The hopes a growing contingent of Upland residents intent on municipal retiree pension reform were dashed this week when a forum that was originally touted as a strategy session on how the city could come to terms with the fiscal crisis brought on by the city’s too-generous stipends to its former employees was commandeered and dominated by four entities with a financial interest in preserving the city’s existing relationship with the public employees’ retirement system at the heart of the problem.
By the end of the workshop held on Tuesday afternoon, Upland’s city manager, assistant city manager and two consultants had diverted the city council’s focus from reducing the amount of money the city is paying to its pensioners to borrowing money through a bond issuing scheme to continue to provide those inflated benefits.
Upland, which was in such severe financial straits in 2012 that its auditor at that time expressed doubts about it being able “to continue as a going concern,” has, with the recovering national, state and local economy of the last few years, come to the point where it is no longer teetering on the brink of bankruptcy’s abyss. Nevertheless, hefty  salaries and benefits that city officials provided to city employees throughout the first decade of the current century persist and their drain on the public treasury continues to haunt the city in the third decade of the Third Millennium.
The City of Upland is a participant in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. In the 2001/2002 time frame, Upland’s municipal officials, reacting to assurances from California Public Employees’ Retirement System analysts and advisors that the state pension system’s coffers were superfunded, granted employees far more liberal retirement benefits than they had previously received. Because the pension fund was heavily invested in the stock market at that time and the market was in the midst of what is referred to as the dotcom bubble, the pension fund stood at 140 percent of what it needed to meet its obligations at that time.
Based on this confidence, which was later shattered when technology stocks plunged in value and ultimately led to the 2007-to-2014 economic downturn commonly referred to as the Great Recession, many elected municipal officials throughout the Golden State, including those in Upland, caved into the demands by employee unions that they share the wealth and not only up city employees’ salaries but their benefits including pensions.
John Pomierski was elected Upland Mayor in November 2000, and dominated Upland politics for the next decade. In short order, Pomierski, who had been backed by deep-pocketed developmental interests, used his power of beguilement and manipulation along with his forceful personality to take command of the city even beyond that normally accorded to the mayor, giving others involved in the operation of the municipality the option of going along with him or being disenfranchised. With the exception of Ray Musser, Pomierski ultimately forged an alliance with all of the city council’s members, including Tom Thomas, whom he had bested in the 2000 mayoral race. His team included Michael Libutti and Ken Willis, first elected to the council in 1998 and 2000, respectively. When Libutti, a prosecutor in the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, was elevated to the Superior Court in 1982, he was replaced by Brendan Brandt. Pomierski formed a political bond with Brandt as well.
Early on, Pomierski was shaking down those with interests in the decision-making process at City Hall, and pocketing bribes. Despite widespread whispering about what was going on, Pomierski held his political coalition together. Developmental interests had united behind Pomierski because of his readiness and ability to force, cajole or simply invite the other members of the Upland City Council, who collectively held the city’s ultimate land use authority, to accommodate those developers’ efforts to obtain building entitlements. Pomierski served as a conduit of political donations originating with those developmental interests to other politicians. This formed the basis of and strengthened the bonds of Pomierski’s coalition.
After the 2004 election in which Pomierski was reelected mayor over a strong challenge by his lone rival on the city council, Ray Musser, the level to which Pomierski was engaged in corruptions of his office was growing too intense to ignore. In March 2005, then-City Manager Mike Milhiser departed, followed a few short weeks later by then-Police Chief Marty Thouvenell, both of whom were concerned about the destruction remaining affiliated with Pomierski might have on their reputations. Pomierski then induced the city council to hire his hand-picked replacement for Milhiser, Robb Quincey, and he elevated a captain in the police department, Steve Adams, to police chief, moves intended to facilitate his depredations and insulate him from any accountability.
Thereafter there were no restrictions of any effect on Pomierski. He obtained the city council’s acquiescence in conferring upon Quincey a contract which provided him with a guarantee that he would receive the same percentage increase in his salary and benefits that were provided to the members of the police department. Thereafter, he arranged to have Quincey designated to represent the city in its negotiations with the police officers’ union. During the slightly more than five-and-a-half years that he served as city manager, Quincey was provided with eight raises that boosted his combined salary and benefits from less than $260,000 per year to $425,000 per year, making him the second-highest paid city manager in California. Meanwhile, the members of the police department saw their salaries and benefits escalate significantly, such that their silence and investigative inactivity with regard to Pomierski’s activities was secured. Because he had concerns that the occasional knowledge about his bribetaking and other illegal activities that existed among city staff might not contain itself, Pomierski made arrangements to increase employee salaries generally at City Hall and had the city go to a four-day work week, which bought the acquiescence of city employees in what he was doing. Pomierski experienced no obstruction from anyone at City Hall in the graftfest he was involved in, and it was only after the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office took notice and a federal grand jury indicted him in 2011 that the gravy train he was riding screeched to a halt. In 2012, Quincey, was arrested and charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with three felonies consisting of unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath. Quincey’s lawyer would later work out with prosecutors a plea deal for him on a reduced charge.
Despite Pomierski’s personal downfall, the generosity toward city employees that had been a key ingredient in his recipe for self-enrichment persists a decade after his political demise. Even while Pomierski was in office, that generosity with taxpayer money had the effect of escalating dramatically the city’s pension costs, and when financial challenges descended upon the city while he was still mayor in 2007, it precipitated a pension debt situation the city is still staggering under.
The economic downturn of 2007 and the ensuing seven-year financial slump devastated the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s fiscal position. To the advantage of the system itself and all of the public employees participating in it, however, a provision in the contractual arrangements between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the cities participating in it requires that when CalPERS does not meet its investment goals, the difference is made up by the governmental entities that are the system’s constituents. That advantage to California’s governmental employees simultaneously redounded to the detriment of the cities and other governmental entities that are its participants in CalPERS.
The full implication of that one-sided guarantee was not fully recognized until the Great Recession took hold, at which point cities and counties participating in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System were called upon to make substantial payments beyond what they normally made to CalPERS. Those disbursements were made out of those counties’ and cities’ operating funds, often referred to in individual cases as that particular county’s or city’s general fund. This meant that money that otherwise was used for basic operations such as paying salaries, purchasing and carrying out maintenance on city vehicles, fueling those vehicles, providing care and upkeep of city parks, trimming trees, creating or renewing infrastructure such as paving roads, maintaining sidewalks, curbs, gutters and culverts, water and sewer lines, providing services and the like was in short supply. That translated into layoffs and resultant manpower shortages and service reductions, along with delays in constructing new infrastructure, the deterioration of existing infrastructure and the deferring of purchasing new equipment and vehicles and the neglect of maintenance and servicing to city assets.
The difference between the total amount of benefits owed to all of a city’s current employees & retirees and the value of the financial assets devoted to that city’s pension plan is referred to as an unfunded liability.
