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.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF and A DEATH CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR PROBATE FOR: LAURA ANN DAHLSTROM
CASE NO. PROSB2100473
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LAURA ANN DAHLSTROM has been filed by MICHELLE PIERCE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHELLE PIERCE 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 $550,000 bond be fixed. The bond will be admitted by an admitted surety insuerer or as otherwise provided by law.
Decedent died on 10/07/2020 in MORENO VALLEY, CA, a resident of San Bernardino County.
A hearing on the petition will be held OCTOBER 12, 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.
Rebecca Hernandez, Deputy
AUGUST 9, 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 character and estimated value of the property of the estate is estimated at $550,000.
Filed: August 9, 2021
Attorney for Michelle Pierce
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 27, September 3 & 10, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FBN 20210008080
The following entity is doing business as ROADSHOP [and] ROADSHOP AUDIO [and] KEY4U 13390 ARROW RTE FONTANA, CA 92335: DANIEL HERNANDEZ 13390 ARROW RTE FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DANIEL HERNANDEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/05/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. All three began transacting business on MARCH 18, 2016
County Clerk, Deputy 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 on 8/27, 9/03, 9/10 & 9/17, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FBN 20210008683
The following entity is doing business as GUMDROP PROPERTIES [and] AND1 INVESTMENTS [and] URAVERAGEJO 504 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE #302 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 GUMDROP PROPERTIES LLC 504 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE #302 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JO ANNE SILVA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. All three entities began transacting business on: JULY 23, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy 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 on 8/27, 9/03, 9/10 & 9/17, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008408
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Shifted Auto Detailing, 3031 E Brookside, CA Ontario, CA 91761, Nicolas Juarez, 3031 E Brookside, CA Ontario, CA 91761
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Nicolas Juarez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/13/21
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008118
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Perez Perez Photography, 1099 W Hill Dr, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Amilcar Perez Perez, 1099 W Hill Dr, San Bernardino, CA 92407
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/ Amilcar Perez Perez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/05/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/14/2021
County Clerk, s/ I8311
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008346
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: RMAC Credit, 14025 Meadow Lane, Lytle Creek, CA 92358, Roy Mendez, 14025 Meadow Lane, Lytle Creek, CA 92358
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/ Roy Mendez
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: N/A
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008553
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Gypsy Drilling, 622 Aspen Way, Upland, CA 91786, Carmine N. Cerchio, 622 Aspen Way, Upland, CA 91786, Lindsay M. Cerchio, 622 Aspen Way, Upland, CA 91786
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/ Carmine N. Cerchio
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/18/21
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008547
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Nutribio, 4577 Condor Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Luis A. Reyes, 4577 Condor Avenue, 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/ Luis A Reyes
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/18/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 08/01/21
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008768
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Jagged Fab Works, 1154 W 9th St, Upland, CA 91786, Kenneth J Charles Jr, 1154 W 9th St, Upland, CA 91786
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/ Kenneth J Charles Jr
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/10/2021
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007967
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Robert F Bicher & Associates, 1220 Monte Vista Dr., Redlands, CA 92373, Mailing Address: PO Box 7010, Redlands, CA 92375, Robert F Bicher, 1220 Monte Vista Dr., Redlands, CA 92373
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/ Robert F Bicher
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/03/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 12/15/1998
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007772
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Eagle Fang Realty, 15389, Muscat Ave, Fontana, CA 92335, Geovanni Teon, 15389, Muscat Ave, Fontana, CA 92335
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/ Geovanni Teon
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: 01/01/2021
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).
08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

FBN20210007333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 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 7/16, 7/23, 7/30, 8/06, 2021 & 08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVSB2120632
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Hariar Winston Tambunan filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Hariara Winston Tambunan, aka Tambunan Winston Hariarar to Tambunan Winston Hariarar
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: 09/27/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
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 21, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/27/21, 09/03/21, 09/10/21, 09/17/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
ROBERT LUCIEN UNDERWOOD
NO. PROSB 2100564
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERT LUCIEN UNDERWOOD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by NATALI UNDERWOOD MERIDA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that NATALI UNDERWOOD MERIDA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedents 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 NOVEMBER 2, 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: SEPTEMBER 1, 2021
SELYNA RAZO, Court Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Natali Underwood Merida:
Jennifer Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel September 3, 10 & 17, 2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: STEVENS RIDGWAY BROWN
CASE NO. PROSB2100580
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of STEVENS RIDGWAY BROWN:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by STEPHANIE M. BROWN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that STEPHANIE M. BROWN 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 OCTOBER 7, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
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: September 2, 2021
Attorney for Stephanie M. Brown
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 September 10, 17 & 24, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: GAUDELIA OCHOA aka BLANCA OCHOA
CASE NO. PROSB2100545
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of GAUDELIA OCHOA aka BLANCA OCHOA :
A Petition for Probate has been filed by JACOB WAYNE STAHL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JACOB WAYNE STAHL 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 OCTOBER 26, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
August 25, 2021
Selyna Razo, Deputy
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 25, 2021
Attorney for Jacob Wayne Stahl
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 September 10, 17 & 24, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JOHN H. SUMNER aka JOHN HUBERT SUMNER JR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100582
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOHN H. SUMNER aka JOHN HUBERT SUMNER JR.:
A Petition for Probate has been filed has been filed by ANTHONY SUMNER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANTHONY SUMNER 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.
THE PETITION requests a $378,778.70 bond be fixed. The bond will be admitted by an admitted surety insuerer or as otherwise provided by law.
Decedent died on 10/07/2020 in 5659 PALOMAR AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404, a resident of San Bernardino County.
Decedent died intestate.
A hearing on the petition will be held OCTOBER 27, 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.
Sabrina Felix, Deputy
SEPTEMBER 1, 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 character and estimated value of the property of the estate is estimated at $378,778.70.
Filed: September 1, 2021
Attorney for Anthony Sumner
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 September 10, 17 & 24, 2021.
PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JAMES PAUL WHITELEY
CASE NO. PROSB2100556
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES PAUL WHITELEY:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PAUL JAMES WHITELEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PAUL JAMES WHITELEY be appointed as personal representatives 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. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 4, 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
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/10, 9/17 & 9/24, 2021.
T.S. No. 19-20977-SP-CA Title No. 191138141-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-752-18-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 01/11/2006. 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: Carlos A Urbina and Bertha Rodriguez, husband and wife, as joint tenants Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 01/23/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0045762 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 10/14/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $474,213.44 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 2932 E Big Range Rd Ontario, CA 91761-0000 A.P.N.: 0218-752-18-0-000 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 19-20977-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: 09/01/2021 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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021; CPP# 351367
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008879
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rose and Chalice; Rose & Chalice, 1153 East Highland Court, Ontario, CA 91764, Mailing Address: 305 North 2nd Ave, Unit 183, Upland. CA 91786, Serene D. Plant, 1153 E Highland Ct, Ontario, CA 91764
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Serene D Plant
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/21
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).
09/10/21, 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008980
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: HHK Designs, 2188 Lorraine Dr, Upland, CA 91784, Mark K Fitzpatrick, 2188 Lorraine Dr, Upland, CA 91784
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/ Mark K Fitzpatrick
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/30/21
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).
09/10/21, 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008317
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Fangear4u, 1495 W 9th St, Unit 607, Upland, CA 91786, Seung Don Kim, 14760 Moon Crest Ln, Unit B, Chino Hills, CA 91709
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/ Seung Don Kim
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/11/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 09/01/2019
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).
09/10/21, 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21

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. Tojin, 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 & Corrected on: 09/10/21, 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21

