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.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2202828
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: SAVANNAH STARNES filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
SAVANNAH RENEE STARNES to ASPEN RENEE STARNES
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 14, 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: 03/01/2022
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
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LAURA DENISE LOCKETT aka LAURA D. LOCKETT aka LAURA LOCKETT
Case No. PROSB2200363
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, con-tingent creditors, and persons who may other-wise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of LAURA DENISE LOCKETT aka LAURA D. LOCKETT aka LAURA LOCKETT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Christopher Michael Lockett in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BER-NARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Christopher Michael Lockett 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 rep-resentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very im-portant actions, however, the personal representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The in-dependent administration authority will be granted unless an inter-ested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on April 18, 2022 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S35 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general per-sonal 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 au-thority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAM-INE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
JAMES L LEESTMA ESQ
SBN 207311
LAW OFFICE OF
JAMES LAMBERT LEESTMA
7301 TOPANGA CYN BL
STE 202
CANOGA PARK CA 91303
CN985396 LOCKETT Mar 18, 25, Apr 1, 2022
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WANDA PAT SAWYER CASE NO. PROSB2200341
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WANDA PAT SAWYER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ALEXANDER EDWARD PANATTONI in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ALEXANDER EDWARD PANATTONI 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-35 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 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 March 18, 25 & April 1, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF GERALDINE HATCH, CASE NO. PROSB 2200301
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of GERALDINE HATCH, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by ANITA R. HANSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that ANITA R. HANSON be appointed personal representative 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. S35 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on APRIL 21, 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: HOWARD R. HAWKINS SBN 100875 LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD R. HAWKINS 2146 BONITA AVENUE LA VERNE, CA 91750 Telephone: (909) 593-1388 Fax: (909) 392-4554 law.hrh@verizon.net
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 18, 25 & April 1, 2022.
FBN FBN202200021212
The following person is doing business as: FOUR SEASONS GETAWAY 451 VICTORIA LN SUGARLOAF, CA 92386
OXANA L TEPPONE 40100 PINE BENCH RD OAK GLEN, CA 92399
[and]
DION A CUEVAS 40100 PINE BENCH RD OAK GLEN, CA 92399
Mailing Address: 40100 PINE BENCH RD OAK GLEN, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 17, 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/ OXANA L TEPPONE
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 I5199
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 3/18, 3/25, 3/1 & 3/8, 2022.
AMENDED FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012330
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: SKYLINK INFOSYS, MBA BIZ SOLUTIONS, 15091 KITFOX LN, VICTORVILLE, CA 92394 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: 15091 KITFOX LN, VICTORVILLE, CA, 92394, MBA BAGGA ENTERPRISES LLC
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/RAGHBIR BAGGA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/15/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk,
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).
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022; 02/11/2022,
02/18/2022, 02/25/2022, 03/04/2022; 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF DANIEL G. CISNEROS, JR., CASE NO. PROSB 2200376
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of DANIEL G. CISNEROS, JR, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by DELIA HERNANDEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that DELIA HERNANDEZ be appointed personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action. The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
The petition 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 MAY 3, 2022 at 09:00 AM
Filed: MARCH 16, 2022
Aspen Jackson, Deputy
Court Clerk’s Office
San Bernardino County Superior Court
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: HOWARD R. HAWKINS SBN 100875 LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD R. HAWKINS 2146 BONITA AVENUE LA VERNE, CA 91750 Telephone: (909) 593-1388 Fax: (909) 392-4554 law.hrh@verizon.net
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 25, April 1 & April 8, 2022.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2205209
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JIEYING YU filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JIEYING YU to EILEEN JIEYING YU
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: May 2, 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: 03/21/2022
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/25, 4/1, 6/8 & 4/15, 2022.
FBN20220002407
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN SURF COMPANY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315:
THOMAS BRADLEY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
[and]
JENNA BRADLEY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 120821 BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MARCH 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/ THOMAS BRADLEY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/15/2022
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 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 3/25, 4/01, 4/08 & 4/15, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2200319
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: DIRKE LAINE EDMOND filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
DIRKE LAINE EDMOND to DIRKE DURRETT LAINE EDMOND 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: 06/21/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, 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: 01/26/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: JOHN M PACHECO
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022

NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AT PRIVATE SALE CASE NO. PROPS 2100493
In the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino: In the matter of the Estate of Elton A. Rayburn SR., aka ELTON RAYBURN aka ELTON ANTHONY RAYBURN aka ANTHONY RAYBURN, SR., Decedent
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned will sell at Private Sale, to the highest and best bidder, subject to confirmation of said Superior Court, on or after the 25th day of April, 2022, at 9:00 am in the office of the San Bernardino County Superior Court Department S35, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California, 92415-0212, all of the right, title and interrest of said decedent at the time fo his death, in and all the certain real property, situated in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as Assessor’s Parcel No.0146-152-15. More commonly known as 1572 Belle Street, San Barnardino, California, 92404.
Term of sale are cash in lawful money of the United States on confirmation of sale, or part cash and balance upon such terms and conditions as are acceptable to the personal representative. Ten percent of amount bid to be despostited with bid. Bids or offers to be in writing and will be received at the office of the attorney for the personal representatives at any time after first publication hereof and before date of sale.
Dated: March 16,2022
Angela Dietrich
Personal Representatives of the Estate
RICHARD G. ANDERSON, ESQ.
ANDERSON & LEBLANC, A.P.L.C.
1365 West Foothill Boulevard, Suite 2
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 949-2226 Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022
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 03/04/2022, 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022 03/25/2022 CNBB9202201C

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

FBN 20220002102
The following person is doing business as: TOP HOME ESCROW 17122 SLOVER AVENUE SUITE K-112 FONTANA, CA 92337
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
TOP ADVISOR GROUP, INC. 17122 SLOVER AVENUE SUITE K-112 FONTANA, CA 92337
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/ SUSANA URIARTE, SECREATRY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202201MT

FBN 20220002354
The following person is doing business as: CRESCENT JEWELRY 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
RENE D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RENE D. MONTERROSO OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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
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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202202MT

FBN 20220002356
The following person is doing business as: BLACK SHEEP AUTOSALES, INC. 14240 ST. ANDREWS DR SUITE #201 VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BLACK SHEEP AUTOSALES INC. 9168 OCOTILLO AVE HESPERIA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: 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/ HECTOR G. TORRES, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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
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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202203

FBN 20220001330
The following person is doing business as: BLACK SHEEP UTV RENTALS, LLC 14240 ST. ANDREWS DR SUITE #201 VICTOVILLE, CA 92392
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BLACK SHEEP UTV RENTALS, LLC 15203 SEQUOIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: 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/ HECTOR G. TORRES, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202204

FBN 20220001330
The following person is doing business as: REVELATIONZ-HOLISTIC EMPOWERMENT TRAINING CENTER (H.E.T.C) 7977 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ASHA Z CARRAWAY 7977 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AHSA Z. CARRAWAY, OANER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202205MT

FBN 20220002247
The following person is doing business as: RIKA CONSTRUCTION CORP. 225 W HOSPITALITY LANE SUITE 201-O SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
RIKA CONSTRUCTION CORP. 225 W HOSPITALITY LANE SUITE 201-O SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RONI R. BAHRAMI, CFO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202206MT

FBN 20220002058
The following person is doing business as: L&L LOGISTICS 719 E PALM AVE REDLAND, CA 92374
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
LUIS M URIBE 719 E PALM AVE 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/ LUIS M. URIBE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202207MT

FBN 20220001923
The following person is doing business as: TB TRANSPORT 1351 ARROWHEAD AVE #7 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ROSHAUN L BAKER 1351 N ARROWHEAD AVE #7 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
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/ ROSHAUN L. BAKER, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARH 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 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022 CNBB11202208MT
FBN 20220002471
The following person is doing business as: KIDS FRM THE CORNER PRINTING CO. 106 W. PENNSYLVANIA AVE APT 1606 REDLANDS, CA 92374
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JABIN J VILLA 106 W. PENNSYLVANIA AVE APT 1606 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/ JABIN J VILLA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202208IR

FBN 20220002003
The following person is doing business as: B & J PACKAGING. 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92336
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BARAKAT BARAKAT 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD 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/ BARAKAT BARAKAT, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202207CH

FBN 20220002002
The following person is doing business as: HUSHH… MEDICAL AESTHETICS. 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BESTCARE CLINIC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373; 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373; .
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/ PHILIP KIM, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202206CH

FBN 20220002475
The following person is doing business as: AUTO GLASS PROS. 287 W EASTON ST RIALTO, CA 92376
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JUAN G BACA CAMORLINGA 287 W EASTON ST RIALTO, CA 92376.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JUAN G BACA CAMORLINGA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202205MT

FBN 20220001894
The following person is doing business as: A HOME AWAY FROM HOME PET BOARDING. 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
HIGH DESERT ROTTS, LLC 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301; 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301; .
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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 PADILLA JR, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 03, 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202204MT

FBN 20220002217
The following person is doing business as: L&A TAXES EXPERTS. 108 ORANGE ST SUITE #11 REDLANDS, CA 92373
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ALEJANDRA COLIN 108 ORANGE ST SUITE #11 REDLANDS, CA 92373.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ALEJANDRA COLIN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202203MT