As of June 2012, the City of Upland had an $88,994,066 unfunded pension liability. That debt had reached $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2019, and then climbed more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of mid-fiscal year 2019-20 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020. Unofficial documentation available to the Sentinel suggests that as of this month, Upland’s unfunded pension liability has climbed to $130,185,277.
At present, $8,996,364 of the city’s current annual $43,559,950.78 general fund budget is utilized in paying off its pension debt, such that 20.65 percent of the city’s operating costs are devoted to paying those who are no longer actively working for the city.
Projections are that by 3032, with more and more of the city’s current employees joining the rolls of the city’s retirees drawing pensions at ever higher and higher rates, the city will be expending close to 50 percent of its operating budget on paying pensions to former city employees, resulting in the city drastically reducing the municipal services it provides.
A significant factor in the pension debt crisis consists of the very generous terms contained in the formulas for those pensions. Generally speaking, employees are eligible to retire at the age 55 or 60 and begin to draw a yearly pension equal to two percent of their highest annual pay, including salary and overtime, multiplied by the number of years they were employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city employee who retires at the age of 55 who was paid $100,000 per year who had been employed with the city for 30 years would be eligible to draw an annual pension of $60,000 per year [$100,000 X .02 X 30] for the remainder of his/her life. Upon that former employee’s death, his or her spouse/widow/widower would be eligible to continue to draw a pension equal to half that amount, $30,000, for the rest of her/his life. The higher one goes up the municipal employment totem pole in Upland, the more generous the formula. Senior administrative employees such as the city manager are eligible to draw a pension equal to his/her highest annual salary and add-on or overtime pay during that year times two-and-a-half percent times the number of years that person was employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city manager paid $250,000 per year who retires at 60 after a 35-year career as a public employee in California would receive an annual pension of $218,750 [$250,000 X .025 X 35] for the rest of his/her life, with his/her surviving spouse eligible to collect $109,375 yearly for the remainder of his/her life.
In the case of police officers, they are eligible to retire at the age of 50 and receive a pension of three percent times their highest level of pay multiplied by the number of years they have worked as government employees in California.
Within certain circles involving Upland residents who are tuned in to the circumstance of their city’s looming pension crisis, there has been serious discussion over what steps could be taken to diffuse the situation or to in some fashion ameliorate it to reduce the onerous burden of the city’s escalating pension costs and the resultant impact on ongoing and future municipal operations and thereby the quality of life in the City of Gracious Living. The options for achieving this cost reduction are limited, given the reality of the contractual obligations the city took on in committing to participate in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
One potential solution or partial solution to the dilemma consists of altering future employee contracts to reduce the level of benefits guaranteed to city personnel going forward. Another consists of maintaining the level of benefits as they are but shifting the cost of participating in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from the city to the employees themselves, meaning those employees – through payments deducted from their wages – and not the city and its taxpayers will cover the cost of making annual payments the city is currently making to CalPERS. A contemplated solution is capping pension amounts at what might be considered to be a reasonable maximum – perhaps $100,000 annually, for example – that would still provide the means for retirees to live in dignity without breaking the public treasury. Another option would be for the city to pull out of CalPERS altogether, paying off its debt to the state retirement system, and instituting a municipal employee 403 (B) retirement system for those city workers which they pay for themselves, perhaps with some modest city contribution, similar to 401 (K) programs available in the private sector. Another option would be for the city to utilize the legal leverage available to it and uniformly revoke the past salary and benefit increases provided to city employees under the Pomierski regime and as part of the negotiations engaged in by Quincey, based on the statutory principle that any contractual arrangement entered into by a public agency as a consequence of a conflict of interest is rendered null and void and is therefore unenforceable.
It is calculated that use of one or a combination of some or all of those options to substantially reduce the City of Upland’s pension costs could in relatively short order deflate the city’s unfunded pension liability to somewhere between one-half or two-thirds of what it is presently, rendering the city’s finances into a far more manageable state, eliminating the future prospect of bankruptcy and heading off the impingement on city services that are threatening to drop the City of Gracious Living to Third World standards. Among that circle of Upland residents, there was hope that under the guidance of Greg Bradley, who was elected Upland treasurer in November 2020, the city would develop the collective will of its citizenry and political leadership to explore those options.
This week, on March 2, the city council held an afternoon workshop/special meeting to discuss management of the city’s pension costs and the accruing and growing pension fund liability.
Much to the chagrin of those anticipating a change in the city’s approach to its pension funding dilemma, the workshop confined itself to essentially preserving the CalPERS status quo and exploring a debt financing solution that, if used, will defer the city’s pension costs to a future generation of Uplanders and potentially be of near term financial benefit to those advising the city.
The upshot of Tuesday afternoon’s meeting was that the city should eschew any effort toward pension reform and instead reach for the nostrum of pension obligation bonds.
Governments issue pension obligation bonds, known by the acronym POBs, and use the proceeds of the sale of the bonds to cover their pension debt. The bond purchasers are then paid back by the city a certain percentage of the bond value over a given period, typically 30 to 40 years. This strategy is based on the hope, or gamble, that the pension funds’ investment returns will prove to be higher than municipal bond interest. Many governments have used pension obligation bonds successfully in reducing their pension liability, but POBs have also contributed to major municipal bankruptcies. Pension obligation bonds have inherent risks, which can and have proven devastating. One potential disadvantage consists of the possibility that investment returns in the underlying pension fund, in the case of Upland the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, will fall short of the bond interest. Pension obligation bonds are credit negative and impact a city’s debt capacity, potentially using up borrowing capability that could be used for other purposes. Moreover, pension obligation bonds are complex instruments that carry considerable risk, as they may incorporate the use of guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, and/or derivatives, which must be intensively scrutinized, as such embedded products and variables can introduce counterparty risk, credit risk and interest rate risk. The Government Finance Officers Association has issued a general caveat against them, stating it “recommends that state and local governments do not issue pension obligation bonds.”
Those in favor of pension obligation bonds maintain that the potential downsides of pension obligation bonds can be reduced, mitigated or virtually eliminated through caution and appropriate legal frameworks.
City of Upland officials first became intrigued with pension obligation bonds last year when financial advisor Suzanne Harrell gave them a sales job. Harrell’s firm, Harrell & Company, stood to profit if the city resolved to issue the bonds and used her company in doing so. Out of concern that the city might not have been getting the straight scoop from Harrell because of her financial stake in the city’s eventual decision, city officials sought out other experts to orient them with regard to this relatively obscure means of financing. For this week’s discussion, the city turned to two others, Julio Morales, a managing director with Urban Futures, and Ira Summer, an actuary who is well versed in public pension statistics.
As it turned out, both Morales and Summer and their companies, have a potential financial interest in the city issuing pension obligation bonds as well. Since under most likely scenarios, the issuance of POBs consists of maintaining the status quo between the city and CalPERs, neither Morales nor Summer engaged in any serious or meaningful discussion of the city’s parallel options, such as ending its relationship with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System beyond precluding the concept by advising that it was undoable or prohibitively expensive. Nor did Morales or Summers engage in a dialogue relating to switching the burden of defraying pension costs to the city’s employees or altering the terms of the city’s employee benefit packages either through negotiation or on the basis of the illegality of the circumstances by which those benefits were derived, offered and accepted.
