A decade after he was convicted on 14 felony political corruption charges, Bill Postmus has made his way back into the San Bernardino County political game by constructing political money laundering operations which he has put at the disposal of a number of current elected officials, including Supervisors Curt Hagman, Dawn Rowe and Colonel Cook.

By delivering bribes and political donations to a wide cross section of both county and city officials, Postmus has already engineered diversions and springbacks of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars back to the individuals and companies who are making the illicit payments to those politicians. As it stands, the collection of business interests willing to funnel money to the county’s political elite are on a trajectory to reap hundreds of millions of more dollars in mostly no-bid public contracts or as proceeds from businesses which must be given selectively granted licensing or operating permits.

In 1980, when he was nine years old, Bill Postmus’s imagination was captured by the triumph of Ronald Reagan in that year’s presidential election, and the advancement of the conservative cause.

In the 1990s, while he was yet a student studying business administration at Redlands University, he volunteered on the campaigns of local Republican candidates. After college he found work for in the offices of Republican Assemblyman and later State Senator Jim Brulte, Republican Assemblywoman Kathleen Honeycutt, and Republican Assemblyman Keith Olberg. A resident of Phelan, at the age of 25, he co-founded the High Desert Young Republicans.

In 2000, Postmus was elected to the board of supervisors at the age of 29, making him, after Minor Cobb Tuttle in 1862, Norman Taylor in 1855, Robert McCoy in 1861, John C. Turner in 1893 and Gus Skropos in 1985, the sixth youngest county supervisor in San Bernardino County history. Four years later, in 2004, he became the second youngest chairman of the county board of supervisors after John C. Turner in 1895. That year he also became the chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, a perch from which he had control over the purse strings of the local GOP’s campaign war chest and held tremendous sway in determining who was elected to an overwhelming number of political offices in the county. In 2006 he expended more than $2 million in what yet remains the most expensive political campaign in county history when he successfully challenged the incumbent county assessor, Don Williamson, thereby acceding to the most powerful taxing position in San Bernardino County.
He had been the single most powerful political entity in San Bernardino County during his heyday, a virtual kingmaker. It was by his discretion, in the middle of the first decade of the Third Millennium, that over two dozen state senators, assembly members, mayors and council members had been provided with the clearance to run for the offices they held and the monetary and electioneering support they needed to win the contests that put them there. While Postmus was San Bernardino County’s Republican Party Chairman, four of the county’s five congressman were Republicans, four of the county’s five state senators were Republicans, seven of the county’s nine assembly members were Republicans, four of the county’s five supervisors were Republicans and 19 of the county’s 24 mayors were Republicans. Upon coming into the position of assessor, however, Postmus created two assistant assessor posts where there had previously been one, and then filled both with his political associates, neither of whom had previous experience in real estate or assessing property. Less than two years later, in 2008, even more serious questions had begun to emerge about Postmus’s judgment and basic honesty when it was revealed that he had installed into 13 of the assessor’s highest paying positions his political associates who had no real estate or assessor’s office experience, most of whom were engaged not in carrying out the legitimate function of the assessor’s office but were running political campaigns. Within short order, one of his appointees as assistant assessor, Adam Aleman, was criminally charged and convicted of one count of felony theft, one count of felony destruction, alteration, or falsification of a public document, one felony count of presenting a false claim to a public board or officer, and one felony count of vandalism. His other assistant assessor, Jim Erwin, was charged with eight felony counts of perjury and two felony counts of filing forged or falsified documents, one county of bribing a public official, one count of extortion, one county of embezzlement, one county of misappropriation of public funds and one count of forgery. Three other Postmus political associates who were hired into lucrative positions in the assessor’s office but were performing no work relating to assessing property or factories or assets for taxation purposes were charged, prosecuted and convicted of bilking taxpayers.

In January 2009, when investigators with the district attorney’s office arrived at his Rancho Cucamonga residence with a search warrant to seek evidence of misuse of his authority as assessor, a cache of methamphetamine was found. The following month, Postmus resigned as assessor.

In July 2009, Postmus was charged with four counts of embezzlement by a public officer, two counts of grand theft and one count of perjury pertaining to activities he had engaged in while he was assessor. These charges pertained to accusation he had used the office’s assets and facilities for purposes unrelated to the assessor’s function, and had taken money or reimbursements he was not entitled to.

In February 2010, Postmus was charged with five felonies – criminal conspiracy(Penal Code Section 182) 
- soliciting a bribe (Penal Code Section 86) 
- accepting a bribe as a public official (Penal Code Section 165) 
- engaging in a conflict of interest as a public official (Government Code Section 1090); and misappropriation of public funds (Penal Code Section 424). Those charges related to one of the last votes Postmus cast while he was supervisor and his acceptance of money in the aftermath of that vote from the the entity most directly impacted by his vote. The vote in question, made on November 28, 2006, conferred a $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners development consortium relating to a lawsuit that company had brought against the county in 2002 over flood control issues at its residential and commercial subdivisions in the northeast quadrant of Upland. Postmus pleaded not guilty to the charges. Over the next 13 months, the original five charges relating to soliciting and receiving a bribe in his official capacity, embezzlement by a public official, conflict of interest by a public official and conspiracy would b augmented by three further charges, including fraud and perjury.

In March 2011, Postmus entered guilty pleas to 14 felony political corruption charges – eight stemming from his time as supervisor and six from his stint as assessor. He further pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor drug charge relating to the methamphetamine found in his home during the January 2009 search of those premises. in search of documents relating to the that had grown out of his 2009 and 2010 arrests, including conspiracy, bribery, misappropriation of public funds, conflict of interest, fraud and perjury, as well as pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor drug charge.

Acknowledged with his guilty pleas was that Postmus, in return for his vote to approve the $102 million settlement with the Colonies Partners in 2006 had sought and then accepted two separate political donations totaling $100,000 from the principals with the Colonies Partners, one of those being a $50,000 check dated June 28, 2007 to the Conservatives for a Republican Majority political action committee and a $50,000 check dated July 5, 2007 to the Inland Empire political action committee on July 5, 2007. The Inland Empire PAC and the Conservatives for a Republican Majority PAC were controlled by Postmus, his business and political associate, John “Dino” DeFazio, and Postmus’s political and personal associate, Adam Aleman.

The month after his guilty plea, Postmus became the tar witness before a grand jury, which in May 2011 returned an indictment against four of Postmus’s alleged co-conspirators with regard to the $102 million payout to the Colonies Partners – Erwin, who had been one of Postmus’s political associates and a Colonies Partners consultant before Postmus appointed him as of his two assistant assessors; Colonies Partners Managing Principal Jeff Burum, who had been instrumental in making donations to the three supervisors, including Postmus, who had approved the $102 million settlement; Postmus’s one-time board colleague and political associate Paul Biane, who as supervisor had provided one of the three crucial votes to approve the $102 million settlement and likewise received a $100,000 donation from the Colonies partners in the aftermath of that settlement; and Mark Kirk, the chief of staff to the third member of the board of supervisors, Gary Ovitt, who had ratified the $102 million settlement with his vote. A few months after his boss, Ovitt, made that vote, the Coloneis Partners cut a $100,000 check to a political action committee Kirk controlled.
Postmus’s sentencing on his convictions was held in abeyance as the trials for seven others caught up in the dual scandals involving the board of supervisors and assessor’s office played out since he was required, as part of his plea deal, to cooperate with the prosecution in testifying against those various defendants, whom he had acknowledged as his co-conspirators.

Pretrial legal sparring and appeals motions relating to several of those charged were delayed by more than six-and-a-half years, with the major trial involving Erwin, Colonies Partners Managing Principal Jeff Burum, Postmus’s one-time board colleague and political associate Paul Biane and Mark Kirk, who was the chief of staff to another of Postmus’s board colleagues and political associate, Gary Ovitt. Aleman, like Postmus, had already been convicted, along with three other of his political associates Postmus had given political patronage generously-remunerated phantom positions in the assessor’s offices to, ones where they did not need to show up – and often did not – to still collect a check paid by the county’s taxpayers.
During the interim from the indictment to the trial, Postmus found himself languishing. His conviction on the public official conflict of interest charge meant that he was banned for life from holding elected public office in California. Still, he longed to get back into the political game.
On April 8, 2013, Postmus sojourned to Cheyenne, Wyoming and registered with the Wyoming secretary of state’s corporate division Mountain States Consulting Group LLC, based in Cheyenne, as a Wyoming domestic limited liability company. Having learned the pitfalls of bribetaking and other forms of graft and corruption, Postmus wields Mountain States Consulting Group as a political money laundering operation.

Through his arrests and ensuing prosecution and conviction, Postmus has gained an implicit and explicit understanding of how the political system works and both the reach and limitations of the prosecutorial arm of the government in making politicians adhere to the law. He has attained a flawless feel for the circular pay-to-play element of control and governance where politicians take in money from those with an interest in the governmental decision-making process, use that money to get into office or stay in office and vote to approve the development projects or the contracts or the franchises of those who have donated that money. He was caught boldly and baldly doing just that. As the owner of Mountain States Consulting Group, he has created a way to for politicians to engage in pay-to-play trade-offs without getting caught and being stigmatized with criminal convictions as he had been. Mountain States Consulting Group takes money originating with individuals or companies with a stake in governmental decisions, launders that money through his company and then provides that cash, either as legitimate political donations or payments in some other form to the politicians making those decisions. Postmus employs Mountain States Consulting Group as a cutout, insulating the recipients of the money – the politicians – from those who are providing the money. When Postmus properly executes on this mission, it protects the politicians from the perception that their votes are being purchased, which has political benefits, while serving to lessen to a considerable extent the possibility that the politicians he is funneling money to will be subject to law enforcement action for engaging in what in the final analysis are quid pro quos, out-and-out bribes or kickbacks. Postmus also utilizes Mountain States Consulting Group to employ politicians or those considered to be up-and-coming in politics with phantom assignments, providing them with a way to hold body and soul together without actually having to work, freeing them up to engage in campaigning or other electioneering activity to advance political standing or careers.
In this way, Postmus managed to remain as a power broker in San Bernardino County political circles.
The trial for Burum, Biane, Erwin and Kirk took place over the course of nine months in 2017, during which Postmus was called as a prosecution witness. Burum, Biane and Kirk were acquitted. Erwin’s jury deadlocked, and was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charges against him. The failure of prosecutors to gain convictions against any of the defendants was in some measure considered to be a reflection of Postmus’s lack of credibility brought on by the scandal he had immersed himself in. Following the trial, prosecutors, highly conscious of Postmus’s credibility issue, forsook seeking a conviction against DeFazio on charges of assisting Postmus in laundering the bribe money he had admitted to taking from the Colonies Partners.
While Postmus was yet awaiting sentencing, he moved toward fully re-immersing himself into San Bernardino County politics. He started in Hesperia, a community with which he was intimately familiar. In 2014, he succeeded in getting his longtime political associate, Paul Russ, elected to the city council. In 2016, he strengthened his hold on Hesperia by successfully working, through Mountain States Consulting, in getting another political affiliate, Rebekah Swanson, elected to the city council.
After Hesperia Mayor Russ Blewett died in May 2018, Postmus acted rapidly to promote Brosowske as the appointee to fill the gap on the council Blewett’s passing had created. Indeed, Brosowske gained that appointment and then in November 2018, with the advantage of running as a council incumbent, Brosowske was elected to the council in his own right.
Prior to Postmus’s sentencing by Judge Michael A. Smith, the same judge who had presided over the trial of Burum, Biane, Erwin and Kirk, Postmus and his attorney, Jeffrey Lawrence, sought to withdraw Postmus’s 14 guilty pleas on political corruption charges entered in 2011. Judge Smith denied that motion and ultimately sentenced Postmus to three years in state prison.
Postmus reported to begin his sentence on November 30, 2018.
He was initially incarcerated within the state prison system, but because of so-called prison realignment codified in Assembly Bill 109 and passed by the California Legislature in 2011, he was returned to the custody of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Because of the non-violent nature of Postmus’s crimes, a positive evaluation of Postmus’s behavior in custody and his expressed attitude, as well as his assertion of having undergone a religious conversion, Sheriff John McMahon released him in August 2019.
Postmus immediately picked up where he had left off. Having established himself as a successful political operative in the 2014, 2016 and 2018 election cycles, he was even more active during the 2020 election.
Most notably, Postmus moved to become a central player in the effort to assist those seeking permits and licensing to engage in the sale of marijuana in San Bernardino County and who were accordingly willing to generously reward the elected officials whose votes are needed to ratify the granting of those commercial cannabis licenses and permits.

In 1996, four years before Postmus was elected to the board of supervisors, California’s voter had passed Proposition 215, the compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, which made marijuana use legal for medicinal purposes by those who obtained a prescription for the drug from a licensed physician San Bernardino County officials, as well as those political and administrative leadership in all 24 of the county’s municipalities refused to allow marijuana dispensaries to be licensed or permitted for the next 16 years. At that point, Needles became the first San Bernardino County city to allow dispensaries to operate within its city limits, followed by Adelanto in 2015. Throughout his time on the board of supervisors, Postmus was at the forefront of those holding the line against cannabis legalization. He derisively dismissed advocates of the availability of marijuana for medical use as “potheads” who were seeking to use the medical applicability of the drug as a ruse to obtain and use it for its intoxicative effect. Legalized availability of marijuana would never happen as long as he was in office, Postmus vowed, because the use of the drug was “immoral.” After the end of his political career, [Needles Adelanto] In 2016, California’s voters passed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Needles and Adelanto, having previously established commercial marijuana-based enterprises, including both dispensaries and cultivation facilities, made a smooth transition to catering to a far larger customer base, cutting their municipal operations in on a substantial flow of revenue based on the taxes and fees to be imposed on marijuana sales, or so they hoped. Meanwhile, San Bernardino’s voters in 2016 had passed a citizen-proposed measure calling for the legalized sale of marijuana within that city’s confines. Barstow sought to get in on the marijuana bonanza as well. In Hesperia, the city council did not buy into the marijuana frenzy whole hog, but its council did agree to allow distributors of the drug to operate their, provided there was adequate security at the businesses, there was no onsite sale of the drug, no signs advertising the drug or product at the delivery warehouses, and the vehicles used no logos or markings and did not display any advertisements for marijuana or cannabis products. Upon the legalization of the substance, Postmus turned on a dime and began representing what is now known as the “Postmus cartel,” a group of cannabis entrepreneurs who have achieved licenses and permits to run cannabis-related businesses in Adelanto by bribing the likes of former Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr, current Adelanto Mayor GabrielReyes, former Adelanto Councilman John Woodard, former Adelanto Councilman Jermaine Wright, current San Bernardino Mayor John Valdivia and current San Bernardino Councilman Juan Figueroa.

Key to this program was stirring up law enforcement to carry out operations crippling the competition of the cannabis-related businesses that Postmus represents. Behind the scenes, through his connection with former San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon, Assemblyman Thurston “Smitty” Smith, San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Cook, San Bernardino County Supervisor Curt Hagman and San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe, the sheriff’s department has carried out more than a yearlong effort at eradicating “illicit” marijuana growing operations, meaning those cannabis-related operations that are not run by owners investors and operators who are delivering money to the politicians in control of the marijuana business permitting through Postmus. In January 2021, a stepped-up marijuana eradication effort was initiated, the brainchild of former Sheriff McMahon. It was perpetuated by McMahon’s designated successor, Shannon Dicus, and was dubbed Operation Hammer Strike on August 30, 2021 after having been granted by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors a $million augmentation in the 2021-22 San Bernardino County Budget. Over the course of the six months since August 30 and the first of this month, the sheriff’s Hammer Strike task force served 588 search warrants, seized 668,299 marijuana plants, 111,268.8 pounds of processed marijuana, 203 guns, 30.7 pounds of concentrated marijuana, 92.8 pounds of psilocybin mushrooms, 144 grams of meth and cocaine, and $2,399,595.00 in illegal narcotic sales proceeds. In the process, the department dismantled 15 cannabinol extraction laboratories and 28 electrical bypasses along with 4,124 greenhouses. Unmolested by the sheriff’s Department throughout that time and the eight previous months have been the cultivation operations for the various thriving commercial marijuana enterprises set up by those individuals and entities which retained Postmus to deliver political grease to the county’s elected decision-makers, including members of the board of supervisors, District Attorney Jason Anderson and Dicus, who is now involved in an election campaign to maintain himself in the sheriff’s post that was handed off to him by McMahon and confirmed by a vote of the board of supervisors on[Date]. The thriving marijuana cultivation and sales operations include one in which Postmus is himself involved through his business partnership with John Dino DeFazio. Operation Hammer Strike’s activity consists virtually exclusively of physical operations on the ground involving raids on, in virtually all cases, marijuana cultivation facilities, whether they are in the open, within greenhouses and nurseries, commercial or industrial buildings and residences. The sheriff’s department has, as a part of Operation Hammer Strike, committed no resources to tracking the financial activity accompanying the uptick in cannabis-related marijuana commercial activity in San Bernardino County, which involves the illicit payments made to politicians to grease the way for the marijuana businesses that are thriving to maintain their advantageous position, payoffs to the members of the board of supervisors included as well as political donations to Anderson and Dicus.

San Bernardino County has sponsored new state legislation AB 2728 and SB 1426 that will increase fines for illegal cannabis farming and target the illegal pollution of groundwater by illicit cannabis cultivators. The county is also seeking $10 million in state funding to clean up environmental damage at hundreds of illegal cannabis sites and is strongly backing several related illegal cannabis bills in Sacramento.

“Illegal cannabis farming is devastating the desert communities of San Bernardino County,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman. “The County is determined to stop this terrible damage to the environment and to protect the lives and property of our residents from lawless criminals.”