FBN 20220002478
The following person is doing business as: LUXE PLAY WORLD. 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
LUIS F MONTOYA DELGADO 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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 F MONTOYA DELGADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202202CV

FBN 20220002442
The following person is doing business as: KCHIS KITCHEN. 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
KRISTIAN ROMERO 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KRISTIAN ROMERO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202201IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a genuine replica of the March 18 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 03-18-22

After a series of legally questionable and pointedly ironic actions, maneuvers and statements along with an eleventh-hour delay that threatened to prevent the project from going forward altogether, the City of Victorville on Thursday committed to paying $4.828 million to a City of Industry-based company to undertake and complete the first phase of the Wellness Center homeless shelter.
Combining what city officials refer to as a “low-barrier” emergency shelter, recuperative care facility, medical clinic, interim housing, and support services venue, Victorville is purposed to build the Wellness Center on 4.5-acres of city-owned land at 16902 First Street. By low-barrier, city officials mean that those who will be eligible to use the facility will need jump through few or no hoops.
Victorville among county cities over the last decade has registered the second highest total of homeless living within its confines, finishing behind only the City of San Bernardino for that dubious distinction when annual counts of the dispossessed are made every February.
In San Bernardino there are three comprehensive homeless shelters, one known as Mary’s Village, which features 85 beds for homeless men, and which is run by the same Catholic social services missionaries who operate Veronica’s Home of Mercy I and Veronica’s Home of Mercy II, each providing 40 beds and other support and social service for homeless women.
There was talk as early as 2018 of Victorville replicating for its homeless population at least some of what has been done in San Bernardino, and by 2019, those discussions had coalesced around the concept of a homeless complex, which evolved into the plans for the Victorville Wellness Center.
The cost of such an undertaking was steep and therefore prohibitive without a sponsor or government subsidization. The city made a rash of grant applications. Largely on the basis of the substantial and persistent homeless problems in Victorville, California’s Department of Housing & Community Development came through with a grant in 2020, but city officials, believing they could not meet the performance deadlines specified, elected not to actuate receipt of the money. Last year, the city was again chosen as a recipient of a $28 million Homekey Grant, which was to cover upwards of 90 percent – or $23.6 million – of the construction cost of a homeless residential and services facility plus $4.4 million to operate it once the facility is built.
There was considerable backslapping and self-congratulations at Victorville City Hall when the announcement of the awarding of the grant came on December 15.
There were, however, three conditions to the grant award in December which taken together threaten to trip up city staff. The first is the requirement in California law as well as within the Victorville City Code that public works projects be subjected to a competitive bid process. The second is the requirement in both federal and state law – known as the Davis-Bacon Act and The California Prevailing Wage law – that construction workers on public projects be paid union scale wages for their work. The third was a strict timetable by which the City of Victorville had to perform on the Victoria Wellness Center project in order to collect the $28 million in Homekey Grant funding. Given the December 15, 2021 awarding of the grant, the city had eight months – until August 15, 2022 – to expend the $23.6 million in construction funds. It further had a construction completion deadline of December 15, 2022, and a 90 day deadline after the project completion to have homeless from the community occupying the center.
It was at that point that Victorville City Manager Keith Metzler failed to act with alacrity so that the city could meet the California Department of Housing & Community Development’s timelines and stay within the bounds of state statutes and local code. Instead of immediately moving to secure bids on the project, he temporized. Indeed, he failed entirely to have staff solicit bids for doing the construction work on the project.
Even as the awarding of the grant was announced, the city already faced a challenge in meeting the three deadlines. This week, three full months had elapsed without the city obtaining or even seeking bids on the project. To make up that gap, city staff turned to a public contractor-registering data base kept five states away to find a company that would do the work. Selection of a contractor from that data base, the State of Minnesota’s clearinghouse for contractors that goes by the identifier Sourcewell, does not meet the State of California’s criteria for an open bidding process. Nor does the Victorville Municipal Code allow a contract above the $500,000 threshold to be awarded by means of a cooperative purchasing service such as Sourcewell.
The city had a way of working around those limitations that consisted of getting four-fifths of its statutory five-member council to sign off on using the cooperative purchasing service route in meeting the competitive bid requirement. That, however, would prove problematic.
In March 2021, the city council had removed Rita Ramirez from the city council after Councilwoman Liz Becerra alleged Ramirez was no longer living in Victorville as a consequence of her attempting to recover at her son’s home in Twentynine Palms from a progressive triple amputation of her foot, ankle and lower leg in 2020. Efforts to replace Ramirez by appointment thereafter failed, as the two remaining Republicans on the council – Becerra and Mayor Deborah Jones – could not come to terms with the two remaining Democrats on the council, Leslie Irving and Blanca Gomez, on whom to appoint. The council has remained at four-fifths strength for over a year.
Gomez, who was first elected to the city council in 2016 and is at present its longest serving member, was at odds with her council colleagues from shortly after she was sworn into office. A Democrat, she clashed with then-Mayor Gloria Garcia, a Republican, and the remaining members of the council – Jim Kennedy, Jim Cox and Eric Negrete – all of whom were members of the GOP, as well. Gomez, a social justice and political change advocate, also fell out of sorts with city staff, as she had a somewhat imperfect understanding of the extent and reach of local government, and her belief that city employees should meet her expectations were regularly thwarted, particularly since those employees were ultimately answerable to a city manager who was himself answerable to the four members of the council at odds with her. There followed a marginal improvement in the workability of the city council when Ramirez, a Democrat, was elected in 2018 to replace the Republican Negrete. In 2020, when Gomez was reelected and Irving, another Democrat, was elected to the council, Victorville had its first majority Democratic city council in its then 58-year history. It seemed that Gomez might come into her own as a civic leader. But the hold that the city’s Republican establishment had on the machinery of government was substantial. Despite Gomez being the senior member of the council and thus being due under the city’s well-established tradition to be rotated into the mayoralty, she was denied appointment as mayor. In large measure, this was a byproduct of what her council colleagues and city staff deem to be here contrariness and enmity to the Victorville establishment. In making that case, her opponents have frequently referenced her disrespect for rules and protocol. In response, Gomez has long maintained that it is not she who has failed to abide by established rules but rather her political rivals. Gomez’s discomfiture intensified with the orchestrated sacking of Ramirez, which Gomez opposed and which brought to a close after less than three months the historic advancement of Democrats into control of the council.
At this week’s regular council meeting on April 15, after having delayed for three months taking any meaningful steps toward getting the Victoria Wellness Project moving and construction under way to meet the California Department of Housing & Community Development’s deadlines, city staff had prepared for the council an item by which the city could initiate work on the project by a vote to award the construction contract to City of Industry-based Angeles Contractor Inc. and simultaneously sign off on Angeles Contractor Inc. carrying out the first phase of the project for $4.828 million.
Because the law specifically requires a four-fifths vote and four votes in total to allow the selection of a contractor from a roster of contractors provided by a cooperative purchasing service to substitute for an open bid process, all four of the city council members on Tuesday night needed to assent to the hiring of Angeles.
Gomez, having been chastised repeatedly for not adhering to protocol and tradition and the rule and laws applicable to her status as a public official, was at that point in a position of putting on display the failure of the Victorville establishment to adhere to the rules. Pointing out that state law required an open bidding process for a construction project such as the one Angeles was about to embark on and that the Victorville Municipal Code would not allow a selection from a cooperative purchasing service’s list of contractors to substitute for a competitive bid, Gomez voted against conferring the contract on Angeles.
There was a degree of irony or perhaps even double irony in the moment. It is generally Gomez who is the standard bearer for the movement to assist the downtrodden. It is her political rivals who dismiss her as an insufferable bleeding heart who puts the interests of the dysfunctional and indolent who are incapable of paying for anything ahead of the interests of the hardworking and motivated members of the community who are being imposed upon to bear the costs of whatever social welfare program is being proposed by Gomez and her band of do-gooders. Tuesday night and again on Thursday morning, she was the one obstructing one of the most energetic social welfare programs ever proposed for Victorville. It is generally the Victorville political establishment, currently led by Victorville Mayor Deborah Jones, who constantly decry Gomez’s efforts to steer around regulations, the rules of order, protocol and the law. Tuesday night, it was Gomez who was making an issue of the council majority’s readiness to cast aside the regulations which are intended to prevent the squandering of taxpayer dollars by adhering to the process of enlisting the lowest bidder to carry out public projects.
Despite efforts to emphasize that the project funding and thus the project were in jeopardy and pleas with her to temper her opposition, Gomez remained steadfast.
“This is something that has been hugely monumental for us as a city,” said City Manager Keith Metzler. “It’s the ultimate goal, once we are complete with this project … that we will have this as a permanent facility to address the needs of our homeless population.”
The waiving of the bidding requirements to grant Angeles Contractor Inc. the contract and initiate work by paying the company $4,827,947.76 for the first phase of the construction was not the only item relating to the Wellness Center on the agenda. There was action relating to an agreement with the Victor Valley Wastewater Authority with regard to the placement of a sewer pipe on the property; an agreement with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for an additional scope of work relating to environmental services associated with the construction of the Wellness Center, extending the term of the company’s work to December 31, 2022 and increasing ECORP’s cumulative remuneration from $115,975 to $239,475; and a professional services agreement for construction management on the project with Pacifica Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed of $2,373,601.
When Gomez pressed Metzler on why there was no open bidding for the project work, Metzler detailed Assistant City Manager Jenele Davidson to respond.
“Normally, for a construction project of this size, we would go through a formal bidding requirement, that per our municipal code, and that usually takes at least six months,” Davidson said. “Due to the time constraints on this project and the funding source we have used, the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing process, which is somewhat unusual, we are asking the council to make certain findings that allow us to utilize that, due to the schedule and to the fact that we don’t believe there would be any additional benefit to going through that full-scale formal bidding process in this instance.”
Gomez specifically asked why the city had not moved rapidly in December to seek bids upon obtaining the grant.
“There have been a number of items we needed to finalize,” Davidson said in seeking to justify the delay. “Part of that was working through the state to get the standard agreement that is in process. The city did go through a formal RFP [request for proposal] process to select a construction manager. Even if the plans were in place back at that time, that would still be putting us into construction around June or July so that would still present quite a challenge.”
It is the city’s intention for the earthwork and utility installation to begin in April, followed by the initial phase of construction, to be followed by further phases of construction, according to staff. The earliest that the construction in earnest could begin, whether a traditional bidding arrangement or the Sourcewell method is used, is by June or July, it was indicated.
Mayor Deborah Jones asked, “Is it fair to say that we are doing this at the earliest possible time that it was reasonable for staff to bring this to the council?”
“Yes,” said Metzler.
“If we don’t approve this tonight, we have little to no hope of meeting the timeline and the restrictions set upon us by the state for the expenditure of the grant money?” the mayor said, more as a question than a statement.
“That’s correct, and effectively, the money that we agreed to receive would be jeopardized,” Metzler said.
There followed an effort by Metzler to explain that the city had received a state “allocation of funds in 2020” that could have been used to construct a slightly less energetic version of the homeless facility.
“At that time we had brought something similar,” Metzler said, adding that the city was then “relying on a Sourcewell type contract. We were actually contemplating a much different project in terms of construction type. But I will tell you that even had we a little more time in that first award that would have been an extremely unconventional way of moving forward with the construction project. I was personally very nervous because we didn’t necessarily have the traditional intellect that you have at least when you go through full scale design. So, when we made the decision after the first round of funding that we just literally could not make the deadline…  we would literally have to design and build at the same time while we’re on site. A lot of risk to go along with it, but the type back then, they were modulars, so that was believed to be a way to make it work quickly, but certainly not within the timeframe that was imposed upon the city at the time. So, we chose not to accept that money because it was too risky to accept that money, but what we did choose to do immediately after we turned that money down is we focused our efforts in the design. So we actually spent, relying on our POHA money, to actually bring on the architect much closer to a fully designed project, and we’re there now.”
Metzler did not bother to explain to the uninitiated what the acronym POHA refers to.
“So I would say, we’re a lot more knowledgeable to the point where when we were actually able to get solicitations for quotes on what it’s going to cost to build, we actually have a good basis in the design that’s already in place,” Metzler said. “So, with that being said, the award was announced in December, but we didn’t really receive draft contracts until the last couple of weeks, and we’ve been going back and forth and it wouldn’t have been the most responsible thing to do to start any sooner than having those contracts signed. We’ve been fortunate to time it where we’ve been signing the contracts, anticipating council’s approval in moving forward, and with the schedule we have in place, we actually believe with the approvals tonight we can actually meet the timeframes that are imposed by the state. The timeframes that we’re dealing with are slightly better than the timeframes we were dealing with before, but we’ve got to get moving if we’re going to take this project on and actually build it and really try to help address our homeless community’s needs.”
City staff’s assertions that using the established method of competitive bidding would at this point prove too time consuming and risk the city not achieving the milestones and deadlines specified in the California Department of Housing & Community Development’s conditions for the grant proved unpersuasive to Gomez. Indeed, Metzler’s elaboration on how the city had experienced the tight timeframes in 2020 and had elected at that point to back off only seemed to strengthen Gomez’s perception that staff should have been prepared to react more speedily this time around.
City officials did not do themselves any favors by withholding from the public the back-up documents relating to the item. They were not included in the full-scale agenda and its packet of accompanying documents posted to the city’s website. It was not clear whether those documents had been provided to Gomez.
The council vote on the items relating to the Wellness Center ended with a 3-to-1 vote in favor of approving them, with Gomez dissenting.
Councilwoman Liz Becerra, remarking that “If we don t get the unanimous vote, this project is dead,” asked City Attorney Andre deBortnowsky if a vote to reconsider could be taken. deBortnowsky said a motion to that effect could be made. Becerra made such a motion, which was seconded by the mayor. A vote was again taken with Gomez voting no.
“You are about to kill a project for our homeless,” Becerra said. We’re about to lose a project because of her, and that needs to be the headlines: Gomez Loses Wellness Center Project.”
Gomez responded, “No, Ms. Becerra. Staff was responsible for this. Not Blanca Gomez.”
Councilwoman Leslie Irving then said, “I would just like to encourage my colleague to think about her position as a champion for the most vulnerable people, those who are fragile in our community This Wellness Center will address some of those needs and mitigate that for some of the most vulnerable in our community. More importantly, I know that you care about the homeless, and I would ask that you think about the time constraints in terms of commencing construction within the timelines for the grant that has been awarded to us. We have to begin construction and complete it within a timeline. Thereby, it is imperative that we conduct business in this way, to get on with building the Wellness Center. I ask you, please reconsider.”
Gomez responded, saying that the homeless in Victorville have been victimized and exploited by the Victorville establishment, and were again being used. She suggested that the city was using the theme of compassion for the destitute to mask a giveaway of taxpayer money to development interests well-connected to the political establishment who will turn a profit by getting the contract to build the center. She implied that the lack of a bidding process was being used to confer the construction contract on those insider contracting businesses at a cost higher than what would otherwise be paid if a proper bidding competition were held.
“So, the most vulnerable for many years by the City of Victorville have been a commodity,” she said. “The $28 million that can be expended or would be expended if this project were to pass will be lining the pockets of individuals for campaign contributions.”
Gomez said the other members of the council had evinced newfound empathy for the community’s downtrodden solely because $28 million is now available to enrich those who will provide them with campaign contributions.
“None of the colleagues I have here have been face to face, talked to, individuals on the streets,” Gomez said.
The city up to this point had victimized the homeless rather than helping them, she said. She pointed out that city code enforcement officers had endeavored to strip from those living on the streets what shelter they possessed by confiscating their sleeping bags.
Mayor Jones, whose enmity toward Gomez is particularly pronounced, sought to assuage her.
“This is the one thing that I’ve always respected about Council Member Gomez… her soft heart for all of the vulnerable in our community,” Jones said. “I’ve heard it for years. She’s in her sixth year behind the dais. And I’ve heard it consistently that she cares about our homeless population. We all have different ways of reaching out. This is one of the ways our council is seeking to help our most vulnerable population. I know there’s been at least one other time when Council Member Gomez did change her mind on a subject that she was adamantly opposed to, and she changed her mind after she was able to talk to some people. I would certainly hope my colleague would tap into all of those good things in her heart.”
Metzler once more sought to convince Gomez that it was acceptable to bypass the formal bidding process.
“It doesn’t fit exactly within our provisions of code regarding bidding, but my understanding is there is a process that Gordian Sourcewell [has], where they serve effectively as a procurement agent, no different than the cooperative we use for other goods and services,” Metzler said. “So, it’s a type of process that we’re familiar with. We are only doing what we have many, many times before, which is to award a construction contract that is necessary to move forward, and waiving the bidding process. It’s necessary to move forward.”
Ultimately, Tuesday night, however, the entire weight of the council and city staff failed to convince Gomez to abandon her opposition to waiving the need to engage in a formal bidding process on the Wellness Center project.
Consequently, the city in less than 36 hours went to a duo of quickly-hatched alternatives, Plan B and Plan C.
A special meeting was called for 6 a.m. Thursday, March 17, at which the city council, acting in its capacity as the city’s water district board of directors was to consider Plan B, consisting of the Victorville Water District, in lieu of the city, awarding the phase 1 construction contract on the Wellness Center project to Angeles Contractor, Inc. A second item on the agenda, Plan B, called for the council considering the appointment of a city resident to the vacant council seat formerly held by Ramirez.
The somewhat dubitable strategy at play consisted of having the water district take on the assignment of being the lead agency, at least insofar as the first phase, pursuing the Wellness Center project undertaking. According to City Attorney deBortnowsky, the city council could go forward on the theory that the water district was not bound by the four-fifths vote requirement on waiving the formal bid process for the project. If somehow that did not work, the city was prepared to take its chances in an appeal to Irving to have her cross party lines and join with Becerra and Jones in choosing a replacement for Ramirez, and then following through in quick order with swearing that individual in. Presumably, Ramirez’s successor could be convinced to provide a fourth vote to hire Angeles Contractor, Inc. on the first phase of the contract as soon as another special meeting to consider that issue could be scheduled.
Wednesday night, the city council was provided with a staff report explaining the strategy and basis for utilizing the water district’s authority.
The Victorville Water District is the product of the merging of the former Baldy Mesa Water District and the Victor Valley County Water District that took place in 2008. According to the staff report, the water district can be considered the contracting agency on the work Angeles is to carry out. The report states that the phase 1 work on the project is being awarded to Angeles based on the “Sourcewell ezIQC program,” which is being substituted for the regular bidding process.
The document does not specify what the acronym or nomenclature ezIQC signifies.
According to the staff report, authored by Metzler and deBortnowsky, “given that the Victorville Water District is a member of Sourcewell’s cooperative purchasing system, the Victorville Water District will utilize the Sourcewell ezIQC program to
award a construction contract (work order) to Angeles Contractor Inc. The Sourcewell ezIQC cooperative purchasing program is administered by Gordian. It is different from traditional bidding in that the ezIQC competitively bids pricing up front so that a contract can be awarded using competitively bid pricing without having to competitively bid individual projects. This allows for organizations to expedite projects when scheduling constraints exist.”
The report does not clarify who or what Gordian is.
Early Thursday morning, before the council began its deliberations, Roger LePlante, Valentine Godina, Andrea Knight and Mary Emstate [whose name is spelled using a phonetic approximation] were present in the council chamber to comment on the matter, and Ralph Brown, Kareema Abdul, Basil Kimbrew and Maggie Martin addressed the council telephonically.
Speaking as a member of the public at the public comment lectern, Gomez said, “It does not take six months for the bidding process to take place.” She said 130,0000 residents of Victorville had entrusted civic authority to the city council with the expectation that “we would continue doing a competitive bidding process in the City of Victorville. It was not put out for the general public to do a bidding process for $28 million. It’s called fiscal prudency. I do not vote for something that will not allow for the democratic process, with a small d, mind you.”
Metzler sought to put his and staff’s best foot forward by saying, “The award of a construction contract to Angeles Contractor, Inc. is being sought in your role as the water district board of directors. This item… is not seeking a waiver of a city bidding requirement, since the water district can rely on State Water Code law and also public contract code.” He said the city and community is now “relying on the water district because it is a separate legal agency, has separate legal authorities. We certainly believe that gives us just an additional belt-and-suspenders approach to trying to curb any potential challenges, to the extent they exist.”
de Bortnowsky weighed in with an assurance that “This has been a publicly-bid project. It has just been bid through a different process than is provided by the municipal code.”
Metzler said a resolution of waiver adopted by the council on August 18, 2020 obviated the necessity of the resolution of waiver that was passed 3-to-1 by the council on Tuesday evening.
That assertion nearly untracked the entire meeting and its purpose, as it prompted Councilwoman Irving to ask, if no waiver was needed, why the water district board was being appealed to that morning to lend its authority to the contract approval.
This discombobulated Metzler, who stumbled, acknowledging that “There’s certainly an appearance that we’re trying to mask or skirt, if you will, some of the provisions of our code.” He sought, nonetheless, to assure Irving, her council colleagues and the public “that certainly is not the case, certainly not believed by staff or legal counsel.”
This satisfied Irving, who voted with Jones and Becerra to approve the item 3-1, with Gomez casting the dissenting vote.
Gomez intimated that a legal challenge of what had occurred would be forthcoming. Indeed, the city appears to be on shaky ground in that respect, since it would be hard put to explain what a water district is doing constructing a homeless shelter. Moreover, the water district exists as a “subsidiary district” of the City of Victorville, meaning, by some interpretations, the water district needed to approve the contract on a four-fifths vote.
The calculation by Metzler, deBortnowsky and the council is that Gomez does not have access to an attorney to make such a legal challenge, since any attorney likely to be aligned with her would be loathe to initiate legal action obstructing the development of a homeless housing facility.
One unaddressed weakness in the city’s rush to close the deal with Angeles relates to the provisions relating to the State of California’s prevailing wage law and the federal Davis Bacon Act, which require that the workers on public projects be provided with union scale wages. The contract with Angeles states, “Contractor shall be responsible for using the correct and current prevailing wage rates.” This places Angeles on the honor system. Whether the company can actually perform the work it is being called upon to carry out and do so without losing money while paying union scale rates is subject to question. If the matter is pressed, and the company is put in the position of going into the red in order to complete the project, it may seek change orders or adjustments to its remuneration. If the city does not comply with those requests, Angeles may feel it needs to slow the timetable of its performance to achieve profitability. That could lead to the city having to surrender the grant money back to the state. Being caught in this bind could lead to the city needing to significantly increase the construction budget on the project to well above $23.6 million, vindicating Gomez in her call for the city to have conducted a standard bidding process on the project.
-Mark Gutglueck