Morales acknowledged that in the current economic circumstance, over the last several years pension funds dependent upon stock market and other investment returns have been about 75 percent funded.
Morales shot down the concept of the city moving out of its contractual arrangement with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and switching to a 403 (B) program, saying that CalPERS would not allow employees in its system to withdraw. He further said that CalPERS would not allow a city that currently has its employees in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to hire new employees who were not automatically enrolled in the retirement system. Without making any citation to his authority for saying so, Morales indicated that doing so would be a violation of California law.
Morales said it was not impossible for the City of Upland to leave CalPERS, but that it would cost more than paying off its current unfunded liability, which he put in the neighborhood of $120 million. Rather, he said, Upland could not buy its way out of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for anything less than $490 million.
While Morales did not advertise pension obligation bonds as a silver bullet that would slay the pension debt vampire, he continually offered them as a key component of a multi-element solution to the unfunded pension liability challenge.
And though he acknowledged that the issuance of POBs would create new debt that would result in a bill to pay down that debt, he said payment of that bill would “avert a worse bill,” such that the city and its council would find itself and themselves “in a better position than you would have been.”
Admitting the city could take the approach of having its employees pay more of their pension costs, Morales said the best that would do is have some impact “around the margins” of the mounting debt issue. He repeated a mantra to the effect that it is futile for the city to try to get out of its relationship with CalPERS or strive to lessen its actual payments into the system, but should instead seek to use bonds to reduce the cost of financing its pension debt. Doing so at this point, he explained, would escalate the savings the city is to potentially reap, given the historically low interest rates in the financial marketplace at present.
He referenced the “California Rule,” a legal precedent that bars public employers from revoking any benefits given to public employees in the past without compensating them with an offsetting improvement in benefits going forward.
“You cannot undo these formulas,” Morales intoned in talking about the pensions that public employees are guaranteed through CalPERS.
Assistant City Manager Steven Parker paid perfunctory homage to the concepts of reforming the city’s employee benefit and pension cost situation, but did not delve too deeply into the subject and dwelt more with regard to other cost saving efforts the city could make to improve its overall financial position.
Parker said the city at present is purposed to establish a pension fund stabilization element/plan into the city’s upcoming 2021-22 budget, and he mentioned bargaining with city employees in upcoming contract negotiation to take on more of the pension cost. He touted outsourcing moves the city had made in the past, such as those of the fire department, library and animal control service division, which had frozen in place the city’s pension costs for those employees moved off the municipal payroll. His statements raised the specter, obliquely rather than overtly, of the shuttering of the police department in favor of contracting law enforcement services out to the county sheriff’s department. He did not make direct reference to the police department, though for many that implication was obvious as the police department represents the major expense within the city’s general fund budget.
Parker said the California League of Cities has suggested the issuance of pension obligation bonds as a possible way of stabilizing pension costs.
Also participating in the forum was Ira Summer, a specialized consulting pension fund accountant who works in the arena of public pension administration and financing. Parker introduced Summer as being a principal or officer with an outfit, Dove Invest. The Sentinel, after conducting an exhausting search, could find no reference to Dove Invest. Summer is shown as a “consulting actuary and president with Public Pension Professionals.” Precisely what Summer’s angle with regard to Upland’s potential issuance of pension obligation bonds was unclear.
As part of the forum, the council heard comments. The only comment provided was that by Lois Sicking Dieter, a former mayoral candidate. She expressed skepticism about the efficacy of issuing public obligation bonds, likening their use to “using a credit card to pay off another credit card.”
At one point in the proceedings, Summer belittled Sicking Dieter’s analogy.
Also participating in a very limited role was Greg Bradley, as treasurer, who was in some measure responsible for pushing the subject matter of the unfunded pension liability into Tuesday’s workshop. Other than a preliminary statement, his participation was light, and his engagement in the proceedings was similar to that of the city council, which generally observed the presentation that was made mostly by Morales and guided by Parker. Morales, Summer and Parker entertained a few questions from the council, which emanated primarily from Councilwoman Janice Elliott, who has training as a certified public accountant.
The general upshot of the presentation was that public pension obligation bonds would save the city money. The council ultimately complied with Morales’ suggestion that it make a preliminary application for the issuance of the bonds without actually committing to do the issuance, to cut down on any delay should the council ultimately decide to use the POB option. Timely action now, he said, would help to ensure the bonds could be issued while interest rates remain low, giving the city the full advantage of that market condition.
Also participating, to a very limited degree, was City Manager Rosemary Hoerning, who told the city council that pension obligation bonds were “a nice tool to have in your back pocket.” Hoerning’s major input came toward the end of the meeting, during which she took on responsibility for gearing up for the potential issuance of the bonds.
For many, the degree to which Morales, Summer, Parker and Hoerning came across as discouraging pension reform and stampeding the council toward issuance of the bonds was troubling from the standpoint of the real or potential personal financial stake the four have in the city forsaking pension reform and issuing the bonds.
Urban Futures has long been involved in an advisory or consultancy role in Upland municipal operations. A major portion of the firm’s work consists of advising the city with regard to and then making the arrangements for debt refinancing. In doing so, Urban Futures stands to gain fees pursuant to the ancillary services it provides relating to the refinancing. Given the financial stake Urban Futures has in these refinancings, questions have arisen about the integrity of that advice.
Moreover, in this circumstance, Urban Futures, or at least some of its employees, have an interest in discouraging any options that might pertain to Upland exiting the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
Steve Dukett from 2018 until 2019 served as Upland’s contract development services manager after having served, more than a decade prior to that, as an Upland municipal employee, in the post of development services manager. Dukett is one of three managing partners with Urban Futures. In addition to his work for Urban Futures, Dukett draws a significant amount of his personal income from CalPERS. Dukett served stints as the redevelopment or development director with the cities of Redlands, Upland, Hesperia, Ontario, Lancaster and San Bernardino. He was briefly, in the late 1990s, the interim city manager in Hesperia. His employment in Upland took place during the reign of then-Mayor John Pomierski. At present he pulls a $173,071.80 public pension consisting of $119.863.44 per year provided to him by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System based on his 29.43 years with various municipal entities, as well as $53,208.36 from the retirement system Los Angeles County has for its public employees based on the 12.42 years he worked there, including within the county administrative office.
Parker did not clarify how Urban Futures and Summer will be involved in the issuance of the pension obligation bonds, should that eventuality come to pass.
Parker emphasized that at present the city is utilizing both Urban Futures and Summer for advisory and informational services, but he pointedly did not rule out that they might have roles related to the bond issuances.
Both Hoerning as city manager and Parker as assistant city manager are to be beneficiaries – major beneficiaries – of the CalPERS system. Hoerning is on a trajectory to receive upon her retirement a pension through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System somewhere in the neighborhood of $205,000 to $210,000 per year. If Parker, as is anticipated, ultimately accedes to a city manager position in either Upland or elsewhere, he is likewise on track to receive a public pension equal to or greater than that of Hoerning.
-Mark Gutglueck