FBN20210009200
The following persons are doing business as TED’S SHIRTS & SHYTT
13231 YAKIMA RD. APPLE VALLEY, CA 92308:
TAILOR L. TITUS 13231 YAKIMA RD. APPLE VALLEY, CA 92308 [and] DIXIE BOLAN 14466 IROQUOIS ROAD APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ TAILOR L. TITUS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 9/08/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 31, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D511
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 September 10, 17, 24 & October 1, 2021.
FBN 20210008745
The following person is doing business as: BRB TRANSPORT 9820 SIERRA AVE, H FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BRANDON RR BAER 9820 SIERRA AVE H FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 16, 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/ BRANDON R. BAER, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/23/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202101MT
FBN 20210008591
The following person is doing business as: RESTORATION PRO 7868 GRACE AVE FONTANA, CA 92336 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ISIDRO ANGEL MENDOZA 7868 GRACE AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ ISIDRO ANGEL MENDOZA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/18/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202102SN

FBN 20210008063
The following person is doing business as: INSIGHT BY EME 9890 ARROW RTE UNIT 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); EDERLYN M ENCLONA 9890 ARROW RTE. UNIT 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ EDERLY M. ENCLONA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/04/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202103SB

FBN 20210008018
The following person is doing business as: EG DESIGNS 15024 ROSEMARY DR FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); EDGAR GUTIERREZ MEZA 15024 ROSEMARY DR FONTANA, CA 92335
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/ EDGAR GUTIERREZ MEZA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/04/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202104MT

FBN 20210007828
The following person is doing business as: CORONADO’S TEE’S 1701 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); [ MAILING ADDRESS 3438 RAINBOW LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346]; MELINDA L CORONADO 1701 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
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/ MELINDA L. CORONADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/29/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202105IR
FBN 20210008062
The following person is doing business as: BEAUTIPRO 14911 MERRILL AVE FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); KENDRY T ALVAREZ 14911 MERRILL AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 17, 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/ KENDRY T. ALVAREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/04/2021
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 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021 CNBB33202106MT
FBN 20210008816
The following person is doing business as: BEE ANGEL CLEANING SERVICE 2516 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); FABIOLA DELGADO 2516 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 16, 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/ FABIOLA DELGADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202101MT

FBN 20210008352
The following person is doing business as: BRYAN’S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 481 E LAUREL ST SUITE E COLTON, CA 92324 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BRYAN GRANADOS RAZO 481 E LAUREL ST SUITE E 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/ BRYAN GRANADOS RAZO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/12/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202102MT

FBN 20210008449
The following person is doing business as: MOSHA BEAUTY BAR 8221 ILEX ST.#59 FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); HEIDY S PONCE-FLORES 8221 ILEX ST.#59 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP 01, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HEIDY S. PONCE-FLORES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/13/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202103IR

FBN 20210008446
The following person is doing business as: AMH CONSTRUCTION 8221 ILEX ST. #59 FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALEX MONREAL HOFFMAN 8221 ILEX ST. #59 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 22, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ALEX MONREAL HOFFMAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/13/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202104IR

FBN 20210008444
The following person is doing business as: RANCHO VERDE MARKET 2018 N. RIVERSIDE AVE. RIALTO, CA 92377 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 3796 WATKINS DR. RIVERSIDE, CA 92507]; DEEB MANSOUR MARKET INC 18957 VAN BUREN BLVD STE C RIVERSIDE, CA 92508
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/ GHASSAN MANSOUR, CFO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/13/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202105IR

FBN 20210008454
The following person is doing business as: NICK’S SMOG CHECK 291 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JOSE O ESCUTIA GOMEZ 291 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 01, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE O. ESCUTIA GOMEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/13/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202106IR

FBN 20210008979
The following person is doing business as: JMG VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1020 EAST SAINT ANDREWS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91761 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); YORKAVITE, INC 1020 EAST SAINT ANDREWS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ JESSE MICHAEL GARIBAY, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/30/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/20211 CNBB35202107MC

FBN 20210008354
The following person is doing business as: TAZ.GURU 2315 STATE LN BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 416 BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314]; TAYLA A SHEPARD 2315 STATE LN BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314; KYLER J BULLOCK 2315 STATE LN BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314
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 11, 2014
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ TAYLA A. SHEPARD, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/12/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202108IR

FBN 20210008343
The following person is doing business as: JONATHAN & ANA AND ASSOC 10681 E FOOTHLL BLVD #140 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); J & A HOLDINGS CO. 2175 FOOTHILL BLVD STE B LA VERNE, CA 91750
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/ BRYAN J. BECERRA-ALBUREZ, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/12/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202109MT

FBN 20210008681
The following person is doing business as: MALDONADO MAINTENANCE 805 E WILLOW ST ONTARIO, CA 91764 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JOSE S MALDONADO RODRIGUEZ 805 E WILLOW ST 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/ JOSE S. MALDONADO RDRIGUEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/20/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202110MT

FBN 20210008694
The following person is doing business as: PEAK ENTERPRISES E.V. 673 COOLEY DR SUITE #110 COLTON, CA 92324 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); KURT R LANTZ 673 COOLEY DR SUITE #110 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/ KURT R. LANTZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/20/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202111MT

FBN 20210008851
The following person is doing business as: HIGH DESSERT WOOD WORKS 1146 E. CONGRESS ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BELEN NAVARRO 1146 E. CONGRESS ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ BELEN NAVARRO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202101IR

FBN 20210009101
The following person is doing business as: MARISCOS LUMBRE 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONNGA, CA 91701; SRTURO JR O MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701; REBECCA MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 25, 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/ CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/02/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202102IR

FBN 20210009073
The following person is doing business as: HANDMADE PAPER ART 10155 CLOVERDR OAK HILLS, CALIF 92344 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CALIF 92701]; ERNESTO AVINA 10155 CLOVER DR OAK HILLS, CA 92344
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 25, 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/ ERNESTO AVINA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/01/2021
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 09/10/2021, 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021 CNBB35202103CV

Former Sheriff John McMahon exited as San Bernardino County‘s highest law enforcement officer earlier this year upon being presented with overwhelming evidence that former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bill Postmus had successfully manipulated him and his department into action that was lining the pockets of a marijuana cartel controlled by Postmus and his associates.

That cartel, through an out-of-state entity set up by Postmus, has laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars to a myriad of public officials throughout the county, those associated with it have acknowledged. A significant portion of those payoffs, in the form of disclosed campaign contributions as well as ones hidden in a variety of forms, have gone to politicians in the cities of San Bernardino, Adelanto, Needles, Hesperia and Barstow, where marijuana and cannabis-related commercial establishments have been or are in the process of being permitted and licensed. Simultaneously, Postmus is spreading those bribes around to members of the board of supervisors and politicians in several county cities, where commercial cannabis and marijuana-related activity is not yet permitted but where the cartel and those politicians it is greasing have designs to liberalize regulations that will allow the Postmus cartel to set up a monopoly or near monopoly within the next two-to-five years.

Sources close to McMahon say that the former sheriff was taken in by Postmus’s show of religiosity. Expressing piety was a chapter in Postmus’s original political playbook, which he in his maiden campaign for the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in 2000. when he was 29 years old. Boldly, Postmus, on the strength of his having volunteered for Republican Assemblyman Jim Brulte, Republican Assemblywoman Kathleen Honeycutt, and Republican Assemblyman Keith Olberg, as well as his status as one of the founding members of the High Desert Young Republicans, Postmus took on incumbent First District County Supervisor Kathy Davis, also a Republican, in that race.

A key element of Postmus campaign was the support that came his way from five of the eight largest churches in the High Desert, a Pentecostal and two Baptist in Victorvillle and two Baptist in Hesperia. The preachers at all five were believers in Christian denominational political action, and they would not hesitate in letting their congregations know who among the candidates seeking office at any given time were worthy of support and who were not. Postmus made a point, as the election was approaching, of putting in an appearance during Sunday Service, sometimes at three different churches from early morning to early afternoon, depending on the time of worship at each. The ministers did not hold back, and in between their sermons and homilies, and in their sermons and homilies, sometimes with Bill Postmus present in any one of the first three rows and sometimes with him attending elsewhere, the subject of the upcoming election would be brought up. The worshipers should search their hearts, they were besought, and vote for person Jesus would cast his ballot for. The message was clear: that person was not the liberal-leaning Kathy Davis.