A group of environmental groups has prevailed in its effort to have the county board of supervisors’ approval of the Church of the Woods’ plan to build a campus on an undeveloped property in the San Bernardino Mountains community of Rimforest rescinded.
As proposed and approved, the undertaking was to involve a 27,364-square foot, two-story youth center/gymatorium, recreational facilities, a 41,037-square foot, two-story assembly building with a maximum seating capacity of 600, and a 1,500-square foot, two-story maintenance/caretaker unit in two phases on a 13.6-acre portion of the church’s 27.12-acre site.
On January 23, 2020, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission considered the project. At the hearing, 37 members of the public expressed their concerns about the project and asked that it be denied, while 26 members of the public expressed support for the project and asked that it be approved. County planning staff made a recommendation for approval of the project. After the planning commission concurred with the staff recommendation and memorialized that in a vote to allow the project to proceed, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Save Our Forest Association appealed the approval to the county board of supervisors. The board voted on October 20, 2020, to deny the appeal and grant final approval for the project.
The following month, the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, the San Bernardino Mountains Group of the Sierra Club and the Save Our Forest Association, Inc. filed a legal action against the County of San Bernardino’s approval of the Church of the Woods’ project.
The lawsuit cited numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and what those groups assert is the project’s inconsistency with the county’s general plan and Lake Arrowhead Community Plan.
The lawsuit was assigned to Superior Court Judge David Cohn. In his introduction to his final decision, Cohn identified Save Our Forest Association, lnc., the Sierra Club, and the San Bernardino Audubon Society, as the petitioners, the County of San Bernardino and the County Board of Supervisors as the respondents and the Church of the Woods as the real party in interest. “Respondents violated the California Environmental Quality Act in several respects as specified below. The petition for a writ of mandate is therefore granted and respondents are ordered to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in the manner described herein,” the introduction concludes.
Judge Cohn described the setting for the proposed project.
“The project site,” according to Judge Cohn, “is a steep and hilly 27.12 acre parcel of undeveloped land surrounded on three sides by the San Bernardino National Forest. A residential neighborhood lies to the west, undeveloped mountainous terrain to the north, Daley Canyon Road to the east, and State Route Highway 18 to the south. The site consists of mature conifer forest, bisected by a stream feeding the headwaters of Little Bear Creek, which drains into Lake Arrowhead. The stream contains ‘jurisdictional waters’ regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The site contains riparian and forest habitat supporting several sensitive wildlife species, and serves as a wildlife corridor linking the Mojave River basin habitat with the San Bernardino National Forest and the City of San Bernardino.”
The Church of the Woods in 2003 proposed a prior version of the project, which was approved by the county planning commission in 2004 without an environmental impact report. Subsequently, draft and final environmental impact reports were circulated in 2010 and 2011, but after receiving comments in opposition, the Church of the Woods withdrew the proposal, and the county took no final action.
In its most recent iteration, the project included a two-story youth center, a combined gymnasium and auditorium, a two-story assembly building and children’s ministry building on the southeastern portion of the site, as well as a small maintenance building and caretaker residence, a large sports field, and sports courts on the central and southwestern portion of the site where Little Bear Creek originates. The facility was to cover 13.6 acres of the 27.12-acre site. The project also called for on-site drainage facilities, utility connections, landscaped areas, pedestrian pathways, internal roadways, parking areas, the widening of a 600 foot stretch of Highway 18, and the addition of new turn lanes, driveways, and a traffic signal at the entrance. The county released a revised draft environmental impact report for the project in January 2019. The petitioners in the lawsuit and others submitted extensive comments claiming deficiencies in the environmental impact report. In January 2020 the county released a final environmental impact report, which also provoked comment citing claimed deficiencies.
San Bernardino County has a yet-unbuilt storm drain project proposed next to the Church of the Woods project site.
The petitioners contended the environmental impact report for the church project misleadingly attributes the project’s impacts to the county storm drain project. The petitioners alleged the final environmental impact report inadequately analyzes impacts on sensitive wildlife species and habitats, water quality, wildfire evacuation risks, and scenic views. The petitioners also alleged the environmental impact report impermissibly defers mitigation analysis and adoption of mitigation measures for geotechnical impacts. The petitioners maintained the project conflicts with the county’s general plan, development code, and the Lake Arrowhead Community Plan, in violation of California planning and zoning law.
In his final ruling, Judge Cohn wrote “Petitioners contend the relationship between the project and the storm drain project is not consistently or accurately described” and that the environmental impact report “does not clearly state which project will be built first.” Nevertheless, Judge Cohn ruled, the environmental impact report “accurately and consistently disclosed the project’s relationship with the storm drain project, including potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat within the site.” He ruled the unsupported allegation that the environmental impact report provided an inadequate or incomplete project description failed as a basis upon which to grant the petitioners a writ of mandate.
There were, nonetheless, other defects in the environmental impact report, the judge determined.
Judge Cohn wrote, the petitioners “argue that the final environmental impact report incorrectly claims that the storm drain project will permanently eliminate the jurisdictional waters and riparian areas in the Little Bear Creek headwaters valley before the project is built and the Church of the Woods project will subsequently destroy the jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat of the Little Bear Creek headwaters valley by burying them under thirty-eight feet of rock and dirt, causing any temporary impact of the storm drain project on the habitats to become permanent.”
After some analysis, Judge Cohn wrote, “Petitioners are correct in their assertions that the environmental impact report for this project and the storm drain project environmental impact report demonstrate that the project will permanently impact jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat that are not otherwise impacted by the storm drain project. Generally, construction of the storm drain project is anticipated to result in temporary disturbance of approximately 10.03 acres and permanent disturbance of approximately 5.27 acres of native vegetation and land cover, including sensitive natural communities. ln addition, within the storm drain project footprint, there are jurisdictional waters consisting of portions of Strawberry Creek and Little Bear Creek, and temporary and permanent impacts to these jurisdictional waters are expected to occur due to construction activities.”
Judge Cohn continued, “Originally, the storm drain project’s September 2015 draft environmental impact report and September 2016 recirculated draft environmental impact report stated that the temporary impacts of the storm drain project to jurisdictional waters would occur on portions of the site, ‘but would be restored at the end of the project.’ Church of the Woods contends that the storm drain project’s impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat within the project site have always been identified as ‘permanent,’ and the county has not contemplated on-site restoration of these habitats for several years. However, the Jurisdictional Waters Wetlands Delineation Report and the mitigation measures set forth in the storm drain project environmental impact report belie that assertion. Under the storm drain project, impacts to this portion of the jurisdictional waters must be avoided. Yet the Church of The Woods project contemplates building on top of these jurisdictional waters, resulting in a permanent impact without mitigation.”
According to Judge Cohn, “the revised draft environmental impact report, the final environmental impact report and the revised conditions of approval demonstrate that impacts to the jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat will go unmitigated.” He wrote, “the environmental impact report omitted information about the project’s impact on certain jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat, the temporary impacts of the storm drain project on these areas within the project site, and the mitigation measures for any temporary impacts. The county’s conclusion that cumulative impacts of the project on jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat will be less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. The petition is granted on this ground.”
Judge Cohn wrote, “[The] petitioners contend the environmental impact report fails adequately to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the project’s impacts to the wildlife in the area – specifically, impacts to the southern rubber boa, the California spotted owl, the San Bernardino flying squirrel, and six other special status wildlife species identified in the storm drain project environmental impact report. Petitioners also contend the environmental impact report does not adequately discuss features of the project that would affect wildlife corridors in the area.”
With regard to surveys undertaken to detect the presence of the southern rubber boa on the property, Judge Cohn thereafter devoted considerable text to an analysis of the survey of the grounds to search for the snake, a threatened species, and the method used by the consultants to the Church of the Woods in carrying out its survey of its presence on the property in question. Judge Cohn noted the secretive nature of the reptile and that no evidence of its presence was found. He ultimately referenced a condition of approval that calls for work on the project to be halted and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to be contacted if the snake is encountered during grading. “Petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the environmental impact report’s conclusions regarding the species are not supported by substantial evidence. This ground for the petition is denied,” he wrote.
Judge Cohn’s conclusion, however, was different with regard to the actual impact of the project on the southern rubber boa’s habitat.
“The environmental impact report acknowledges that the project will result in significant impacts to the southern rubber boa before mitigation and that impacts will ‘remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable’ even after mitigation due to the loss of habitat,” Judge Cohn wrote. “But the environmental impact report nevertheless concludes that impacts will be ‘mitigated to a level below significance’ by a conservation easement on an undeveloped portion of the site. [The] petitioners contend that that this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence because the environmental impact report erroneously assumes that the project will impact only low-quality or unsuitable habitat and that the species is absent from the site.”  He found that the environmental assessment assumed the presence of the snake on the property, though none had been detected during the survey of the land and the project proponents had devised mitigation measures to protect the species that would eventually be put in place. “The revised draft environmental impact report states that project-level impacts will be mitigated to a level below significance, but impacts will be considered unavoidable and cumulatively significant at the regional level due to the loss of habitat,” Judge Cohn wrote. “As a result, Mitigation Measure MM-3.C1(a) requires a pre-construction clearance survey for the southern rubber boa before issuance of a grading permit, and monitoring by a biologist during the clearing of vegetation.
“Nevertheless, Judge Cohn continued, “the environmental impact report improperly defers formulating mitigation measures. Generally, it is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved.”
According to Judge Cohn, the details have been left to be determined in a future “long-term management plan” that is to be submitted to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife after project approval. “The environmental impact report fails to impose any performance standards for this mitigation measure, to describe any actions for actively managing the habitat, or provide any other guidelines for the long-term management plan,” Judge Cohn wrote. “The environmental impact report does not explain why it was ‘impractical or infeasible’ to describe or formulate a detailed long-term management plan at this time. ln this case, neither the revised draft environmental impact report nor the final environmental impact report provides any specific requirements for the long-term management plan. lnstead, the environmental impact reports merely state that the conservation easement must support ‘a total of 1.65 available onsite acres of high-quality southern rubber boa habitat, 218 acres of moderate quality southern rubber boa habitat, and 9.57 acres of low-quality southern rubber boa habitat.’ But the environmental impact reports do not provide any requirements for the easement’s location, or any guidelines for how the conservation management entity must preserve and manage the easement and the southern rubber boa population. The absence of standards or guidelines in the environmental impact reports is problematic because it does not allow for any analysis or review of the long-term mitigation efforts. Therefore, the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by improperly deferring formulation of this mitigation measure. The petition is granted on this ground.”
The lawsuit also challenged the project on the basis that the environmental impact report does not require the Church of the Woods to obtain an incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife to cover accidental harm to protected species by the presence of people on the church grounds. Judge Cohn rejected that argument, calling it “unavailing.”
With regard to potential harm the project might have on the California Spotted Owl and San Bernardino Flying Squirrel, Judge Cohn ruled that the environmental impact report, as in the case of the southern rubber boa, improperly deferred mitigation measures for these species. Judge Cohn wrote, “the long-term management plan does not contain any performance standards or detailed guidelines, and therefore improperly defers mitigation of the project’s impacts. The petition is granted on this ground.”
The lawsuit raised concerns about the impact to other special status species the petitioners contend the environmental impact report failed to evaluate properly. Those species were the Andrew’s marble butterfly, the peregrine falcon, the bald eagle, the yellow warbler, the American badger and ringtail that the storm drain project environmental impact report found could occur on the site. Church of the Woods contends that the petitioners did not exhaust their administrative remedies regarding three of these six special status species, and therefore were barred from raising their objections at this point.
“The Church of the Woods’ argument is misplaced,” Judge Cohn wrote with regard to that. “The storm drain project environmental impact report found the Andrew’s marble butterfly has a ‘high’ potential to occur on-site, while the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, yellow warbler, American badger, and ringtail each have a ‘moderate’ potential to occur. The storm drain project environmental impact report assessed not only the county-owned parcel, but also the area of this project site where construction of the culvert would temporarily affect the habitat. The habitat assessment for the revised draft environmental impact report addresses the bald eagle, yellow warbler, and American badger. Regarding the bald eagle, the habitat assessment concluded that ‘suitable nesting habitat can be found throughout the project site,’ and that although no bald eagles were observed on-site at the time of the survey, they had ‘been observed nesting and foraging within the vicinity of Lake Arrowhead.’ As for the yellow warbler and American badger, the habitat assessment stated that neither were observed during the survey and that no suitable habitat was present for either species. However, the project environmental impact report entirely fails to address the Andrew’s marble butterfly, the peregrine falcon, or the ringtail.”
Noting the possibility or even probability of the presence of the Andrew’s marble butterfly, the peregrine falcon, and the ringtail within the boundaries of the project site, Judge Cohn wrote “the project environmental impact report does not discuss whether these species were included in the habitat assessment. Absent this information, it is not known if these species are present, and thus it is not known if the project will have any impacts on these species. The petition is granted on this ground.”
According to Judge Cohn, “[The] petitioners contend that the environmental impact report does not adequately describe existing conditions or address the project’s impacts on wildlife corridors in the area, and that its conclusion that the project’s impacts would be less than significant ‘is baseless and internally contradictory.’ After noting that the Strawberry Creek corridor ‘is constrained in areas by private ownership and wildlife movement would be impeded by project-related disturbance,’ the revised draft environmental impact report concludes that wildlife movement could continue on the undisturbed northern and western portions of the project site. Because the areas in and around the site ‘will continue to provide opportunities for local wildlife movement and will remain as a corridor for highly mobile wildlife species,’ the environmental impact report concludes that the ‘implementation of the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors,’ and ‘no mitigation is warranted.’ Petitioners cite to several comment letters submitted by retired Forest Service wildlife biologist Steve Loe as part of petitioners’ appeal of the planning commission’s recommendation to approve the project. Loe worked in the San Bernardino Mountains and national forest lands adjacent to the project site for more than thirty years, and worked as a consultant for the county regarding southern rubber boa habitat and protection. Loe asserts that the draft environmental impact report ‘underestimates the regional importance of the project area for wildlife movement’ because the project site is located just outside wildlife corridors that were mapped by the county decades ago. According to Loe, the project site ‘is in the most viable landscape linkage remaining that connects the north-side habitats from the Mojave River watersheds of Grass Valley Creek, and Deep Creek to the south side watersheds of City Creek and Strawberry Creek.’ Loe contends the project has ‘the potential to completely cut off [wildlife] movement across the highway to City Creek and Strawberry Creek.’”
Judge Cohn continued, “The San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society stated that the revised draft environmental impact report did not adequately disclose or analyze the project’s impact on the wildlife corridor because of its assertion that the project site ‘is only on the edge’ of the wildlife corridor. The Audubon Society took issue with a conclusion that wildlife could go around the church complex. According to the Audubon Society, however, there are ‘no studies or evidence… to substantiate this claim,’ and the environmental impact report should address issues such as ‘where is the optimal point for large mammals… to summit the steep ridge directly south of the project and then cross over State Highway 18.’ The Church of the Woods asserts that wildlife movement will be unobstructed. Regarding six-foot-high tubular steel fencing to be erected along the southern perimeter of the proposed recreational field, the Church of the Woods similarly contends that it also ‘would not otherwise impede wildlife movement given the lack of other barriers on the project site and the open space that would continue to exist surrounding the athletic field .,..’ The Church of the Woods’s references to the administrative record do not support these assertions. The referenced discussion in the revised draft environmental impact report regarding lighting is found in the section entitled “Project Description,” and the discussion regarding fencing is contained in the section analyzing the project’s aesthetic impacts. ln the portion of the environmental impact report discussing thresholds of significance and the project’s impacts on biological resources, there is no mention of the lighting, fencing, or other proposed structures and their potential impact on wildlife corridors. Similarly, the habitat assessment does not provide any substantive analysis of the project’s impacts on the movement of wildlife through the area. Accordingly, the environmental impact report fails as an informational document because it does not adequately account for the project’s potential to eliminate a critical wildlife corridor. The petition is granted on this ground.”