On Wednesday, March 3, the San Bernardino City Council elected to back a comprehensive and energetic proposal by the Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group consortium to redevelop the long-languishing 43-acre Carousel Mall site at the city’s core.
The mall, a portion of which includes the Harris’ building first established in 1927 and which has existed in the form of a modern mall since 1972, is proximate to San Bernardino City Hall, which has itself been shuttered for seismic considerations since 2017.
The proposal by Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group first publicly previewed in January was more elaborate than the mere mall makeover the city had sought for the project. In addition to transforming the mall into a post modern urban landscape involving mixed commercial and residential uses, the plan calls for creating an artificial stream that will accompany an arbor-like riverwalk rich in vegetation and some 1,000 trees through the downtown area, which includes currently existing municipal and county offices, the Mexican and Guatemalan consulates, the city’s banking district, retail and office/professional uses, the city’s entertainment section, as well as State of California offices that include the 11-story modern 2014 courthouse and the city’s/county’s historic 1926 courthouse.
The synergy envisioned in Renaissance Downtowns USA/ICO Real Estate Group team’s plan was a factor in its selection by the city council, but not the only one.
The two companies, which have cooperated on projects previously, were among 11 separate entities competing to get the right to serve as the master developer/redeveloper of the mall property. After the competition began in earnest, they combined their efforts and eight of the others involved in the selection process were shunted aside by the city, leaving them to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese-based conglomerate, Shanghai Construction Group, known by its acronym SCG. When it was revealed that SCG was filtering money to Mayor John Valdivia and his electioneering fund through various SCG corporate affiliates and subgroups, suspicions were raised. Valdivia, in a ham-handed way, then sought to promote and militate on behalf of SCG, at one point inveigling City Manager Robert Field into assisting him in doing so. After it was learned that Valdivia was seeking to hide the money he was receiving from SCG and that Field was militating with him to get an internal city staff recommendation to proceed with SCG’s redevelopment plan, there was a firestorm of controversy centered around charges that Valdivia is on the take and that he was corrupting Field and the city’s top ranking employees. Council Members Ben Christmas-Reynoso and Kimberly Calvin took a lead in questioning what Valdivia was up to, and citizen outrage at Valdivia’s action escalated. In that atmosphere, it became impossible for Field to return a recommendation in favor of SCG.
Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, city staffers provided a recommendation that the city council reject both bids to redevelop the Carousel Mall property and rather include the mall property into a yet-to-be-determined downtown revitalization effort.
Some 56 residents weighed in on the project in prerecorded messages played during Wednesday’s meeting. None of those sounded a recommendation for the SCG proposal. Many of those callers excoriated Valdivia over the appearance of his having taken money from SCG in return for rigging the selection process in that company’s favor. Most of the callers who recommended a choice between the competing developers sided with Renaissance and ICO, although there was a fair smattering who suggested that the competition be re-initiated from scratch.
Ultimately, council members Theodore Sanchez, Sandra Ibarra, Fred Shorett, Ben Reynoso, Kimberly Calvin and Damon Alexander voted in favor of accepting the proposal by Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group, and allowing both to serve as the mall’s combined master redeveloper. Councilman Juan Figueroa, Valdivia’s most steadfast ally on the council and who himself has been spotted cavorting with SCG principals and corporate officers and has taken money from them, voted in opposition to selecting Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group.
-Mark Gutglueck