Postmus, assisted by his electioneering team, represented himself as a rock-ribbed conservative, family values Republican. With his clean-cut, All American youthful demeanor, which made him look like the grandson every Republican grandmother in America would love to claim as her own, together with his pro-law enforcement, anti-abortion, let’s-maintain-a-strong military stance, Postmus trounced Davis, a former Apple Valley Mayor Kathy Davis, who despite her GOP affiliation from the time she was elected to the board in 1996 had played footsie with the two Democrats supervisors on the panel, Jerry Eaves and Larry Walker, and her other liberal Republican colleague, Jon Mikels.

Having pulled off that coup, Postmus arrived in San Bernardino, becoming the fifth youngest supervisor in county history, after ?? in ?. Thereafter, he proved fabulously successful, handily achieving re-election in 2004, at which point he was chosen by his board colleagues as board chairman, making him the second youngest person to hold that honorific after ????, in 189? At the same time, he was voted in as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee. In a county that was then dominated by the Republican Party, at the age of 33 he was the dominant political entity in 20,105-square mile San Bernardino County, reigning over a dominion that geographically larger than Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, combined. As the leader of the San Bernardino County’s Republicans, he intensified fundraising efforts on behalf of the party’s candidates and causes, succeeding in his stated goal of keeping the Democrats and liberalism at baythroughout the area, with the lone exception of the county’s Central Valley and its cities of Fontana, Rialto, Colton and western San Bernardino and their heavy blue-collar and union-affilated populations. In 2006, while he was yet chairman of both the central committee and the board of supervisors, Postmus launched a campaign for county assessor. Spending just under $3 million in what remains to this day the most expensive electoral effort in San Bernardino County history, he beat inumbent Assessor Donald Williamson, making himself the most powerful taxing authority in the county.

At that point, the future seemed to auger well for Postmus. He had control of the county GOP’s political machine. He held the elected position of the most powerful taxing authority in the county. The loose ethical standards normally applied in San Bernardino County allowed him to adjust the assessments on the property of the county’s wealthy elite downward and thereby save them tthousands, tens of thousands or perhaps more than a hundred thousand dollars per year, leaving them disposed to make generous donations to Postmus’s political fund, either of the political action committees he controlled or the San Bernardino County Republican Party if he made such a request. With his own campaign coffers flush with cash and the county party structure he dominated, Postmus had the luxury of having multiple options as to which office he might next successfully accede to – assemblyman, state senator or congressman – while serving as a kingmaker by being able to vector at will sufficient cash to ensure his closest allies in the primary races against other Republicans prevailed and to then commit adequate resources so that Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in the November races.

As assessor, however, Postmus soon overreached, as when he increased from one to two the number of assistant assessor positions and installed in those posts two of his closest political associates, neither of whom had any previous experience in assessing or real estate. He then filled 11 of the assessor’s offices next 14 highest-paying positions with his cronies and political operatives.

Postmus initially continued to ride high but by late in 2017 the manner in which he and those around him were exploiting the assessor’s office for personal and partisan political purposes had grown obvious to those paying attention, Things worsened in 2008, at which point the district attorney’s office had detailed investigators to look at the activity of Postmus, both assistant assessors, and at least seven of the assessor’s office personnel in its management and administrative echelon. In June 2008, Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman, who was at that point Posmus closest political and office associate, was arrested and charged withs six felonies, including destroying public records, vandalism or purposeful destruction of a assessor’s office computer, and the production/creation/forging or public documents. From midsummer 2008 until October of that year, Postmus was absent from the assessor’s office headquarters, and his whereabouts, in the face of growing scrutiny, were publicly unknown. Three months after he surfaced, in January 2009, district attorney’s office investigators, armed with a search warrant relating to suspected misuse of the assessor’s office authority, served a search warrant at Postmus’s Rancho Cucamonga condominium, finding in the course of that action methamphetamine and evidence indicating that he was smoking the crystalline form of the drug and had also engaged in the use of inhalants, such as toluene, paint thinner, butane and aerosol sprays.