While Postmus’s involvement in establishing licensed, permitted and protected marijuana-related enterprises is perhaps the most remarkable element of his political comeback, given his past opposition to marijuana in any form and the extent to which he has compromised the law enforcement institution of the sheriff’s department in doing so, the majority of the clients Postmus’s political activity is advancing are involved in what are essentially routine applications of the government’s authority, primarily approving government contracts, franchises and development projects processed by various governmental entities as the ultimate land use authority within their various jurisdictions.

For many, government is a cash cow. For those who are government employees, their paychecks come from the government. For those who are involved in the development and building industry, the permits, permission and entitlements to build are granted by the government. Those who sell goods or provide services to the government are dependent upon the decision-makers in government to look kindly upon them, to contract with them rather than their competitors to provide those goods or services. There is a special lass of businesses, ones that are given franchises by the government who are dependent upon government officials to make decisions that will allow them to prosper. Franchises are businesses that are given special licenses to operate that are restricted to a select few, such that not just anyone can engage in what they do Franchises are given to some and denied to others. Falling within the franchise category are ambulance operators taxi companies, tow trucks that are on police and fire department rotations, trash haulers and the like.

Ultimately it is elected officials, based upon the guidance and recommendation of the administration or management of the governments structures they head who make decisions to determine which development projects will be allowed and which ones will not, which company will get contracts to deliver goods and provide services and which ones won’t be able to market their wares or talents to the government, which applicants for franchises will be selected and which ones will be rejected.

The six years Postmus spent in office at the head of county government and the two years he headed a primary division of the county government gave him a close-up window on how government operates and its vulnerabilities. At this stage he is using his intimate knowledge of those vulnerabilities to assist those who want to exploit government for their own purposes.

A safeguard built into government in California meant to protect the state and its taxpayers consists of the competitive bidding requirements that apply to public contracts or most public contracts. Generally, when a municipal or county government or an agency or district in California seeks goods or needs work performed or services provided, it engages in a bid process by making what is referred to as a request for proposal or request for qualifications relating to a certain tasks, inviting vendors to submit a bid for a specified item, set of items or product or in the case of services a bid on a specifically outlined service. In most cases, those bids are confidential ones, literally sealed in an envelope that would betray itself as having been opened prior to the official unsealing of the bids. Only bids deemed responsive to or in keeping with the requested service or project description are considered. The lowest responsive bid is awarded the contract.

There is a subset of governmental contracts, however, which are exempt from competitive bid requirements. Among the services Postmus now provides is to “politically wire” things so that those companies intent on gaining these governmental contracts that are exempt from competitive bids can land those contracts. Postmus does this by delivering money provided by his client seeking such a non-bid contract to the politicians who must ultimately approve the contract.

A case in point is that of Alliance Building Solutions, a company owned by Brad Chapman. Alliance Business Solutions has grown over the past 58 years from a relatively small mechanical contractor to a mid-size electrical, mechanical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning company with a specialized sideline in efficientizing buildings and facilities in terms of energy use, including augmenting them with insulation, reducing electricity consumption, installing solar panels on roofs and south-facing and the like. In recent years, Alliance Building Solutions succeeded in obtaining from the cities of Fontana, Rialto and Upland no-bid contracts for such energy efficiency makeovers. An exception to the competitive bid requirement for public agencies and governments in California relates to energy efficiency projects. As long as a public agency or government can demonstrate that the work or service to be provided will result in improved energy efficiency or a reduction in fuel or energy use as well as show that some savings in cost will accrue to the entity contracting for the service, it need not conduct a bidding process but can simply award a contract to a provider of that service.

By hiring Postmus to lobby on his behalf, Chapman made sure that the no-bid contracts that Fontana, Rialto and Upland engaged in to make their facilities more energy efficient went to Alliance Building Solutions rather than any of a multitude of other companies that provide he same service, including ones that would do the work at a lesser cost, in some cases significantly lesser cost.

At present, Postmus is awork seeking to get Fontana to enter into further contracts with Alliance Building Solutions, and he is similarly engaged in lining up no-bid contract work for Allied Building Solutions with the County of San Bernardino.

Key to that effort in Fontana is Postmus coordinating with Mayor Acquanetta Warren, to whose electioneering fund he has already as a conduit to vector tens of thousands of dollars in donations from a variety of donors, as well as with Phil Cothran Sr., the father of Fontana City Councilman Phil Cothran Jr. Phil Cothran Sr., since early 2021, has been the chairman of the San Bernardino Country Republican Central Committee, the position Postmus once held. Phil Cothran Sr. is no stranger to political fundraising, having been involved in Fontana politics for some time, formerly as one of the top three or four campaign donors active in Fontana. In particular, Phil Cothran Sr has been a major patron of Warren, who was appointed to the council in 2002, was elected and then reelected as councilwoman in 2004 and 2008, and elected mayor in 2010. It was with Phil Cothran Sr’s backing that Warren was able to solidify her political grip on the city. As his involvement with the Republican Party has intensified in recent years, Phil Cothran Sr. has become more and more involved in touching others for donations to the causes and the candidates he believes in. Upon becoming chairman of the central committee, he did not hesitate to turn to Postmus for assistance in raising money for the party and the party’s candidates, based in large measure on the historic success Postmus achieved in his fundraising efforts. According to one source with a window on behind-the-scenes developments within the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, Phil Cothran Sr. has delegated to Postmus and to Dakota Higgins, an elected member of the Republican Central Committee who is also the assistant chief of staff to San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Paul Cook, management of the county central committee’s fundraising efforts.

An element of Postmus’s fundraising success has always been and continues to be his understanding that donors need to be confident that they are getting something in return for their donations if they are going to be generous. Postmus has long recognized donors must have confidence that they are receiving something real in return rather than something insubstantial and intangible such as “access.” In practical terms, that means conveying to the donors that they are buying favorable treatment in the future from the politicians they are donating to, whether that will be approval of their project proposals, approval of their contracts to provide goods or services to the city, county or agency the politician heads or the granting or continuation of a franchise to that donor or his/her company. In this way, donations are considered investments, ones by which pennies can be transubstantiated into veritable fortunes. Postmus is able to easily convince those transacting business locally that it is in their interest to provide $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 up front to an officeholder with an assurance that when the time comes, the politician who received that money will vote to approve action that allows an enterprise by which that donor will see a profit in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

A problem is that such exchanges of money for votes are illegal. While under California law a politician can receive a political donation from an individual or entity who has business before an elected board or panel of which that politician is a member and then vote on matters relating to that donor and/or his/her company or undertaking, those donations and receipt of the donations cannot be conditional. That is, a politician cannot commit or promise to take any official action or vote as an official in exchange for a donation. Such an arrangement is a quid pro quo, which in Latin means “this for that.” Engaging in a quid pro quo is tantamount to bribery.

What Postmus has done is to construct for his clients and many of San Bernardino County’s politicians – the bribers and the bribe-takers – what is simultaneously a simple and complex fiction that can be maintained, one that holds that bribery is not occurring. Postmus instructs his client to either make a donation directly to a politician or in the alternative to entrust the money to him so he can filter the money to that politician. Postmus or someone working with him in the same timeframe approaches the politician to explain what it is that the donor wants to achieve and how that goal at some point can be held up or facilitated by a vote by the politician in the future. An understanding is achieved all the way around as to what is to occur. In this way, the donor and the politician may likely never meet or exchange so much as pleasantries and both the donor and the politician can truthfully say, if either or both is ever queried about the relationship between the donation and the vote, that they never met, never spoke and as such could not have concluded between themselves a corrupt and illegal deal.

In Fontana, both Mayor Warren and Phil Cothran Jr. are vying for reelection this year. Warren and Phil Cothran Sr have been the co-architects of young Phil Cothran Jr’s political career. Postmus has through the conveyance of Chapman’s money to various campaign funds – those of Warren, Cothran Jr and the GOP fund controlled by Cothran Sr as the head of the San Bernardino County Republican Party – secured Warren’s and Cothran Jr’s future votes for granting Allied Building Solutions no-bid contracts on further energy efficiency conversions of city facilities which will exclude the consideration of granting those contracts to Allied Building Solutions’ competitors in the industry. This has extended itself to ensuring that Warren’s other two allies on the council – John Roberts and Pete Garcia – will approve the Allied Building Solutions contracts when they are considered by the city council.

Simultaneously, Postmus is seeking to work his magic on behalf of Alliance Building Solutions with the governmental structure in San Bernardino County, where given the sheer size of San Bernardino County – a land area larger than the states of Rhode Island, Delaware,, Connecticut and New Hampshire, combined – the number of county buildings and facilities represent potential contracts worth well in excess of $100 million to the company or companies that can gain contracts to uprate their energy efficiency.

Accordingly, Postmus has already effectively moved to purchase influence with three of the county’s five supervisors – having essentially slipped them into his hip pocket – and is gunning mightily to take ownership of a fourth.

Three of the current members of the board of supervisors – Curt Hagman, Paul Cook and Dawn Rowe – have what is perhaps best described as a schizophrenic relationship with Bill Postmus. Within the political and top-level governmental bubble in which they function that includes their board colleagues, other politicians they consider to be their political allies, their own staffs, the senior administrative/management of the county and their political supporters and the electioneering networks they coordinate with, Hagman, Cook and Rowe make no secret of, indeed seem to be proud of and will even brag about, their closeness to Postmus and the degree to which they seek his advice and adhere to his counsel. Outside that circle, however, they are loathe to acknowledge the interaction they have had and continue to have with him. They are aware of Postmus’s history, his convictions and his reputation for dirty and underhanded politics. Though the scandals he involved himself in occurred more than a decade in the past and much or even all of what they entailed have faded from the collective public consciousness, they understand that open association with him could prove exceedingly difficult, particularly if a committed political opponent comes into possession of too many of the details of that association.

As a consequence, the working out of the intricacies of the arrangements of what Postmus wants accomplished has been entrusted to the support networks around the supervisors and within the senior levels of the county bureaucracy. There are two immediate benefits to the supervisors from this approach. Firstly, it insulates the supervisors from Postmus, perpetuating their ostensible separation from him. Secondly, it makes for a situation in which the action eventually taken to benefit Postmus’s clients is the final outcome of a process during which the supervisors can claim they are merely voting in accordance with a recommendation provided to them by county staff.

Postmus has already engaged in extensive fundraising on behalf of Hagman, Cook and Rowe. And Hagman, Rowe and Cook have tolerated – indeed more than tolerated and in fact in some cases encouraged or required – that the taxpayer-paid employees of their supervisorial offices participate in their political campaigns. This was the case of both Supervisor Hagman’s former chief of staff, the late Mike Spence, and his current chief of staff, Yekaterina Kolcheva. It is equally true of Supervisor Cook’s chief of staff, Tim Itnye, and his deputy chief of staff, Dakota Higgins, both of whom were heavily involved in the campaigns that got Cook reelected to Congress in 2016 and 2018, when they were members of his Congressional staff, as well as elected supervisor in 2020. Supervisor Rowe’s chief of staff, Matt Knox, who was formerly a member of Cook’s Congressional staff along with Rowe, worked on Cook’s Congressional races as well, playing a particularly important part in thwarting Cook’s most aggressive opponent, Tim Donnelly, in 2018. Following Rowe’s appointment to the board of supervisors in 2018, Knox was hired by Rowe to serve as her chief of staff. He then played a major role in running her successful election campaign in 2020 to retain her position as Third District county supervisor.

While the practice of allowing employees working within the governmental offices of elected officials to become heavily involved in those officials’ electoral campaigns is not limited solely to San Bernardino County, it is as widespread there, or more, than anywhere else. In this way, the distinction between government and politics has become utterly blurred, and those who have decried the situation have been marginalized as unrealistic idealists or dismissed entirely as cranks. The seeming ubiquity of political operatives on the staffs of the county’s top tier decision-makers has created a situation in which policy is shaped to benefit those willing to sustain a particular supervisor in office and perpetuate the employment of the staff members in high-paying positions they would be unlikely to achieve in the private sector.

Kolcheva is provided with a salary and pay add-ons of 145,892.46 yearly plus benefits of $52,996.35 for a total annual compensation of 198,888.81. Itnyre earns $133,807.27 in salary and pay add-ons plus 49,313.94 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $183,121.21. Matt Knox’s salary and add-ons are $164,013.89, which together with his benefits of $57,602.95 gives him a total annual compensation of $221,616.84. Higgins is provided with a salary and pay add-ons of $113,061.20 per year plus $41,922.09 for a total annual compensation of $154,983.29. Their salaries and benefits provide the senior staff members of the supervisors with an incentive to keep the supervisors in office, such that they often find it expedient to assist those who are contributing to the political campaigns of their employers to achieve the goals they are pursuing.

Thus, Postmus has found ready allies in Kolcheva, Itnyre and Knox, as well as Higgins, with whom he has a secondary relationship as co-coordinator of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee’s fundraising efforts.

Every bit if not more important to Postmus’s political operations targeting county government in San Bernardino County are the two senior staff members for the county overall, County Chief Executive Officer Leonard Hernandez and County Chief Operating Officer Luther Snoke.

Though both Hernandez and Snoke ostensibly are devoted to running the county and are supposed to be immune from political influences, both are highly attuned to political nuance. Word throughout the county, particularly in certain county departments such as Real Estate and Building and Land Use Services, is that both Hernandez and Snoke know that Postmus has delivered and is continuing to deliver political grease to supervisors Hagman, Rowe and Cook to get their acquiescence with regard to a whole host of projects and contracts that the board has already considered and voted upon as well as upcoming items.

Both Hernandez and Snoke are cognizant of the political money laundering operation Postmus has set up and that the board majority expects of them both that they facilitate the approval of the projects and the awarding of the contracts that Postmus’s clients are pursuing. According to sources within the county, neither Hernandez nor Snoke are recipients of the payoffs being provided to Hagman, Cook and Rowe. Rather, Hernandez and Snoke are playing their parts in the tangle of bribery, money laundering, no-bid contracts, foreordained project approvals, the waiving of requirements, the suspension of codes and regulations and the corruption of the basic functions of county government in order to maintain themselves in their lucrative county positions.

At present, Snoke is provided with a total annual compensation of $383,129.46, consisting of a $225,812.94 salary, additional pay of $29,030.71 and benefits of $128,285.81.

Hernandez’s salary of $378,294.27 when added to his other pay of $40,088.80 plus benefits of $190,542.89 gives him a total annual compensation of $608,925.96.

County employees have told the Sentinel that Hernandez and Snoke risk being fired if they do not facilitate the advancement of Postmus’s clients in their application for project and contract approvals.

Both Hernandez and Snoke declined to respond to a series of questions posed to them by the Sentinel, including whether they were being pressured by the members of the board of supervisors or by Postmus directly to provide recommendations to the board of supervisors that they vote to approve projects by proponents represented by Postmus or award contracts to companies that are employing Postmus as a lobbyist.

County employees have told the Sentinel that both Hernandez and Snoke know that supervisors Hagman, Rowe and Cook are on the take and they are going along with the arrangements to keep a hold on their respective high compensation positions. Hernandez is aware, the Sentinel was told, that Postmus made an arrangement for Supervisor Rowe to get a $1.2 million house in Redlands as a means of securing her cooperation and that a deal has been cut with Supervisor Cook to engineer the election of Itnyre as his successor with Cook’s retirement in 2024.

Reports were that Hernandez and Snoke have met with Postmus directly, at which meetings Postmus instructed them on how to structure future county action to meet with his clients’ expectations.

Among the questions both Hernandez and Snoke declined to answer were ones on whether each of them have had recent interaction with Postmus. The Sentinel on February 3 made requests of the county under the California Public Records Act, seeking Hernandez’s and Snoke’s calendars going back to September 2020, when each moved into their respective positions as county chief executive officer and county chief operating officer, to ascertain if they have been meeting with Postmus. On February 28, the county responded to those requests stating that Hernandez’s and Snoke’s calendars would not be provided as they are “exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.”

Snoke is front-ending for Allied Building Solutions, and is preparing to present a series of proposals that the county modernize more than a dozen of its facilities and buildings with energy efficiency conversions, the Sentinel was informed. Even though the county could carry out a competitive bidding process to enlist a contractor to do that work, county employees told the Sentinel, when that proposal is presented, Snoke will utilize the exemption in state law allowing energy efficiency projects to be undertaken without engaging in a competitive bid process, and will deliver a recommendation that the contracts be conferred upon Allied Building Solutions.

One giveaway that both Hernandez and Snoke are coordinating county programs in a way that is favorable toward Postmus and Postmus’s clients consists of the virtual carte blanche that has been provided to Tri-Land at the county’s Land Use Services Department. Tri-Land is a company co-owned by Postmus and his longtime business partner and political associate, John Dino DeFazio.

DeFazio was so emboldened by his association with Postmus and the confidence that Postmus can pull strings improperly at the county that he was attempting to negotiate the fees and charges, which are uniformly set, for obtaining permits to proceed with his projects in the county’s unincorporated areas, according to one statement provided to the Sentinel.

In his effort to profiteer off of the newfound societal tolerance of marijuana in California, Postmus did not limit himself to merely representing would-be cannabis entrepreneurs. He also engaged himself as a silent partner in a marijuana cultivation and marketing enterprise headed by DeFazio. The Postmus/DeFazio marijuana-based company is among those the sheriff’s department has assumed a hands-off approach toward while pursuing the closure of over 800 cultivation operations elsewhere in the county.

Postmus, as the former First District Supervisor, has especial contact and entrée with the current First District supervisor and supervisorial office staff.

Last year Postmus was able to replicate a coup he was able to pull off several years ago as he was seeking to get back into the political game.