First Lady Jill Biden is likely to encounter a protest demonstration when she touches down at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms next Wednesday, the Sentinel has learned.
Mrs. Biden has committed to redouble the Joining Forces program, an effort she undertook with then-First Lady Michelle Obama in 2011, which was dedicated to work “hand-in-hand with the public and private sector to ensure that service members, veterans, and their families have the tools they need to succeed throughout their lives.”
After touring military bases in Washington State on Tuesday, March 9, Mrs. Biden is scheduled to sojourn to Southern California where her first stop is to be the Marine Corps Air
Ground Combat Center on March 10.
A wife of a Marine at the Twentynine Palms facility was recently subjected to a series of racist epithets, and a contingent of that woman’s supporters, including members of the Needles Democratic Club, intends to make the circumstances known to Mrs. Biden.
-Mark Gutglueck

The Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees, which stands as one of the most ethnically/racially diverse elected bodies in San Bernardino County, this week knuckled under to a demand that the district alter its traditional at-large board elections to ones in which trustees are to be elected by ward or sub-district. That threat implied that minority members living within the jurisdiction of the district are not adequately represented on the board.
The threat to sue the district came from Kevin Shenkman of the Malibu-based law firm of Shenkman and Hughes. In 2014, Shenkman sent a similar letter to the City of Highland. Highland responded by agreeing to hold a vote to see if the city’s residents were amenable to making the change to district elections. When the voters rejected the concept, Shenkman and several other lawyers and law firms, including R. Rex Parris, Milton Grimes and Matthew Barragan, proceeded with a lawsuit against Highland, where despite more than 39 percent of the residents of that city being Latino, no Hispanics were serving on the city council. The attorneys used a provision of the California Voters Rights Act to ensure, they maintained, that so-called protected minorities were not disenfranchised in the political process. That provision allowed them to allege that what is referred to as racially or ethnically polarized voting had occurred in certain cities or towns, and to then request that the city or town in question revamp its voting system such that wards or voting districts were created in which the residents of that ward or district would have exclusive voting rights to elect from within that ward or district a representative to the city council. If a city without resistance simply conformed with the request and adopted a by-district voting system, the attorney making the request was then entitled to recover from the city a $45,000 fee for having brought the city into what was characterized as compliance with the goals of the California Voting Rights Act.
If any of those towns or cities resisted the request, the attorney or attorneys representing an individual of standing challenging that particular municipal entity could then file suit under the terms of the California Voting Rights Act, and upon prevailing in demonstrating racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting in the city or town had occurred, be eligible to recover the entirety of the legal fees involved in the filing of the action.
In the case of Highland, despite making a finding that the socio-economic-based rationale presented by the plaintiff’s attorneys to support the need for ward elections was irrelevant and that the plaintiff’s assertion that district voting was the only way to cure the alleged violation of the Voting Rights Act was false, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn mandated that Highland adopt a ward system.
Lawyers using the California Voting Rights Act function from a distinct advantage, in that if a lawsuit they file fails and it is determined that racially-polarized or ethnically polarized voting did not occur, the plaintiff is not subject to having to pay the prevailing party’s legal fees.
After their victory over Highland, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan, the latter then being a staff attorney representing the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, threatened lawsuits under the California Voter Rights Act against the cities of Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Chino, Fontana, Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Twentynine Palms, Upland and Yucaipa, as well as the towns Apple Valley and Yucca Valley. Despite the consideration that Barstow, Chino Hills, Chino and Redlands historically had fielded or at that point included Hispanic members on their city councils and that Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana historically or at that point had both Latino and African-American members of their city councils, all of those cities and all of those towns, while grumbling that Shenkman, Parris, Grimes, and Barragan were using the law to shake them down, complied with the demands for shifts to district or ward systems, with each of those municipalities paying the lawyers $45,000, an alternative preferable to having to sustain the expense of fighting the matter in court with no prospect of recovering its costs even if it prevailed.
Ironically, in case after case in San Bernardino County, the cities and towns that were forced to adopt district voting or ward maps gerrymandered them in a way that provided the incumbent council members an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that their districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections. In none of those cases did Shenkman, Parris, Grimes and Barragan intervene, and the gerrymandering was allowed to proceed. In some of the cases, protected minority representation was lost as a consequence of the redistricting. This is an indication, Shenkman’s, Parris’s, Grimes’ and Barragan’s detractors say, that the lawyers were not in fact interested in ending racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting but were rather seeking a $45,000 payday.
The Chino Valley Unified School District Board currently consists of Donald Bridge, Andrew Cruz, Christina Gagnier, James Na and Joe Schaffer. Cruz is Hispanic. Na is ethnically Chinese. The remaining three are Caucasian. Within the last five years, the board had two Latina members, Sylvia Orozco and Irene Hernandez-Blair. While there would have been a substantial likelihood that the district would have prevailed if it had contested the assertion in Hughes’ letter that the district’s at-large election system resulted in minority vote dilution in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, the expense of doing so would have been extensive.
In a report to the board dated March 4, Superintendent Norm Enfield said “to avoid potential legal challenges” he recommended the district “begin the process of establishing trustee areas for elections to the board of education.”
The board voted unanimously along the lines of Enfield’s recommendation.
-Mark Gutglueck