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the September 3 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 09-03-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Redlands city officials have stepped into a quagmire of controversy through their ready accommodation of a developer intent on converting a 130-year old citrus farm, one of the last remaining original orange groves that dates back to the decade after the City of Redlands’ 1888 incorporation, into a residential subdivision.
As it now appears, whether the city approves or rejects the development proposal, there is an overwhelming likelihood the city will be put into the position of having to defend against a lawsuit relating to the project.
Jeff Burum and Matt Jordan of Rancho Cucamonga-based Diversified Pacific have set their sights on converting six of the England Grove Estate’s 8.8 acres into 28 2,000-to 2,600 square foot homes on what are mostly 6,200-square-foot lots.
The property slated for development lies within one of the city’s four primary historic zones, designated as the West Highland Avenue Historic and Scenic District, consisting of 24 historic homes within a two-mile radius of the proposed Diversified Pacific project. Those historic properties include the Miss Hester Leaverton House at 159 West Palm Avenue, less than 300-feet away; the Montgomery House, which borders the orange grove; the Thomas Jeffrey House at 625 Alvarado Avenue; the Thayer residence at 104 West Cypress Avenue, as well as 13 homes on West Highland Avenue, three homes on West Cypress Avenue, one house on South Buena Vista Street, two houses on Alvarado Street and three homes on West Palm Avenue.
If the project is given go-ahead by the city council as is anticipated next Tuesday, 90 percent of the grove and its irrigation system on the England Grove Estate, put into place by T. Y. England between 1891 and 1893, will be bulldozed.
The home on the property facing Palm Avenue initially built by Thomas Y. England in 1893 in the Victorian Style and altered into a prairie style in 1914 by Guy Hunter, as well as the carriage house behind the England home and the England Queen Anne cottage built on another part of the property facing Alvarado Street will be preserved, along with roughly 57 of the navel orange trees that were marketed for decades under the Pure Gold label.
Even before Diversified Pacific announced its developmental plan, questions had emerged about the fate of the property and its orange grove, and manipulations of the City of Redlands planning process. The England grove was planted as mostly navel orange trees beginning in 1891, using a gravity feed irrigation system. In 1986, Redlands’ voters passed Measure O, which included the approval of a bond to pay for purchasing and preserving historic orange groves in the city. The England Estate containing all of its historic assets – the two homes, the carriage house, the groves and its gravity fed irrigation system as well as its cut granite wall – was sold by the Hunter Family to James and Annie Attwood in 1922. The Attwoods in turn passed it along to their daughter, Mary Attwood Heeney and her husband Thomas J. Heeney, who continued to operate it as a citrus-producing farm. More than a decade ago, Thomas Heeney’s grandson Christopher Brumett along with his wife Jacquelyn signaled their willingness to sell the property. The City of Redlands, with its available grove-preservation bond money, and the Redlands Conservancy, showed interest. The Redlands Conservancy offered $3 million for the property. The Brumetts turned that offer down, saying they wanted roughly twice that amount. Another offer, this one for $4 million, was tendered by preservationists. Again, the Brumetts balked at that offer.
Inexplicably, in June 2019, the Brumetts accepted Diversified Pacific’s $2.35 million offer for the 8.8 acres.
Later that year, as Diversified Pacific’s developmental intentions for the property became known, residents of the West Highland Historical District approached City Hall, seeking to learn what they could, and to provide their input to top municipal staff and Redland’s elected officials, who would have the ultimate decision-making authority over the proposed project. When then-Redlands Mayor Paul Foster was approached, he begged off, insisting that it was premature to discuss anything about the matter, as the parameters of Diversified Pacific’s plan were not firmed up. Subsequently, when Diversified Pacific laid out that it intended to build 30 homes on the property, enclose it entirely with a wall and have a single entrance into the neighborhood that would be gated, Foster remained unwilling to discuss the project with any of his constituents. Unbeknownst to the general public, however, Foster was engaged in private dialogues with Diversified Pacific’s principals, during which he offered them an assurance the project as they were proposing it would pass muster with city staff and the city council.
In late 2019, the proposed project was submitted to the city.
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 intensive 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 Redlands 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.
Early in the process of the City of Redlands’ evaluation of Diversified Pacific’s development proposal for the England Estate property, which Diversified Pacific dubbed the Redlands Palm project, the city committed to allowing the project to be completed without Diversified Pacific having to go to the expense of a full-blown environmental impact report, instead consenting to have the city council consider providing the project with a mitigated negative declaration.
On October 1, October 15, and December 17 of 2020, and then on March 4, 2021 the Redlands Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission reviewed and discussed the initial study the city had completed as part of the proposed mitigated negative declaration the city council was to make in providing the project its environmental certification. The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission further considered the cultural resource assessment and historic resource evaluation that was to become part of the permanent record relating to the project. The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission adopted a resolution on March 4, 2021, documenting its findings that the proposed mitigated negative declaration and cultural resources report did not adequately identify and address the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources. The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission recommended that a full environmental impact report be prepared for the project to comprehensively identify and analyze any potentially significant impacts.
The matter was thereafter taken up by the Redlands Planning Commission on May 11, 2021. During the commission’s discussion there was some degree of concern expressed with regard to how the project will mesh with the existing surrounding neighborhoods, the project being a gated one, limited access to the project, the proposed cul-de-sac on the Alvarado Street side of the project, the proposed variances for the front yard setbacks and rear yard open space, and the applicant’s lack of communication with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as Diversified Pacific’s request for a reduction in lot size, and the project’s impact on historic resources.
The meeting was continued to June 8, 2021, pursuant to the formation of an ad-hoc subcommittee composed of two members of the planning commission, commissioners Karah Shaw and Steve Frasher.
This generated some heat, as Shaw is a real estate agent, and some felt this could constitute a conflict of interest in that she stood to profit were she to get the listings on or serve as a broker on the home sales within the Redlands Palm subdivision.
Shaw and Frasher met with Diversified Pacific’s principals and representatives thrice to discuss the project. Following the meetings, the applicant submitted a revised plan for the project, which removed the private access gates and the cul-de-sac, such that what had formerly been proposed as a private street went all the way through the project and connected to Alvarado Street. The removal of the cul-de-sac reduced by three the locations where there were front and rear yard setback variances. Other substandard setbacks remain as part of the project.
After being unable to come to a conclusion on June 8, the planning commission on June 22, 2021 voted 5-to-2, with Dr. Angela Keller and Matt Endsley dissenting, to recommend that the city council provide the project with a mitigated negative declaration with a proviso that roughly 56 of the trees would be retained and a kiosk would be erected that would recite the history of the England Estate and its significance to Redlands. The commission voted 6-to-1, with Keller dissenting, to grant the variances allowing yard size limitations and reduced setbacks on some of the lots.
When the city council convened on July 20, 2021, neither Burum nor Jordan was in attendance.
Peter Pitassi, an architect from Rancho Cucamonga representing Diversified Pacific, emphasized that the project as proposed would preserve the England Home and the carriage house, which were to be sold off to someone who would restore them, and that the England Cottage would be preserved as well.