Judge Cohn also sustained the plaintiff’s objection to inadequacies in the environmental impact report’s evaluation of geotechnical data, including pollutants making their way into Little Bear Creek.
Judge Cohn rejected the petitioners’ contention that the environmental impact report’s analysis of the project’s impacts on aesthetics is inadequate because it does not provide an accurate description of the appearance of the project upon completion.
“Although the project will introduce a high level of change to the undeveloped forest, petitioners do not demonstrate that substantial evidence does not support county’s determination that project-related aesthetic impacts will be less than significant,” Judge Cohn wrote. “This ground for the petition is denied.”
The lawsuit contended that the environmental impact report is deficient because the project proponents’ emergency evacuation plan regarding wildfire evacuations omits information regarding roadway capacity in accommodating traffic during a mass evacuation.
Judge Cohn made a finding that “Petitioners have produced evidence, other than unsubstantiated opinions, that the project will exacerbate the wildfire hazards associated with evacuation of the area. The county and the Church of the Woods have not pointed to substantial evidence in the record supporting a finding that the identified evacuation routes are adequate to safely and efficiently evacuate the approximately 900 attendees that could congregate at the project. The environmental impact report’s discussion of wildfire hazards ignores the conclusions set forth in the analysis of traffic and transportation impacts, and fails to address whether the contemplated mitigation measures addressing transportation impacts will also accommodate vehicle traffic in the event of evacuations. Nor is there any discussion regarding the actual capacity of the identified highways or connecting roads to accommodate evacuation of 900 people from that specific area. The environmental impact report therefore fails as [an] informational document. The petition is granted on this ground.”
The lawsuit took issue with the statement of overriding considerations that the county board of supervisors cited in approving the project.
Judge Cohn concurred with the plaintiffs on that score.
“[T]he adoption of a statement of overriding considerations cannot cure fundamental defects in the environmental impact report’s discussion of mitigation measures that preclude an understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation,” Judge Cohn wrote. “Significant uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mitigation measures can undermine the foundation of a statement of overriding considerations. ln this instance, due to the deficiencies in the environmental impact report, the document did not contain enough detail to enable the county to understand and meaningfully consider the issues raised by the project, determine the impacts of the project, or evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The petition is granted on this ground.”
Judge Cohn rejected the petitioners’ claim the project violates the Planning and Zoning Law because it conflicts with various provisions of the County General Plan and the Lake Arrowhead Community Plan.
Hugh Bialecki, President of Save Our Forest Association, said, “I’m grateful the court recognized the highly detrimental impacts this development would have on our mountain traffic, making it more hazardous for residents to escape from fire, while also needing to add six new traffic signals.”
Steven Farrell, chairman of the Sierra Club’s San Bernardino Mountains Group, called upon the leadership of the Church of the Woods to “take a serious look at an alternative” to the development plan for the site it submitted to the county.
“We’re relieved the county’s approval has been overturned. Now the many species that use this special site of century-old conifers and oaks — the owls, foxes, deer, and bear — and especially the boa and flying squirrels, two species found only in this forest, will not be evicted,” said Drew Feldmann, conservation chairman of the local Audubon Society.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
The Colton City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 15 voted during a closed session discussion to move toward a settlement of a lawsuit brought against it by developer Scott McKhann and his company, Modern Pacific Homes, over the city’s 2021 rejection of the McKhann/Modern Pacific proposal to build a cluster of 86 homes on the hillside near the intersection of Bostick and Litton avenues in La Loma Hills.
Reportedly, Colton City Attorney Carlos Campos advised the city council that it should make an exit from the litigation to prevent embarrassing details from emerging indicating that past and current council members and city staff had improper contact and arrangements with McKhann and Modern Pacific.
Information provided to the Sentinel along with documents the Sentinel was able to independently turn up show that underhanded means were used to doctor staff reports to tilt a decision by the Colton Planning Commission in favor of the project. Moreover, critical information relating to the standards the city ultimately applied to the project were changed and hidden from the planning commission, which served as the initial decision-making body with regard to the project.
Last year, the planning commission gave an initial but ultimately overturned approval to the project. Churned up during the discovery process for the lawsuit is that former Colton Mayor Richard DeLaRosa was militating on behalf of Modern Pacific in what city officials have grounds to believe was a paid capacity. Furthermore, information has come across Campos’s desk to show that city officials, including those in the city’s code enforcement division, proactively sought to use their authority to dissuade residents form their opposition to the project and desist in their efforts to moderate the project’s intensity. Despite evidence that the developer was in some fashion able to pull strings that impacted city action, indicating collusion of some sort between Modern Pacific on one end and either members of the city council or high-ranking staff or both on the other, Campos has advised the council that use of that information at trial would be ill-advised, such that it would shed discredit on City Hall in general. Despite the city’s possession of information that would if released cast McKhann and Modern Pacific in a poor light, it would redound equally to the detriment of the city, tarring the mayor, one or more members of the city council and some city staff members, Campos anticipated. Accordingly, Campos has advised the council that it should settle the lawsuit on terms favorable to Modern Pacific to bring the danger the case represents to the city, its reputation and several specific city officials to an end.
A hint of what is in the offing occurred this week at the March 15 city council meeting. After returning from a closed session discussion of the council, Campos slyly stated that the city council had “given direction,” but had taken “no reportable action.” Parsing what Campos said, he was telling the public that he now had authorization to settle the Modern Pacific case brought against the city but that such a deal has yet to be fully effectuated.
The Modern Pacific development debacle extends back more than two decades across six Colton mayoral administrations. In 2001, Deirdre Bennett became mayor of Colton and Darryl Parrish acceded to the position of city manager. In tandem, they began an effort to annex properties lying just outside the Colton City Limits, many of them so-called “islands,” meaning they either were not contiguous with the city or were enclosed by the city. The duo used a loophole in California law to bypass the will of a majority of those being gobbled by Colton. Bennett and Parrish engaged in these takeovers, which were contrary to the wishes of the majority of the landowners and homeowners involved, by ensuring that fewer than 25 registered voters lived within the pockets of land the city was absorbing, as long as five percent of the residents signed onto the annexation. In this way, the council led by Bennett was looking to accomplish a piecemeal expansion of the city, often bringing residents into Colton who did not want to be part of it but who were powerless in the face of government and the law to stop it. In 2004, Colton initiated its annexation of a major portion of the land in La Loma Hills. In addition to finding themselves forced to assume the status of Colton residents, an unwanted consequence of the city’s action to the La Loma Hills residents was that the pre-zoning and zoning on the property surrounding them was changed from its very low-density residential designation, known as VL in municipal planning parlance, to low-density residential, billed as R-1. Colton’s annexations of property at its periphery ultimately set the stage for its city council, its city management, its community development and planning divisions and its planning commission to seize land use authority in La Loma Hills and control, in large measure, the fate and the lives of those who lived there.
Scott McKhann, a wealthy land speculator and real estate developer from Dana Point, became interested in La Loma Hills because the land there was relatively inexpensive, at least in some measure because a portion of it is undevelopable, some of it is developable only upon its augmentation with utilities and infrastructure it does not currently have, and because the zoning and other restrictions on it render the land that is developable capable of hosting projects of low density. He believed he could, through cultivating political contacts and connections, uprate that density and turn a substantial profit by developing it accordingly. Ultimately, it seems, he is being proven right.
McKhann acquired or tied up roughly 242.8 acres in the La Loma Hills. The angularity of the slopes on some of the acreage made development on certain parts of the property virtually impossible without extensive grading or slope adjustments, both of which were problematic for a number of reasons. Additionally, development along the ridgelines in the La Loma Hills was prohibited. Accordingly, McKhann initially signaled some seven years ago that he was intent on building 62 upscale hillside homes on the land.
This proposal met with no, or negligible, resistance of the nearby existing homeowners and landowners, who generally considered the area to be an elegant one that should not be worsened by any residential construction of a lesser character. Based upon McKhann’s representations and those of the city, there was acceptance of the developmental prospects enunciated, and certainly no alarm. In time, the ground would begin to shift beneath the feet of those La Loma Hills residents who had originally welcomed McKhann within their midst.
The first indication that McKhann had developed extraordinary influence at Colton City Hall came when the zoning on a portion of the property that had remained as VL – very low density – was changed without public notice to R1 – low density.
Next, it was learned, McKhann was being given unprecedented credit for having purchased property along the ridgeline. Ridgeline property is held off limits from residential development as a general principle. Someone at the city had made a determination outside the public process that since McKhann owned property further down the hill, midway up the hill and along the ridges at the top of the hill, he should be given density considerations lower down on his property since he could not build high up on his property. There was no basis in the city’s code or practices for that concession.
With all current properties in the La Loma Hills neighborhood sitting on lots of 9,580 square feet or more and homes set back from the street by at least 80 feet, McKhann was, following the city’s adjustments, at liberty to build on 5,445 square-foot lots with 60-foot minimum property frontages. This alarmed nearby residents.
A further issue troubling La Loma Hills residents was the city going along with the so-called “clustering” of the homes McKhann was intent on building. Of note was that planners had long respected the concept of the La Loma Hills community eschewing “stacked and packed” homes, such that residences were spread about and blended into the hillside rather than crammed together. This was an aesthetic standard virtually all of those living there shared. What McKhann and someone or several someones at City Hall did to compromise this was to pervert and widen an exception that allowed denser development in certain areas of La Loma Hills. Previously, a land owner/developer was potentially permitted to cluster homes on a portion of property that had a slope of greater than 20 percent, conditional upon proper grading being performed on the property to accommodate those homes. This exception had not been exploited in the past, as developers had opted to maintain the neighborhoods there as relatively opulent ones that would be cheapened by the placement of homes in their midst that were jumbled together. Through some unknown manipulation, however, McKhann induced the City of Colton’s planning division to deviate  from what had been the previous standard on slopes and clustering. Moreover, the fashion in which this was carried off was noteworthy for the surreptitious way in which it was effectuated.
On October 6, 2020, the city council took up what was logged on its agenda as the soc-called Phase 4 Zoning Code Clean-up. The item, rather innocuously, was listed on the agenda as involving: “Chapters 18.04; 18.06; 18.18; 18.36; 18.41; 18.42;18.48 18.50; and 18.58 of title 18 (zoning) of the Colton Municipal Code related to definitions, permitted uses, C-1 neighborhood commercial district, parking and loading, hillside standards, performance standards, special provisions, code administration, and signs.”
Buried in the new ordinance to be adopted that evening was a change relating to allowing the clustering of homes. Previously, a developer could, if it was deemed desirable and worth doing, cluster homes “on sites with an average slope of twenty percent or greater.”
By its October 6, 2020 vote, followed by a second reading of the ordinance, the city council changed that section of the city code relating to development on sloped property thusly: “The hillside standards contained herein apply to all uses and structures within areas having a natural slope percentage of 15 percent or greater over an area being graded and requiring a grading permit. This includes all subdivisions, grading, or new development projects with slopes that are calculated at 15 percent or greater over the area being graded and require a grading permit unless otherwise exempted by this code.”
Despite state law requiring a local government to inform those residing 500 feet or closer to a spot impacted by the government’s action, no notices were issued to those so situated around McKhann’s property in the La Loma Hills. When the change was given its second confirming vote on October 20, 2020, the item was placed on that evening’s agenda’s consent calendar. The consent calendar is supposed to be reserved for routine, noncontroversial matters.
A wide cross section of La Loma Hills residents were stirred up and animated. Among them were Richard Zaragosa, Celeste Carlos, Pamela Lemos, Erika and Andrew Perez, and John Albiso, who were considered the leadership of La Loma Hills Alliance, referred to by certain elements at City Hall as a “gang.” In rapid succession, the project went from the 62 units spread across the property that McKhann originally referenced and which the residents of the neighborhood were willing to accept to 68 units, to 72, to 79, to 84, to 88, and then dipped to 86.
On February 23, 2021 the Colton Planning Commission, with commissioners Carmen Cervantes, Richard Prieto, Angel Delgado, Gary Grossich and Tish Baden prevailing over commissioners Daniel Payne and Adam Raymond, gave approval to the proposed development of 86 clustered single-family lots on a 49.39-acre property located south of Litton Avenue, west of Bostick Avenue and north of Palm Avenue in the La Loma Hills district of Colton.
On April 6, 2021, the city council heard an appeal by the La Loma Hills Alliance of the planning commission’s decision to approve a tentative tract map and conditional use permit for the 86-lot single-family home hillside “cluster” development McKhann and Modern Pacific had been given permission to proceed with. The city council voted 5-to-1, with Councilman Kenneth Koperski absent and Mayor Frank Navarro dissenting, to uphold the appeal and deny the project.
Subsequently, Modern Pacific communicated to staff a willingness to redesign the project to address comments and concerns heard during the appeal hearing. It further requested that the council review and take final action on the revised project. Additionally, Modern Pacific retained the services of an attorney, Gregory Powers, who alleged certain deficiencies in the proceedings and violations of recently enacted state laws, in particular, Senate Bill 330, in the city’s rejection of the project. Powers claimed Modern Pacific should be allowed to redesign the project to address the city council’s and community’s concerns. In doing so, an overture to reduce the total unit count to 79 homes and increase the minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet was made.
On July 6, 2021, the council considered the revised version of the project. On a motion by Councilman John R. Echevarria seconded by Councilman Luis S. González, the revised project was rejected on a vote with Councilmen David J. Toro, González, Echevarria and Ernest R. Cisneros, prevailing, Mayor Frank Navarro and Councilman Kenneth Koperski dissenting and Councilman Isaac Suchil not participating. Thereafter, on July 28, 2021, McKhann and Modern Pacific sued the city, alleging the city had unfairly denied the project, violated the Housing Accountability Act, violated the Subdivision Map Act and engaged in inverse condemnation. “Modern Pacific spent over six years processing a project that was consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the site and furthered the housing objectives the city articulated in its housing element,” the suit stated. “During that time Modern Pacific was forced to repeatedly revise and change the project over the course of eleven planning commission and city council meetings, while spending enormous amounts of money, only to have the rug pulled out from under its feet at the 11th hour through project denial for purely political reasons.”
There is a division at City Hall over the project. Virtually the entirety of city staff and Councilman Koperski and Mayor Frank Navarro are favorably disposed toward McKhann, who exercises a Svengali-like hold on them, La Loma Hills residents maintain. That contrasts with the attitudes of Councilmen Toro, González, Echevarria and Cisneros, they say. Several of the more vocal residents of La Loma Hills maintain they have been repeatedly targeted by the city’s code enforcement division as part of an effort to dissuade them from speaking out. In particular, Zaragosa was hit with citation after citation, to the point that he has desisted in his protests and is no longer considered to be a member of the “gang.” La Loma Hills residents point out that the city’s code enforcement division has simultaneously ignored code violations on McKhann’s property, including the illegal dumping of seven dump truck loads of dirt and debris there. They have insinuated that there has been collusion between former Mayor Richard DeLaRosa, who has apparently been retained as a Modern Pacific representative by McKhann. They point to an acknowledgment made by current Mayor Frank Navarro that he met with McKhann and DeLaRosa in 2019, relatively shortly after he assumed the mayoralty in December 2018, and as McKhann was intensifying his developmental designs on the property.
Colton, unlike most other cities in San Bernardino County, does not post the California Form 460 campaign finance disclosure forms for its elected officials on its website, making it difficult to immediately determine if McKhann has purchased influence over Navarro and Koperski through donations to their political war chests.
Project opponents maintain the developer, Scott McKhann, has been accorded accommodations he did not merit, and that city staff has consistently prevented the public from getting relevant information about the project he is pursuing in a timely manner. They maintain, contrary to Powers’ assertions on behalf of McKhann and Modern Pacific that the project was consistent with Colton’s general plan and its zoning designations, the applicant was seeking approval of a project that in multiple respects was out of step with what the city’s standards were, and that elements within the city’s bureaucracy had sought to move the goal posts in Modern Pacific’s favor in the midst of the game, such as when it changed the 20 percent slope requirement to a 15 percent slope requirement in allowing home clustering.
Planning Commissioner Gary Grossich said he felt the concessions in the vicinity of Litton Avenue and Bostick Avenues were not improper, even though they are out of character with the surrounding properties, since the land further up the hill near the ridge owned by McKhann will not be developed. Grossich said he was not aware of the change made by the city council at the behest of staff in October 2020 that loosened the city’s standards by reducing the threshold for clustering homes from land with a slope of 20 percent or greater to land with a slope of 15 percent or greater. He further said the commission had never examined development proposals for the property that had as few as 62 units.
Word received by the Sentinel is that the city council will announce at its April 19 meeting that the city is going to settle the lawsuit brought by Modern Pacific Homes LLC against the City of Colton on terms favorable to McKhann. The mayor, city council, city manager and city attorney did not respond to the Sentinel’s efforts for confirmation, denial or clarification on that point.