In 2014 Postmus had assisted his longtime political associate Paul Russ in his successful effort to get him elected to the Hesperia City Council. Two years later, while Postmus was assisting Rebekah Swanson, another political associate from his past in her ultimately successful run for the city council, Russ, at Postmus’s instigation, ran for First District supervisor. Joining him in the race was another member of the Hesperia City Council, Bill Holland. Perhaps at Postmus’s suggestion, neither Russ nor Holland assailed one another, almost as if they were running in tandem against the incumbent, Robert Lovingood, and two other challengers. During the course of the campaign, Russ and Holland were provided with $19,000 and $16,000, respectively by Wyn Holmes and Randall Friend, the principals in a Newport Beach-based company known as Eagle 55. Eagle 55 at that time was pursuing approval of the first phase of “The Villas,” a senior citizens apartment complex. A specified number of the units were reserved for low-to-moderate, low- and very low-income residents. Holmes and Friend sought clearance to proceed with the project without having to engage in a bidding competition against other builders. Moreover they applied for a virtually interest-free $3.8 million loan to be used toward completing the $13 million project. The Hesperia City Council, including Russ and Holland, that year voted to give the project go-ahead and Holmes and Friend the $3.8 million loan.

Subsequently, the California Fair Political Practices Commission looked into the matter, initially on the basis that the $19,000 and $16,000 donations were violations of the county’s then-$4,200 per donor campaign contribution cap. Ultimately, the California Fair Political Practices Commission took action against Holmes and Friend, imposing fines on them, which they deemed to be part of the price of doing business in San Bernardino County. The FPPC action did not overturn the approval of the first phase of The Villas project, and it was completed.

Last year, Postmus approached Supervisor Cook as well as Itnyre and Higgins, importuning them to work with Holmes and Friend in undertaking and completing phase 2 of The Villas 55+ Senior Community project. Cook, Itnyre and Higgins prevailed upon Hernandez to explore the possibility of the project be carried out under the auspices of the county government, despite the consideration that it is located not within the county’s unincorporated area but within the City of Hesperia. Hernandez handed the assignment of dealing with the project off to Snoke.

 Based upon his relationship with Postmus as a fundraiser, confident, advisor, predecessor in the office of First District supervisor and “friend,” Supervisor Cook assented to use money from the discretionary fund for specific priorities in the First District to initiate the second phase of Eagle 55’s “The Villas” project. On December 14, 2021, Hernandez and Snoke, utilizing a staff report authored by Snoke which was presented by Hernandez to the board of supervisors, facilitated the board of supervisors’ consideration and passage of action approving a $5.5 million affordable housing loan to Eagle Hesperia 55 II, L.P. for the construction of the second phase of “The Villas.” Both Hernandez and Mr. Snoke recommended that the loan be made. The action taken in accordance with their recommendation made it so that no bidding on the project took place and the requirement that Eagle 55 pay prevailing wage or union scale wages to the construction workers on the project was waived.

     The Sentinel has learned that Bill Postmus and DeFazio are minority owners in Eagle 55. Bill Postmus’s activity in providing money to Supervisor Hagman, Supervisor Rowe and Supervisor Cook suggests a quid pro quo arrangement.

The Sentinel is informed that both Hernandez and Snoke were aware during the county’s dealings with Eagle 55 with regard to the $5.5 million affordable housing loan for The Villas project that Postmus and DeFazio had a financial interest in the Eagle 55 ventures.

San Bernardino County Chief Deputy Controller Vanessa Doyle signed off on the county providing the loan to Eagle 55. The Sentinel initiated several inquiries with Doyle, both in the form of an electronically carbon copied email exploring the subject sent to other high-ranking county officials and phone messages for her left directly at her office. Among the questions Doyle did not respond to was whether it was made clear to her that Postmus and DeFazio had a financial stake in the Eagle 55 project and whether she independently had developed precise knowledge as to the fundraising and political money launder activity Postmus had engaged in on behalf of Hagman, Cook and Rowe before she affixed her imprimatur and that of the county auditor-controller’s office to the $5.5 million affordable housing loan for The Villas project. Doyle did not respond to the Sentinel.

The Sentinel did succeed in reaching Doyle’s ultimate boss, Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Ensen Mason.

Mason did not explicitly say whether Doyle knew about the tangle of relationships involving Hagman, Cook, Rowe, Postmus, DeFazio, Holmes and Friend prior to her certification of the loan, though he suggested that information would not have been provided to her.

“Our role is very limited,” Mason said with regard to the auditor-controller’s participation in the consideration of the county’s issuance of the loan. “It is merely an accounting function.”

He said of Doyle, “All she did was review the financing numbers to say they were correct. I don’t believe determining whether or not that particular company should have been eligible for a loan has anything to do with what our function is. The supervisors are an independently elected body. What they are doing is completely out of my wheelhouse by design because they answer to the public, not to me. I don’t know if providing that company with the loan violated any of the county’s policies or not. If the issue is how they voted, that is something you need to ask them about.”

The Sentinel, having already sought to obtain from Hagman, Cook, Rowe, Hernandez, and Snoke their version of why they have allowed Postmus, more than a decade after his political career imploded in scandal, to advance to a position in which he has reasserted in a very real sense control over the county’s governmental structure, redoubled those efforts. None was willing to go on the record.

Last year, the Sentinel did manage to flag down Cook, asking him if he thought it wise, given Postmus’s history, for the county’s leadership to be associating itself with him and allowing him to raise political funds on their behalf.

“That’s politics,” Cook said, shrugging. He said that Postmus had been processed by the justice system, paid his debt to society and should be allowed to participate in an arena – politics – in which he had shown true talent.

According to county employees, Principal Assistant County Counsel Julie Surber and Deputy County Counsel Suzanne Bryant are knowledgeable about illegitimate goings-on behind the scenes at the county and issues involving Postmus and his distribution of political grease to county officials. Surber and Bryant have been brought face-to-face with the circumstance, the county employees say, because of the manipulations deals involving Postmus’s clients come into conflict with county Policy 11-01, which specifies that all procurements are to be solicited on a competitive basis.

The Sentinel has proven unsuccessful in getting Surber or Bryant to open up with regard to what they know, which is not unsurprising given that they are technically Hagman’s, Cook’s and Rowe’s Hernandez’s and Snoke’s legal representatives and are bound by the principle of attorney-client confidentiality.

In 2020, then-Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales was prevented from seeking reelection as a consequence of the county’s term limits. Four competitors to replace her emerged that electoral season, including then-Fontana Councilman Jesse Armendarez, who was then a member of Mayor Acquanetta Warren’s ruling coalition.

Postmus was active in the effort to support Armendarez’s candidacy. Armendarez raised $991,766.52 for the campaign, including $214,523.03 in 2019, $578,993.79 during 2020 and $55,871.79 in 2021 after the race was concluded. Armendarez expended $721,371.70 in calendar 2020 on both the March primary and November general elections and managed to poll 26.88 percent in the March primary, which was good enough to overcome third and fourth place finishers Dan Flores and Nadia Renner, who, respectively collected $237,919.42 and $19,164.35, spent $251,463.11 and 21,240.09 and polled 18.14 percent and 14.76 percent in the primary. That was good enough to get the second place-finisher Armendarez into the November final against Baca, who received 40.22 percent for first place in the March race. Baca collected $484,262.80, for his entire campaign, including $88,213 in 2019 and $396,049 in 2020 and spent $474,370.80 overall. In the November 2020 final, Baca triumphed solidly over Armendarez 58.49 percent to 41.51 percent.

Last year, in accordance with the 2020 Census, San Bernardino County reset its district maps. In the previous map, roughly two thirds of the westernmost side of the city was in the Second Supervisorial District, with approximately one third of the city on the east side in the Fifth District. With the redrawing of the county district map, all of Fontana was placed in the Second District.

Both Armendarez and Renner, who live on the east side of Fontana, have now qualified their candidacies for Second District supervisor in this year’s race. Also in the contest are Cucamonga Valley Water District Board Member Luis Cetina; Eric Eugene Coker, the previous president of Me Management Solutions and the current owner of PC Pricebusters; and DeJonaé Shaw, a licensed vocational nurse.

Postmus along with Hagman, Cook and Rowe have endorsed Armendarez, along with Warren and councilmen Cothran, Garcia and Roberts.

There is concern at the highest level of the county that a group of county employees who are knowledgeable about what corners have been cut and deals involving quid pro quos and the suspension of policy and law will initiate action that could prove highly problematic for multiple members of the county’s political and governmental establishment. Efforts have begun to trace out who those “disloyalists” are, the Sentinel is told.

A department head considered disloyal is Real Estate Services Director Terry Thompson. Assuming Hagman, whose second term as supervisor is coming to a close this year, is reelected and Armendarez gains election, Thompson will be sacked, the Sentinel is informed, shortly after Armendarez is sworn in.

AMENDED FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012646
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: MR. KEBAB RESTAURANT, 11201 CALIFORNIA STREET. SUITE A, REDALNDS, CALIF, 92373, SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: HANAA DAOUD, 13805 RODERICK DRIVE, MORENO VALLEY, CALIFO, 92555
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/HANAA DAOUD
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/27/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 6/10/2010
County Clerk,
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).
1/21/2022, 1/28/2022, 2/4/2022, 2/11/2022; 02/18,2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RENE ALDEN ADAIR CASE NO. PROSB2200183
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RENE ALDEN ADAIR:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by HORTENSIA CADDELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that HORTENSIA CADDELL be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35P at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 14, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 18, 25 & March 4, 2022.

FBN FBN20220001262
The following person is doing business as: SHIEKH IMPACT 1777 S. VINTAGE AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761:
SITARAA FOUNDATION INC. 10540 SUNBURST DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Mailing Address: 10540 SUNBURST DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ IRUM SHIEKH
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/14/2022
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 I8296
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 on 2/18, 2/25, 3/4 & 3/11, 2022.

FBN20220001442
The following person is doing business as: 313 SHAVE COMPANY 113 W TRANSIT ST ONTARIO, CA 91762:
TYLER D HOWARTH 1504 FAWN ST ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEBRUARY 1, 2022
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/ TYLER D HOWARTH
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/16/2022
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 I8296
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 on 2/18, 2/25, 3/4 & 3/11, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2200052
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: ELIJAH CALEB RAMDIN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ELIJAH CALEB RAMDIN to ELIJAH ANORUE OYOYO
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: 3/17/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-16
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
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: 12/28/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 18 & 25 and March 4 & 11, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EDWIN J. BRAUN
CASE NO. PROSB2200203
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EDWIN J. BRAUN has been filed by KATHRYN M. SESSIONS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KATHRYN M. SESSIONS 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 MARCH 14, 2022 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.
Filed: FEBRUARY 10, 2022
Jennifer Saldana, Deputy Court Clerk
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: January 20, 2022
Attorney for Kathryn M. Sessions:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Phone (909) 328 7000
Fax (909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 25 and March 4 & 11, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LEROY GREGORIO SANCHEZ CASE NO. PROSB2200243
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LEROY GREGORIO SANCHEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by GUADALUPE MARIA GUTIERREZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that GUADALUPE MARIA GUTIERREZ be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 24, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 25 and March 4 & 11, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: VERNELL BLUE
CASE NO. PROSB2200209
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VERNELL BLUE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CONSTANCE ELAINE MILLSAP in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CONSTANCE ELAINE MILLSAP be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE 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 uder the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 22, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 25 and March 4 & 11, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: SOOREN DIKRAN CHINCHINIAN
CASE NO. PROSB2200217
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of SOOREN DIKRAN CHINCHINIAN
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CHRISTOPHER J. DE SILVA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CHRISTOPHER J. DE SILVA be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate uder the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 22, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 25 and March 4 & 11, 2022.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000656
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: INLAND EMPIRE AUTO ESSENTIALS, 7808 SOMERSET LANE,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , INLAND EMPIRE AUTO ESSENTIALS, 7808 SOMERSET LANE, HIGHLAND, CA 92346,
Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/NORIEL JORGE DELA CRUZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 1/31/2022
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,
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).
2/25/2022, 3/4/2022, 3/11/2022, 3/18/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000623
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: ALL AROUND SERVICES, 14425 7TH STREET #7, VICTORVILLE, CA 92395,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , RITA L CAMARGO, 7850 KENYON AVENUE, HESPERIA, CA 92345,
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/RITA L. CAMARGO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 1/31/2022
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/19/2022
County Clerk,
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).
2/25/2022, 3/4/2022, 3/11/2022, 3/18/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000682
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: BLENZ BARBERSHOP, 34213 YUCAIPA BLVD UNIT F, YUCAIPA, CA 92399,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , ANTHONY J MARTINEZ, 1765 VALLEYFALLS AVE, REDLANDS, CA 92374,
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/ANTHONY J. MARTINEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 2/1/2022
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,
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).
2/25/2022, 3/4/2022, 3/11/2022, 3/18/2022
FBN20220000811
The following person is doing business as: SABOR HONDURENA 108 HOLT BLVD ONTARIO CA 91764 17213 MARIANA ST FONTANA, CA 92336: SAMANTHA R CASTELLON
17213 MARIANA ST FONTANA, CA 92336
Mailing Address: 17213 MARIANA ST 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/ SAMANTHA R CASTELLON
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/04, 3/11, 3/18 & 3/25, 2022.

FBN20220000987
The following person is doing business as: JULIE’S RECORD SHACK 460 N EUCLID AVE UPLAND, CA 91786 JULIE R GARCIA 1741 PARTRIDGE AVE UPLAND 91784
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 5, 2022
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/ JULIE R. GARCIA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/07/2022
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 I8296
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 on 3/04, 3/11, 3/18 & 3/25, 2022.

FBN202200001810
The following person is doing business as: EPITOME CONSTRUCTION [and] EPITOME LANDSCAPING [and] EPITOME STAGING [and] EPITOME CONSULTING 1632 WILSON AVE UPLAND, CA 91784: GEO COE LLC 1632 WILSON AVE UPLAND, CA 91784
Mailing Address: 318 BALLENA DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Geoffery T. Huang
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/02/2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/04, 3/11, 3/18 & 3/25, 2022.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000834
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: SAFAXY.COM; KAL REALTY INVESTMENTS; IRVINE WHOLESALE; DAMAX STORES, 12210 MICHIGAN AVE SITE 13, GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , KBH HOLDING GROUP LLC, 12210 MICHIGAN STREET STE 13, GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313,
Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/KHALED BOUKLI HACENE, OWNER / CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 2/2/2022
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,
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).
3/4/2022, 3/11/2022, 3/18/2022, 3/25/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220001128
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: PATTY POCKET’S, 7001 CHURCH AVE UNIT 34, HIGHLAND, CA 92346,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: 7001 CHURCH AVE UNIT 34, HIGHLAND, CA 92346, PATRICIA VIRAMONTES, 7001 CHURCH AVE UNIT 34, HIGHLAND, CA 92346,
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/PATIRCIA VIRAMONTES, This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 2/9/2022
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 2/6/2015
County Clerk,
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).
3/4/2022, 3/11/2022, 3/18/2022, 3/25/2022
T.S. No. 19-21058-SP-CA Title No. 191149382-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-891-66-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 12/19/2006. 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: Sergio Reyna, a married man as his sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 01/02/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0001112 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 04/07/2022 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: $555,541.29 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3034 Rocky Lane Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-891-66-0-000 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 19-21058-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: 03/01/2022 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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022 CPP352111
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: GLENN ROBERT ARROWAY
CASE NO. PROSB2200277
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of GLENN ROBERT ARROWAY has been filed by JONATHAN ODELL ARROWAY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JONATHAN ODELL ARROWAY 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 MARCH 29, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: February 24, 2022
Selyna Razo, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Jonathan Odell Arroway:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 11, 18 & 25, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM LEE HINES
CASE NO. PROSB2200314
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM LEE HINES has been filed by JERAMIE LYNN HINES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JERAMIE LYNN HINES 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 APRIL 11, 2022 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.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Jeramie Lynn Hines:
Neil Hedtke, Esquire SBN 273319
820 North Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 579 2233 Fax (909) 618 1622 hedtkelg@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 11, 18 & 25, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF DONALD MELVIN SPOONER, CASE NO. PROSB 2200300
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of DONALD MELVIN SPOONER, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by JANICE K. PAINO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JANICE K. PAINO be appointed administrator to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests that the decedent’s will 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 is set for hearing in Dept. No. S36 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on APRIL 4, 2022 at 09:00 AM
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MARY M. BADER 9227 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 368 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 945-2775 Fax: (909) 945-2778
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 11, 18 & 25, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2201618
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: CHEN LIN, on behalf of minors EMMA ZHANG and ANNIE ZHANG filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
EMMA ZHANG to EMMA SHEN
[and]
ANNIE ZHANG to ANNIE SHEN
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: April 18, 2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-17
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
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: 02/14/2022
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.

FBN20220002009
The following person is doing business as: INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM 14264 VALLEY BOULEVARD FONTANA, CA 92335: TRACY J COFFMAN 3115 HEATHER DRIVE FULLERTON, CA 92835
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 03/07/2007
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/ TRACY J COFFMAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 1, 2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.

FBN20220001529
The following person is doing business as: GOLD STANDARD EVENTS 11100 4TH STREET G301 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730:
VISIONAIRE CONSULTING GROUP LLC 11100 4TH STREET G301 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Mailing Address: 11100 4TH STREET G301 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California 202016011125
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: February 13, 2022
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/ JENNIFER JONES
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2022
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 I8296
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 on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.
FBN20220002028
The following person is doing business as: RP REAL ESTATE LLC 8280 ASPEN AVE., STE 175 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730:
RP REAL ESTATE LLC 1382 ELGIN WAY CORONA, CA 92879
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY registered with the State of California 202200111463
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: February 7, 2022
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/ RAINER PEDRAZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/07/2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.