Early in the proceedings, before the public weighed in, all five members of the council disclosed that they had private meetings with representatives of Diversified Pacific.
A group of residents who had banded together under the auspices of the group name Save The Grove retained attorney John McClendon.
McClendon prepared a document that was presented to the council which put forth the assertion and marshaled support thereto that a mitigated negative declaration for the project would not stand a legal challenge and that under the California Environmental Quality Act the city was required to conduct a full environmental impact report for the project. The city was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act because it had not consulted with nor included other agencies in determining what type of environmental document to prepare or in its preparation of the so-called initial study for the mitigated negative declaration, McClendon maintained.
Moreover, according to McClendon, there were disagreements among experts and analysts with regard to the issues dealt with in the initial study. Any such disagreements between experts as to whether an impact is significant or not necessitates that a comprehensive environmental report be compiled, McClendon said.
To make a negative declaration of no significant impacts and bypass the requirement for a full environmental impact report, McClendon said, the city had to consult with all agencies in the state with responsibility pertaining to the issues at play in the development. He asserted that the city had failed to make such consultations. The documentation upon which the mitigated negative declaration was based, “was not sent to the state clearing house,” McClendon said. “It was not properly distributed.”
McClendon included arguments that the destruction of the historical assets the project would entail imposed a mandate that the full-blown environmental impact report be conducted.
The point was further made that the listing of the 8.8-acre England Estate as a privately-owned historic resource subjected the property to a requirement that the historical assets be preserved in context, requiring that the two homes, the carriage house, the groves, their gravity-fed irrigation system and the surrounding wall be kept intact, and that any permanent changes to the exterior or setting of a designated historic resource be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Properties.
The estate’s grove qualified as prime farmland, McClendon said, and the mitigated negative declaration did not provide adequate disclosure of that.
Without his saying so explicitly, McClendon’s document and abbreviated presentation of it at the July 20 meeting stood as a warning that approving the project by means of an environmental certification of anything less than an environmental impact report would trigger a lawsuit against the city.
Sherli Leonard, the executive director of the Redlands Conservancy, said her organization had twice sought to purchase the England Estate to ensure its preservation but had been rebuffed. Diversified Pacific’s preservation of the two historic homes and carriage house fell short of keeping “the site intact,” she said. The grove, she said, was “integral” to the house and should be preserved.
A statement from Jack Stewart, who claimed 68 years experience in farm management, was read into the record at the hearing. Stewart said he had done a visual inspection of the grove from the street, and that it was his opinion as a “professional farmer” that the grove could be “saved,” given the grove’s “deep root system. The trees are still viable. The grove can be productive,” according to Stewart.
A statement from former Mayor Bill Cunningham was also read to the council.
“The decision you face has ramifications far beyond the merit or lack thereof of 28 homes proposed in this project,” he said. Cunningham noted that Measure O provided the city with bond money to “save [the local citrus] industry, jobs and heritage.” He said the England grove could easily be added to the city’s inventory of preserved citrus trees, and that the grove “can be brought to productivity.” Calling the England Estate a “unique asset,” Cunningham said it “should be treasured” as one of the last remaining such elements in Redlands. “It is the only property of the city that exists at it did 100 years ago. Its fruit has been of first quality. When one considers the unique attributes of the estate and the contributions the Englands made to the town we all cherish, the destruction of the grove can only be considered a sacrilege.”
Stuart Carlson took issue with Councilman Paul Foster’s advocacy on the part of Diversified Pacific and the charge he had made that the project’s opponents were seeking to block progress toward the project’s approval at the last minute by raising issues that should have been dealt with previously, pointing out that when Redlands residents approached him a year-and-a-half before with their concerns about the destruction of the grove, Foster had told them “we were too early.”
Carlson said “Diversified Pacific is requesting variances to existing codes for this project.”
He asked, “Is this the proper development that is consistent with the neighborhood? The answer is ‘No.’ There are too many homes on too small of lots, putting their homes too close to our homes.”
This proximity between dwelling units, Carlson said, was a violation of the city’s zoning code. “This is pouring salt into the wound of losing the attributes of this beautiful neighborhood in the name of developer profit. We expected that from the developer. The final question is: Will the council add to the salt in the wound for developer profit or deny the variances at the very least or the project as a whole for a plan that better fits in the neighborhood?”
Michael Kowalski said the council has a “history of essentially ignoring its constituents when it comes to development in the city.” The council, he said, could be counted upon to “appease the developers at every time. Why is it necessary to tear up one of the last remaining orange groves so 28 houses can be squeezed onto the property? Why is it that there are vast open spaces to the north [where] these same houses could go? Why have building codes and requirements if all that it takes to deviate from them is to seek variances with little to no logical support for those requests? Why is it that these 20 modern homes which have no resemblance to the homes in the established neighborhood have to be squeezed onto this minimal acreage?”
Susan Crockett said she felt “these 28 houses crammed like shoeboxes” were “destroying this piece of our history.”
Richard O’Donnell said that the project was out of compliance with Redlands’ Measure U’s restrictions on development and the California Environmental Quality Act. He said the property was one lot of record as of March 1997, and the “30 something new lots” planned for the project are “new lots of record. New lots of record of are not exempt from Measure U’s restrictions. The land has been agricultural for over a century. Land used as agriculture as of November 1986 has to be developed at residential estate standards” as opposed to the less restrictive zoning in the current development proposal. O’Donnell went on to say, “The trees on that land have been intentionally mismanaged since it was purchased by the developer. Send this thing back to the drawing board. A new proposal should be required, using all of the residential estate zoning requirements.”
LuAnn Benton, who lives on Palm Avenue in the Montgomery House immediately adjacent to the England Estate orange grove, called upon the city council “to deny this project proposed by Diversified Pacific and require a full environmental impact report be performed according to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.”
Redlands’ status as a “Certified Local Government” within the context of having committed to historical preservation, Benton said, requires it “to provide regular reports of their compliance” in making efforts to maintain significant historical and cultural resources.”
Benton said, “In reference to the mitigated negative declaration, the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission concurred with our claim, and disagreed with [the City of Redlands development issue consultant] LSA’s conclusions. The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission recommended that this project not move forward, along with the recommendation for the preparation of an environmental impact report.”
Benton noted that “The England Grove Estate is the last remaining intact gravity-fed irrigation property in Redlands. To simply retain the England main house, without its context of the grove, gravity-fed irrigation, granite cut wall, barn, carriage house and contributing historic elements, is a significant impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The 28 homes, in place of the historic grove, would have a significant impact on the England residence, as well as the entire neighborhood. The requested variances are not warranted. The squeezing of large tract homes on very small lots will destroy the historic context of our neighborhood.”
