopez Nunez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/19/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/30/21
County Clerk, s/ 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).
08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21, 09/03/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVSB2120235
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Jia-Yuee Chiao filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Jia-Yuee Chiao to Elaine Jiayuee Chiao
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: 09/29/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 14, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21, 09/03/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
KEITH STEPHEN STRAUSS
NO. PROSB 2100454
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of KEITH STEPHEN STRAUSS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DAWN R. McVAY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DAWN R. McVAY 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 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 in Dept. No. S36 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 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: May 13, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Dawn McVay
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 20, 27 and September 3 & 10, 2021.
FBN 20210007451
The following person is doing business as: AND.STUDIOS 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); NAVA DAVID 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; CHARLY PIZANO 16809 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 15, 2021
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/ DAVID NAVA, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202101RC

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: JIF ENTERPRISES 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); KUSUMA R PHILIP 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373
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/ KUSUMA R. PHILIP, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/12/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202102MT

FBN 20210007224
The following person is doing business as: LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH EAST STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/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/ LAWRENCE M. GITONGA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202103MT

FBN 20210007204
The following person is doing business as: OSCAR’S CONCRETE PUMPING 18618 GROVE PL BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); MIGUEL A GARCIA NUNO 18618 GROVE PL BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ MIGUEL A. GARCIA NUNO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202104MT

FBN 20210007202
The following person is doing business as: CHASQUI 8880 ARCHIBALD AVE UNIT E RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LUQUEVAL INC 2450 S ATLANTIC BLVD COMMERCE, CA 90040
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ MANUEL G. LUQUE, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202105MT

FBN 20210007290
The following person is doing business as: ACADEMIA DE DANZA PROFETICA ALFA Y OMEGA 18467 BELLLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); DOLORES ARREDONDO 18467 BELLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301
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/ DOLORES ARRENDONDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/15/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202106MT

FBN 20210007349
The following person is doing business as: THE 3 PET-A-TEERS 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91784 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1734 GLENDORA, CA 91749]; ARIAL V LOGAN 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91749
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/ ARIAL V. LOGAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202107IR

FBN 20210007467
The following person is doing business as: BALANCE IN MOTION 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 411 EASTVAE, CA 91752]; TOO BE FREE RECOVERY INCORPORATED 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ STACEY Y. HARVEYFULLER, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202108IR

FBN 20210007350
The following person is doing business as: NO PRGM 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; NATHAN MARQUEZ 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 12, 2021
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/ NATHAN MARQUEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202109CV

FBN 20210007510
The following person is doing business as: NANI’S INMITABLE DESIGNS 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); NANI’S INIMITABLE DESIGNS LLC 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 26, 2021
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/ LEOLA MITCHELL, MANAGER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/21/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202110EM

FBN 20210007683
The following person is doing business as: CLUB SPIN 31514 YUCAIPA BLVD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CLUB SPIN LLC 31514 YUCAIPA BOULEVARD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/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/ KARLA ALANIS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202101MT

FBN 2021007549
The following person is doing business as: CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE DESIGNS 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); SAUL TREJO 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 04, 2015
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/ SAUL TREJO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202102IR

FBN 20210007633
The following person is doing business as: RED’S HOLY SMOKES 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 COLTON, CA 92324 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTOPHER L HINE 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 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/ CHRISTOPHER L. HINE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202103IR

FBN 20210007630
The following person is doing business as: PATRIOT PAINTING 1595 W HOLY ST RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JAMES L KEMPLE 1595 W HOLY ST 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: 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/ JAMES L. KEMPLE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202104IR

FBN 20210007545 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: THE ZUMBA ROOM 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BELEN DIAZ 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 06/12/2017. Original File# 20170006873
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/ BELEN DIAZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202105MT

FBN 20210007602
The following person is doing business as: EST AUTO REGISTRATION 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); MICHAEL A DE LA ROSA 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD 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: 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/ MICHAEL A. DE LA ROSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202106MT

FBN 20210007687
The following person is doing business as: THE MOBILE HOT HOSE 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); DEVIN L HUMPHREYS 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
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/ DEVIN L. HUMPHREYS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202107MT

FBN 20210007656
The following person is doing business as: THE REAL ESTATE GUYS 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); LEONARD CALDERA 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764
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/ LEONARD CALDERA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202108MT

FBN 20210007681
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202109MT

FBN 20210007669
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ JOHN DOUGLAS GOTOYCO FONTAMILLAS, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202110MT

FBN 20210007679
The following person is doing business as: CSG LIVING GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202111MT