FBN20220001769
The following person is doing business as: TOO SWEET DESIGNS 7154 DAYBREAK PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701:
ERIC LIU 7154 DAYBREAK PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701
[and]
KIMBERLY M ROMERO 7154 DAYBREAK PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrants commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: May 3, 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/ ERIC LIU
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/01/2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.

FBN20220002054
The following person is doing business as: MOO MOO COWS 6870 ROVATO PLACE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701:
BLUE WHALE LOGISTICS INC 1826 W MOSSBERG AVE WEST COVINA, CA 91790
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California as C4681738
The registrants 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/ YING GUAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/08/2022
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 I1327
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 on 3/11, 3/18, 3/25 & 4/1, 2022.

NOTICE OF HEARING
DECEDENT’S ESTATE OR TRUST
MARK HARLAN JACKSON
Case Number: PROSB2101053
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415, Justice Center
IN THE MATTER OF: MARK HARLAN JACKSON
This notice is required by law. You are not required to appear in court, but you may attend the hearing and object or respond if you wish. If you do not respond or attend the hearing, the court may act on the filing without you.
1. NOTICE is given that: WILLIAM V. LANDECENA has filed a PETITION TO ESTABLISH FACT, TIME, AND PLACE OF DEATH OF MARK HARLAN JACKSON
2. A HEARING on the matter described in 1 will be held as follows:
Hearing Date
Date: 07/14/2022, Time: 9:00 A.M., Dept. S35.
NOTICE
If the filing described in 1 is a report of the status of a decedent’s estate administration made under Probate Code Section 12200, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR AN ACCOUNTING UNDER SECTION 10950 OF THE PROBATE CODE.
Requests for Ac-commodations
Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign language interpreter services are available if you ask at least five days before the hearing. Contact the clerk’s office or go to www.courts.ca.gov/forms for Request for Accommoda-tions by Persons With Disa-bilties and Response (form MC-410). (Civil Code section 54.8.)
J BENJAMIN SELTERS III
(SBN 082786)
SELTERS & SELTERS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
399 W MISSION BLVD #K
POMONA CA 91766
TELEPHONE NO.: (909) 622-2507
FAX NO.: (909) 622-0545
CN984774 JACKSON Mar 11,18,25, Apr 1, 2022

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2200161
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Carlos Eduardo Sarmiento filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Carlos Eduardo Sarmiento to Antonio Balcazar 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: 04/08/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: 516
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: 02/25/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: John M. Pacheco
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022
AMENDED FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000641
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: OUTSTANDING CONSULTING SERVICES, 8561 FOOTHIL BLVD SPC 106, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , TAMMO WILKENS, 8651 FOOTHILL BLVD SPC 106, 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/TAMMO WILKENS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 01/31/2022
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/02/2022
County Clerk,
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).
02/04/2022, 02/11/2022, 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022; 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022
FBN 20220000778
The following person is doing business as: PATINO AUTO BODY REPAIR. 393 W ATHOL ST SUITE 12 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); DANIEL PATINO 393 W ATHOL ST SUITE 12 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401.
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/ DANIEL PATINO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202209CH

FBN 20220000764
The following person is doing business as: OPTIMIST PACKAGING. 206 E MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); MARTIN HERNANDEZ 206 E. MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766.
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/ MARTIN HERNANDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202208CH

FBN 20220000832
The following person is doing business as: SUBMARINO PACKAGING. 206 E MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO; ( MARTIN HERNANDEZ 206 E MISSION BLVD POMONA, CA 91766.
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/ MARTIN HERNANDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202207CH

FBN 20220000844
The following person is doing business as: ONTARIO MOTOR INN. 1522 W MISSION BLVD ONTARIO, CA 91762; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JAI SHIV BHOLE, LLC 1522 W MISSION BLVD ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SUNIKUMAR B. DHANGAR, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202206MT

FBN 20220000841
The following person is doing business as: DAESUNG TECH LTD. 1461 N VISTA AVE APT #1 RIALTO, CA 92376 ); PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SHATOYA D HARRISON 1461 N VISTA AVE APT #1 RIALTO, CA 92376.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SHATOYA D HARRISON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202205MT

FBN 20220000828
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN JEM HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC. 255 OAK DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92427; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); MOUNTAIN JEM HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC 225 OAK DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92427
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JASEN E. MATTINGLY, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 02, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202204MT

FBN 20220000673
The following person is doing business as: CHOLO PIERCES & TATTOO STUDIO, LLC. 12333 ROSS PL YUCAIPA, CA 92399
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS LOS ANGELES ); CHOLO PIERCES & TATTOO STUDIO, LLC 12333 ROSS PL YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AMY D. VELAZCO, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 01, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202203MT

FBN 20220000712
The following person is doing business as: SERGIO’S DIRECT HIRE SERVICES. 16476 WINDCREST DR FONTANA, CA 92337; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SERGIO J MUNOZ 16476 WINDCREST DR. FONTANA, CA 92337.
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/ SERGIO J MUNOZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 01, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202202IR

FBN 20220000661
The following person is doing business as: VILLANUEVA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. 5867 REBECCA ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92509; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AURELIO VILLANUEVA 5867 REBECCA ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92509; YOLANDA REYNOSO 5867 REBECCA ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92509.
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AURELIO VILLANUEVA, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 31, 2022
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 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022 CNBB7202201IR
FBN 20220001691
The following person is doing business as: THE MASONRY CONNECTION COMPANY. 1444 CLAY ST REDLANDS, CA 92374
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
MICHAEL R. SANDOVAL 1444 CLAY ST REDLANDS, CA 92374.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MICHAEL R. SANDOVAL, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 24, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202215MT

FBN 20220000648
The following person is doing business as: OPTIMIST PACKAGING. 533 W MONTEREY AVE POMONA, CA 91768
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
LUIS ALBERTO RUIZ 533 E MONTEREY AVE POMONA, CA 91768.
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/ LUIS ALBERTO RUIZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 31, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202214CH

FBN 20220000914
The following person is doing business as: TACOS TIGRE. 1772 N. KENWOOD AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
HUMBERTO R CRUZ ROSAS 1772 N. KENWOOD AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404; ESBEYDY LAUREL LOZANO 1772 N. KENWOOD AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404.
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HUMBERTO R CRUZ ROSAS, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 04, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202213IR

FBN 20220001073
The following person is doing business as: ANJIX CLEANING SERVICES. 12403 CENTRAL AVE. #235 CHINO, CA 917104029 EAGLE ROCK BLVD. APT 207 LOS ANGELES, CA 91710
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
NILO S IBACARRA 4029 EAGLE ROCK BLVD. APT 207 LOS ANGELES, CA 90065.
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/ NILO S IBACARRA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 08, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202212IR

FBN 20220001208
The following person is doing business as: UPLAND TRANSMISSIONS & SALES. 530 E. 90TH ST. UPLAND, CA 91786
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
OSCAR GUTIERREZ 530 E. 9TH ST. UPLAND, CA 91786.
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/ OSCAR GUTIERREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 10, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202211IR

FBN 20220001148
The following person is doing business as: ROBLES REMEDIATION SERVICES. 6861 MANCHESTER CT FONTANA, CA 92336
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
GERARDO J ROBLES 6861 MANCHESTER CT 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/ GERARDO J ROBLES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 09, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202210IR

FBN 20220001209
The following person is doing business as: DELICIOSO EATS. 8567 CAVA DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ESPARZA SIX ENTERPRISE, LLC 8567 CAVA DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; 8567 CAVA DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; .
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ESTHER AFLENE ESPARZA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 10, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202209IR

FBN 20220001146
The following person is doing business as: FLASH MASTERS. 17102 FERN ST FONTANA, CA 92336
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
GUILLERMO TOVAR 17102 FERN ST 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/ GUILLERMO TOVAR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 09, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202208CH

FBN 20220001106
The following person is doing business as: LINES & CONCEPTS DRAFTING SERVICES. 1006 N EUCALYPTUS AVE RIALTO, CA 92376
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ANA M OBANDO 1006 N EUCALYPTUS AVE RIALTO, CA 92376.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANA M OBANDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 09, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202207MT

FBN 20220001223
The following person is doing business as: RE/MAX TIME. 105355 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
HOUSEKEY REAL ESTATE CORP. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; 105355 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; .
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELVIS ORTIZ-WAYLAND, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 10, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202206MT

FBN 20220001076
The following person is doing business as: WORLD INVESTMENTS, LLC. 5559 GOLONDRINA DR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
GUS & N INVESTMENTS, LLC 5559 GOLONDRINA DR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404; 5559 GOLONDRINA DR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404; .
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GUSTAVO G. VALDEZ, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 08, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202205SB

FBN 20220001075
The following person is doing business as: CASH PARTNERS ATMS. 2225 PUMALO ST APT #149 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
PHILLIP R. HERNANDEZ JR 2225 PUMALO ST APT #149 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/ PHILLIP R. HERNANDEZ JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRURY 08, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202204MT

FBN 20220001059
The following person is doing business as: THERMAL LOGICS & CONTROL SYSTEMS. 13948 MILLBROOK DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JOHN A NUNO 13948 MILLBROOK DR VICTOVILLE, CA 92395.
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/ JOHN A NUNO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 08, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202203MT
FBN 20220000910
The following person is doing business as: GK MARKET STORE. 1466 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. STE S UPLAND, CA 91786
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ZWD CORPORATION 1466 E. FOOTHILL BLVD STE S UPLAND, CA 91786; 1466 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. STE S UPLAND, CA 91786; .
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/ ZIAD DANDOUCH, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 04, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202202MT

FBN 20220001475
The following person is doing business as: FRANCO TOWING. 11518 MESA VIE DR PHELAN, CA 923713745 VALLEY BLVD SPC #57 WALNUT, CA 91789
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ANTONIO FRANCO 11518 MESA VIEW DR PHELAN, CA 92371.
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/ ANTONIO FRANCO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
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 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB8202201EM

FBN 20220001153 The following person is doing business as: QUICK AUTO REGISRATION 9253 ARCHIBALD AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; ; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AUTOMOTIVE TRAINIGN SERVICES INC. 7615 ETIWANDA AVE. UNIT 268 RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.s/ OSCAR GOMEZ, PRESIDENTStatement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 09, 2022I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 CNBB9202201CH

FBN 20220001330
The following person is doing business as: GV HAULING. 4365 VERMONT ST MUSCOY, CA 92407
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
GERARDO A VALLES 4365 VERMONT ST MUSCOY, 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: 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/ GERARDO A VALLES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 15, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202207IR

FBN 20220001339
The following person is doing business as: WATSON VENTURES. 17956 LACEBARK CT SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407P.O BOX 122 LA VERNE, CA 91750
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ZARRIUS N WATSON 17956 LACEBARK CT 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: 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/ ZARRIUS N WATSON, OIWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 15, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202206IR

FBN 20220001347
The following person is doing business as: ALAREN WATSON; PRETTY FACE BEATS. 17956 LACEBARK CT SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407P.O BOX 122 LA VERNE, CA 91750
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ALAREN N WATSON 17956 LACEBARK CT 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: 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/ ALAREN N WATSON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 15, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202205IR

FBN 20220001804
The following person is doing business as: MARQUEZ JANITORIAL SERVICES. 655 AWAAL ST SAN JACINTO, CA 92582
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JOSE J MARQUEZ VERA 655 AWAAL ST SAN JACINTO, CA 92582.
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 J MARQUEZ VERA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 01, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202204MT

FBN 20220001803
The following person is doing business as: MARISCOS EL MACHI. 25142 JOHNSON ST BARSTOW, CA 92311
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
LINDA M PARRA-ROSALES 25142 JOHNSON ST BARSTOW, CA 92311; TOMAS PARRA-ROSALES 25142 JOHNSON ST BARSTOW, CA 92311.
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LINDA M PARRA-ROSALES, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 01, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202203MT

FBN 20220001359
The following person is doing business as: FAITH TOOLS & COFFEES. 2120 AUTMN MIST DRIVE RIALTO, CA 92377
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
GREGORY L BROOKS 2120 AUTUMN MIST DRIVE RIALTO, CA 92377; TERRI M BOOKS 2120 AUTUMN MIST DRIVE RIALTO, CA 92377.
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GREGORY L BROOKS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 15, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202202MT

FBN 20220001706
The following person is doing business as: 7 BROTHERS GENERAL CLEANING. 1081 E GRAND AVE #3 POMONA, CA 91766
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JESUS M AVILES OCAMPO 1081 E GARND AVE #3 POMONA, CA 91766.
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/ JESUS M AVILES OCAMPO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: FEBRUARY 25, 2022
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 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022 CNBB10202201MT

Click on the blue portal below to download a genuine and official replica of the March 4 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 12-24-21