If the city were to approve the project as proposed, Benton said, the city would violate its own development standards.
“According to the general plan update, the preservation of historic neighborhoods and associated resources is paramount to keeping Redlands unique,” she said. “Diversified Pacific is systematically destroying the entire historic grove by not watering consistently. The trees are dying. They only water when a city meeting is upon them.”
Susan Keith, referencing the full council’s acknowledgment of having met with Diversified Pacific and Foster’s refusal to meet with the residents advocating against the project, said, “It really bothers me that you have time for the developers but not your constituents.”
Invited by Mayor Paul Barich to refute what the opponents of the project had said, Pitassi said he would remind the council and everyone else that “This property is private. It is privately owned. It’s been zoned for this use for many, many, many years, going back to 1955.”
Pitassi sought to put to rest reports that there somehow was more to the circumstance than meets the eye with regard to how Diversified Pacific was able to acquire the property, despite paying the Brumetts, as the heirs of the Heeney family, less money for the property than the Redlands Conservancy had offered.
“The property was on the open market for sale for over ten years,” Pitassi said. “There were attempts made, as I understand it, by the conservancy to purchase it. The sellers for reasons known to them were not able to come to an agreement with them, and consequently it continued to be on the market when we entered discussions with them, and we were able to complete a transaction, closing escrow in June of 2019. The Heeneys were struggling with the grove. That’s why it was on the market. Unfortunately, commercial viability of the grove simply wasn’t there any longer. As someone pointed out, the trees are, many of them, over 100 years old. Their productive life simply isn’t there any longer, and the market for citrus, particularly oranges, isn’t very strong. The economic records we received showed it was a money-losing operation, and they were struggling to keep it. So, it was clearly not what the image of it may be from an economic perspective.”
Pitassi dismissed objections to the project relating to the size of the lots and the density of the homes to be built.
“The minimal lot size for this project proposal is 6,400 feet and the average lot size is over 7,200 square feet, which is very common for subdivisions within this community and many, many communities,” Pitassi said. “In fact, in some communities, it would be considered rather large. We believe the yield and land plan for this site is appropriate.”
Pitassi said the zoning in the area would allow over 40 homes to be built there and that Diversified Pacific had chosen not to build two-story homes, though Redlands’ zoning code would have allowed the company to do so.
“We’ve gone to some significant effort to be as sensitive as we can be to the conditions around our property,” Pitassi asserted. “We think we have a project that will be very beneficial to the community and the neighborhood.”
The lawyer for Diversified Pacific, Mark Ostoich, insisted the letter of the law is on the side of the developer, and that the project opponents could offer nothing beyond their various points of view holding that the project was not right for their neighborhood.
“The California Environmental Quality Act is based on substantial evidence that is in the record,” Ostoich said. “Opinions are not based on substantial evidence. They are opinions. They’re respected. They are what they are.”
Those opinions carry no legal authority, Ostoich said.
“The mitigated negative declaration that was prepared in this case is based on the only substantial evidence in the record of these proceedings, and that substantial evidence is the cultural resources assessment that was prepared by our consultant who is a Secretary of the Interior-qualified professional and was aggressively peer-reviewed by the city’s consultant, LSA Associates. I submit to you that the only substantial evidence in the record of these proceeding is the cultural resources assessment.”
The preservationists in Redlands should content themselves with what they are getting out of the project, Ostoich said.
“The cultural resources that are being lost [i.e., 90 percent of the the grove and the irrigation system and the wall] are less significant than the highly visible cultural resources that are being retained [the two homes and the carriage house],” Ostoich said.
The Sentinel made repeated efforts this and last week, both by phone and email, to reach Burum and Jordan for their input with regard to the project and the burgeoning opposition to it among Redlands’ residents. Neither had responded by press time.
Toward the end of the July 20 hearing, Councilman Eddie Tejada, in reaction to his having been forced to acknowledge that he had meetings with representatives from Diversified Pacific and hearing that all of his council colleagues had likewise had private exchanges with Diversified Pacific together with repeated references to the council members shunning residents when they sought to engage with them regarding the project, said, “I am sorry if it appears that the council is only listening to the developers and not the community. I think we can do a better job of expressing how it is that we are doing our best to communicate what you are sharing with us, because, trust me, we read all of the emails and I know that some of you reread some the things you already sent in. Part of the process, for me at least, is to receive your concerns and convey them to city staff through questions.”
With the council chamber packed with opponents of the project, the city council on July 20 receded from a vote regarding the project that night, instead continuing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled council meeting on August 3.
At the August 3 meeting, the city council unanimously approved continuing the public hearing for the Redlands Palm project until September 7.
The agenda for the September 7 meeting gives the city council the option of voting for or against receiving and accepting a socioeconomic cost/benefit study prepared for the proposed project, approving a tentative parcel map for the project, approving a conditional use permit for the project, approving a tentative tract map for the project and consenting to two variances.
Elsewhere on the agenda is a notice that the city council is to discuss during its closed session that “a significant exposure to litigation exists based upon the facts and circumstances set forth in a letter for the initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the 301 West Palm Avenue residential development project.”
The Sentinel is reliably informed that McClendon was not responsible for the referenced letter.
In the body of the staff report for the agenda item for the development project, two options are laid out for the city council. The agenda item reads: “Pursuant to discussion during its closed session, the following alternative motions are being provided to council for consideration: recirculate the proposed mitigated negative declaration in accordance with law or move that the city council request staff to prepare an environmental impact report.”
Based upon remarks made by Councilman Paul Foster at the July 20 meeting in which he essentially telegraphed his intention to approve the project, the council appears to be leaning toward allowing Diversified Pacific to proceed with constructing the 28 homes.
Foster on July 20, speaking directly to the preservationists who oppose the project, said, “I have a sensitivity that is not being recognized for the passion you have. But I have to weigh that against my belief in private property rights. That is going to weigh heavily on my mind as I look at not only what we have seen tonight, and I look forward to doing [sic] staff’s comments on the letter we received today, which I would point out to you is not an unusual thing, as the city attorney acknowledges. [U]sually what happens is an attorney representing one or more people, they like to wait to submit their comments and drop it on us at a planning commission meeting or city council meeting when we are in the process of making the decision, thereby finding a way to delay the project, or delaying a decision. Very common practice. I was not at all surprised when the city clerk handed us the documents which actually came late in the meeting. But I would just tell you, we have to look at the big picture. We have to look at everything. We cannot just be driven by emotion, even if that’s what we have a passion for, which is preserving things. We have to recognize everyone’s rights in this situation. That may not mean that it doesn’t go down the way that you want.”
Litigation following a council decision on the project appears inevitable, with Diversified Pacific and Ostoich poised to sue the city if the council does not give approval to the project or if the council subjects the project to a full environmental impact report even as Save The Grove and McClendon appear to be on a trajectory to bring suit if the city council does not carry out a full environmental impact report on the project proposal before taking a vote on it.