FBN 20210007607
The following person is doing business as: OPTIMUM REALTY GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202112MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the August 13 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 08-13-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Former Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr was arrested today by the FBI on a federal grand jury indictment alleging he accepted more than $57,000 in bribes and kickbacks in exchange for approving ordinances authorizing various types of commercial marijuana activity within the city where he was mayor until December 2018, and ensuring his co-schemers obtained city licenses or permits authorizing certain commercial marijuana activities.
Kerr, 64 of Adelanto, whose full name is Richard Allen Kerr, was taken into federal custody at his home without incident around 7:30 this morning. He is charged with seven counts of honest services wire fraud and two counts of bribery.
Kerr made his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Riverside, where he was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty and was released upon the posting of a $30,000 bond. He did not waive his right to a speedy trial, which is set to begin on October 4.
According to the indictment returned on August 11, as part of his official duties, Kerr, who served as Adelanto’s mayor from 2014 to 2018, voted on ordinances governing zoning regulations in the city and served on the Adelanto Cannabis Dispensary Permit Committee, which determined the number of dispensary permits that would be issued and which applicants would receive them.
“Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than on or about November 23, 2015, and continuing until an unknown date but no earlier than on or about June 18, 2018, in San Bernardino County, within the Central District of California, and elsewhere, defendant Richard Allen Kerr, together with others known and unknown to the grand jury, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud the City of Adelanto as to material matters, including by depriving the City of Adelanto of its right to the intangible right of honest services of defendant Kerr, namely, the honest performance of defendant Kerr’s duties as mayor,” the indictment states. “Specifically, defendant Kerr secretly used his official position to enrich himself and his co-schemers by: (1) passing ordinances authorizing various types of commercial marijuana activities, including marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution and transportation, and retail sales of marijuana via a dispensary; (2) drafting zones for commercial marijuana activities to include locations used by his supporters; and (3) ensuring his supporters obtained the licenses or permits they sought; all in contravention of conflict of interest prohibitions applying to defendant Kerr, and in exchange for bribes, kickbacks, gifts, payments, and other things of value.”
As mayor, Kerr supported marijuana legalization, voted in favor of an ordinance authorizing marijuana cultivation in the city, voted in favor of an ordinance authorizing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and voted to authorize the distribution, transportation and testing of medical marijuana, among other commercial marijuana activities. At the same time, Kerr secretly used his official position to enrich himself and his co-schemers by passing those ordinances, the indictment alleges.
Kerr allegedly also drafted zones for commercial marijuana activities to include locations used by his co-conspirators, and he ensured they obtained the licenses and permits they sought in exchange for bribes, kickbacks and gifts, according to the indictment.
That Adelanto was on the FBI’s, the DEA’s, the IRS’s and the U.S. Attorney’s radar has long been known. Shortly after the 2014 election, in which Kerr, John Woodard and Charlie Glasper were elected in a clean sweep that displaced, respectively, former Mayor Cari Thomas and councilmen Charles Valvo and Steve Baisden, after the trio was installed on the council, Kerr and Woodard joined with Councilman Jermaine Wright, who had originally been elected to the council in 2012 and was reelected in 2016, to reinvent the financially challenged city of 34,000 as one embracing the social change afoot in California and elsewhere calling for the decriminalization, and availability, of marijuana. Initially, Kerr, Woodard and Wright said they were interested only in taking advantage of the potential that had been created with the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, which allowed the growing and sale of medical marijuana to create a revenue stream for the city. They would do that by allowing indoor cultivation of marijuana to be sold in dispensaries outside the city, they said, while continuing to prohibit the retail sale of marijuana within city limits. Suspicions were raised, however, when dozens of applicants filed into City Hall in 2015, many of them bearing briefcases full of cash, to apply for what was represented as a strictly limited number of operational permits. That frenzy intensified in 2016, even before the passage of Proposition 64 on that year’s November ballot. That measure ratified California’s Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which made, for those having achieved the age of 21, the use of marijuana for the plant’s intoxicative effect legal.
There were unmistakable signs that graft was afoot in the city. In November 2017, Wright was arrested by the FBI after he accepted $10,000 from an undercover FBI agent posing as an applicant for a marijuana distribution business, money which he took in exchange for an assurance that he would assist in keeping the city’s code enforcement division from interfering with that business operation once it was up and running. In May 2018, the FBI served search warrants at City Hall, Kerr’s home, at the Jet Room Marijuana Dispensary in Adelanto and at the San Bernardino office of the Professional Lawyers Group. Items seized included Kerr’s cell phone and computers. The warrants obtained for those searches extended to Kerr’s banking accounts, including his personal account with US Bank and the Navy Federal Credit Union account Kerr, as a former Marine, retained as a veteran.
According to the indictment, Kerr was being paid money by entities who were purchasing property in Adelanto with the intent of establishing marijuana-related and cannabis-related businesses thereon. Those providing the mayor with that money had a financial interest in the city widening its acceptance of such businesses, and ultimately, in exchange for the money he was receiving, Kerr used his elected position to do just that.
“On or about November 23, 2015, defendant Kerr voted in favor of Ordinance 539, authorizing medical marijuana cultivation in the city,” the indictment states. “On or about October 12, 2016, defendant Kerr voted in favor of Ordinance 548, authorizing the distribution, transportation, and testing of medical marijuana. On or about October 26, 2016, defendant Kerr voted in favor of Ordinance 553, an ordinance allowing medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in the city.”
The indictment does not identify by name those individuals and entities involved with Kerr in the graft described in the the indictment, using instead Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D and Person E, as well as Law Firm A and Business A in its narrative. The Sentinel has been able to identify Person A, Person B, Person E, Law Firm A and Business A.
Kerr’s alleged co-conspirators were David Serrano, a lawyer who specialized in plaintiffs’ tort litigation – identified in the indictment as “Person A” – and two individuals – labeled “Person C” and “Person D” – who had business interests in the city, including those involving marijuana cultivation. The Sentinel has identified Person B as Manny Serrano, David Serrano’s brother. Manny Serrano’s activity, while tangential to that of David Serrano, according to what is described in the indictment, did not appear to have risen to the level of a criminal conspiracy. Person E has been identified by the Sentinel as Bill Rinker, a mechanic who worked in the motor pool with the City of Adelanto’s public works department. Law Firm A is Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino, which is a law firm owned and controlled by David Serrano. Business, A, the Sentinel has documented, is a marijuana dispensary operated out of a former restaurant/bar known as the “Jet Room, located at 17499 Adelanto Road, at the northeast corner of Adelanto Road and Joshua Avenue in Adelanto.
The bribes and kickbacks were disguised by Kerr and his co-schemers as gifts, donations to a charitable fund, donations to Kerr’s election campaign, or advance payments for the proceeds of planned litigation associated with a motorcycle accident.
In exchange for the bribes and kickbacks, Kerr provided favorable official action on behalf of the city to David Serrano, Person C and other co-conspirators with business interests in the city by authorizing various types of commercial marijuana activities, ensuring his supporters obtained the licenses or permits they sought, and interfering with enforcement activities by city officials.
In one instance described in the indictment, on November 29, 2016, the Adelanto City Council held a public hearing related to an ordinance, including discussion of “overlay zones” within which medical marijuana dispensaries would be located. The initial proposal applied to two zones, neither of which included the Jet Room, which was located on a 2.23 acre lot, the entirety of which was purchased for $450,000 from Dmitri Manucharyan by Serrano and his wife, Julia Orama-Serrano, in a deal in which escrow was entered into on October 3, 2016 and finalized on October 11, 2016.
During the discussion, Kerr requested a change in the boundaries of the second overlay zone, which expanded the zone to include the Jet Room property. The plans for the business initially called for the building to be an attorney’s office, although they ultimately included features that were inconsistent with a legal operation and more consistent with a dispensary, according to the indictment.
On December 5, 2016, Kerr deposited a $5,000 check – dated November 29, 2016 – from David Serrano’s real estate trust account into his bank account. The check’s memorandum line read, “Adv Xmas Fund.”
In May 2017, Kerr voted twice in favor of a city ordinance that included Serrano’s business in the marijuana dispensary overlay zone. In February, June and August of 2017, Kerr deposited three $10,000 checks from Serrano’s law firm, with the memorandum lines of each check stating, “Advance.”
Initially, representations were made that the Jet Room, which was vacant at the time David Serrano purchased it and had not been operational for more than a decade, was going to be converted into a law office.
With the dawn of 2017, however, that pretense was dropped. Manny Serrano, David Serrano’s brother and the spokesman for the High Desert Cannabis Association, became actively involved in the plans for the Jet Room.
According to the indictment, “On or about February 15, 2017, Person A and Person B, a family member of Person A, submitted plans to the city’s planning department to remodel the building. The plans called for the building to be an attorney’s office, but they included items such as ‘elongated sales counters,’ a ‘dispensing room,’ ‘cashier,’ and ‘security room.’ On or about February 28, 2017, defendant Kerr deposited a $10,000 check from Law Firm A into his US Bank account. The memorandum line of the check stated, ‘Plaintiff Advance.’ On or about May 17, 2017, the city council heard the first reading of a revised Ordinance 553 and Ordinance 557, with General Plan Amendment 17-03, which included Business A in a dispensary overlay zone, as discussed on November 29, 2016. Defendant Kerr voted in favor of both revised Ordinance 553 and Ordinance 557, with General Plan Amendment 17-03. On or about May 24, 2017, the city council heard the second reading of revised Ordinance 553 and Ordinance 557, with General Plan Amendment 17-03. Again, defendant Kerr voted in favor of both revised Ordinance 553 and Ordinance 557, with General Plan Amendment 17-03.”
Kerr and David Serrano used a lawsuit that Serrano’s firm had filed on behalf of Kerr in January 2019 naming the Adelanto Grand Prix, Malcolm Smith Racing, the American Motorcycle Association, the Big 6 Grand Prix Series and SoCal MC as a means of laundering kickbacks provided to Kerr by Serrano. That suit grew out of a motorcycle accident Kerr was involved in on January 14, 2017, in which he sustained a broken collarbone, several crushed, bruised or broken ribs and a partially collapsed lung during the first day of the two-day Adelanto Grand Prix racing event at Stater Bros. Stadium held over the January14/15, 2017 weekend. The basis for the suit fell under question almost immediately, as the accident did not occur within the stadium, owned by the city, where the event was being held, but rather in the desert area outside it. For Kerr and Serrano, the legitimacy of the suit and prospect for its success were not at issue, as the lawsuit’s purpose was to provide a cover for Serrano providing payments to Kerr, which were disguised as advances on the future settlement of the lawsuit.
According to the indictment, “’Person C’ and ‘Person D’ had business interests in and out of the city, including business interests involving marijuana cultivation.” The indictment further states, “On or about December 22, 2016, defendant Kerr deposited $4,000 of a $5,000 check from Person C into defendant Kerr’s Navy Federal Credit Union account. On or about June 5, 2017, defendant Kerr deposited a $2,500 check from Person C into defendant Kerr’s US Bank account. On or about April 12, 2018, defendant Kerr deposited a $5,000 check from Person C into his US Bank account. On or about April 27, 2018, Person C gave defendant Kerr $10,000 in cash. On or about April 28, 2018, defendant Kerr sent a series of text messages to Person C, thanking Person C for the $10,000 and saying, in part, ‘I owe you big time, you name it.’ Person C responded by text message, saying, in part, ‘Just returning the favor for all your help.’”
A remarkable element of the criminal scheme outlined in the indictment is the seeming nonchalance with which most of those involved in exchanging money for political favors did so, casually and in a way that could be traced, using checks and accounts with no effort to hide what they were doing other than the somewhat puerile ruse by which David Serrano sought to represent his payments to Kerr as advances on a future lawsuit settlement, and one other exception involving Person C when on April 27, 2018 he provided Kerr with $10,000 cash.
There was some creativity shown, however, in the way in which a payment to Kerr was made in 2018 from an applicant for a marijuana cultivation business, identified in the indictment as Person D. The money did not go directly to Kerr, but rather came through Bill Rinker, the lead mechanic in the City of Adelanto motor pool/public works division. A ruse was cooked up by which an award, ostensibly for hard work and dedication to the city was to be given to a deserving city employee. That employee was to then split the money with Kerr. Rinker was ultimately selected as the recipient of the prize money, and he was cut a check by Person D. Rinker was then obliged to turn over half of that money to Kerr.
According to the indictment, “In or around November 2017, defendant Kerr told ‘Person E,’ an employee of the city, that defendant Kerr had recommended Person E for a $25,000 award, and that defendant Kerr wanted half of that award in exchange for the recommendation. Unbeknownst to Person E at the time, the award was to be paid by Person D.”
In total, according to the indictment, Kerr accepted at least $57,500 in bribes and kickbacks from Serrano, Person C and other co-conspirators.
According to the indictment, “Richard Allen Kerr corruptly solicited and demanded for the benefit of himself and others, accepted, and agreed to accept, a thing of value, namely, money from bank accounts associated with Person A, intending… to be influenced and rewarded in connection with the passage of an ordinance authorizing the creation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, the expansion of a medical marijuana dispensary business zone to include the location of Business A, and the approval of Business A as a medical marijuana dispensary.”
The indictment uses similar language in pointing out that “Kerr solicited, demanded, accepted, and agreed to accept money from Person C, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with the passage of ordinances (1) authorizing medical marijuana cultivation, and (2) authorizing the distribution, transportation and testing of medical marijuana.” The indictment said Kerr engaged in those acts of political corruption through his votes as a member of the city council and the city’s cannabis dispensary permit committee.
The Sentinel inquired of Ciaran McEvoy, a public information officer with the U.S. Attorney’s Office about the status of the others whose acts are mentioned in the indictment – David Serrano, Manny Serrano, Bill Rinker, Person C and Person D.”
McEvoy said he could not speak to what was in store for them or whether they have already been charged separately or if they are cooperating with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“We’re not prepared to go beyond what is contained in the indictment,” McEvoy said.
Assistant United States Attorney Sean D. Peterson of the Riverside Branch Office is prosecuting the case under the supervision of Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry C. Yang, the chief of the Riverside Branch Office of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott M. Garringer, the chief of the criminal division within the U.S. Attorney’s Central District of California operations.
If convicted of all charges, Kerr would face a statutory maximum sentence of 160 years in federal prison.