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the reestablishment of a major military program at Southern California Logistics Airport.
The airport is the site of the former George Air Force Base, which came into existence in 1941 as the 2,200-acre Victor Army Air Corps Station during the run-up to the United States’ entry into World War II. The air base was renamed in honor of Harold Huston George, an Army Air Corps General killed in a flying mishap during the war, and it was folded into the Air Force when the Army Air Corps was reorganized to become the U.S. Air Force as a result of the National Security Act of 1947. Its four-runway configuration included one which is 15,049 feet long, making it the second-longest runway in the United States and currently the 13th longest runway in the world.
As an Air Force Base it was host to the 27th, 71st, 94th, 327th, 329th and 518th fighter-interceptor squadrons, the 31st, 35th, 413th and 479th tactical fighter wings, the 39th, 561st and 562nd tactical fighter squadrons, the 563rd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, the 452nd Bombardment Wing; and the 21st, 116th and 131st bomber wings. The Air Force’s pilots at George flew B-26 Invaders, F-51 Mustangs, F-86 Sabres, F-100 Super Sabres, F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Starfighters, F-106 Delta Darts, F-105 Thunderchiefs and F-4 Phantoms.
As a military base it was in use during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War. As a military asset during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, there was a nuclear mission at George Air Force Base, with interceptors armed with both atomic and nuclear tipped missiles intended to shoot down enemy bombers as well as incoming ballistic missiles.
As the result of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988, George was shuttered in 1992. The City of Victorville, working under the aegis of the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, a joint powers effort involving Victorville, the County of San Bernardino, the City of Hesperia and the Town of Apple Valley, provided to the Department of Defense a competing alternative to that submitted by the City of Adelanto for taking on ownership of the base property. After Victorville secretly underwrote the legal costs for the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, known by its acronym VVEDA, and the City of Adelanto burned through more than $20 million in redevelopment agency funds to wage its side of the legal battle, in 1995 the Department of Defense rendered a decision entrusting the civilian use conversion of the base property to VVEDA. In 1997, it was revealed that the Victor Valley Economic Development Agency was essentially a shill for Victorville when VVEDA ceded ownership and the development responsibilities of the air base, at that point referred to as Southern California Logistics Airport, to the City of Victorville. The City of Victorville thereafter, in June 1997, in conjunction with its redevelopment agency, formed the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, the board for which is the Victorville City Council. The authority runs the airport.
In the years after the city’s takeover of the aerodrome, the Department of Defense continued to carry out military-related operations there. Under Title 49, United States Code, subtitle VII, an airport receiving financial assistance from the United States government is required to make its facility available without charge for use by federal aircraft in common with other aircraft, with the proviso that the federal government will cover what is deemed a reasonable and proportionate share of the operational and maintenance cost of its use of the facilities.
In August 2008, the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing, based out of March Air Reserve Base, entered into an airport joint use agreement with the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority as a result of its substantial use of the facility to fly its MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial system craft for the purpose of performing flight training. The agreement defined Southern California Logistic Airport Authority’s maintenance and operational responsibilities, regulated the activities of the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing, and provided a means by which the authority was to be compensated for allowing the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing to use its aeronautical facilities. Early in 2009, the 452nd Air Mobility Wing expressed interest in conducting nighttime flight training with its C-17 cargo aircraft at the Southern California Logistics Airport for the purpose of training pilots to land without airfield lighting, using only night vision goggles. On May 1, 2009, a follow-on airport joint use agreement was executed that replaced the previous one that covered both the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing and the 452nd Air Mobility Wing activities. The second airport joint use agreement expired on April 30, 2014. Starting in the fall of 2013, Southern California Logistics Airport staff approached both the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing and the 452nd Air Mobility Wing to initiate discussions intended to ensure the timely execution of a new agreement. Those discussions bogged down over the next eight months when the 452nd Air Mobility Wing expressed its expectation that the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority – meaning the City of Victorville – would fund and construct a new runway specifically dedicated to meeting the C-17 crew training needs. As city staff believed such a request was financially unreasonable and not tenable, city staff proferred multiple compromise solutions that involved what city staff characterized as “reasonable” modifications to one of the existing Southern California Logistics Airport runways to better accommodate the 452nd Air Mobility Wing. Ultimately, the 452nd Air Mobility Wing chose to utilize other airfield accommodations within the purview of the Department of Defense, thus declining to enter another in another airfield use agreement with the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority.
According to C. Eric Ray, the City of Victorville’s airport director, “Concurrent discussions with the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing were central to determining the reasonable cost for their proportionate use of the airfield. The 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing adamantly disputed the cost of operating and maintaining the Southern California Logistics Airport airfield and purported lower aircraft operations counts. Ultimately, successful negotiation produced a new five-year airport joint use agreement that expired on June 30, 2019. Thereafter, the 163rd Air Reconnaissance Wing relocated all operations to March Air Reserve Base and declared the Air Force hangar facilities at Southern California Logistics Airport surplus.”
Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the Russian military was pursuing the development of hypersonic missiles capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional weapon payloads. Capable of reaching roughly seven times the speed of sound or Mach 7, about 5,370 miles per hour, such weapons are very likely capable of overwhelming the anti-missile capability that the United States has pursued and cultivated over the last six decades. The Russians developed several models of the hypersonic missile, including the Avangard hypersonic weapon, which was tested and put into service in 2019, the 3M22 Tsirkon, which can be land launched, air launched or ship launched and is both nuclear and conventional armament capable, and the air-launched Kh-47M2 Kinzhal nuclear-capable missile, known as “the Dagger.”
In July 2021, Russia test launched its most recent hypersonic missile model. This was followed by eleven further tests in October and December, two of which involved submarine launches of what were believed to be Tsirkon missiles and a “salvo” launch of multiple missiles on December 24. Russia has made no secret of its hypersonic missile capability, an open display that showcases the weapons’ speed and in-flight maneuverability, intended to convey to the United States and its allies that Russia continues to possess an assured retaliatory destruction capability that renders use of nuclear weapons against it by any power suicidal.
In the latter part of 2021, Russia began amassing substantial numbers of troops and armament near the Ukrainian border. This was accompanied by calculated statements from Russian officials and Russian media representatives who are presumed to speak with the authority of the Kremlin. One such statement came in December from Russian television host Dmitry Kiselyov, who warned that if the United States interfered with Russian territorial or political actions, it risked being reduced to “radioactive ash.”
Further massing of Russian military forces along the Ukrainian border continued apace, and on February 24, 2022, Russia launched a large-scale military invasion of Ukraine.
Tuesday, March 1, the dormant state of the military-related facilities at Southern California Logistics Airport came to an abrupt end when the Victorville City Council, acting in its capacity as the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority Board of Directors, approved entering into another airport joint use agreement with the federal government, acting by and through the Secretary of the Air Force.
The agreement will generate approximately $291,113 in gross lease revenue over the initial five-year term. In the remainder of the 2021-22 fiscal year ending on June 30, the agreement will provide Victorville with $14,554; $58,223 in Fiscal 2022-23; $58,223 in Fiscal 2023-24; $58,223 in Fiscal 2024-25; $58,223 in Fiscal 2025-26; and $43,667 from July 1, 2026 to April 1, 2027.
According to Victorville City Manager Keith Metzler, the “revenue-generating agreement allows the U.S. Air Force in this case to actually use the air filed and conduct operations … in the facility that was once used by the California National Guard in the pilot training program they had connected to the March Air Base Reserve for the drone aircraft, the Predators and Reapers.” Metzler’s reference was to the Predator drone, also known as the MQ-1, and the Reaper drone, known as the MQ-9.
“This agreement would actually facilitate the payment associated with the use of the airfield,” Metzler said.
Ray said that initially employees for the Asir Force contractor i3, would be involved in the work at the airport.
“This firm is working directly under the Air Force, the Air Force Department of Research and Development,” Ray said. “The ultimate goal of the work that’s going to be conducted here will be for our nation to develop a set of hypersonic missiles, missiles that some other counties already have. We are behind in that technology. So, the goal is to develop that technology, to fly them off these large drones, these MQ9s. Their use of the facility here would be to launch the aircraft, get them ultimately over the ocean and to do testing of these missile systems. So, it’s very important within the agency called DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], for DARPA’s research work in these weapons systems, to be able to actually get them in the air and test them. Our airport would be used as a place by which to launch those aircraft. They will use the taxiways and the runways on which to take off and to land.”
Ray said that i3’s activities will be contained on an 8-acre portion of the airport reserved for government-leased facilities. The Air Force under its long-term lease arrangements has constructed hangar facilities and ancillary facilities there, he said. The i3 Corporation, under contract to the Air Force, will be using the Air Force’s lease hold facilities, Ray said.
“There is no risk to the local population,” Ray said, indicating the initial tests will use mock-ups that replicate the mass and weight distribution characteristics of missiles, but which will not actually be functioning or armed missiles. “There’s no explosion that’s going to happen here [with] the testing that’s going to happen here … for many months, if not years. They’re going to fly these aircraft with essentially pods on them, something that looks like a missile but is not a missile. They are going to do a lot of the flight characteristic testing on the vehicle with this object hooked to it. So that activity is going to happen. And those are inert. They won’t go ‘Boom.’ They’ll fly those here and they’ll get into the controlled air space, restricted air space that is part of Edwards Air Force Base. So, there’s a large safe area very near to us where they do that. They will only have a live ordnance at very specific, few times, and at that point they will be flying them probably out of Edwards, again in that restricted air space when no one else is around, and take it out to the ocean to do that testing. Nothing like that happens here. Here, it’s about the aircraft operating under different mission criteria.”
–Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
This week, on Tuesday March 1, the Ontario City Council sided with one of the most politically well-connected families in San Bernardino County in overriding deep and wide resident opposition to displacing formerly agricultural and currently residentially-zoned property at the city’s south end with warehouses, factories, distribution centers and other industrial development.
The 219.39 acres in question bordered by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Merrill Avenue to the south, the future extension of Campus Avenue to the west and Grove Avenue to the east and owned primarily by the heirs to the Pete Borba fortune had previously been zoned to accommodate low- and medium-density residential homes and commercial centers or a large business park. To oblige the Borba family, the city council took a number of controversial steps, which included approving the scope and terms of the project, certifying the environmental impact report prepared for those projects under the aegis of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, approving the mitigation, monitoring and reporting arrangements for the development of the land, okaying an amendment to the general plan which provided for a change in zoning on the property, modifying the land use element of the policy plan in the city’s general plan, changing the city’s land use map to alter the low-medium density residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre) zoning on 157.06 acres and business park zoning on 62.36 acres specifying a maximum a floor area ratio of 0.55 to zoning allowing 184.22 acres of industrial buildings and 35.17 acres of business park with a floor area ratio of 0.6 and ignoring entirely a torrent of calls for reestablishing the abandoned agricultural zoning on the property. In addition, by approving the conversion of 71.58 percent of the 219 acres into what is primarily industrial uses, the city council agreed to intensify the density of residential development elsewhere in the city to make up for the number of units that would have eventually been built on the Borba property if the zone change had not been granted.
The 219.39 acres falls within the Ontario Ranch area, the development standards for which were established after Ontario succeeded in annexing on November 30, 1999 8,200 acres of the 15,200 acres of unincorporated San Bernardino County land previously in the Chino Valley Agricultural Preserve. The vast majority of the properties in the preserve were dairies, functioning under the auspices of the Williamson Act from the 1960s until the late 1990s. Chino laid claim to the other 7,000 acres. The Williamson Act provided landowners with tax breaks as long as the property was used for agricultural purposes.
The decision by the city council on Tuesday night essentially abrogated the land use ideals – calling for the property to be developed residentially – that had been put in place in accordance with the rationale for the annexation.
More tellingly, however, city staff’s report on the proposed general plan alteration, statement of overriding considerations to certify the environmental impact report, zone changes and imposition of a specific plan put forth that the project would result in no fewer than five negative impacts relating to the categories of agricultural resources, air quality extending to greenhouse gas emissions, historical resources, transportation and traffic, in which vehicle miles traveled and impacts related to burdens on intersections were noted.
None of those impacts, the staff report stated, could be fully mitigated to a level of “less than significant.”
Some five weeks previously, at the January 25 Ontario Planning Commission meeting, staff had told the commissioners that there were not five but 16 negative impacts relating to the categories of traffic congestion, noise, global climate change, cultural resources, air quality and agricultural resources that defied being reduced to a less than significant level. There had been, in actuality, no change to the project that eliminated 11 of the impacts. The change was one on paper only, and this raised red flags that alarmed the project’s opponents and city residents alike.
Thus, by its action the city council made a finding that the untoward elements of the transformation of the property into an industrial district were overridden by the benefits of doing so.
The developer identified as the proponent of project that was the subject of Tuesday night’s action is Newport Beach-based Euclid Land Venture. The owners of the property upon which the development is to occur are specified in documents generated by the city in relation to the adoption of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan. The social and financial status of those owners explicates why the city council, in the face of overwhelming resident opposition, was nevertheless in favor of the sweeping change to the character of the land at the city’s southlying extreme.
There were reports abounding that Euclid Land Venture was an arm of the predominant element of the project property’s landowners, the Borba Family. However, Rudy Zeledon, Ontario’s planning director, told the Sentinel that Euclid Land Ventures and the Borba Family are separate entities and that upon the full filing and recording of the entitlements on the land, the property will be sold by the Borba Family to Euclid Land Ventures.
The property owners include Pocamo, LLC; the George Borba Family Trust; George Borba, Jr., the County of San Bernardino, the Rudy Haringa Trust and Gerben Hettinga. The Borba Family is one of the most prominent, wealthiest and socially/politically influential in San Bernardino County. Pete Borba was a Portuguese immigrant and dairyman who came to the Chino Valley in the 1920s and was the progenitor of the Borba Dynasty. His son, George Borba, was fabulously successful.
As the owner/partner of George Borba & Son Dairy, he was both a director and president of the California Milk Producers Cooperative and the Los Angeles Mutual Dairymen Association, as well as a member of the Challenge Creamery Association. He was president of the California Milk Marketing Agency and an influential member of the Alliance of Western Milk Producers. For 22 years George Borba was a director of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. He was a founder of Chino Valley Bank, later known as Citizens Business Bank, and he was chairman of the board for both Chino Valley Bank and Citizens Business Bank as well as CVB Financial Corp. for 38 years.
The extended Borba Family included Joan Borba, who was both a San Bernardino County Municipal Court judge and later a Superior Court judge. The George Borba Family Trust numbers as its beneficiaries George Borba’s widow, Dolores; George Borba, Jr. and his wife Jennifer; George Borba’s daughters Kim Borba, Linda Gourdikian, Cynthia Podmajersky and Victoria Rynsburger, whose husband, Andrew Rynsburger, is the scion of a long-established Chino Valley dairy dynasty.
While Ontario’s political leadership denies it, the Borba Family along with roughly four dozen other generous big-money donors to the electioneering funds of the city’s five council members co-own the council. In less than seven months in 2021, members of the Borba family made $12,200 in donations to Mayor Paul Leon and three other members of the Ontario City Council – Councilman Alan Wapner, Councilman Jim Bowman and Councilwoman Deborah Porada. The Borba family avoided making any contributions to a fifth member of the council, Councilman Ruben Valencia, because he is at odds with the council majority.
On January 25, when the Ontario Planning Commission convened to determine whether it should recommend that the city council give go-ahead to the South Ontario Logistics Center project and its specific plan, a litany of high-powered entities went on record as being against the project. Those included Anthony Noriega, the director of District 5, League of United Latin American Citizens of the Inland Empire; Evan Marshall, of Californians United for a Responsible Economy; Irene Chisholm; Sean Silva, a member of Californians United for a Responsible Economy; Raymond Smith; Lois Sicking Dieter, an engineer employed in the analysis of air pollution by the California Air Resources Board; along with representatives of several labor organizations, including Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 398, the District Council of Ironworkers and Teamsters Local 1932. The opposition of the labor unions was significant. Labor unions have a well-established pattern of supporting development projects in Southern California. That the unions had come out against the South Ontario Logistics Center represented a dilemma for the city council There was one exception to the blanket union opposition to the project at the January 25 planning commission hearing. Juan Olmedo, a representative of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, said he wanted to “speak in support of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan.”
Olmeda’s presence at the January 25 meeting would later prove to have significance.
To avoid the appearance that the council members were selling their votes to assist the Borba family in obtaining the zone changes and land use standard alterations that matched with their expectations of how they could best profit in the development of their property, the council majority, through City Manager Scott Ochoa, pressured the director of the community development department, Scott Murphy and Ontario’s assistant planner, Alexis Vaughn, to provide the planning commission, which reviewed the project on January 25, with the basis upon which to make a recommendation that the specific plan be given go-ahead. The planning commission serves as a community sounding board and decision-making panel on land use and development issues. In some cases, the planning commission is entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority. In others, it is called upon to review project proposals or matters relating to the city’s planning process to make a recommendation to the city council that it can consult or rely upon in making its analysis and the final decision relating to those projects or actions. The seven members of the commission nonetheless are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council. And while the planning commission is often relied upon to work its way through development proposals and make a straightforward evaluation of whether the prospective projects that come before it meet the city’s development and land use standards and whether they will be a positive attribute to the community, in those cases where political considerations apply – in particular where a project proponent or landowner has a favorable relationship with members of the council – it is commonly understood that the planning commission need not strictly apply the development standards normally used if such an analysis would result in a vote by the commission that is detrimental to an entity that is in good standing with city staff’s political masters. In such cases where the planning commission has the final land use authority, it will virtually always vote to approve a project proposed by the city council’s major donors, supporters or associates. In those cases where the planning commission does not have final land use authority, it can be counted upon to tailor its recommendation to provide political cover to the council in approving a project or otherwise taking action favorable to the council members’ benefactors.
The unanimous vote of the planning commission on January 25 to recommend that the city council allow the conversion of the property to industrial and business park use provided just such political cover to the city council this week, allowing it to cite the commission recommendation in making its call in favor of the Borba Family.
While opposition to the project by many of the council’s constituents was anticipated, a major concern for the council was that heavy union opposition to the project might make its passage untenable. Emissaries between the council and the unions went to work in the weeklong run-up to Tuesday’s meeting. Also placed on the agenda for Tuesday was an item for the council’s consideration relating to a significant amendment of the city’s general plan, referred to as the Ontario Plan. The item called for an updating of the Ontario Plan incorporating the State of California’s mandates to construct more housing in the city in accordance with the sixth cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation formulated by the Southern California Association of Governments, which in Ontario’s case would involve at least 24,478 dwelling units. The adoption of the update and amendment further entailed the approval of an addendum to the environmental impact report for the Ontario Plan. By design, the vote on the general plan amendment was placed on the agenda immediately before the council’s consideration of the South Ontario Logistics Center project. The council’s action in approving the alteration to the Ontario Plan would clear the way for an intensification of the employment prospects for those in the construction industry. A sizeable contingent of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters headed by that union’s career connections outreach specialist, Jeffery Scott, was present in the Ontario Council Chamber to encourage the council to update the Ontario Plan as proposed. In his interaction with Scott and other members of the carpenters’ union as they spoke as part of the public comment process, Mayor Paul Leon would signal to the significant number of union members, most of whom were clad in orange shirts, that they should stand up. That exercise, which was repeated several times, had an immense psychological effect, making all present in the council chamber acutely conscious of the dominant presence of the union contingent.
After the council passed the Ontario Plan update, it moved on to the consideration of the South Ontario Logistics Center project. Community Development Director Scott Murphy gave an overview of the project. Buried in his presentation was an acknowledgment that “After revisions to the environmental impact report and incorporation of mitigation measures … five impacts remain significant and unavoidable.” Those were, Murphy said, to “agricultural resources” such that “project and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources will remain significant and unavoidable… air quality impacts related to a net increase will remain significant and unavoidable… the potential for project greenhouse gas emissions to result in a significant impact on the environment is conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable… the proposed project would demolish significant historical resources on site… [and] would remain significant and unavoidable…” With regard to “transportation and traffic,” Murphy said, “vehicle miles traveled impacts related to intersections are projected to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable.”
Before the public input phase of the hearing was opened, City Attorney Ruben Duran interjected himself into the proceedings, suggesting that Leon, as the presiding officer, reduce the three-minute speaking limit to two minutes. Leon did so.
It was noted that the Law Office of Abigail Smith had sent the city a letter relating to a number of environmental issues the project entailed. The public was not given access to the letter. Duran said he would analyze it.
It was further noted that there had been 1,147 written comments or letters sent to the city relating to the project, the vast majority of which advocated against its approval.
The Sentinel made transcriptions of the statements provided by those participating in the public hearing. The city did not cooperate in providing the correct or actual spellings of the names of those who spoke. The spellings provided are the Sentinel’s best phonetic estimation based upon what was audible at the hearing.
Randy Leckenham stated that eight of the parcels included in the 219.39 acres to be developed consisted of about 75 acres purchased by the County of San Bernardino with Proposition 70 money. Leckenham said the property had been purchased “in the interest of the public and held in public trust. He noted that the county did not put conservation easements on those parcels. “So, they have been in violation of the public trust to this day,” Leckenham said. “There’s no rationale for those parcels to be in the environmental impact report [and therefore included in the project] because [the] people of California own that land, and so easements should be on those parcels. We urge you to table this agenda item until those issues can be addressed.”
Oscar Aguilar, a unionized carpenter, said he wanted to work locally. He called upon the council to approve the project.
As members of the carpenters’ union spoke, their fellow union members stood up in accordance with Leon’s instructions that they should “rise.”
Jimmy Elrod, of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, estimated that of the union’s 60,000 members, a thousand of them lived in Ontario.
“I stand before you, urging you to pass this project,” Elrod said. “The amount of good-paying jobs created would benefit the membership, the workforce and the community as a whole.”
Susan Phillips decried the elimination of agriculturally-zoned property in Ontario. “The people who want to farm are not currently landowners,” she said. “So, by paving this land, you’re cheating the next generation out of the possibility of doing that.”
Though many of the dairyman who were formerly utilizing the land agriculturally are no longer in Ontario, she said, “Believe me, there is a whole new generation of people, some of whom are in this room, who would love to farm, and they would love to do it in Ontario. You’re one of the luckiest cities in Southern California. You have more prime farmland than anywhere.”
She cautioned that approving the project to give temporary jobs to the construction workers was shortsighted and did not properly prepare for Ontario’s and the region’s future in terms of maintaining a locally sourced food supply. Phillips said southwestern San Bernardino County was saturated with 25 square miles of pure warehouses. “That is not a balanced community,” she said.
At one point City Attorney Ruben Duran sought to discourage those from speaking from contradicting city staff or seeking to either correct staff, in particular Scott Murphy, or provide alternative data to what he had provided.
Tracy Walters, an urban agriculture advocate, said the pandemic had demonstrated how important it was to “transform our food system to become more local and sustainable. I’m here to ask this council and plead with you all to conserve our remaining farmland for our next generations.”
Lila Solokai Zovich said that “Ontario has been harmed by pollution from warehouses built in the area.” She urged the council to not approve the project.
Samuel Maron called upon the council to not change the agricultural zoning of the area and maintain the property as farmland.
Angela Miramontes opposed the rezoning from agricultural and lamented that “warehouses border our homes and our schools. We currently have 110 million square feet of warehouse space. In the last year, we’ve only planted 600 trees. We are facing an ever-growing threat that is climate change, yet we are doing nothing to mitigate this fact. Instead, we are building more and more warehouses that contribute to greenhouse emissions that pollute the air around our homes and schools, that affects our children and their future. I know I am going to hear that these warehouses create jobs, which is true for a short period of time.” The jobs at those warehouses, however, Miramontes said, “do not pay a living wage, do not provide enough for a resident to purchase a home here in their own city. We are not demanding enough of our elected officials, and our elected officials are failing our communities. Before we build more warehouses, we need to demand that these corporations pay their fair share in taxes, pay a living wage for California, pay for health insurance, plant regionally-native plants to provide some habitat restoration, provide incentives for residents to purchase electric vehicles and solar panels and … transition to an all-electric fleet. We, and you, need to think about more than money.”
Upon Miramontes suggesting that members of the city council were being paid off, City Attorney Ruben Duran leapt into the breach, insisting that Miramontes be cut off.
Arthur Levine told the council, “No more warehouses. Keep prime farmland in Ontario for sustainable agriculture and community benefits. Build climate resilience, food security and green jobs. Protect Ontario’s richest resource, the soil. I would like to urge the council to vote no on this proposal. Ontario communities don’t need any more warehouses. The proposal to use prime farmland for industrial use is irresponsible. Warehousing promotes wasteful and polluting land uses that harm families with bad air quality and congested streets full of large trucks.”
Jeff Johnston, who heads Euclid Land Venture, said the project adhered to “the vision that you all have been looking for, for developing the southwest corner of Ontario.”
Johnson said, “Our project will contribute about $144 million toward the infrastructure that will be the first miles of infrastructure that will help serve the housing that’s on the north side of Eucalyptus [Avenue]. With our project, we’re going to build nine-and-a-half miles of water lines to a nine-million-gallon reservoir that’s ultimately going to serve all of southwest Ontario Ranch. We’re building four-and-a-half miles of storm drain lines that are going to serve 1,800 acres to the north of us. We’re building 3.3 miles of sewer lines which also serve all the properties to the north of us. In addition, we’ll be building 2.8 miles of streets and street signals and we’re going to build two miles of recycled water lines that will serve that area. This is the opportunity to open up the housing element that the city is looking for.”
Wyatt Stiles, a member of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 398, read a text that had been prepared for him.
“Ontario must be ready for the wave of development that is unfolding now, ready for industrial and logistical projects that have been flowing into the Inland Empire the last two years,” read Stiles. “These projects will generate once-in-a-lifetime economic community benefits for us in Ontario.”
Luis Lopez, business agent for the Local 433 Ironworkers Workforce Development Board said the proposal was one of many “responsible projects” that will pay ironworkers good wages.
Frankie Jiménez, president of Ironworkers 416, said the project would provide work in Ontario that would reduce the commuting distance for ironworkers living in Ontario.
Caterino Diaz, who is on the council for the Local 433 Ironworkers, told the council, “I’m speaking to make it loud and clear we’re in support of this project.” He said the project would keep local ironworkers employed near their homes.
Pastor Zach with Care California, whose either first or last name was not given, said he and his organization support the project because it would put Ontario residents, who have an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent compared to the national unemployment rate in California of 6 percent, to work.
Moises Cisneros congratulated the city on its plan to develop the property but said that it should consider that “This land is more valuable either as being regenerated or used for sustainable agriculture than it is being developed. There is a formula for that. There is a formula attached to leaving this land as is for the benefit and health of all of our communities.”
Callie O’Neal touted utilizing the property for agrivoltaics, which she described as “an agricultural concept where you combine solar voltaic panels with agriculture.” She called it a “high efficient land use where you have solar panels about eight-to-ten feet high at 25-degree angles and crops under it. It creates incredibly water-efficient use of crops and incredibly efficient solar panels because it creates a micro-climate within that interacts. It’s land efficient. It’s highly profitable and it does incorporate agriculture in a way as well as creating food security.”
Andrea Galvan said “I’m here today, like many of my neighbors, to voice opposition to taking away farmland to allocate more land for warehouse industrial use. We live somewhere very special, and you would give that up for short term tax revenue.” She said that warehouse proponents were making “empty promises” of “good-paying jobs” that will “never appear. Our young people desire an opportunity to earn wages that pay for their housing. That can’t and won’t happen until we think strategically about our land use.”
Stephanie, whose last name was not given, said, “We do not need any more warehouses.”
Jason Byez, a member of Laborers International Union of North America, said, “I fully support this project.” He said he had previously worked “under the table,” and received insufficient remuneration to support his family. He said the project under consideration would provide work for unionized workers with wages “to open the door for me to be able to sufficiently provide for my family, a living wage with benefits.”
Bill Quisenberry of the Laborers International Union of North America said he supported the South Ontario Logistics Project.
“This project is going to create a lot of jobs in the local community,” Quisenberry said. “It is going to create for the construction workers in our union a well-paying job that includes fringe benefits like full family medical, defined benefit pension and even a vacation check.”
Richard Lucerio of the Laborers International Union of North America said he had worked on the dairies that once stood on the property to be developed and he and his fellow union members looked forward to working on the South Ontario Logistics Project.
Ralph Bellador of the Laborers International Union of North America said he and his brother and sister union members supported the project because “This developer before you is dedicated to building to the highest standards and using the very best craftsmen in the industry. This project will allow our members who live right here in the community the ability to work close to home and spend quality time with their families.”
Elizabeth Sena referenced the 1,147 letters, the overwhelming number of which were in opposition to the project. She suggested that because of the nature of the project and the existing oversaturation of warehousing in the area, the City of Ontario was running the risk of triggering legal action by the California Attorney General, as had occurred in Fontana over that city’s approval of a warehouse in a warehouse-oversaturated zone, despite there having been only 50 letters of opposition against the project there. “I’m happy to see the union members here advocating for their jobs,” Sena said. “But what I don’t see is anyone standing in solidarity with the warehouse workers, ensuring their wages are livable and their benefits are equitable too.”
Sena then made an oblique reference to the union members’ continual assertions that the project should be given approval because it would improve the dynamics of their family lives by providing them with decent-paying work close to home, reducing the distance of their commutes and allowing them more time with their families. “There is so much to say and so little time because you were encouraged to limit to two minutes, but what I do want to say is I have children too and I want to take them to their softball practices and I want them to be able to breathe clean air,” Sena said. “Please oppose this project.”
Anna Gonzalez, the interim executive director for the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said, “We’re poisoning the families of Ontario and all the local cities that are surrounding the Inland Valley region. The inland Valley region has become a dumping ground for logistics projects, resulting in blatant disregard of community impacts and the asthma and cancer clusters it has created, also known as diesel death zones. That is violence to your community members.”
The decent-paying jobs created by the project would prove temporary, Gonzalez said.
“Warehouse workers don’t come here to support these type of projects because they are always exploited,” Gonzalez said. “This project is disturbingly concerning, not only for the massive size of it, but for many other factors. These include extinction of prime farmland, which our region so desperately needs. We find many conflicts with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Plan. It will bring unsafe traffic conditions, posing a threat to some of the families that are in vicinity to this project. The rezoning concerns are a major factor. It is also concerning that the environmental impact report is based on a report that was made in 2010. Clean air is a human right. You need to put people over profits, period.”
Joaquin Castellano with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice said the major influx of warehousing was “affecting our health. It’s affecting the future of our communities. It’s affecting the children and public health in general. As a community in Ontario, we deserve more. We deserve to have better uses for our land. This is prime agriculture land that is rare now in this area. This could be used for many more projects that could be beneficial to our community. Ten years from now – we already know we are in a severe climate crisis – people are going to be looking for green areas. They are going to be looking for agricultural spaces to take their families to mitigate these climate issues. However. we’re turning them into warehouses and warehouses that are not going to bring any benefits to the community. I know that I see a lot of union members here, and I support the unions and unions do build America, but are these warehouses America? Do they represent the values of the American people? The American people deserve more, jobs that benefit the community in total, jobs that bring us together. I worked in a warehouse before. These jobs are not fun. They are not community building. They are temporary and not high-quality jobs. It is easy to bounce around from warehouse to warehouse, because that’s just how these jobs are. Bringing these jobs to Ontario where there’s already so many warehouses is just a blow to the community that is already facing so many effects from these warehouses. I ask the city council to please oppose this warehouse.”
Gina Gibson-Williams, the community development director with the neighboring City of Eastvale in Riverside County, was the last speaker to address the council. In January 2021 the City of Eastvale submitted a letter in response to the primary stages of the preparation of the environmental impact report for the South Ontario Logistics Project. Just before Tuesday’s meeting, the City of Eastvale submitted another letter, expressing concerns about the final form of the environmental impact report.
Gibson-Williams said the city she represents found fault with the traffic analysis in the environmental impact report for the project, prompting that day’s follow-up letter, which she sought, in the two minutes allocated her, to encapsulate.
“It analyzes about 75 intersections,” she said of the environmental impact report. “Nine of those intersections are in the City of Eastvale. There are two areas in which the traffic analysis deals with deficient intersections and also about improvements that should be made to those intersections. As of now, the document assumes a level of ‘D’ being acceptable to the City of Eastvale. It’s actually ‘C.’ It’s written that way. It’s actually documented in your environmental analysis. So, the tables, specifically Exhibit 1-3 and Table 1-2 in the appendices, need to be revised to reflect that. The intersections are Archibald and Kimball, Archibald and Limonite, Harrison and Limonite, Sumner and Limonite, Scholar and Limonite, Hamner and Ontario Ranch/Cantu Galleano, Hamner and Limonite, I-15 Ramp South and Cantu, Galleano and I-15 South Ramp and Limonite. So, we’re asking that the actual environmental document have a mitigation measure added. And the mitigation measure should say, ‘Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall construct the improvements or pay the fair share cost of improvements or pay the City of Eastvale’s transportation impact fees.”
Not among the public speakers at the council meeting were several people who had advocated against the project at the planning commission meeting on January 25, including members of the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 398, Teamsters Local 1932 and a member of the District Council of Ironworkers. Of note was that on Tuesday this week, other members of the ironworkers’ union had shown up to support the project, as had members of other unions, in particular the carpenters’ union.
Nevertheless, having driven home their objections, taken together with Gibson-Williams’ assertion of a flaw in the environmental impact report and Murphy’s admission that there were five substantially untoward environmental impacts of the project that remained unmitigated and unavoidable, several of the project opponents remained hopeful and even confident the council would deny the project approval or, at the very least, delay its decision while certain elements, such as the errors in the environmental impact report pointed out by Gibson-Williams, were corrected.
In the council’s relatively brief discussion that ensued, however, the council members came across as intent on finding a shortcoming in the arguments presented against the project. Mayor Leon pointed out that nitrate contamination of the soil compromised its quality such that the topsoil in the area would need to be removed or substantially redressed before it could sustain the cultivation of crops, rendering the characterization of preserve property as “prime” agricultural land inapplicable. Councilmen Alan Wapner, Jim Bowman and Ruben Valencia and then Leon seized upon Leckenham’s, Phillips’, Walters’, Cisneros’s and Castellano’s statements relating to maintaining the property for agricultural use, interpreting – indeed purposefully misinterpreting – them as demands that either the Borbas and the other landowners be prohibited from selling the property or that the city purchase property and utilize it as farmland.
“Certainly, you can’t expect the City of Ontario to pay taxpayers’ money – hundreds of millions of dollars – to buy a piece of land to grow crops,” Wapner said. “If folks are interested in a certain type of land use, then they have the opportunity to come forward and buy the land for the land use that they want.”
“If you want to continue on that property with agriculture, you certainly can,” said Bowman, “but I’m really a proponent of the rights of owners to sell their property, and government should have a very small part in controlling that activity,” said Bowman.
Valencia said he believed in upholding property owners’ rights, implying that it was incumbent upon the city to alter zoning on properties to comply with the wishes of the landowners.
Leon replicated his council colleagues’ deflection and misrepresentation of the project opponents’ arguments by suggesting, falsely, that the project opponents were calling for the city to buy the Borbas’ property. Alluding to city programs that allow Ontario residents to cultivate gardens and grow food on city property at various parks in the city, Leon said, “We do as much as we can with what we have that we own. As Alan said, we don’t own these properties. The people who purchased those properties believed that, according to the zoning of the past, they could do particular projects. And then for us to pull the rug out from underneath them after they’ve already purchased it, that’s just not right.” Reinforcing, once more falsely that those opposed to the project were uniformly calling upon the city to purchase the Borbas’ land, Leon said, “If you want to do this, get a group together, get some money, buy some of that property. We’d be happy to support you to keep it as farmland.”
Without making any adjustments to the project proposal, such as correcting the errors in the environmental impact report Gibson-Williams had flagged, the council voted 5-to-0 on a motion by Councilwoman Debra Porada and seconded by Bowman to approve the project. Even before the vote was taken, shouts of protest were heard.
Many project opponents, already disappointed at the direction the council was moving in, were shocked by Valencia joining in with the council majority in support of the project approval. The Borbas have sided with Leon in this year’s upcoming mayoral race in which it is anticipated Valencia will challenge Leon.
Chaos ensued as large numbers of the audience began chanting in unison, “Shut it down! Shut it down!”
Leon, at Duran’s suggestion, recessed the meeting.
In the aftermath of the meeting there were widespread accusations that the outcome of the meeting was foreordained and that the entirety of the Ontario City Council, which was already known to function in a pay-to-play environment, is on the take.
On Thursday, Leon told the Sentinel that at least as far as he is concerned and for most of the rest of the city council, none of that is true.
“Those statements make for a taller mountain than Bandini could ever take credit for,” Leon said.
While Leon acknowledged that “Mary Borba has been supporting me” and “She gives me about $1,000 per year” [toward his campaign fund], he insisted, “That has nothing to do with this project.”
Leon claimed, somewhat improbably, that he did not know that the Borba Family owned much or most of the property upon which the South Ontario Logistics Center project is to be built.
“I honestly did not put it together,” he said. “I was friends with George Borba. He was the most generous man I ever knew.”
Despite that, the mayor said, he had not been influenced one way or the other by money coming into his campaign war chest.
If the Sentinel or others are intent on finding corruption of the political process in south Ontario or on current or former dairy properties there, Leon said, such evidence does exist.
“[Ruben] Valencia is given money – $40,000 – from dairy farmers, who are paying him so they can keep parking trucks on their land,” Leon said. “That is more important than the collective [Leon, Wapner, Bowman and Porada] getting $12,200. I don’t sell my soul for 1,000 bucks to anyone. I tell anyone who gives me money that they are supporting the way I think and act as mayor. They are not paying for me to support them.”
Leon insisted, “I am still a poor man. I don’t have money. I don’t make money. I don’t have a lavish lifestyle. Everything I have I worked for. It is pure crassness for people to say I would sell my vote for $1,000. It is not true at all.”
Those suggesting he is being bribed are deluding themselves, the mayor said. “They are drawing up a scenario, with whole ideas that are just wrong,” Leon said. “They cannot begin to prove what they are saying.”
Leon said he has dedicated himself to the best interests of the residents of Ontario.
“I look at every issue on its face value,” he said.
He said putting in a swath of industrial development along the electrical line paralleling Edison Avenue is a responsible move, despite earlier zoning commitments toward residential development that were made when the city initially annexed the agricultural preserve.
The change in the city’s land use policies and the reformation of its zoning and land use maps is not something he and the council are driving, Leon said. Rather, those changes are being proposed by urban planning professionals in the city’s community development department and planning division, as well as by experts in the field the city has hired as consultants. He and the city council are involved in examining and ratifying those changes where they seem justified, Leon said.
“I agree that it [an industrially-zoned district] makes sense for the overall development for the 13 square miles [of land formerly in the agricultural preserve annexed by the City of Ontario],” he said. “The zoning got changed because it was a better place for that, when you take into consideration the Edison [electrical] lines. It made better sense to move the industrial uses there and housing elsewhere. After all these years, there has been a change in the permitting process. Nothing stays the same. We put that, the transition of the agricultural properties in the preserve to houses, out there 23 years ago. Of course, we hoped we had it right and that it would remain, and, of course, you want it to be the same, but things change. We still have 50,000 homes coming into the city in the future.”
The city is going about its planning processes responsibly, Leon said, making sure that incompatible land uses do not encroach upon one another.
“If you look at the plan, we are making the adjustments to extend the buffer,” he said. “You see it [the newly created industrial district in south Ontario] is not impacting homes like it would have.”
Leon said the city is abiding by sensible and long-extant planning principles even as it is facing mandates from the State of California to build large numbers of residential units to head off a housing crisis in the Golden State.
“If we are going to have high density, do it right,” he said. “Instead of houses on a quarter acre or half acre of land, the state legislature is directing us to build at a much higher density, with a dozen or two dozen dwelling units per acre. We have to move the pieces around to make it work. We don’t want this to be haphazard because we did not plan correctly.”
Leon dismissed reports that the city council had dictated to city staff and the planning commission to come up with recommendations favoring the South Ontario Logistics Project so that he along with Wapner, Bowman and Porada could please the Borba Family.
“Our planning commission is as independent of a body as you are going to find anywhere, and I know because I went out of my way, far out of my way, to make it as independent as I could,” he said. “I did it by eliminating people who were responding to council direction. I am confident that there is no one on that commission who will take direction from the city council – which would be not only improper but illegal – to vote on any items in a certain way. Though I have been taken to task over the years for removing people from the planning commission, I have done just that to make sure we are getting as honest and straightforward of an analysis as we can get on planning issues.”
Neither was there any hanky-panky involving the city’s community development or planning division, Leon said.
“Scott Murphy is a man of the utmost integrity,” Leon said. “That man will not be pushed around. He argues hard when there is anything, any planning item that is not in the interest of the city. For them [the project opponents] to make such an accusation shows you that some people are of the philosophy that if you throw stones you are going to hit someone. In this case, they can throw stones all they want, but there is no one to hit. There are no dogs barking. This is something that is completely made up. Until the people who are in opposition to this project brought these things up, this was just a mundane deal in the evolution of plans in Ontario. If they had not started arguing and screaming, it would just be another deal in the City of Ontario.”
Leon stood by the effort to discredit the opposition to the South Ontario Logistics Project by suggesting they want the city to buy the property from the Borba Family and have the taxpayers subsidize it as agricultural enterprises that may or may not be profitable.
“They wanted to stop a project in play for years,” Leon said. “They wanted us to take that property and turn it into a farm. They have the option of buying the property from the developer and making a farm, but no one has any money to do that. They came in at the 11th hour and 58th minute, saying it has to be a farm, but they are not willing to put up the money to do that. This is America and that is not how it works.”