The City of San Bernardino lost two of its key department heads this week, as City Hall’s stability or the lack thereof is becoming an increasingly poignant factor in the county seat’s mayoral crisis.
Eric McBride, who has been serving in the capacity of acting police chief since January 2019, retired on Tuesday. The next day, Community Development Director Michael Huntley tendered his resignation.
McBride’s and Huntley’s departures mark the fourth and fifth defections in the last two months from the management and governing circle that has surrounded Mayor John Valdivia for all or a significant part of his mostly rocky 33-month tenure as mayor.
In August, Renee Brizuela, who had been Valdivia’s executive assistant, along with Jim Tickemyer, who had headed the city’s parks and recreation department, stepped away from their positions with the city. At the end of July, Assistant City Manager Rebekah Kramer left.
In 2018, Valdivia, who had been San Bernardino’s Third Ward Councilman since 2012, was elected mayor. He assumed office in December 2018 with a ruling coalition behind him that included newly-elected First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez and newly-elected Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, as well as two incumbents on the council with whom he was allied, Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel and Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard. Valdivia would strengthen his hold on the council with the addition of Councilman Juan Figueroa, who won the special election held in May 2019 to fill the gap on the council representing the Third Ward that had come about when Valdivia resigned from that position to move into the mayor’s slot. At the midway point of 2019, the only opposition on the council Valdivia was faced with was that of Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill. In relatively short order, however, as Valdivia militated to collect political donations for his future campaigns and fatten his own personal bank account by engineering city council votes favoring his political donors and the clients of his consulting company, he gradually lost the support of Nickel, Ibarra and Sanchez.
In the late winter/early spring of 2020, three female employees within Valdivia’s office and a woman on whom he had conferred two city commission appointments spelled out numerous incidents in which the mayor had made sexual overtures toward them, touching off further revelations from other mayoral office employees about improprieties Valdivia had engaged in, which included bribetaking and misappropriation of city funds. Seven employees of the mayor’s office departed, either of their own volition to get clear of Valdivia or as a result of being terminated because of their incompatibility with him. Five of those filed suit against the city and Valdivia, based on his alleged behavior and action toward them.
In 2020, Councilwoman Richard, one of Valdivia’s two remaining allies on the council, was voted out of office, and replaced by Kimberly Calvin. In the nine months Calvin has been in office, she has evolved into one of Valdivia’s implacable political foes.
Figueroa was reelected in 2020, and he remains as Valdivia’s one reliable supporter on the council. Both Nickel and Mulvihill were voted out of office in 2020, replaced, respectively, by Ben Reynoso and Damon Alexander. Reynoso at this point is competing with Calvin for the title of Valdivia’s primary political nemesis on the council. Though Valdivia had hoped he might cultivate Alexander as member of his political machine, that has not occurred. Alexander, while not necessarily hostile toward the mayor, has demonstrated sharp differences with him over multiple issues.
In 2020, in what was one of Valdivia’s last political successes, he managed to induce the city council to agree to the city hiring Robert Field, who had formerly been the County of Riverside’s economic development director and a close friend of Valdivia’s lawyer, Rod Pacheco, to serve as San Bernardino city manager.
For more than six months, beholden to Valdivia for having been hired as city manager and assuming, erroneously, that Valdivia had control over the city council, Field made managerial decisions that were favorable toward Valdivia’s political donors who had business with the city. Through what has been a sometimes painful process, Field has learned that Valdivia is at diametric odds with three-sevenths of the city council and unable to control or count on the assistance of three of the other members of the council. Field’s indulgence of Valdivia during most of the first year of his tenure as city manager has created a degree of distrust toward him on the parts of Calvin and Reynoso, and left him at least partially out of sync with Ibarra and Alexander. His prospects for survival as city manager are uneven.
McBride was appointed acting police chief the month after Valdivia became mayor, when the former police chief, Jarrod Burguan, underwent knee replacement surgery. Burguan never returned, leaving McBride as his logical replacement. Despite Valdivia’s efforts to move McBride into the full-fledged police chief role, that never came about. This has been for Valdivia, McBride and the city something of an embarrassment. While McBride was given steady increases in pay over the last two-and-a-half years, there was considerable resistance to conferring the police chief position on him.
A resident of Hemet in Riverside County, McBride was formerly a member of the city council there, and in 2010 was that city’s mayor. As mayor, McBride introduced a resolution that was endorsed by the entire Hemet City Council calling for the State of California to adopt a law similar to one in Arizona that requires police officers to routinely and automatically check the immigration status of those they encounter in the field to determine whether they are undocumented immigrants. In 2015, the City of El Monte hired McBride to serve as its police chief, but rescinded that offer because the city council thought better of making him the city’s highest law enforcement official, since 68 percent of El Monte’s population is Hispanic, and the community traditionally had a laissez-faire stance with regard to immigration law enforcement. It was thought that McBride’s attitude on that issue would be equally incompatible in San Bernardino, where 60 percent of the population is Latino, and an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 illegal aliens dwell within the city.
McBride, who is now 54 and has thirty years in as a law enforcement officer, voluntarily departed from the police chief’s post, which was paying him an annual $251,000 salary plus $224,000 per years in perks and benefits for a total annual compensation of $475,000.
Valdivia’s inability to move McBride into the actual police chief post is widely seen as an indication of the mayor’s eroding grip over the 222,101-population city.
McBride has been replaced, temporarily, by acting Assistant Chief David Green. Valdivia would like, for personal and political reasons similar or even identical to those that had driven him to seek to boost McBride into the police chief position, to make Green police chief. It is even less likely, however, that Green will have that honor and title conferred upon him than that McBride would ever have become San Bernardino police chief.
Two considerations militate against Green’s police chief prospects. A litany of excessive force complaints have been lodged against Green during his time as a police officer in San Bernardino, including several which evolved into lawsuits against the city. The city lost several of those suits, resulting in awards totaling in the millions of dollars. The city ducked that issue, however, when it filed for Chapter Nine bankruptcy protection in 2012, and then-U.S. Magistrate Meredith Jury allowed the city to satisfy those judgments at a ratio of one cent on the dollar. Substantial numbers of residents on San Bernardino’s West Side, where residents have been subject to what they say is brutality on the part of the police department for decades, have made clear that they intend to take to the streets if the city so much as contemplates offering the police chief position to Green.
Green was the member of the department to whom then-Mayor-elect Valdivia had turned to for help on November 14, 2018 after he had become entangled in circumstances surrounding a hold-up and shooting at what was at that time an illicit marijuana dispensary located at 1435 North Waterman Avenue. Questions immediately emerged as to what Valdivia was doing at that location, and whether the money he had been provided with by the operator was a result of a shakedown the then-councilman/mayor-elect was engaged in. The police department’s report of what occurred has never been publicly released. The city council, which is out of step with the mayor, is unlikely to confer the police chief’s position on Green, who may be privy to blackmail material the police department possesses relating to Valdivia and bribes being provided to him by the cannabis industry.
Huntley, who was previously the director of community and economic development and the director of planning and economic development respectively with the cities of Monterey Park and Montebello, came to San Bernardino in 2019 to succeed Mark Persico as San Bernardino’s director of community and economic development. Persico was fired in 2018, after he became knowledgeable about monetary payments being provided to Valdivia, then a councilman vying for mayor, by proponents of development projects in the city. Shortly after he recommended, as the city’s community and economic director, against the city approving one of those projects, a liquor store to be located on Inland Center Drive proximate to an off-ramp and on-ramp to the 215 Freeway, Persico was ignominiously terminated.
Huntley was hired under the presumption he would accommodate Valdivia’s campaign donors and consulting business clients whenever they had project applications with the city. He lived up to that expectation.
As community and economic development director, Huntley had a close-up window on the applicants seeking permits and licensing to operate marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana/cannabis production facilities, marijuana research facilities, medical marijuana dispensaries, wholesale marijuana distribution operations and markets selling marijuana for its intoxicative effect. Many of those applicants were plying Valdivia with money in exchange for his assurances he could get their permits and licenses approved.
In July 2020, Huntley facilitated an application by a Valdivia campaign donor, Greenleaf Engineering, for a temporary use permit to haul and dump concrete from a razed building in Redlands to a field next to Palm Avenue in north San Bernardino. The permit was granted in August 2020. The presence of the mounds of concrete became an issue with the residents in the area, who were demanding its removal. Huntley was accused of downplaying the seriousness of the circumstance by acquiescing in a characterization of the presence of the concrete as a “potential” hazard during public discussion of the matter at city council meetings. Treasure Ortiz, who is being promoted by a contingent of San Bernardino residents as a candidate for mayor in 2022, recently unearthed a declaration made by Huntley and filed with the Superior Court as part of the city’s efforts to abate the massive pile of concrete. In that declaration, Huntley stated, “[T]he unlawful conditions that I have identified on the subject property pose significant risk to the life, health and safety of the residential community within 1,000 feet of the subject property as well as the general public and must be abated immediately. In addition, the temporary use permit has been revoked; the materials are no longer authorized to remain at the subject property.”
On Wednesday, September 1, 2021, Ortiz filed a formal complaint with the city, accusing Huntley of purposefully misleading the public about the hazard the concrete represented. She had previously accused Huntley, as community and economic director, of mismanaging a federal program to provide San Bernardino residents with money to cover rent payments during the COVID-19 crisis. Huntley acceded to allowing one of Field’s associates to serve as the distributor of the funds. The designated distributor, however, had no office in San Bernardino. Because renters in San Bernardino had to travel to Moreno Valley to apply for and undergo eligibility vetting, $6.9 million in rent relief funding earmarked for San Bernardino has remained bottled up and not used for its intended purpose. Ortiz also maintains that Huntley actively assisted Valdivia, who was entitled to two appointments to the city’s downtown advisory commission, secure three appointments to that panel by falsifying a staff report. That change in the commission’s make up has delayed, she maintains, a crucial makeover of downtown from occurring, Oritz charged.
Within hours after Ortiz filed her complaint, Huntley tendered his resignation, the Sentinel was told.
The Sentinel is informed that Rebekah Kramer elected to leave as assistant city manager after being continuously pestered by Valdivia to take action she did not have proper authorization from the city council or the city manager to engage in.
Tickemyer, who was once perceived to be on relatively decent terms with Valdivia, reportedly fell out of grace with the mayor after he balked at bypassing normal contracting procedures so that companies that have shown generosity toward Valdivia in terms of the provision of campaign contributions were provided with construction and maintenance work at the city’s parks and recreation facilities.
While both Tickemyer and Kramer are gone for good, Brizuela has reportedly gone out on an extended leave of absence as an investigation into Valdivia’s use of city money for political purposes is ongoing. One report was that Brizuela had allowed her home address to be used to receive material paid for by the city’s taxpayers which was intended for use at what turned out to be a political event for the mayor following his state of the city address. Sources have said that Valdivia believes that if Brizuela lays low and is not available at her city office, she can avoid being questioned by those investigators.
-Mark Gutglueck