Marc Puckett, the well-traveled and controversial public official who has a demonstrated pattern of winning the confidence of elected officials, parlaying that confidence into a lucrative governmental position and then being forced out amidst scandal, has resurfaced once more in a municipal role in San Bernardino County.
Puckett is now serving as Barstow’s finance director.
What was previously thought to be the end of Puckett’s public career came more than three years ago, on December 28, 2017, when the Town of Apple Valley and Puckett signed a severance and departure agreement. Puckett and the town parted ways five months and eight days after Puckett infamously, on July 20, 2017, rear-ended a vehicle on Interstate 15 in Rancho Cucamonga and then left the scene of the accident such that the severely injured victim had to fend for herself. On December 5, 2017, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office had charged Puckett with involving himself in a felony hit-and-run. As Apple Valley’s assistant town manager, he placed himself on voluntary paid administrative leave two days later. From his position as the town’s assistant city manager and finance director, Puckett wangled himself a $109,252 severance package, equal to six months salary.
Ultimately, in March 2018, Puckett’s lawyer worked out a plea deal for him in which he accepted a misdemeanor conviction, which imposed a 30-day stint in county jail, being placed on probation until 2022, paying $25,000 restitution to the victim and sustaining a fine of $4,339. The way it worked out, Puckett served just 15 days of that 30-day sentence.
The hit-and-run was not the last nor even worst legacy of Puckett’s seven-year tenure in Apple Valley.
Puckett had been hired by Apple Valley as the town’s finance director in 2011, and from shortly thereafter, then-City Manager Frank Robinson increased Puckett’s span of responsibility to the point that before 2012 dawned, Puckett was serving as the town’s de facto assistant municipal manager. Some time later, Puckett was given the assistant town manager title to augment that of finance director.
Given his command of the town’s financial affairs, Puckett was considered indispensable to Apple Valley’s operations.
The Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company, which was previously owned by the Wheeler Family Trust/Park Water Company, had been the primary purveyor of water to the Town of Apple since 1945. In 2010, Park Water made $2.4 million in upgrades to Apple Valley’s water system. The Carlyle Group, an American/multinational private equity and asset management corporation, acquired Park Water Company, thereby taking possession of the  Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company, in 2011. In 2011 the Carlyle Group undertook and completed $3.4 million in capital improvements to the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company; and another $5.7 million in work on the system in 2012. In 2012, Park Water, at the direction of the Carlyle Group, obtained from the California Public Utilities Commission permission to institute 19 percent rate increases on Apple Valley Ranchos’s customers to carry out what was said to be necessary upgrades to the aging equipment and facilities that delivered water to the 74.99-square mile town’s then-70,000 residents. Park Water Company/the Carlyle Group made another $7.5 million in upgrades to the Apple Valley water system in 2013; $8.1 million in improvements in 2014; and $7.8 million in maintenance and additions in 2015. Thereupon, the Carlyle Group obtained from the California Public Utilities Commission clearance to institute another 30 percent rate hike on Apple Valley Ranchos customers to be implemented from 2015 until 2017. As town residents began to chaff under the 19 percent water rate hike followed by the 30 percent increase, town officials, including Puckett, grew concerned.
Collectively, town management and the town council hit upon purchasing the Apple Valley Rancho Water Company outright from the Carlyle Group. Having convinced themselves, in part based upon Puckett’s calculations and in part on what Puckett said was the outcome of a survey by “an independent appraisal firm” that a “fair purchase price” for Apple Valley Ranchos was $45.54 million, town officials began a serious discussion of raising the necessary capital to effectuate a buyout of the water company. The town subsequently indicated to the Carlyle Group it would be willing to pay Park Water the somewhat unrealistic figure of $50.3 million for the Apple Valley Ranchos water system lock, stock and barrel.
The Carlyle Group, certain that its Apple Valley assets were worth far more than what the town was prepared to offer, spurned the town’s efforts to engage them in a dialogue relating to a sale. Meanwhile, the Carlyle Group was entertaining buyout offers with regard to its water holdings from other private investors. The Carlyle Group ultimately packaged a sale of the entirety of the water utilities it owned in California, consisting of Apple Valley Ranchos, the water system in Yermo and the water system serving Compton, Downey and Bellflower in Los Angeles County, along with the water assets it owned in Montana, consisting of the Mountain Water Company, the municipal water system serving Missoula. Labeling the entirety of the water works in California and Montana as Western Water Holdings, the Carlyle Group moved toward the final stage of selling them to a Canadian company, Algonquin Power/Liberty Utilities, for $327 million.
The town, led by Robinson and Puckett and advised by its legal team at Best Best & Krieger, challenged the sale before the California Public Utilities Commission, insisting that the town was interested in purchasing the water system in Apple Valley and would utilize the eminent domain process, if need be, to do so. The town implored the state to consider the public benefit of allowing Apple Valley to purchase the town’s water system.
Ultimately, the California Public Utilities Commission in December 2015 voted to allow Liberty to proceed with the acquisition of Park Water Company.
After Liberty/Algonquin took possession of the town’s water assets, Apple Valley officials moved forward with an eminent domain action aimed at seizing the water company, filing its takeover suit in San Bernardino Superior Court on January 7, 2016.
For all of 2016 and most of 2017, Puckett served as the point man on the town’s efforts to engage in what was essentially an attempt at a hostile takeover of Liberty Utilities, which is the name the town’s water purveyor functions under. Robertson, Puckett, Best Best & Krieger and the town council intended that effort to be an administrative tour-de-force, with legal and financial components.
Because of the hit-and-run debacle, Puckett absented himself from Apple Valley at the end of 2017. The town’s attempted takeover of the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company, which Puckett had choreographed, lived on for another nearly three-and-a-half years, as a tribute to his unique brand of high-priced incompetence.
After more than three years and nine months of legal sparring, the matter came to trial before Judge Donald Alvarez on October 23, 2019. After the 67-day trial which involved several suspensions and delays which were ultimately exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, the parties engaged in an extensive post trial briefing schedule followed by closing oral arguments. The matter was taken under submission, and on Friday, May 7, 2021, 18 months and 15 days after the trial began, Judge Alvarez entered his tentative decision, which was locked in on May 22, 2021.
Alvarez’s findings were devastating to Apple Valley.
Alvarez rejected the town’s effort to seize the water company, holding that, “The town cannot justify its right to take the system based on the possibility of a future plan to modify the system or its operations. Liberty has rebutted the presumptions that the public interest and necessity require the project and that the project is a more necessary public use of Liberty’s property. The preponderant evidence at trial shows that the public interest and necessity do not ‘require’ the town’s acquisition and operation of the Apple Valley Water System.”
Alvarez found, “Liberty has operated a safe and reliable water system; allowing the town to acquire it would create substantial risks to continued effective operations. Liberty has a highly skilled work force that has operated the system with a perfect water quality record. The town’s plan for operating the water system presents potential risks to public health and safety.”
The town engaged in a disingenuous/intellectually dishonest effort to discredit Liberty, Judge Alvarez indicated. The town asserted that Liberty had put homes located below two heavy capacity water tanks at great risk, such that lives might be lost were the tanks to fail. More accurately, Judge Alvarez said, it was the town that had put its residents at risk.
“The town argues that the two Desert Knolls tanks overlook numerous homes and ‘the results would be catastrophic’ if the tanks were to rupture,” Judge Alvarez wrote. “But the evidence showed that the tanks were there first: the Desert Knolls tanks were constructed in 1949 and 1988, and most of the homes below the tanks were built after 1994.The town was incorporated in 1988, meaning it was the town that approved the construction of most of the homes built below the tanks after 1994.”
The town was angling to bite off way more than it could chew with the water company takeover, Judge Alvarez said.
“The Apple Valley water system has 470 miles of underground distribution and transmission mains, which are in constant need of maintenance and replacement” and the “majority of the capital assets in a water system consists of buried pipe, out of sight to customers but constantly degrading,” Judge Alvarez stated, “There is a substantial risk that the town would fail to commit the needed level of capital improvements and maintenance to the system. While the town does not plan to change the level of investment, there is a substantial risk that it will not be able to match the capital expenditure level made under private ownership. The evidence demonstrated that owners of nearby municipally-owned water systems have invested far less than Liberty in their systems. From 2012 to 2018, capital investment in the Apple Valley system was twice (202 percent) the system’s deprecation. In contrast, the nearby municipally-owned systems (Victorville, Hesperia, Adelanto, and Helendale Community Service District) made capital investments of just 20 percent to 48 percent of the systems’ depreciation. Again, the town itself has no track record of capital expenditure levels on a water system. But the town’s record with its own sewer system shows the same pattern of investment below the rate at which the assets are depreciating, like the water systems in neighboring communities. From 2011 through 2018, the value of the town’s sewer capital assets, net of depreciation, dropped from $32.6 million to $22.5 million.”
Judge Alvarez said concern with regard to “insufficient investment under town ownership is well-founded. If the town were to acquire the water system, there is a risk that its capital investments will not keep up with the system’s depreciation, similar to the performance of the other nearby municipally-owned systems and the town’s own performance with its sewer system. Such under-investment would cause the system to degrade, to the detriment of the system and, ultimately, the detriment of its customers.”