The four-member ruling coalition on the Big Bear Lake City Council is on the verge of officially issuing a reprimand to their one colleague who has fallen outside of the panel’s mainstream over the course of the nearly 15 months he has been in office.
Mayor Rick Herrick and council members Randall Putz, Bynette Mote and Penni Melnick on February 25 voted to use the reprimand process as an officially recorded signal of displeasure with Councilman Alan Lee. The February 25 meeting was specially called, and was intended, according to its agenda, to allow the council to “engage in discussion about the current city council group dynamic and individual council member conduct, and will consider the need for and substance of any desired amendments to the city council rules of order.”
Encoded within that language was the discontent Lee’s council colleagues have with him.
Lee did not show up at the February 25 meeting, which thereupon turned into a diatribe on Lee’s public comportment, personality, all-around demeanor and attitude.
Councilman Putz encapsulated the beef with Lee. He said that Lee’s failure to show up for the meeting illustrated Lee’s unwillingness to work cooperatively with his council colleagues. “I am disappointed that he’s not here,” said Putz. “I would welcome to be able to have a frank conversation with him, but I think this is just another indication that he doesn’t want to work with us, he doesn’t want to solve problems and that he is not prioritizing the effective operation of our city.”
Putz said that at an annual League of California Cities conference when he greeted Lee and attempted to shake his hand, Lee demurred and chided Putz for seeking “to play nice,” to which Putz remarked that he was simply trying to greet him. This prompted Lee, Putz said, to remark that he would greet Putz upon their return to Big Bear, which Putz interpreted as a threat.
Putz said he believed he and the majority of the council were intent on “quietly” working toward the betterment and maintenance of the city, its infrastructure, services and assets, through the application of governance, which he said amounted to oversight. “I am not here to manage, which is different from governance,” Putz asserted. “I am not here to organize a union. I am not here to enact my personal agenda. I am not here to inflate my importance. I am not here to refer to my office or hire an assistant. I am not here to feed my ego. I am not here to demonstrate how great I think I am or to punish others who might disagree. I’m not here to seek revenge. I’m not here to dismantle the very organization that I was elected to support. And I am not here to make a mess for other people to clean up.” Putz implied that Lee had engaged in all of the behaviors that he said he had himself avoided.
Putz recounted comportment on Lee’s part he and others observed, and which he said was “visible and documented in public meetings, in emails, in newsletters and videos. Despite our best efforts to conduct city business in a constructive and efficient way, we have been subject to this behavior.”
Putz complained of Lee’s “bullying,” saying “We’ve been subject to intimidation tactics, threats, belittling others, tearing people down instead of building them up, cross examining city staff, setting them up for ‘gotchas,’ threatening citizens’ initiatives. If you don’t do what he says, if you don’t eliminate vacation rentals, if you don’t double the transitory occupancy tax, if you don’t dissolve the Department of Water and Power, there’s going to be a citizens’ initiative. We’ve witnessed him attacking private citizens who disagree, and then like a good bully, playing the victim when you’re caught.”
Putz then referenced what he characterized as Lee’s “grandstanding. We’ve seen shameless self-promotion, self-aggrandizing like playing Santa Claus, excessive time-consuming comments that run out the clock and keep others from participating, using up all the oxygen in the room and using the public forum, public resources to promote campaign events that are disguised as city activities.”
Putz then broke into seeming praise of Lee’s panoply of skills as a politician, charging him with “dishonesty. We’ve seen skillful blatant misrepresentation, outright lies, transferring his own behavior onto others, gaslighting. I’ve lost count of the comments I’ve gotten from citizens who are incensed by his hypocrisy. We’ve seen him create communications and events designed to mimic city communication and events. We’ve heard him say he has the best attendance at Department of Water and Power [board meetings], when in reality it was the worst. We’ve seen him say that we gave a secret city manager bonus when it was done publicly and appropriately.”
Continuing, Putz said, “We’ve witnessed a lack of self-control, the constant need to respond to criticisms, having the last word, saying he will be brief and then taking five minutes. We’ve seen interruptions. We’ve seen outbursts. And we’ve seen unsettling, threatening public tantrums.”
Putz accused Lee of “exploitation. We’ve seen him seek to gain leverage, push up to and past the line, disregard norms and civility. We’ve seen him rely on us to be polite and civil and then using it against us. We’ve seen him make others look bad so he can look good. We’ve witnessed him harvesting emails of local agencies and sending political newsletters. We’ve seen him co-opt people, using their names and participation unbeknownst to them to imply support. We’ve seen him exploit people’s pain. We’ve seen him send graphic images that are designed to shock and inflame, and we’ve seen him sow division and create an us-versus-them environment. We’ve seen his savior complex. He’s the expert. He knows better. He constantly challenges and disagrees with our professional civil servants, people who have been successfully doing their jobs for decades. He knows the law better than the city attorney. He knows policies and procedures better than the city clerk. He knows accounting practices better than our finance director. He knows how to run the city better than the city manager. He’s the only one fighting corruption and waste. He suggests he’s like Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ. He’s the only one who can save us.”
Putz said, “I don’t think any well-run organization tolerates the kind of behavior I’ve described.” In summary, and acknowledging he was being “crass” in doing so, Putz said that Lee was “a dick.”
Councilwoman Melnick said of Lee, “I’ve dealt with difficult people in my career. I’ve negotiated giant deals. I’ve dealt with challenging people on the other side. I will say, never personally or professionally have I dealt with somebody like him. The innuendo, inferences and attacks if we don’t vote the way he wants us to vote that we are somehow anti the community or in the pocket of businesses is offensive and hurtful.”
Councilwoman Mote, who was voted into office in November 2020 at the same time as Lee, said Lee had only made eye contact with her twice in all the time they have been seated across from each other at the city’s U-shaped council dais, and one of those was to stare her down.
The perspective on Lee external from City Hall is less clear cut. In the Big Bear Community, the assessment of Lee is mixed. Beyond Big Bear, little attention has been paid to him.
Some city residents likewise have a low estimation of Lee. At the November 11, 2021 council meeting, Alaine Uthus presented a public records request for text messages sent and received by Lee during the October 18, 2021 City Council meeting. She implied that either Lee’s use of his cell phone during the meeting or the city’s unwillingness to disclose what those cell phone texts consisted of was a violation of the Brown Act.
At the February 25 meeting, City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water General Manager Reginald “Reggie” Lamson addressed the city council, disputing that Lee’s assertion that Lamson was one of the highest paid water department managers in the state. “I am not one of the highest paid bureaucrats in California or San Bernardino County, and the DWP is not one of the smallest water departments,” Lamson said.
There are, nonetheless, constituents of all five of the Big Bear Lake council members who consider Lee to be a more conscientious and faithful councilor than his four colleagues combined, and that it is not Lee who is poorly cast in the role of councilman but that the others are shirking their duty.
While Councilman Putz maintains, and there is strong indication that Herrick, Mote and Melnick agree, that Lee is petty and thin-skinned, there is evidence to suggest that his council colleagues have been equally intolerant of criticism that he has leveled at them.
A major issue that has roiled the community during Lee’s tenure on the city council was the controversy over the ability of national or regional commercial outlets to sustain themselves in the City of Big Bear Lake and the surrounding community. The City of Big Bear Lake had a population of 5,231 as of the 2020 Census. The nearby unincorporated community on the east side of Big Bear Lake, with the confusing name of Big Bear City, in 2020 had a population of 13,463. This puts roughly 18,694 people within the greater Big Bear trade area. Big Bear City has what is called the Community Market, which sells groceries. Big Bear Lake has within its confines a Stater Bros. market, a Vons market and the smaller Triangle Market, which sells groceries. After Big Bear’s only major department store, Kmart, closed in early 2021, Tectonics Design Group/Main & Main Capital Group LLC approached the city with a proposal to bring a Grocery Outlet, which sells groceries at prices generally below those of Vons and Stater Bros., to Big Bear at 42175 Big Bear Boulevard in Big Bear Lake, a site not too distant from the Stater Bros. and Vons. Some hailed the competition and choice the Grocery Outlet represented as good for the city and its residents. A number of residents, however, opposed the Grocery Outlet on multiple grounds, including that an oversaturation of grocery stores in a community with as limited of a population as Big Bear might render each them unviable and result in all of them closing; that the city should instead prioritize finding a commercial entity selling taxable items as opposed to untaxed food to enhance the city’s revenue stream; and that the site for the Grocery Outlet was unsafe from a traffic access standpoint. City officials ignored a resident petition asking that the Grocery Outlet not be approved. On April 21, 2021, the Big Bear Lake Planning Commission gave approval of the proposed Grocery Outlet. On July 19, 2021, the council, which was only at four-fifths strength at that point due to the resignation of then-mayor David Caretto, deadlocked 2-to-2 with Lee and Mote in opposition on a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission decision. The council returned to the matter on August 2, at which point Melnick had been appointed to replace Caretto. The council voted 3-to-2, with Lee and Mote dissenting, to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission decision. Those opposed to the project on September 9, 2021 filed a lawsuit challenging the Grocery Outlet’s approval. In late November, Tectonics Design Group/Main & Main Capital Group settled the lawsuit, in so doing agreeing to withdraw the application for the project and forego its development. The city council on December 6, during a closed session, approved the same settlement agreement, and rescinded the project approval.
Lee was active in opposing the Grocery Outlet project and he supported the group that filed suit against the city over its approval. This has been represented by city officials as an indication that Lee is not a team player. Others see it differently, and maintain that Lee was simply willing to stand up for city residents in their dispute with the city. They see Lee as principled and courageous, someone who is unwilling to go along with the majority controlling local government simply because it is the majority. Moreover, they say, Lee was right and three of his council colleagues – Herrick, Putz and Melnick – were wrong on the Grocery Outlet issue.
The real truth is, some Big Bear residents say, Lee is willing to confront the corporate interests that have other members of the city council in their back pocket.
Lee has consistently questioned city staff about items contained or not contained in staff reports relating to items presented to the city council for approval. On occasion, he has put city staff members through their paces and belabored issues when he did not receive what he considered to be adequate responses. The other members of the council have been far more deferential to, and far less questioning of, city staff. They consider Lee’s displays of curiosity with regard to what they consider to be routine items to be poor form, meanspirited and an indication that Lee has not prepared himself for meetings by not satisfying himself with regard to the issues he focuses on prior to the meetings and outside of a public forum where he imposes upon and sometimes embarrasses city staff.
Some residents of Big Bear Lake, however, consider Lee’s trait in this regard to be an admirable display of his willingness to engage in the due diligence, scrutiny and oversight that are part of an elected officials’ duty. They maintain that this is not a reflection upon Lee, but rather an illustration of the indolence of the other members of the council who are far too accommodating of city employees.
On Monday, March 7, the Big Bear City Council is set to vote on a resolution of censure against Lee which delineates complaints by Big Bear Lake citizens, city employees and his council colleagues that hold Lee “has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the rules and policies that apply to and govern council members and city business” and in so doing he “has caused a hostile environment among council members and staff at City Hall to the detriment of the city. Council Member Alan Lee has demonstrated open hostility, yelling, bullying, disrespect, and confrontational behavior in and following council meetings that has resulted in disrupting the peace and deliberative function of the council, has disrupted the conduct of city staff by causing extraordinary and often unnecessary extra work assignments to accommodate his asserted but unsupported needs, has delayed and unnecessarily extended city council meetings by repetitive statements and referring to matters which could instead easily have been addressed to or with city staff in advance of council meetings, and has made unsupported or deceptive personal attacks on and misrepresentations about the mayor, fellow council members, and the city manager in communications at council meetings.”
In addition, the resolution of reprimand states, “Council Member Alan Lee has excessively and impermissibly directed the city manager and city staff to initiate projects and reports, significant in scope and nature, and to gather information without approval of the city council, including requests for information unrelated to the business at-hand. His requests have had a significant impact on the workload of the city manager and city staff, at significant cost to the city.”
The resolution further relates that “Council Member Alan Lee has inappropriately blocked and deleted features on his social media platforms and posted commentary in a manner that may cause harm to the city’s interests and expose the city to legal liability. Council Member Alan Lee has failed to reasonably use his city email account for his city-related business, resulting in a significant inability for city staff to access all his city-related emails for purposes of responding to Public Records Act requests. Council Member Alan Lee’s newsletters have incorrectly or misleadingly labeled themselves as reports from City Hall, using stock photography of City Hall with the city’s seal or logo.”
The resolution understates that “the city council does not condone this type of behavior.”
Despite all of the indications, including public statements made by the city council members at the February 25 meeting and elsewhere within the resolution, that Lee is a strong-willed and noxious personality who is heavy-handed and intemperate in his comportment and reaction to criticism, the resolution expresses the rather wishful hope that Lee will make a comprehensive examination of the rebuke he is being given by his colleagues, peer deep into his own soul, make an assessment of his shortcomings, come to terms with them and bear what is being heaped upon him with equanimity without responding in kind and reform his comportment to become a better councilman and more perfect human being, such that no further corrective action need be taken.
“[T]he City Council desires to use this reprimand as a means to avoid future consideration of censure of Council Member Alan Lee,” the resolution states.
–Mark Gutglueck