The architects of the City of Industry’s now-abandoned scheme to place control of Tres Hermanos Ranch into the hands of a corporation masquerading as a quasi-public agency four years ago have been charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office with fraud and the theft of what is believed to be as much as $20 million in public funds.
Former City of Industry City Manager Paul Philips; La Jolla-based developer William Barkett, a principal in the entity known as San Gabriel Water and Power; former California State Senator Frank Hill, who served as a consultant to the City of Industry; and Anthony Bouza, who worked as an attorney for the City of Industry, were charged with fraud, embezzlement, theft, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds.
The criminal charges arise from the City of Industry’s failed attempt to maintain control of 2,445-acre Tres Hermanos Ranch, which straddles the City of Chino Hills at the extreme southwest corner of San Bernardino County and Diamond Bar in the southeast corner of Los Angeles County. In 1978, the City of Industry paid $12.1 million ($30.9 million in 2021 dollars) for the land, and later transferred ownership of the property to the city’s redevelopment agency, known officially as the Industry Urban Development Agency. Indications over the years were that the property would be utilized to host a reservoir or reservoirs which would have a holding capacity equivalent to the fifth largest body of water in Southern California.
In 2011, legislation closed out all redevelopment agencies statewide, and ownership of the 2,445 acres transferred to the so-called successor agency to the City of Industry’s redevelopment agency.
A handful of real estate development concerns including GH America Inc. and South Coast Communities of Irvine expressed interest in acquiring the 2,445 acres at Tres Hermanos Ranch for the purpose of developing it both residentially and commercially, offering $100 million for it. In August 2017, the City of Industry, which had substantial representation on the boards of both the successor agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency and the oversight board to the successor agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency, boldly took action to acquire the property. After the city tendered a $41.65 million offer on the property, in very short order the oversight board, at its August 24, 2017 meeting, directed the successor agency to sell the property to Industry for the aforementioned $41.65 million. That action was accompanied by an indication that the ranch would be in large measure converted into a solar power energy field utilizing photovoltaic panels to generate 450 megawatts of electricity while leaving some of the property dedicated as “open space” for public use. In nearly equally short order, the cities of Chino Hills and Diamond Bar raised objections with the California Department of Finance. After the California Department of Finance allowed the processing of the sale to proceed, Chino Hills and Diamond Bar lodged a series of legal actions in 2017 and 2018, all of which sought to thwart Industry’s plans to lease the property for a large solar facility to an operating entity. In the face of those legal challenges, the City of Industry moved forward with its arrangement with La Jolla-based San Gabriel Valley Water and Power, headed by William Barkett, to lease the ranch property to the company for $1 per year, extend to the company a 65-year option on continuing the lease of the property and an exclusive right to develop a solar farm on at the ranch, and provide Barkett with loans and other funding for feasibility studies and preparations relating to the solar project, what was essentially a commitment of public financing of the company’s efforts in the initial stages of the project’s development. In exchange, San Gabriel Valley Water and Power committed, once the solar plant was functioning at capacity, to make an annual payment of $4 million to the city for the use of the property along with the sale of the energy to be produced there to the city and City of Industry-based businesses at bargain basement rates.
In defiance of normal standards of public disclosure that attend the operation of governmental entities, the City of Industry provided virtually no information about the proposed project beyond a rudimentary description of its parameters, while essentially bankrolling the San Gabriel Valley Water and Power in the earliest stages of the project preparation. Ultimately, that lack of accountability redounded to the City of Industry’s detriment, as Barkett and San Gabriel Valley Water and Power burned through roughly $14 million in carrying out preliminary planning on the project and spent another $6 million in legal fees and other nondescript expenses by December 2017 without producing anything tangible in terms of physical assets on the ranch grounds nor anything other than conceptual plans and projections as to generating capability. The city satisfied San Gabriel Valley Water and Power’s billing up to that point for that work and those expenses, but began questioning whether the company was working in good faith toward the goals outlined in their development agreement. When Barkett and San Gabriel Water and Power next submitted invoices for services relating to the solar farm proposal exceeding $1.5 million but was not convincingly responsive with regard to the justification for that billing, the city council balked at making those payments. In January 2018, the city council took up discussion of firing all three Industry staff members most closely identified with championing the solar project – then-City Manager Paul Philips, then-City Clerk William Morrow and Anthony Bouza, an attorney the city was employing with regard to the solar farm’s development and legal issues, moving by the end of January to sack Morrow and Bouza, and thereafter were summoning up the requisite votes by the end of February to hand Philips his walking papers.
Having spent $53.75 million over the years in securing the property, then squandering another $20 million in the thoroughly unproductive relationship with San Gabriel Valley Water and Power, and its legal bills mounting in having to fend off the lawsuits brought against it by Chino Hills and Diamond Bar, the City of Industry in 2018 entered into quiet negotiations with those latter two entities.
As early as 2018, San Gabriel Water and Power sought a preliminary injunction against the City of Industry in its effort to prevent the city from gaining access to the company’s documents relating to its work on the solar project. San Gabriel Water and Power thereafter filed suit against the city, claiming it was owed $218 million for work it had initiated on the solar project. Ultimately, in 2019 the City of Industry sued San Gabriel Valley Water and Power over the missing funds that San Gabriel Water and Power had refused to account for in 2018, alleging Barkett had used money provided for work on the solar project for other purposes. Throughout that litigation, San Gabriel Valley Water and Power has withheld records and documents.
In February 2019, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar and the City of Industry announced six lawsuits Chino Hills and Diamond Bar had launched against the City of Industry in 2017 and 2018 were to be dismissed and that the City of Industry was to be welcomed into the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority, a joint powers agency formed in January 1999 by the cities of Diamond Bar and Chino Hills. Under the terms of the settlement of the lawsuits, the board of the authority was to increase from four to seven members with the City of Industry allotted three of those board positions. Furthermore, the City of Industry agreed to sell Tres Hermanos Ranch to the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority with deed restrictions that limit future use to open space, public use, and preservation. The City of Industry absorbed 90 percent of that purchase price in the sale of the land to the conservation authority. Chino Hills and Diamond Bar covered 10 percent of the sale price prorated according to the acreage within their boundaries. With 1,750 acres of Tres Hermanos Ranch in Chino Hills, and 695 acres in Diamond Bar, Chino Hills paid Industry $2,959,967 and Diamond Bar coughed up $1,205,033.
Thereafter, in August 2020, investigators with the Los Angeles County District District Attorney’s Office served search warrants at the homes and offices of Philips, Bouza, Hill and Barkett.
There were questionable relationships between the four men. Bouza, apparently through Philips, wangled the role of attorney representing the City of Industry in the negotiations relating to the contractual arrangements between the city and San Gabriel Valley Water and Power, despite Bouza having previously done legal work for Barkett, for which he was reportedly yet owed $1.5 million when he was working for the city. Hill was a former California State Senator representing portions of Orange and Los Angeles counties from 1982 until 1994, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury, convicted and removed from office after he took what he thought was a bribe from an undercover FBI agent. In 2018, HIll was serving as a consultant to the City of Industry with regard to its effort to retain the Tres Hermanos Ranch property and see it properly utilized. He had a financial connection to Barkett and had set up a company that was to profit alongside San Gabriel Valley Water and Power when the land was converted to a solar field. He had worked on the campaigns of two of the members of the City of Industry City Council elected in 2015. The city council coalition including those two members hired Philips that year.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Larry Kinley
This week, the Upland City Council is not only considering making a final selection among a number of applicants to serve our city as city manager, but two of its members are also determining in conjunction with a consultant how much this next city manager is going to be paid in salary, perks, and benefits in addition to the pension he or she is to receive, which in the end is determined by a California Public Employees’ Retirement System formula that takes into account the manager’s highest career salary.
Right now is as appropriate of a time as any for me to share my thoughts on the issue of what we are paying our city officials, in particular our city managers. I do not think it is too bold, nor do I think it unreasonable, to state that I do not believe any manager of the 482 cities and incorporated towns in the state should be provided with compensation greater than that which is paid to California’s governor.
Let me explain the reason I feel this way.
The city manager of Upland has nowhere near the span of responsibility as our state’s governor. Upland has a population of 77,754, according to the 2020 Census. California’s population, as counted during the same census, was 39,538,223.
Upland is a wonderful city, and it has many things that recommend it as a great place to live. It has a wonderful hospital, a top-flight school district and a general aviation airport. It is host to the corporate headquarters for Lewis Homes, Cherokee Wood Products and ISDG Security Systems. The San Antonio Water Company and other water companies have joined with the city to provide us with quality water. Upland has some of the nicest residential neighborhoods in San Bernardino County. Euclid Avenue is the city’s showcase. South of Foothill Avenue, it is lined with classic Craftsman-style and Edwardian homes that date from the early part of the 20th Century. North of Foothill, Euclid on its east and west sides is host to increasingly impressive dwellings that evolve into mansions. With its distinctive urban forest median that includes the Madonna of the Trail, Euclid offers a breathtaking vista that terminates at the Foothills below Mount San Antonio. Upland is populated by hardworking and good people.
163,696-square mile-California comprises everything that 15.65-square-mile-Upland does, and much more. California’s geographical size ranking among the 50 states of the Union puts it in third place, exceeded only by Texas and Alaska. It boasts San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento and Redding within its confines. It has 840 miles of coastline, 33.4 million acres of forest and 42 mountains with peaks higher than 10,000 feet. California’s population represents 11.6 percent of that of the United States. Encompassing 58 counties in which there are a total of 3,320,977 businesses, if California were a country it would have the fifth largest economy in the world, behind the United States, China, Japan, and Germany, and ahead of India, Great Britain, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, Russia, South Korea, Australia, Spain, Mexico, Indonesia, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia.
To suggest that the governor of the State of California merits less pay than the city manager of Upland falls outside the scope of rationale thinking. Yet, that is the case. Our governor is provided with a salary, before benefits, of $209,747. Rosemary Hoerning, before she was asked by our city council to leave in March, was being paid $236,900 per year in salary.
This defies common sense. I don’t see how any city can justify paying its city manager more than the State of California is paying its governor, and I challenge any city manager of any city in the state to debate me on that topic.
People should note that the loss to the taxpayers represented by overly generous salaries to city managers does not end with the paychecks they are receiving. Overpaying those serving at the top of a city’s managerial echelon causes inflation at the levels below that. Paying city managers too much money results in runaway salaries for municipal department heads such as the director of development, the finance director and the director of public works. And then those working in those departments are also being overpaid because a city’s pay scale is out of balance.
Paying too much for city personnel in Upland, where the employees have already been reduced to a four-day work week, has resulted in a reprioritization in how municipal money is spent. Cities exist for the provision of municipal services. Cities exist so we have police departments to keep the streets from being overridden with crime, so we have fire departments to put out fires, so our streets are paved regularly to prevent potholes, so we have quality and safe drinking water when we turn on the tap, so our traffic lights work and so our parks are maintained and our streetlights come on at night. City Hall’s priority is no longer the provision of those services but making sure that our city employees are well paid, which means they receive compensation that is well above that paid to workers in the private sector for comparable work. If a city keeps spending money on high salaries, pretty soon the quality and integrity of those services diminish and, eventually, the reason for the city’s existence is defeated.
I would like to see a proposition go before the voters of California asking if they believe that it should be written into law that a city manager cannot be paid a higher salary than the governor. I think that proposition would pass. I don’t have the time, energy or wherewithal to qualify a proposition like that for a statewide ballot, so I think I will instead work at the local level to see if we can put a measure on the ballot just for the voters in Upland to find out if they support putting a cap on the city manager’s salary of no higher than what the governor is paid. After all, I think it is only fair that the residents of Upland, who are the ones paying the salaries of everyone down at City Hall, have a direct say in how much those people get paid. I think that is an understandable concept most residents will agree with.
In the meantime, if the city council is going to consent to paying the city manager a salary of more than $209,747 annually, I think there should be a requirement that the mayor, each member of the city council and the city manager explain to the people of Upland why they think the city manager deserves to make more money than the governor of the State of California.
Larry Kinley was formerly a vice president of the Bank of America. He oversaw for more than 15 years that institution’s problem loan department. He was Upland’s elected treasurer from 2016 to 2020.