In his conclusion, Judge Alvarez ruled “The court finds that Liberty, through evidence introduced during the court’s bench trial, has rebutted the presumptions established by eminent domain law for the taking of its property for use as a municipal water utility. In particular, Liberty has disproved that 1) the public interest and necessity require the town’s project; 2) the town’s project is planned in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3) the use for which the town seeks to take Liberty’s property is a more necessary public use than the use to which Liberty’s property is presently devoted. Therefore, Liberty’s objections to the town’s right to take the Apple Valley water system are sustained. Finally, the court shall find for Liberty and shall dismiss this action.”
Puckett quarterbacked the town’s move to place Measure F before Apple Valley’s voters in a specially-called election held on June 8, 2017. Measure F asked for authorization to issue $150 million in bonds to finance the purchase of the water system in conjunction with the eminent domain complaint against Liberty Utilities. Over the life of the bonds, to retire the indebtedness in full was to run to $558 million. Apple Valley officials, with Puckett in the lead, carried out an intensive sales job on Apple Valley residents, convincing them that issuing the bonds was their wisest course of action to secure the town’s water future. Measure F passed with 7,200 votes or 57.89 percent to 5,238 votes or 42.11 percent. As it turned out, the failure of the eminent domain process to effectuate the water company takeover rendered the bonds inapplicable. The town sustained costs exceeding a million dollars with regard to their issuance and pre-sale.
By the time the eminent domain case concluded, Puckett was long gone from Apple Valley. But it had been his leadership when he was in place that led Apple Valley down the primrose path. Based in no small part on his number crunching and financial pronouncements, town officials generated among themselves the delusional confidence that a case for the takeover of the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company could not only be accomplished but effectuated at a financial cost the town could bear. As it turned out, Apple Valley did not obtain the water system, and it expended $8,355,556.45 in legal fees and costs since the commencement of the eminent domain action in 2015, consisting of $5,677,843.90 in attorney’s fees and $2,677,712.55 in legal costs other than payments to attorneys.
Before his arrival in Apple Valley, there were multiple indications of Puckett’s volatility, lack of reliability and potential for generating liability.
With a bachelor of science degree in accountancy from Ferris State University, Puckett gravitated to work as a financial officer in government. Once in government, he obtained a master of business administration in public finance from the University of Michigan-Flint.
By his late twenties, he was the director of finance with Eastpointe, Michigan, which was previously known as East Detroit. He was fired from that post for a reason never made publicly clear. He landed on his feet by obtaining a similar position with Flint, Michigan.
In Flint, he was relatively well thought of and recognized outside of the city by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada with a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting. He was appointed to the Michigan Municipal Finance Officers Association Board of Directors. Having gained the trust of then-Flint Mayor Woodrow Stanley, Puckett was given significant latitude in his oversight of Flint’s financial affairs.
In late 1998, things began to misfire for Puckett. The Flint Retirement Board learned that Puckett had neglected to transfer pension funds into a money market retirement system account for what was originally thought to be roughly six months. Initially the amount of dormant money that was inactive and not accruing interest was pegged at $8 million. A little later it was disclosed the nonproductive money under Puckett’s watch was closer to $17 million. Puckett downplayed the seriousness of what had occurred, pointing out that the retirement system had overall assets totaling roughly $800 million. It was subsequently disclosed that the money not properly deposited or invested totaled more than $20 million, and had remained inactive for more than a year, meaning the retirement system had failed to gain approaching $1 million in interest over that period. In January 1999, Puckett acknowledged that his department had not had an independent audit of the retirement funds carried out over a more than a three-year period.
With tension and negative publicity hanging over the city because of the mishandling of the city’s pension fund, Mayor Stanley lost faith in Puckett, who resigned in February 1999 as Flint’s finance director. The following month, after Puckett had been replaced as finance director by Matthew Grady, a close examination of the city’s books showed misrouting of certain tax money. First it was learned that the city had diverted over $1 million in property tax payments it should have kept to other local governmental entities such as the Flint School District and a local airport. Then it was discovered that Flint had withheld from the State of Michigan approaching $4 million in industrial facility taxes over a three-year period while Puckett was in charge. In Michigan, industrial facility fees are substitutions for property taxes paid by companies.
In February 1999 Puckett departed the Wolverine State and moved to California, quickly landing a job as the finance director in Costa Mesa.
For a decade, Puckett did well in the Orange County city. He was active in professional organizations for those employed in the financial world and in the arena of public agency finance, such as the California Municipal Treasurers Association. In the summer of 2009, he had been elected to assume the presidency of that organization later that year when precipitously, in August 2009, he was placed on leave by the City of Costa Mesa over some unspecified irregularity. City officials would not disclose what the issue was, but said it had “nothing” to do with any “financial improprieties.” Puckett resigned his position in September 2009 and also resigned as a member of the California Municipal Treasurers Association. As Puckett was the president-elect of the association, its executive director had to scramble to find his replacement.
Puckett wandered in the desert for some time thereafter, but ultimately was able to market his skill set, landing the position of finance director with the City of Petaluma in the San Francisco Bay Area in November 2010. But after being there less than two months, Puckett precipitously resigned in late December 2010, effective January 7, 2011, citing “family reasons.”
Once back in Southern California, Puckett went to work almost immediately with Apple Valley, revealing why he had left Petaluma in the lurch.
At the end of 2017 when he left Apple Valley, Puckett, having achieved the age of 55, retired. At the time of his retirement, Apple Valley was paying him $217,486 in yearly salary, $22,282 in other pay, and benefits of $92,948.95 for a total annual compensation of $332,716.95.
Under the terms of his participation in the California Public Retirement System, Puckett was eligible to begin drawing a rather substantial pension.
In 2020 he receive an annual pension of $136,731.36 through the California Public Employees Retirement System, based on his 20 years as a public employee in California. The Sentinel was unable to find the pension Puckett is receiving as a former employee with the Michigan cities of Flint and Eastpointe.
As a California Public Employees Retirement System pensioner, Puckett can, if he chooses, work up to 960 hours – equal to 24 40-hour weeks – per year with a public agency. Previously, Puckett, Puckett augmented his retirement stipend by working as the interim finance manager with the City of West Covina.
In April, interim Barstow City Manager Jim Hart submitted to the city council a “resolution of appointment and employment contract for Marc Puckett to serve as interim finance director.”
In the executive summary for that resolution, Hart wrote, “The city is in need of an interim finance director. The interim city manager recommends the city council approve the attached resolution and employment agreement to appoint Marc Puckett as interim finance director. Mr. Puckett has approximately 33 years of public finance experience and has served as a finance director for more than 20 of those. Additionally, Mr. Puckett has been a leader in the local chapter of the Municipal Finance Officers Association. He most recently completed an interim assignment with the City of West Covina. If approved, Mr. Puckett will serve as interim finance director, until September 30, 2021 or the recruitment for a permanent finance director is concluded.”
Puckett is being paid a monthly salary of $14,159.57, which translates to $81.69 per hour, based on his working 173.333 hours per month.
Of note is that starting in 2011, when Puckett was 48 years old, he began a spree of traffic law violations that might best be described as typical of an adolescent one-third his age.
In February 2011, he was ticketed and subsequently found guilty for speeding in excess of 65 miles per hour in San Bernardino County. In March 2011, he was ticketed and eventually found guilty of running a red light in San Bernardino County. In August of 2011, he was ticketed and fined $25 for driving without a license plate in San Bernardino County. In April of 2012 he was ticketed and ultimately convicted of speeding in excess of 70 miles per hour in San Bernardino County. In June of 2012, he was ticketed and ultimately convicted of speeding in excess of 65 miles per hour in San Bernardino County. In September of 2013, he was ticketed for speeding in excess of 70 miles per hour. The matter was resolved with his paying a $426 fine and attending traffic school. In July 2014, Puckett was ticketed for speeding in excess of 65 miles per hour. With the loss of his license on the line if he were convicted, he retained attorney James Edward Perron to represent him. Perron engaged in a bit of judge shopping, continuing the case and filing an affidavit of prejudice against one of the judges. He continued the case more than once and on the trial date, the officer who ticketed Puckett failed to show up and the matter was dismissed. In November 2014, Puckett was once again ticketed for speeding in San Bernardino County. He again retained Perron, who, working his magic, had the charge changed to coasting out of gear going down the Cajon Pass. Perron entered a no contest plea on Puckett’s behalf. Puckett was fined $534. In December 2014, Puckett was ticketed for speeding. In April 2015, after the timeframe within which an accumulation of speeding convictions would trigger Puckett’s loss of driving privileges had elapsed, Perron entered a no contest fee on Puckett’s behalf. Puckett was fined $559 and attended traffic school.
-Mark Gutglueck