Former Upland City Councilman and yet-serving San Antonio Water Company Board Member and West End Consolidated Water Company Board Member Tom Thomas on February 26 succumbed to extensive injuries he had suffered in bicycling accident he sustained on February 24.
Thomas’s political life and his death were both marked with irony.
An independent insurance agent, Thomas served on the Upland City Council for 20 years, from 1990 to 2010. During his tenure, he served on multiple regional and local boards and committees, including the Upland Library Board, the Upland Police Foundation Board, the Upland Sister City Association, the Upland Police and Fire Committee, the Upland Public Works Committee, the Upland Finance Committee, the Upland Community Redevelopment Agency Board, the Upland Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, the San Antonio Water Company Board, the Six Basins Water Master Board, the Pomona Valley Protective Association Board, the Water Facilities Authority Board, the West End Water Company Board and the Upland Community Foundation Board. He was instrumental in the creation of the Gibson Senior Citizens Center, the Estes Senior Citizen Apartments and the revival of the Grove Theater. He was involved in the development of McCarthy Park, the Upland Skate Park, the Upland Animal Shelter, Fire Station Number 164 and the restoration of Upland’s historic fire station. More than any of the other councilors during his tenure as an elected official he familiarized himself and concentrated on water-related issues and devoted himself to improving water system infrastructure and the quality and availability of water to the city and its residents.
Of the more than 250 regularly scheduled and specially-called council meetings during his two decades on the city council, Thomas failed to attend three of those, an attendance percentage of better than 98.8 percent, exceeding those of virtually every other elected official in the county.
Tom Thomas’s tenure on the council was marred by its coinciding, during its last ten years, with the mayoralty of John Pomierski. Ironically, one of Thomas’s most dynamic and daring political forays, which ended in defeat, would have, if it had proven successful, prevented Pomierski’s assumption of the mayor’s post.
First elected in 1990, Thomas was reelected in 1994 and again in 1998. In 2000, Mayor Robert Nolan opted out of seeking reelection. This threw the race for mayor wide open. Thomas and another council incumbent, Sue Sundell, declared their candidacies for mayor. For Sundell, the mayor’s race was do or die, as she had last been reelected to the council in 1996, such that in running for mayor she had to forsake running for reelection to the city council. If she failed to capture the mayor’s post, she would be off the council entirely. Thomas had the luxury of yet being a council member if he lost the mayoral contest. Competing with Thomas and Sundell in the race was John Pomierski, an Upland Housing Authority board member and licensed contractor. Pomierski was heavily supported by developmental interests, which pumped nearly fourteen times the amount of money into his campaign war chest than Sundell and Thomas combined expended in their electoral efforts. Ultimately, Pomierski, garnering 10,555 votes or 45.2 percent, prevailed over Sundell, who polled 7,801 votes or 33.4 percent, and Thomas, who captured 4,970 votes or 21.3 percent.
The 2000 Upland mayoral election ended Sundell’s career. Thomas, however, yet had two years remaining on the council term to which he had been elected in 1998. He remained on the dais when Pomierski was sworn in on December 11, 2000.
At that point, Thomas made a fateful decision. Despite having run against Pomierski and at that point representing the single strongest potential political alternative to the mayor in Upland, Thomas calculated that if you can’t beat your electoral opponent, you should join him. With tact, grace and humility, he congratulated Pomierski and committed to a continuity, peaceableness and decorum of governance in Upland that would follow the departure of Nolan as mayor. Thomas was not out of the mainstream in coming to that conclusion; like councilmen Mike Libutti and Ray Musser, who had been elected in 1998, and Councilman Ken Willis, who had first successfully run for the council in 2000 while supporting Sundell in the mayor’s race, Thomas closed ranks behind Pomierski, a 1972 graduate of Upland High School who promised a business-friendly environment in Upland that would bring about what he said was economic rejuvenation. Pomierski bought his four council colleagues Upland High School letterman jackets to match his own, forming “Team Upland,” what was, at least temporarily, a unanimous ruling coalition on the council.
In short order, the beguiling and manipulative Pomierski, who had been backed by deep-pocketed developmental interests, came to dominate the city council, forging an alliance with all of the council’s members, including Thomas, despite having bested him in the just-concluded race, and Willis, whose political ally Sundell had been consigned to political retirement by Pomierski. In his initial years in office, Pomierski also formed a bond with Ray Musser and Michael Libutti.
Early on, Pomierski was shaking down those with interests in the decision-making process at City Hall, and pocketing bribes. Despite widespread whispering about what was going on, Pomierski held his unanimous political coalition together. In May 2002, Libutti, a prosecutor with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, was elevated by Governor Gray Davis to the bench as a replacement for retiring Judge Lou Glazier. Thereafter, the support network around Pomierski promoted another attorney, Brendan Brandt, who was the son of Barry Brandt, another establishment attorney from Upland, to replace Libutti.
Developmental interests had united behind Pomierski because of his readiness and ability to force, cajole or simply invite the other members of the Upland City Council, who collectively held the city’s ultimate land use authority, to accommodate those developers’ designs with regard to obtaining building entitlements. Pomierski served as a conduit of political donations originating with those developmental interests to other politicians. This formed the basis of and strengthened the bonds of Pomierski’s coalition.
That Pomierski counted among the members of his coalition a deputy district attorney who would subsequently become a judge and another accomplished lawyer lent the political machine that the mayor had constructed around himself an air of invincibility, enabling him in his ability to demand payments, payoffs, kickbacks, quid pro quos and bribes from those dependent upon arrangements being made at City Hall to get their contracts, franchises or projects approved.
By 2004, Ray Musser, who had been reelected in 2002 with support from Pomierski’s fundraising team, had come to fully understand the ethos that Pomierski embodied, and he broke with the mayor, challenging him for reelection that year. Musser put on a spirited contest, making issue of the depredations Pomierski was engaged in, the pay-for-play nature of his politics and his bribetaking in exchange for votes. Musser’s campaign appealed to a significant cross section of the Upland electorate, and he had the solid support of members of the community who recognized what Pomierski was doing. Musser came relatively close to unseating Pomierski, capturing 46.08 percent of the vote. But Pomierski’s substantial fundraising superiority allowed him to run an energetic campaign, which gave him 53.72 percent of the votes cast, with 0.2 percent going to write-in candidates.
Willis, on the strength of his incumbency and aided by the campaign funding and other assistance provided by Pomierski and those with an interest in keeping the mayor’s machine intact, was reelected in 2004 as well.
After the 2004 election, Musser found himself persona non grata on the council, as Pomierski had grown to become the uncontested regent of Upland. Thomas, Brandt and Willis adhered to whatever line Pomierski dictated, and the quartet worked in consonance to render Musser into a political irrelevancy. For anyone paying attention, it was hard to not notice what was actually going on, particularly when March 2005 rolled around, and then-City Manager Mike Milhiser was prevailed upon to leave before Pomierski had to line up the votes to fire him. Instead, Pomierski sealed Milhiser’s lips with a $200,000 severance package. Two weeks later, then-Police Chief Marty Thouvenell, reading the writing on the wall, retired. Pomierski brought in Robb Quincey as his handpicked city manager to replace Milhiser. At Pomierski’s behest, Quincey made an in-house promotion of Captain Steve Adams to replace Thouvenell as police chief, at which point Upland declined into an unbridled graftfest. Pomierski arranged for Quincey, who was hired with a $250,000 salary and modest benefits, to be eligible to receive a percentagewise salary and benefit increase commensurate with any increase granted to members of the police department, including both line officers and management. Contract negotiations with the police officers’ union and the police management union were entrusted to Quincey. Thereafter, Quincey granted both the police officers and their superiors – sergeants, lieutenants and captains – as well as himself a combined eight pay raises in less than five years. This corrupt arrangement bought the police department’s silence and inaction with regard to Pomerski’s bribetaking while Quincey’s total annual compensation by January 2011 climbed to $460,625, consisting of a base salary and add-ons of $368,529 with benefits of $92,096, making him the third highest paid city manager in the state, despite the consideration that Upland was California’s 108th largest city population-wise.
At that point, the only conceivable check on Pomierski was the contrarian and politically-outmuscled Musser. Willis, Thomas and Brandt deeply resented Musser over his incurable habit of speaking openly about Pomierski’s dishonesty and the pay-for-play atmosphere the mayor was subjecting the city to, recognizing that such utterances made the community look bad and themselves look worse, since Pomierski was instrumental in helping them raise campaign funds or simply transferred money out of his own campaign war chest to theirs. Pomierski employed Willis as his pit bull to hold Musser in line. While Willis had no hesitancy of verbally confronting Musser in public and chastising him for refusing to follow Pomierski’s orders, Thomas and Brandt tended not to verbalize their disapproval of Musser’s defiance, simply expressing themselves by silently glowering at him or shaking their heads whenever he voted against the majority or sought to float a proposal that had not previously met with Pomierski’s approval.
Thomas, Musser and Brandt were due to stand for election in 2006, and all three did. Pomierski expended money from his political war chest to assist Thomas and Brandt and finance hit pieces intended to dissuade the city’s voters from supporting Musser. In a field of seven candidates, Musser finished in first place with 10,331 votes or 23.87 percent, which demonstrated that a minority but still significant segment of the population stood with him in the recognition of the depravity of the Pomierski regime. Brandt finished second with 9,718 votes or 22.45 percent, followed by Thomas with 9,467 votes or 21.87 percent. All three remained on the council.
In 2008, Musser again made a quixotic challenge of Pomierski. With only a fraction of the money Pomierski possessed, Musser was not able to mount as effective of a campaign against the mayor as he had four years previously. Pomierski was simultaneously able to count on the support and endorsement of other local politicians such as the mayors and council members of nearby Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Montclair, along with the county district attorney and sheriff, not to mention Thomas, Brandt and Willis. Pomierski won the 2008 election even more convincingly than the 2004 contest, with 15,971 votes or 57.4 percent to Musser’s 11,853 votes or 42.6 percent.
His 2008 victory emboldened Pomierski further, and he involved himself in violations of the public trust beyond what he had heretofore dared. Just a month after his reelection, he cozened the Upland Planning Commission into allowing Old Mark’s Church on 18th Street between Euclid and San Antonio to be set up as a private imbibing station where he could indulge himself in multiple nightcaps before driving, unmolested by the Upland Police Department, the roughly seven blocks to his home on West Westridge Court. When asked about the arrangement, Thomas, unwilling to be publicly heard or seen engaging in anything critical of the mayor, said he saw no problem in someone having a celebratory glass of wine now and again.
It was never clear whether Thomas understood that Pomierski was engaged in violations of the public trust or whether he was simply constitutionally incapable of recognizing that someone who had achieved the status of mayor and whose function as a public official was inextricably bound up with his own position as an honored member of the community could be involved in the despoliation that was Pomierski’s stock-in-trade.
Pomierski generated so much money through payoffs, kickbacks and bribes that he was able to channel a good deal of that revenue to his associates and confederates and still have enough left over that he could essentially discontinue most of his actual legitimate function as a builder, instead using his company, JP Construction, to launder the ill-gotten proceeds he was receiving. With Quincey covering for him at City Hall, the Upland Police Department bought off and his political alliance with San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos, Pomierski seemingly had nothing to worry about.
In June 2010, however, the FBI showed up at City Hall with search warrants and for nearly a day, eight FBI agents, three IRS agents and two federal forensic computer analysts occupied the city’s offices, seizing documents and downloading data off of computer hard drives. Simultaneously, the FBI agents raided Pomierski’s home, the office of JP Construction and the homes and offices of his business associates Jason Crebs and Anthony Orlando Sanchez, the owners of Venture West Capital. Venture West Capital had dealings with JP Construction. The FBI also served search warrants upon John Edward Hennes, one of Pomierski’s appointees to the Upland Building Appeals Board, at Hennes’ home and office. Over the next seven months a progression toward the eventual federal indictments of Pomierski on political corruption and bribery charges and of Sanchez, Crebs and Hennes for abetting Pomierski in demanding, receiving and concealing bribes played out. Eventually, in 2012, Quincey would be charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with felony engaging in a conflict of interest through fraud by a public official, felony misappropriation of public funds and perjury. Ultimately Pomierski, Crebs, Sanchez and Hennes were convicted of the federal charges and Quincey was convicted on state charges pursuant to a plea arrangement worked out by his attorney.
A little less than five months after the 2010 FBI raid on Upland City Hall, Thomas, Brandt and Musser were due to stand for reelection to the city council. All three ran in race that attracted five candidates. Musser cruised to a comfortable first place finish with 10,878 votes or 25.09 percent, aided by the adverse publicity attending Pomierski in the aftermath of the FBI activity and the widespread knowledge that Musser had been the lone personage standing up to the corrupt mayor. Brandt managed to hang on to his council seat, capturing third place with 9,259 votes or 21.35 percent. Both Brandt and Thomas were outdistanced by newcomer Gino Filippi, who gathered 9,398 votes or 21.67 percent. Thomas, after 20 years in office, was out, having been undone by his association with Pomierski.
When Pomierski was obliged to resign just a few days ahead of his 2011 indictment, it was Musser who was appointed to replace him as mayor. Belatedly, Musser was rewarded for having courageously stood against Pomierski for more than seven years and having run against him in uphill battles that could not be won given the amount of money – both illegal in terms of bribes and kickbacks and legal though ethically and morally questionable in terms of campaign contributions from the development community – that Pomierski took in to fuel his electioneering machine in 2004 and 2008. Neither Thomas, who had run for mayor in 2000 but had fallen short, nor Brandt, who coveted the mayoral title but did not have the courage to stand up to Pomierski though he most assuredly knew what he was up to, would ever lay claim to the Upland mayor’s gavel. Brandt opted out of seeking reelection to the council in 2014.
Even though he had been voted off the city council in 2010, Thomas managed to hold onto two vestiges of the prestige, power and position that came with his being a councilman. While on the council, he volunteered to serve as the city’s representative on the San Antonio Water Company Board as well as the West End Consolidated Water Company Board. His council colleagues acceded to his willingness and bestowed those appointments on him. Thomas brought himself up to speed with regard to water issues generally and intimately familiarized himself with the city’s water operations, which involve nine city-owned wells, as well as the function of both the San Antonio Water Company and the West End Consolidated Water Company.
The San Antonio Water Company provides water to San Antonio Heights, the unincorporated county area just north of Upland, and it also provides water to the City of Upland, which is a 70.66 percent owner of the San Antonio Water Company. The San Antonio Water Company obtains water by means of diversions from above-ground streams in San Antonio Canyon and seven wells, utilizing two booster pump stations that send water through 21 miles of pipeline to three reservoirs.
The West End Consolidated Water Company, of which the City of Upland is a 91.18 percent owner, also supplies water to the City of Upland. The West End Consolidated Water Company has four active wells and two currently inactive wells.
Despite the way in which Thomas had aligned himself with Pomierski during the ten years the two were on the council and the fashion in which Thomas had consistently sided with Pomierski over Musser whenever differences arose between them, Musser, upon becoming mayor did not hold a grudge against Thomas, and allowed him to remain as a member of the San Antonio Company Water Board and the West End Consolidated Water Board, even though Musser did have the authority to remove him had he chosen to do so. Musser was elected mayor by the city’s voters in his own right in 2012 and opted to not seek reelection in 2016. Debbie Stone, who succeeded Musser as mayor, likewise allowed Thomas to remain as a board member with both water companies. Bill Velto, who defeated Stone in the 2020 election, did not remove Thomas from those positions either. He was yet a board member of both when he died.
There are some who see in Thomas’s passing further “proof” of a so-called Pomierski curse. In January 2021, just shy of the ten-year anniversary of Pomierski’s federal indictment, Willis, then 75, died. In August 2021, Brandt, 56, who had gone to Ventura to run in the Beachfront Half Marathon, intending to use it as a tune-up for the Boston Marathon, had reached the roughly the four-and-a-half-mile point on the 13-mile course when he collapsed. A physician who was running near him immediately began chest compressions. Paramedics who arrived shortly thereafter continued similar ministrations as the former councilman was transferred to a hospital. Brandt, who had suffered a massive heart attack, was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Others dismiss suggestions that a Pomierski curse exists, pointing out that all three of the councilmen who enabled the disgraced former mayor for so long lived full and intense lives that were, in one way or another, fraught with hazard.
Willis was a Vietnam War veteran.
Brandt literally ran until he dropped.
Thomas, 68, an avid cyclist, typically rode a bicycle between 60 and 100 miles a week, covering somewhere in the neighborhood of an estimated 141,440 miles in the last 34 years.
The athletic Thomas gravitated to cycling in his mid-30s after his playing days on the gridiron in high school and college had come to an end more than a decade previously and after his knees began to rebel against his dedication to running.
His passion for the sport, which kept him in excellent physical condition, was a dangerous one that in the end proved his undoing. Thomas was conscious of that danger, which was impressed upon him just two weeks after he was elected to the city council in 1990. On that occasion, he collided with a vehicle driven by an operator who miscalculated Thomas’s downhill speed of more than 30 miles per hour and turned in front of him, resulting in his suffering a cracked vertebra, dislocated hip and broken ankle, necessitating that he be sworn into office while he was yet in a cast and motivating on crutches. As a councilman, Thomas sought to make biking safer, at least within the neck of the woods where he had sway and authority. His advocacy for bike lanes in the City of Gracious Living put it at the forefront of what then became a trend elsewhere in San Bernardino County. Moreover, he was a prime mover in the effort to establish what became the Pacific Electric Trail, the 21-mile bike route now running from Rialto to near the Claremont/La Verne border. The trail is an eco-friendly pathway on the footprint of the original Pacific Electric Railway easement used primarily for walking, running, bird watching, and biking. The Upland span of the trail was the first portion of the major regional recreational amenity that was opened. Thomas was also a founder of the Tour de Foothills, an annual biking event in Upland first begun in 2005.
Thomas brushed aside observations and warnings about the danger of biking and statements to the effect that the more miles and time on the road that a bicyclist puts in, the more likely that his number would come up. To assertions by motorcyclists and others that many vehicle operators simply do not see the bicycles and motorcycles they share roads with and that bicycles lack the acceleration capability that will allow a rider to maneuver quickly out of harm’s way, Thomas responded that he took adequate precautions, always wearing a helmet and a bright neon reflective jersey, and that he had outfitted his bike with lights and reflectors visible from both the front and the back.
As it turned out, Thomas’s demise ironically came when, as he was at a near standstill on Monte Vista Avenue in the left turn lane waiting to turn east on Richton Street near the Montclair Transit Center, he was blitzed by a motorcyclist who did not see him.
“Tom left a huge footprint in the history of Upland and he will be deeply missed,” his brother, Jim Thomas, said.
“I’m saddened by Tom Thomas’s passing,” said councilwoman Janice Elliott. “I had several opportunities to work with Tom, and his wisdom, kindness, knowledge, his respectfulness always impressed me.”
Mayor Bill Velto said, “Tom was a husband, a father and a grandfather, a leader in this community, a steadfast friend to many and a trustworthy business owner. Our community is better and in a better place because of Tom’s contributions. We thank him for those.”
Thomas graduated from Culver City High School in 1971. After achieving his bachelor’s degree in business administration at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1976, he continued employment he had already begun as a loss control representative at the Industrial Indemnity Corporation. In 1978, he began working with CNA Insurance as a loss control representative. In 1980, he signed on with Tokio Marine Management, again as a loss control representative. In January 1983, he began as a broker and agent with Insurance Incorporated of Southern California, selling commercial insurance. In June 1983, he became president of that company, remaining so for 38 years and eight months.
He was an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
He is survived by his wife, Ann Shriner Thomas, and three daughters.
-Mark Gutglueck