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Ochoa has ruled in favor of conservation groups and found the Marina Point Development on the shores of Big Bear Lake lacks valid permits.
Nearly seven years after a petition and complaint challenging the project was filed, the court’s ruling makes clear that unless San Bernardino County issues new approvals, the project construction cannot move forward. The project threatened habitat for bald eagles and other wildlife.
“We’re thrilled that the truth of the situation has finally been set straight and the court has upheld the law,” said Roman Silberfeld, chairman of the board for Friends of Big Bear Valley. “We are happy to help protect our beautiful rural community and majestic natural resources with this action.”
Friends of Big Bear Valley and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the original complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court in June 2014. The suit challenged the county’s issuance of demolition permits even though the underlying approvals for the project had expired. County code sets a five-year deadline from the date of project approval for concrete steps toward that project’s timely completion to be taken. Marina Point did not take the necessary steps to keep the permit alive, according to the ruling issued last week.
“To obtain a new approval, this project will now have to perform proper environmental review, as should have been required two decades ago,” said Sandy Steers, the executive director of Friends of Big Bear Valley. “The bald eagles and other species and unique habitats detrimentally impacted by this project can finally be protected.”
The Marina Point Development project was approved in 1991, based on an environmental review from 1983. The court of appeal has ruled that the 1991 environmental review was deficient. When work on the project began again in 2014 after years of delay, conservation groups took notice and filed a legal challenge. The Law Offices of Babak Naficy represented the conservation groups.
“I am delighted that this long-running saga has finally come to an end and the good guys prevailed,” said Naficy.
The now-expired project was a condominium complex consisting of 19 three-story condominium buildings on 12 acres of undeveloped lakefront, along with an expansive 175-boat slip private marina, clubhouse, restaurant and other shared facilities.
“Marina Point threatened the long-term survival of Big Bear Lake’s iconic bald eagles, a pair of which now nest year-round within a mile of the project site,” said Aruna Prabhala, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney. “As the lake’s shoreline gets more and more developed, and bald eagle habitat is lost, it’s become increasingly important that we preserve foraging and nesting areas.”
Friends of Big Bear Valley is a locally based, nonprofit environmental education organization with over 130,000 members and online activists dedicated to protecting and preserving the unique and irreplaceable natural habitat of Big Bear Valley.