Sixteen people are seeking to fill seven of the elected county government posts up for election in the 2022 election cycle. Those positions are sheriff, district attorney, county treasurer, county assessor, county superintendent of schools and two positions on the board of supervisors, one representing the Second District and one representing the Fourth District.
In two of the six races, the incumbents are getting a free ride, as no opponents have emerged to challenge them.
District Attorney Jason Anderson has drawn no opponent. In San Bernardino County, the district attorney is provided with salary and other pay totaling $307,735.29 plus benefits of $167,660.44, for a total annual compensation of $475,395.73.
Assessor Bob Dutton will face no opposition in this year’s election. In San Bernardino County, the assessor also serves as the county recorder and county clerk. The post provides a total annual compensation of $408,791.52, including salary and benefits.
Incumbent County Treasurer Ensen Mason must get past a single alternate candidate, John Ziegnhohn, to retain the office he holds. In San Bernardino County, the treasurer is also the auditor, controller and tax collector, a position which pays $347,504.60 in salary and augmentations plus $106,964.77 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $454,469.37.
Though he is the incumbent sheriff, Shannon Dicus is not the elected sheriff, as he was appointed to the post last year. Cliff Harris is running against him. In San Bernardino County the sheriff also serves in the role of the county’s chief safety officer and as the coroner and public administrator, posts which together provide $301,428.92 in pay plus $262,507.44 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $563,936.36.
Ted Alejandre’s grip on the post of county superintendent of schools is being contested by Ken Larson. In San Bernardino County, the superintendent of schools receives $316,430.39 in total yearly pay plus $65,161 in benefits or $381,591.39 overall annually.
In the wide-open race for San Bernardino County Second District Supervisor, five candidates are looking to succeed Janice Rutherford, who is leaving office based on her having now served nearly three full terms. First elected to the board in 2010, Rutherford must depart in accordance with the county’ current three term-limit, which was put in place as a consequence of the 2006 passage of Measure P. That limitation was reduced to a single term by the 2020 passage of Measure K, which was set aside by a legal challenge.
Cucamonga Valley Water District Board Member Luis Cetina is running with Rutherford’s endorsement. Also in the race are former Fontana City Councilman Jesse Armendarez and Nadia Maria Renner, both of whom vied for Fifth District Supervisor in 2020. Armendarez and Renner were moved out of the Fifth District last year by redistricting, which placed the entirety of Fontana, where they live, in the Second District. The field is rounded out by Eric Eugene Coker, the previous president of Me Management Solutions and the current owner of PC Pricebusters; and DeJonaé Shaw, a pistol-packing licensed vocational nurse who is a Second Amendment advocate.
The Second District, at 333 square miles, consists of all of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana and the northern part of Upland, as well as the communities of San Antonio Heights, Lytle Creek and Mount Baldy.
Curt Hagman, the incumbent Fourth District Supervisor who is currently the chairman of the board of supervisors, is being challenged by State Senator Connie Leyva and Larry Jia Wu, a Farmers Insurance agent from Chino.
Chino Hills, Chino, Montclair, Ontario, lower Upland, Guasti, Prado, Frontera, Carbon Canyon and Tres Hermanos Ranch fall within the 139-square mile confines of the Fourth District.
A supervisor receives $195,088.49 in salary and add-on pay along with benefits of $80,261.32, for a total annual compensation of $275,349.81.
There are ten top elected posts in San Bernardino County government. The other three offices beyond the seven up for election this year are First District supervisor, Third District supervisor and Fifth District supervisor. Those three positions are selected in elections corresponding to U.S. Presidential elections, while the seven posts at play this year are selected in balloting corresponding to California’s gubernatorial elections. All ten offices in San Bernardino County government involve four-year terms.