The terms upon which the Upland City Council approved Frontier Homes development of sixty-five single-family homes on 9.2 acres of property located within an existing flood control basin near a long established residential neighborhood must be rescinded, according to a Superior Court judge’s tentative ruling which is likely to be finalized within the next month.
At the very least, according to Judge David Cohn, Frontier Homes will need to complete a full-blown environmental impact report before the proposed Villa Serena project is constructed within a portion of a 32-acre percolation basin between 15th Street and 16th Street, roughly a quarter of a mile east of Campus Avenue in the northeastern quadrant of Upland, just north of a residential district within the City of Upland often referred to as Foothill Knolls.
Complicating the issue is that in 1999 the City of Upland entered into a 25-point “streambed alteration agreement” with the California Department of Fish & Game, now known as the Department of Fish & Wildlife, that declared a portion of the percolation basin off limits to development. It thus appears possible if not indeed likely that if a new environmental certification process for the Villa Serena project is undertaken, there will follow a reduction in the number of units to be constructed.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, most development projects are subjected to an environmental certification process. Some types of environmental certification are more intensive than others, ranging from an environmental impact report to an environmental impact study to an environmental assessment to an environmental examination to a mitigated negative declaration to a negative declaration.
An environmental impact report, the most involved type of environmental analysis and certification there is, consists of an involved study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. An environmental impact report specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. A mitigated negative declaration falls near the other end of the scale, and exists as a far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project, by which the panel entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority, as in the case of Upland the city council, issues a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
On April 13, 2020, during a teleconferenced meeting in which the public participated remotely and electronically rather than in a physical forum, the Upland City Council voted 4-to-1 to give Frontier Homes an entitlement to construct the 65 units of single-family detached residential homes to be known as the Villa Serena project. In granting the project approval, the council did so based on a mitigated negative declaration.
Judge Cohn has now tentatively determined, after a citizens group challenged the city’s approval, that the mitigated negative declaration was insufficient.
In 1939, following the devastating flooding of 1938, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District converted four parcels between 15th Street and 16th Street a little more than a mile east of Euclid Avenue into a 32-acre percolation basin as an augmentation to a then-existing stormwater control system. In addition to allowing for the settling of water at that spot into the water table, the 15th Street basin was also intended to intercept stormwater runoff from 583 acres of surrounding land. That basin was capable of holding more than 50.4 million gallons of water.
In 1969, the dyke/embankment creating the basin, which had been compromised by the burrowing of gophers and squirrels, nearly failed during an intensive set of deluges, and the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, which lies between 15th Street to the north, the the city limits to the east, and Foothill Boulevard to the south and Campus Avenue to the west, was evacuated.
In 1991, Upland obtained title to the basin.
In the 1950s, what had once been a gravel pit east of Campus Avenue and above 14th Street, west and south of the basin, was converted into a landfill. In the early 1980s, that landfill was shuttered. Contaminants at the site festered below the surface, including pockets of methane gas, which was burned off at various venting spots scattered about the site.
Because water seeping through the landfill below ground migrated into the water in the basin, and because the basin was a source of water into the aquifer below Upland, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered Upland to stop impounding and percolating water into the water table near the landfill to prevent the migration of contaminants into water wells drawing from the water table. This order required the City of Upland to reduce the size of the basin between 15th Street and 16th Street by filling in its westernmost 12 acres.
The California Department of Fish and Game, exercising its authority, called upon the city to protect the fish and wildlife that could be adversely impacted by the regrading of the earthen-bottomed basin. Ultimately, in 1999, the Department of Fish and Game entered into a streambed alteration agreement with the City of Upland in accordance with Fish and Game Code section 1600, et sequitur. Contained within that pact was language stating, “There shall be no loss of wetland habitat and function. Impacts to wetland habitat shall be mitigated at a 1.5 to 1 ratio by management of the basin to allow for retention of wetland habitat at the eastern sector, which grows as a result of flow and [percolation] in the basin.”
The agreement mandated that Upland provide annual reports until 2006 on the maintenance of the replacement wetlands. Upland had reestablished the wetlands, with the goal of preserving wildlife habitat, in December 2000. The city commissioned LSA Associates to carry out the studies of the condition of the wetlands and provide those mandated annual reports.
Beginning in 1999, a consortium of investors and developers known as the Colonies Partners, led by managing principals Dan Richards and Jeff Burum, began in earnest an effort to develop the Colonies at San Antonio residential and the Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions on property in northeastern Upland previously owned by the San Antonio Water Company that had long been deemed undevelopable. Those projects were rendered achievable by the California Department of Transportation’s extension of the 210 Freeway across the northern portion of the city, which further involved the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers completing elements of regional flood control projects that were augmented with the Colonies Partners’ construction of storm drain and sewer facilities. Some of the infrastructure the Colonies Partners was to complete for its residential and commercial subdivisions was ultimately dedicated to the city and those improvements increased the capacities of streets, storm water drainage facilities and sewers in some areas within the Upland City Limits outside the specific plan area for the Colonies Partners’ undertaking. Accordingly, on September 24, 2002, the city council approved a development agreement with the Colonies Partners allowing the development of the Colonies at San Antonio Project to proceed. A section of that agreement entailed the city paying the Colonies Partners $5 million as the city’s fair share cost toward the infrastructure the Colonies Partners was undertaking to build in conjunction with its projects. Included in the agreement was that 20.3 acres of the original 32-acre percolation basin near 15th Street would be utilized as a flood water basin. The cash-strapped city was not in a position to pay the Colonies Partners a full five million dollars at that time. On December 22, 2003, the city council voted to modify the city’s agreement with the Colonies Partners by paying Richards’ and Burum’s company $1.5 million, and granting Burum and Richards a ten-year first right of refusal to explore possible uses for a portion of the reduced basin footprint, and agreeing that upon such a mutually satisfactory project being identified, the city would transfer title to that portion to the Colonies Partners for one dollar, the Colonies Partners would forgive the city’s remaining $3.5 million debt, the processing of the Colonies Partners’ project proposal would be expedited, and the remainder of the basin property/wetlands preserve would be dedicated to public use.
In 2013, the Colonies Partners had not yet exercised its right toward developing the basin property, which in any event was complicated by the requirement that a good part of it be maintained as wetlands wildlife habitat. The city council detailed then-Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Hall-Barlow to write a letter to the Colonies Partners to note the lack of progress with regard to the development of the property and gently prod it toward action by the January 21, 2014 expiration date of decade-long term in which the Colonies Partners had to make use of the property. Hall-Barlow, however, defied the city council’s instructions on the letter’s tenor, instead penning a much more aggressive missive to the Colonies Partners that might serve as the groundwork for triggering the reversionary clause in the December 2003 revamping of the September 2003 agreement, such that the city would retain the 9.2 acres in question. The council, however, unwilling to confront the Colonies Partners, conveyed to then-City Attorney Richard Adams its displeasure with Hall-Barlow’s effort. Adams conferred with other members of his firm, Jones & Mayer. Hall-Barlow was thereafter eased out of her position as assistant city attorney by Jones & Mayer and moved into the position of city attorney with the City of West Covina, where Jones & Mayer also had a contract to provide legal services.
Though the 10-year term in which the Colonies Partners was to develop the property expired on January 21, 2014, more than a year later, on February 9, 2015, the Upland City Council voted to approve a second amendment to the agreement allowing an additional three years for the Colonies Partners to identify and initiate a project on a portion of the basin.
In June 2017, Rosemary Hoerning, then Upland’s city engineer, accepted a drainage study relating to the basin that the Colonies Partners had the engineering firm Madole & Associates prepare. Madole & Associates concluded that only 11.1 acres of the basin’s 20.3 acres were needed for future flood control purposes, based on the assumption that previous construction of an additional stormwater retention basin upstream and the Army Corps of Engineers’ construction of a concrete drainage channel along the eastern edge of the Colonies at San Antonio project would adequately handle stormwater flows. That document, however, did not deal with the issue of having to maintain a significant portion of the basin footprint as wetlands. Based on the Madole & Associates study, the City of Upland, by a quitclaim deed, transferred 9.2 acres of the western portion of the basin to the Colonies Partners.