As we roll into spring, I am reminded of John Kennedy Jr. rollerblading through New York with his dog on a leash, with a newspaper and sneakers in his other hand. And, he was so “HOT” about it. Now gone and still “HOT!”

Guess what? Roller skates are in, and a whole lot of fun, too. We’ve all been stuck inside due to the quarantine, but lets face it, California weather is gorgeous and one good reason to come back to life by rolling out on skates. I’ve been paying attention, and Wow! Some people move great on and in skates. I was motivated to relive my youth. It’s been maybe 9 years since I last skated, but I did my research and got a pair of Moxi Skates.

I have taken it easy by rolling in my house. Recently, I got out to the bike trail. I started out slowly on a sunny day. I must say my crazy idea has inspired others to do the same. While you’re wondering if you still can or why you’re not, just get out there rollerskating. Take a pause and take the leap.
Skating dates back to the 1700s, but I can relate best to the 1970s, since that is where it began for me. You can pick up skates in different brands. Based on reviews I’ve read, here are some suggestions: Impala Skates, Chaya Skates, Moxi Skates, and let’s not forget the original-traditional Chicago Brand Skates. There’s a lot of distancing with roller skating and you feel free doing it. One thing to remember is to start easy and basic. Some tips: Widen your legs, go slightly forward, moderately bend the knees, and wear pads. Is there fashion in this comeback trend? Absolutely! Some fashion tips: Shorts, striped knee socks, overalls, bell bottoms, spandex, and skirts. It’s all mix and matchable, and for spring you can make it colorful.

I recently heard that every Thursday from 6 pm to 9 pm there are Rollerskate And Date events. There is more information on the Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/vaultofupland/. Use your creativity and get on the rollies.
Have fun with the activity which is great for spring, summer, and any time, as long as the weather permits. Until next time – Keep rolling!

“Let the Good Times Roll” -The Cars

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
CASE NO. PROPS 2001007
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TERRI A. DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TERRI A. DAVIS 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 JULY 1, 2021at 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.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Terri A. Davis:
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 2/19/21, 2/26/21 & 3/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN C. CRUZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100133
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN C. CRUZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DOMINIC CRUZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DOMINIC CRUZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2028679
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III to Efrain Angel Rodriguez
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: 03/17/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: Feb., 03, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2100792
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): The COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a charter county: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a public agency; MICHAEL A. RAMOS, in his individual capacity; JAMES HACKLEMAN, in his individual capacity; HOLLIS “BUD” RANDLES, in his individual capacity; ROBERT SCHREIBER, in his individual capacity: COLONIES PARTNERS, L.P, a California Limited Partnership; JEFFERY BURUM, an individual; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2020 SETTLEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND COLONIES PARTNERS. L.P. AND JEFFERY BURUM; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP, a non-profit corporation.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
247 West Third Street,
San Bernardino, CA 92415
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
Aaron D. Burden, Esq.
P.O. Box 130370,
Carlsbad, CA 92013
Telephone: (619) 988-2663
DATE (Fecha): 01/26/2021
Clerk (Secretario), by Elisabeth Martinez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21
FBN 20210000965
The following person is doing business as TAMAR COUNSELING SERVICES 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786: DEBORAH J VINALL 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DEBORAH J.VINALL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: August 10, 2010
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/19, 2/26, 3/05 & 3/12, 2021.
FBN 20210001168
The following entity is doing business as ALLWISE RESIDENTIAL HOME II 9995 GENEVA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ALLWISE COMPANION CARE INC 14299 POINTER LOOP EASTVALE, CA 92880
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA C4167976
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/ WENDELL USON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/05/2021
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, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FBN 20210000553
The following entity is doing business as NOTARY EAGLE: EMIGDIA’S NOTARY SERVICES 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
Mailing Address: 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL.
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 16, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000959
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lucifer’s Garage; Satan’s Henchmen; Heathen, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Heathen Nation LLC, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ David A. Lancaster
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/12/21, 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: TRACY ALAN POWELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100144
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of TRACY ALAN POWELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MICHELLE MERRIAM in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHELLE MERRIAM 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 1, 2021at 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.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Michelle Merriam:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328-7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/26/21. 3/05/21 & 3/12/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANGEL PATRON
CASE NO. PROPS 2100150
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANGEL PATRON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by VIONICA REYES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that VIONICA REYES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 26, March 5 & March 1, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
EARL WILLIAM BALE
NO. PROPS 2100132
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EARL WILLIAM BALE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PATTY K. WHALEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PATTY K. WHALEY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 30, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Patty K. Whaley
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
RUTH DIANNE STACEY
NO. PROPS 2100153
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH DIANNE STACEY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JENNIFER SHOEMAKER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JENNIFER SHOEMAKER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on APRIL 6, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
In Pro Per Petitioner: Jennifer Shoemaker
2276 Cedar St.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Telephone No: (951) 662-1589
Email address: evilwitchsbrew@yahoo.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF::
JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2000419
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
SELYNO RAZO, Deputy Clerk
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 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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2100107
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210001697
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: My Serenity Mental Wellness, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Johana Montes De Oca, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Johana Montes De Oca
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/22/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/04/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000878
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Code With Nano, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784, Monica G. Say, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Monica G. Say
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