The Arrow line is on track to begin rail service between San Bernardino and Redlands in the fall.
The Arrow line is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, which is now known as Metrolink.
Metrolink held a virtual meeting on Tuesday to go over for the interested public the parameters of the Arrow passenger rail service and absorb feedback.
The Arrow line was initially scheduled to begin service in 2020, but it has undergone several delays, as construction phases lengthened and acquisition of the diesel engines to pull the line’s cars, which are manufactured by the Swiss rail car manufacturer Stadler at its Salt Lake City, Utah plant, took more time than expected. The Arrow line is to run between the San Bernardino Transit Center in downtown San Bernardino and the University of Redlands in Redlands. Initially undertaken by Omnitrans, a regional bus transportation agency, operations were transferred to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in 2019.
Stadler’s smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient diesel multiple unit trains will provide 25 Arrow route round trips per day once the engines are tested out and available. Regular Metrolink locomotives will offer a limited stop express service from downtown Redlands to Union Station in Los Angeles.
Metrolink is a commuter rail system in Southern California consisting of seven lines and 62 stations operating on 534 miles of rail network. The system was founded in 1991 as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. It adopted the name Metrolink in 1992 The system operates in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, as well as to Oceanside in San Diego County. It connects with the Los Angeles County Metro Rail and Metro Busway system, the San Diego Coaster commuter rail and Sprinter light rail services, and with Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, and Texas Eagle intercity rail services. Metrolink owns several hundred miles of rails, and it shares some track with freight trains.