Subsequently, the Colonies Partners made an arrangement with Frontier Homes, headed by a personal friend of Jeff Burum, James Previti, to undertake the development of the 9.2 acres. It is not clear whether the Colonies Partners understood the limitations imposed on the development of the property as a consequence of the City of Upland’s pact with the Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to maintaining the property as wetlands. Nor is it known whether Burum and the Colonies Partners informed Previti and Frontier Homes about the limitations on development at the site.
In 2018 Frontier Homes learned through its consultant, Q3, that reconfiguring the remaining eastern portion of the basin would alter the facility in such way that unless the capacity of the basin was reduced from its current 50.428 million gallons of water to below 16.29 million gallons, it would be subject to the jurisdiction of California’s State Division of Safety of Dams. Without that reduction in holding capacity, that state agency would not sign off on the project without significant upgrades to the remaining basin, including doing excavation so the foundation of the basin embankment could be established on bedrock and its spillway enlarged, a technically challenging and prohibitively costly undertaking. There ensued a manipulation of paperwork to indicate the holding capacity of the basin had dropped to below 16.29 million gallons, which Hoerning, as city engineer, knew to be untrue as to physical fact.
In 2019, Hoerning was installed as Upland’s acting/interim city manager when then-City Manager Jeannette Vagnozzi was sacked. In March 2020, the council dropped the acting/interim prefix from Hoerning’s title, making her the city’s full-fledged city manager. Hoerning, convinced that the city council was in favor of the Villa Serena project, had facilitated at the staff level the processing of Frontier Home’s project application. By chance, the city had contracted with LSA Associates, the same firm that had carried out the annual reports prepared for the California Division of Fish and Wildlife relating to the 15th Street Basin wetlands, to prepare the mitigated negative declaration for the Villa Serena project. In April 2020, on the eve of and the very day of the city council’s hearing on the project, Hoerning learned from LSA Associates personnel, based on a review of the reports that company had done for the California Division of Fish and Wildlife more than a decade-and-a-half previously, of the manner in which the agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife encumbered the property upon which the Villa Serena project was to be built. As the matter was a rather arcane one, and the record with regard to both the streambed alteration agreement and its accompanying limitations were buried in reams of documentation, Hoerning allowed the council to consider the project without being fully apprised of the commitment to maintain a portion of the site as open space.
Accordingly, on April 13, 2020, the Upland City Council voted 4-to-1 with Councilwoman Janice Elliott dissenting, to give Frontier Homes an entitlement to construct 65 single family detached residential units on 9.2-acres owned by the Colonies Partners within the footprint of the defunct flood control detention basin north of 15th Street.
Thereafter, a group of Upland residents living both within and outside the Foothill Knolls District led by Lois Sicking Dieter, formed Friends of Upland Wetlands, which retained attorney Cory Briggs, who filed a petition for a writ of mandate on the newly-formed association’s behalf in San Bernardino County Superior Court, naming the City of Upland as the respondent and Frontier Homes as the real party in interest. The writ sought the rescission of the approval of the Villa Serena project until a full-blown environmental impact report was undertaken and completed.
Judge Cohn in his tentative decision rendered on July 14 wrote, “Frontier Homes prepared an ‘initial study–mitigated negative declaration.’ Upland approved the initial study–mitigated negative declaration and the project overall. Petitioner Friends of Upland Wetlands challenges the approvals, contending that California Environmental Quality Act requires a full environmental impact report for the project, rather than a mitigated negative declaration. Friends of Upland Wetlands is correct. The project site may be a ‘wetlands’ area, requiring consultation with the responsible agencies. Additionally, there is substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a ‘fair argument’ that the project may result in significant biological, noise, aesthetic, and groundwater recharge impacts. Accordingly, the petition is granted. A full environmental impact report is required.”
The Friends of Upland Wetlands did fail in effectively assailing the project approval on the grounds that the Upland City Council ignored the Upland Planning commission’s recommendation against the approval of the project, Judge Cohn ruled. The planning commission objected to what its members collectively found would be significant environmental impacts. In his decision, Judge Cohn dismissed the Friends of Upland Wetland’s contention that the planning commission’s determination constituted a binding finding that the project was unacceptable. He pointed out that “Although the planning commission recommended denial, it did so without considering certain modifications to the project—modifications that were later considered by Upland’s staff and incorporated into the staff report. Therefore, the planning commission’s recommendation was based on incomplete information. As a result, the planning commission’s recommendation of denial does not constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact as contended by Friends of Upland Wetlands.”
Still the same, Cohn said, “The initial study–mitigated negative declaration failed to recognize that the project may impact wetlands, requiring consultation with the responsible agencies.”
Cohn’s decision did not directly state but implied that the project site for the Villa Serena project includes property that cannot be built upon.
“Friends of Upland Wetlands contends the initial study-mitigated negative declaration failed to recognize that several acres of the property are ‘wetlands’ and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,” Cohn stated. “Upland and Frontier Homes, however, write: ‘This case . . . is premised on the misconception that a decades-old operating flood control channel . . . is a wetland. It is not, and California and Federal law make clear that operating and licensed stormwater facilities are ‘artificial’ or ‘nonwetland.’”
The city and developer are incorrect on that point, Judge Cohn held.
“It is not so simple,” Cohn wrote. “First, Upland and Frontier Homes rely on documents such as State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2019-0015 and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), which are not part of the administrative record. The court cannot consider them. Second, and more importantly, the issue is not whether the property is or is not ultimately determined to be wetlands – the issue is whether Friends of Upland Wetlands has submitted ‘substantial evidence’ supporting a ‘fair argument’ that it is, such that a full environmental impact report is required.”
Judge Cohn continued, “Upland and Frontier Homes have ignored substantial evidence cited by Friends of Upland Wetlands supporting a fair argument that the project site is a wetlands area. The 15th Street Basin was originally thirty-two acres, and in 1999-2000, Upland filled in the westerly 11.2 acres with the oversight of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the annual report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife under the 1999 streambed alteration agreement, LSA Associates, Inc., the same consulting firm that prepared the initial study-mitigated negative declaration in this case, states that the 1998 biological assessment of the basin found the habitat quality of the area was of low value due to the limited diversity of vegetation, but that ‘[t]he single habitat component of any notable value on the site is the presence of water, albeit seasonally.’ At that time, the LSA biological assessment characterized the vegetation of the basin as either ‘upland’ or ‘wetland,’ with 6.5 acres of the thirty-two-acre basin delineated as wetlands. Of that amount, 5.3 wetland acres were located in the remaining unfilled portions of the basin. The 1999 agreement also called for 1.8 acres of ‘new’ wetlands area to be created in the basin to replace the ‘lost’ 1.2 acres of wetland area from the fill project. Therefore, additional wetland areas were apparently added to the remaining unfilled portions of the basin, where this project is to be located.”
Cohn wrote, “Upland and Frontier Homes contend that Friends of Upland Wetlands mischaracterizes the 1999 streambed alteration agreement, noting that it expired in 2001 and was issued under a Fish and Game Code section that has since been repealed. That does not mean, however, that the law underlying the agreement no longer exists elsewhere in the code.”
“Cohn continued, “The 1999 streambed alteration agreement was issued pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1601, which at the time contained provisions regarding notice of construction projects and proposals for modifications, and stated in relevant part: ‘Except as provided in this section, general plans sufficient to indicate the nature of a project for construction by, or on behalf of, any state or local governmental agency … shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife if the project will (1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit, (2) use material from the streambeds designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or (3) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by that construction, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall notify the governmental agency … of the existence of the fish or wildlife resource together with a description thereof and shall propose reasonable modification in the proposed construction that will allow for the protection and continuance of the fish or wildlife resource ….’”
Judge Cohn noted that California law “require[s] a governmental agency proposing a project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, or result in the disposal of debris, in a river, stream, or lake designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, to submit prescribed plans and other information to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and to follow prescribed procedures” and state law further requires “a holder of an agreement to alter a streambed to remain responsible for implementing any mitigation or other measures necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources after the agreement had expired,” such that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is authorized “to suspend or revoke an agreement if the holder is not in compliance with its terms.”