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to end the state of emergency it had originally declared March 10, 2020 pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, have the county’s chief executive officer determine how to allocate $423.5 million the county has received in federal American Rescue Plan Act funding intended to cover the financial burden of dealing with the coronavirus crisis and simultaneously made a finding that that there is an urgent need to proclaim a local emergency within San Bernardino County and its urgent medical services response system resulting from the impact of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic.
That action was taken in three successive items – 32, 33 and 34 – on the board’s March 1 meeting agenda. The staff reports for all three items were written by County Chief Executive Officer Leonard Hernandez.
In the staff report for Item 32 Agenda, Hernandez wrote he was asking the board to authorize the chief executive officer [i.e., himself] to execute the American Rescue Plan Act contract template with subrecipients in accordance with the board of supervisors-approved Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Plan.
In the staff report for Agenda Item 33, Hernandez wrote that he, in his capacity “as the director of emergency services, has determined that emergency conditions no longer exist and therefore continuation of the emergency proclamation pertaining to and for the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) is no longer needed.”
On the staff report for Item 34, Hernandez called upon the board to “proclaim a local emergency within San Bernardino County” impacting the emergency medical services system.
Hernandez wrote that the system was under “strain,” and extended to paramedic staffing and the ability to purchase both new and more ambulances as the result of delayed training programs and supply chain disruptions.