San Bernardino County’s Congressional races have now been finalized.
Competing against Republican incumbent Jay Obernolte to represent Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear City, Hesperia, Twentynine Palms, Victorville, Yucaipa and Yucca Valley and parts of the Colton, Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino communities of the 23rd Congressional District are Democrats Derek Marshall and Blanca A. Gomez.
Democrat Pete Aguilar, now the representative of the 33rd Congressional District, which includes all of Grand Terrace and Rialto, and parts of Colton, Fontana, Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and San Bernardino, is being challenged by four Republicans – Rex Gutierrez, John Mark Porter, Greg Prescott and Ernest H. Richter.
In the 25th Congressional District, Raul Ruiz, Burt Thakur, Brian Tyson, Jonathan Reiss and James Francis Gibson are competing.
In the 35th Congressional District, which covers all of Chino, Montclair and Ontario, as well as parts of Chino Hills, Eastvale, Fontana, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland, Republicans Rafael Carcamo, Mike Cargile and Bob Erbst and Democrat Lloyd A. Stevens are looking to unseat the Democrat incumbent Norma J. Torres.
In the 40th Congressional District, which includes a portion of Chino Hills, challengers Asif Mahmood, a Democrat, and Republicans Greg Raths and Hilaire Fuji Shioura are vying against incumbent Republican Young Kim.