In his ruling, Judge Cohn held that “The 1999 streambed alteration agreement is important, notwithstanding expiration, because it provides substantial evidence that both Upland and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife previously considered the 15th Street Basin to be a ‘bed, channel, or bank of’ a streambed that was under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. At that time, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had determined that Upland’s intent to fill in the westerly 11.2 acres of the original basin could ‘substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, including: red-tailed hawk, red-winged blackbird … other birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plants, and other aquatic-related resources and wildlife’ in the basin. Among other conditions, the agreement stated, ‘There shall be no loss of wetland habitat and function. Impacts to wetland habitat shall be mitigated at a 1.5 to 1 ratio by management of the basin to allow for retention of wetland habitat at the eastern sector, which grows as a result of flow and [percolation] in the basin.’ In accordance with the permit issued under the agreement, the ‘lost’ 1.2 acres of wetland area required a 1.8-acre replacement to be established in the remaining unfilled area of the basin, and Upland was required to submit an annual report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for five years.”
Judge Cohn stated, “Upland and Frontier Homes have not pointed to any evidence in the record indicating that the ‘wetlands’ designation underlying the 1999 streambed alteration agreement was later rescinded or otherwise modified. The initial study-mitigated negative declaration relies on the ‘Phase I Environmental Site Assessment’ of the project site. The environmental site assessment was conducted concurrently with the biological assessment in June 2018. The environmental site assessment contains maps that identify the site as ‘National Wetland Inventory’ – part of a national wetlands database purportedly maintained by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The environmental site assessment also advises that ‘the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included … [and] the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.’ Yet the executive summary of the environmental site assessment, after stating that the ‘Site is listed with State Water Resources Control Board California Integrated Water Quality System … database as Inland Empire Utilities Authority groundwater recharge basin operations and maintenance,’ inexplicably states that the ‘listing does not represent a recognized environmental condition.’ No explanation is given in the initial study-mitigated negative declaration or by Upland and Frontier Homes for the discrepancy between this conclusion in the executive summary portion of the environmental site assessment and the data displayed on the maps that show the site listed in the National Wetland Inventory – a listing which presumes the recognized environmental condition of a ‘wetlands’ area.”
That constituted a substantial flaw in the mitigated negative declaration, Judge Cohn opined.
“Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the site is a designated wetlands area, such that a significant environmental impact may occur as a result of the project,” Cohn wrote. “Accordingly, Upland’s decision to adopt the initial study-mitigated negative declaration in approving the project was an abuse of discretion. The failure to consider that the project may impact wetlands renders the description of the project inaccurate. This failure also forms part of the reason there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of biological impacts.”
Cohn wrote, “The failure to recognize that the project site may be a designated wetlands area also resulted in Upland’s failure to submit the initial study–mitigated negative declaration to any responsible or trustee agencies—a per se violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. California regulations state that all waterways of the state, including intermittent streams, are subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under Fish and Game Code section 1602, it is illegal for an entity to ‘substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank or, any river, stream, or lake’ without first notifying and obtaining the approval of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.”
In addressing Friends of Upland Wetlands’ contention that the project may result in significant biological impacts, Judge Cohn made a finding that a prima facie showing that such was the case had been made. He said the city council during the April 13, 2020 hearing on the project had ignored evidence to that effect.
“During the public comment period, several wildlife biologists and amateur birdwatchers noted personal observations of various wildlife species and habitats on the site,” Judge Cohn wrote. “Friends of Upland Wetlands argues that these comments by local ‘experts’ ‘completely debunked’ the conclusions in the initial study-mitigated negative declaration, and therefore, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (g), Upland should have required an environmental impact report. Upland and Frontier Homes, however, argue that these commenters are not ‘experts,’ and therefore their unsubstantiated opinions and comments cannot constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument because they lack credibility. Notwithstanding these comments, Upland and Frontier Homes contend Friends of Upland Wetlands’ claim fails because none of the commenters addressed or objected to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 [contained in the mitigated negative declaration], which purports to reduce the biological impacts of the project to a less than significant level. The argument ignores oral comments by one person addressing the inadequacy of the biological assessment, and thus alluding to the inadequacy of the recommended mitigation measure. Natasha Walton, a wildlife biologist and sixteen-year Upland resident, opined that the field survey conducted for the biological resources assessment was performed at the wrong time of year and failed to follow proper survey protocols. Walton stated that burrowing owls had historically been present in the basin and that suitable burrowing owl habitat had been noted in the report, but an adequate survey was not conducted. In addition, she opined that the delineation of jurisdictional waters was done at the wrong time of year because ‘everything’s dead or dormant’ in July. Walton also asserted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife should have been consulted regarding the proper protocol for conducting an accurate survey according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife report on burrowing owl mitigation, and that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife should have been consulted to obtain its comments on the evaluation and mitigation measures in the initial study-mitigated negative declaration.”
Judge Cohn went on. “Such technical interpretation requires an expert evaluation, but Walton stated she had expertise as a wildlife biologist, the type of expertise that would allow her to evaluate the adequacy of the biological assessment,” Judge Cohn noted. “Upland and Frontier Homes contend that Walton’s comments were properly disregarded because she did not provide any information about her credentials or education. The statutes, guidelines, and case law impose no such requirement. Walton’s expertise as a wildlife biologist is sufficient to qualify her to opine on the sufficiency of the biological assessment.”
The Friends of Upland Wetlands further contended in the petition for mandate that the initial study-mitigated negative declaration failed to adequately address the project’s adverse impacts on groundwater recharge. In his size up of the issue, Judge Cohn said the mitigated negative declaration outlined mitigation measures that took into consideration most of impacts of the project upon groundwater recharge. In one respect touching on groundwater recharge, however, he found that the mitigated negative declaration fell short.
“The initial study–mitigated negative declaration… does not explain how Mitigation Measure HYD-3 will allow the project to convert fifty-five percent of the site to impervious surfaces and substantially reduce the current containment capacity of the basin without impacting the basin’s current groundwater recharge function,” Judge Cohn wrote.
Judge Cohn rejected Friends of Upland Wetland’s contention that the project would impose traffic circulation burdens within the Foothill Knolls District.
“Friends of Upland Wetland’s traffic impact argument is moot,” he wrote.
Judge Cohn took up the plaintiffs’ contention that “the project may result in significant aesthetics impacts.” Without rendering a judgment on that contention, Judge Cohn noted, “Several residents commented that the elevations of the new homes would block mountain views of several nearby residences in the adjacent neighborhood” and that “During the planning commission meeting on January 22, 2020, the vice chair of the commission noted that comments regarding the loss of views were ‘the most thing that was repeated.’ Judge Cohn then made citation to several landmark decisions relating to the aesthetic impact of development on existing properties, including Ocean View Estates Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water District. “In this case, the residents’ comments were based on their personal observations regarding the aesthetics in the area near the site,” Cohn wrote. “Their comments expressing ‘height, view and privacy concerns’ constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant aesthetic impact on the environment.”
Quoting from a decision in the case of Georgetown Preservation Society, Judge Cohn wrote, “Despite the subjective nature of aesthetic concerns, it is clear that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact. Whether it likely will or will not have such an impact is a question that an environmental impact report is designed to answer.”
In his conclusion, Judge Cohn wrote, “for the reasons explained above, the petition for a writ of mandate is granted. A full environmental impact report is required because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project site contains wetlands, and that the project may result in significant biological, noise, aesthetic, and groundwater recharge impacts. The remaining grounds for the petition are denied.”
On July 14, Judge Cohn in his courtroom heard arguments from John McClendon who was present to represent Friends of Upland Wetlands, from Ginetta Giovinco who was heard telephonically representing the city and from Stephen Larson, Jennifer Cooper and Scott Summer, also telephonically, representing Frontier Homes. Judge Cohn issued his tentative ruling, while taking the arguments under submission. He is to notify the parties of his final decision by mail.
Five days later, on July 19, Frontier Homes submitted a request for judicial notice and a motion to augment the administrative record. That document was not filed and was returned to Frontier Homes’ legal representatives by the court with the notation that such motions have to be reserved for a hearing prior to their filing. It is not clear whether or not Judge Cohn is delaying his final ruling pending a hearing date on that motion being set and the documentation being considered and the motion heard.
-Mark Gutglueck