All four municipal incumbents in the county seat whose terms elapse this year will vie for reelection.
Mayor John Valdivia has drawn six challengers, those being Gabriel Jaramillo, Mohammad Khan, former Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel, political reform activist Treasure Ortiz, former City Attorney Jim Penman and the city’s former human services director, Helen Tran.
Valdivia has been mayor since 2018, when he defeated then-incumbent Carey Davis.
Tran, who was the city’s director of human resources when Valdivia became mayor, left that post for a similar one in West Covina after issues developed between five employees within the mayor’s office, all of whom have sued the city at this point over treatment they say they were accorded by Valdivia.
Nickel is a former Valdivia ally, who has now parted ways with him.
Ortiz is widely viewed as Valdivia’s most implacable political opponent, one who has consistently denounced him since he first acceded to the mayor’s position.
Penman was early in Valdivia’s political career one of his key backers. He now says Valdivia has not lived up to his expectations.
Jaramillo appears to be a stalking horse for Valdivia, who is attacking the other candidates in the race for the mayor by proxy.
In the city’s First Ward, incumbent Councilman Theodore Sanchez is facing Gil Botello, whom he beat in 2018.
In the Second Ward, Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra is being challenged by Terry Elliott.
Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett has two rivals, Teresa Parra Craig and Vince Laster.