Needles City Councilman Timothy Terral this week resigned from his elected position, some two years and eight months after assuming office in San Bernardino County’s smallest and easternmost city.
After an unsuccessful attempt at capturing a council position in 2016, Terral was victorious in November 2018, placing second among five candidates vying for three positions on the council.
Early in his tenure as a councilor, in Spring 2019 Terral sought state assistance in restoring the Needles Lagoon.
Terral and Needles Mayor Jeff Williams, a former sheriff’s deputy and a concealed weapons permit holder, noted that California’s stricter gun regulations vis-à-vis those in other states resulted in travelers or tourists from Utah, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere, while traveling to California via Route 40, being obliged to unload their firearms upon crossing the Colorado River into the Golden State, and to keep their ammunition in a separate locked compartment, or risk arrest on a felony firearms charge.
Terral and Williams garnered statewide and national attention, as they sponsored, in the summer of 2019, a resolution to declare Needles a Second Amendment sanctuary city, which was intended to suspend certain state laws pertaining to the carrying of loaded firearms.
The Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, which was passed by the city council, called upon local law enforcement, meaning the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol, standing down with regard to enforcing firearms regulations under California law in Needles. That extended to allowing Needles residents to travel outside of the state to purchase ammunition, which runs counter to California law, intended to ensure that citizens buy bullets in California, where vendors are required to comprehensively log ammunition sales, capturing the identity of the buyer and the precise type and batch of bullets sold.
Using the term sanctuary in the resolution Terral proposed was deliberate, as he recognized that the proposal was calling for the suspension of state law. To neutralize charges or accusations that he was advocating lawlessness, the name for the resolution Terral used harkened to the ongoing movement by the State of California’s so-called progressive element, embodied by the Democrats who controlled then and still control both houses of the legislature as well as the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, superintendent of schools, comptroller and auditor, all of whom were and are calling for California to serve as a sanctuary state, that is, one in which federal immigration laws were not enforced.
Terral was a fierce supporter of then-President Donald Trump as well as Republican and Right Wing causes. This put him within the mainstream among a sizable contingent of Needles residents. Nevertheless, the political initiatives he championed often fell outside the purview of local officials and the city council of which he was a member.
Terral’s so-called conservative philosophy was out of step with what has proven out as the major social, political and legal trend in Needles in the last decade, that being the city’s marijuanification.
After 89 years of marijuana being strictly illegal in California, in 1996 the state’s voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, which made marijuana legal for medical purposes, pursuant to a user of the substance obtaining a prescription for it from a licensed medical doctor. San Bernardino County and all of its political subdivisions, however, were unaccepting of that shift altogether for most of the next 16 years, such that neither the county nor its 22 incorporated cities and its two incorporated towns allowed marijuana dispensaries to set up operations within their confines.
Needles in 2012 became the first municipality in San Bernardino County to permit and license dispensaries. This occurred some four years before California voters passed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Proposition 64, in 2016, making the use of marijuana for its intoxicative effect legal for those 21 years of age or older. Progressives hailed Needles’ 2012 action while traditionalists were opposed to it.
Terral came into office in 2018, as Needles was involved in a competition with another cash-strapped San Bernardino County city, Adelanto, in an effort to exploit the liberalization of California’s marijuana laws to get in on the ground floor of the commercialization of marijuana, by permitting widespread operation of marijuana cultivation facilities and marijuana boutiques and retail stores and layering a sales/operation tax on those entities to generate revenue.
As a conservative Republican who was potentially looking toward higher office, Terral was torn between the ethos of the city and the city council he was a part of and the Republican Party, which hewed more toward the historical attitude that marijuana and its use is adverse to an orderly and civilized society.
Abiding by the strictures of Terral’s party-affiliation and socially conservative roots was put to the test when in 2019 his wife was offered a lucrative job at a marijuana-related commercial operation in Needles. In the end, she elected not to go to work there because of the suggestion this would entail a conflict on her husband’s part whenever issues relating to cannabis commercial activity came before the city council. Not having his wife entangled with the cannabis industry preserved for Terral his reputation as a true red rock-ribbed Republican.
At this point, however, Terral’s political ambition appears to have abandoned him, and he on Tuesday announced he was giving up the elective office he held. Incumbency is, electoral statistics show, an advantage in being reelected to the office one holds as well as a relative advantage when seeking another elective office. It would thus appear that holding onto the office of city councilman or vying for another elective post such as state assemblyman or state senator is no longer a priority for Terral.
The 52-year-old cited personal and business reasons for tendering his resignation. He is employed as a cable company technician and his parents operate a local bed and breakfast inn.
Terral’s resignation from the Needles City Council is the second one from that august panel in two years. Former Councilman Clayton Hazlewood resigned his office on December 10, 2019.
-Mark Gutglueck