FBN 20210000366 The following person is doing business as: DANK WAYZ 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 BRIAN J PATTISON 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ BRIAN J. PATTISON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/14/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 8, 2021 County Clerk, Deputy I2443 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/22, 1/29, 2/5 & 2/12, 2021 & Corrected on 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2101401
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Antonio Javier Sezati filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Antonio Javier Sezati to Sean Miramontes
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: 04/05/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: Feb., 04, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF CINDY LORRAINE MILLER aka CINDY L. MILLER aka CINDY MILLER
Case No. PROPS2100163
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of CINDY LORRAINE MILLER aka CINDY L. MILLER aka CINDY MILLER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Jessica Perez in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Jessica Perez be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests 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.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on April 5, 2021 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 personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
ROBERT L COHEN ESQ
SBN 150913
LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT L. COHEN
8081 ORANGETHORPE AVE
BUENA PARK CA 90621
CN975850 MILLER
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5,12 & 19, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
FELIPE DEJESUS CAMPIRAN
NO. PROPS 2100158
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FELIPE DEJESUS CAMPIRAN
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ALYSSA L. SLAUSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ALYSSA L. SLAUSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 30, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 22, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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 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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Alyssa L. Slauson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel March 5, 12 & 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2000419
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
SELYNO RAZO, Deputy Clerk
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 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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2100107
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
CASE NO. PROPS 2100141
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DEBRA KAY HANES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DEBRA KAY HANES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 29, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BARBARA JEAN CAREY
CASE NO. PROPS 2100169
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of  BARBARA JEAN CAREY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PAUL EUGENE VAN TIFFLIN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PAUL EUGENE VAN TIFFLIN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 6, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 17, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHERYL D. WILLIAMS
CASE NO. PROPS 2100198
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHERYL D. WILLIAMS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ERIKA MARIE MILLET in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ERIKA MARIE MILLET be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 19, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 10, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LEO ESPINAR JR., CASE NO. PROPS2100187
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of LEO ESPINAR
JR., and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both:
A petition has been filed by JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of LEO ESPINAR JR. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.)
The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S37 at SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on April 15, 2021 at 09:00 AM.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Petitioner: JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR
21215 MULTNOMAH RD.
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92308
Telephone: 760-589-5027
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

FBN 20210002262
The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
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/ FREDERICO A PALMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I137
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021.

FBN 20210002262
The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
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/ FREDERICO A PALMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I137
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210001826
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: J Designs By BJ, 1218 SO. Cypress Avenue,, #A, Ontario, CA 91762, Bobbie Gibbs, 1218 SO. Cypress Avenue #A, Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Bobbie Gibbs
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/01/20
County Clerk, s/ E2485
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).
03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 3/19/21, 3/26/21
FBN 20210000017 The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ JASMINE HENDERSON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/04/2021 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, Deputy D5511 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021 & Corrected on 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21, 03/26/21
FBN 20210000437
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE’S BODY ART PAINTING 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324; MARIA O OSORIO-LOPEZ 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
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/ MARIA D. OSORIO-LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202104MT
FBN 20210001179
The following person is doing business as: TAQUERIA EL GORDITO FELIZ 4857 S. TANGERINE WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762; DIEGO A PLASENCIA 4857 S. TANGERING WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 02, 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/ DIEGO A. PLASCENCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202101

FBN 20210001221
The following person is doing business as: LA MODELO MIX MIXHELADAS 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; JOSE MAGANA JR 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 923316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 03, 2001
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 MAGANA JR., OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202102

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; MOISES RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202103

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202104

FBN 20210001487
The following person is doing business as: JACTIVE 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JACQUELINE A SOTO 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ JACQUELINE SOTO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202105

FBN 20210000976
The following person is doing business as: PARKER LANE 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; FELONDA PARKER 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; SHAWNA LANE 7828 N. HAVENA AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ FELONDA PARKER, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202106IR

FBN 20210000979
The following person is doing business as: DAPRINTPLUG 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; PRINTCO SUPPLY, INC. 15345 ANACAPA RD UNIT B VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
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/ JONATHAN GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202107IR

FBN 20210000980
The following person is doing business as: KILO’S TOWING & TRANSPORT 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ MAILING ADDRESS 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; KILO KUSTOMZ MOTORSPORTS, INC. 2501 GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
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/ SANDRA L. GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202108IR

FBN 20210000714
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
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/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202109

FBN 20210001613
The following person is doing business as: ENERGIA TERAPIA PSYCHIC 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395; LILIAN VILLEDA 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LILIAN VILLEDA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202110

FBN 20210000570
The following person is doing business as: SOLYART BARBERSHOP 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374; SLEIMAN I MOUSSA 800 E. LUGONIA AVE SUITE D MOUSSA, 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: SEP 11, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SLEIMAN I. MOUSSA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202111IR

FBN 20210000555
The following person is doing business as: THE BIRRIA FACTORY 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; MARCO A CHAVEZ 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 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/ MARCO A CHAVEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202112IR

FBN 20210000828
The following person is doing business as: A MIRROR IMAGE WINDOW TINT 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346; BENJAMIN P MUNOZ 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APR 28, 2011
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/ BENJAMIN P. MUNOZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202113IR

FBN 20210000804
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN HIGH WATER STORE 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; AUDELINA D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; RENE D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AUDELINA D. MONTERROSO, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202114MT

FBN 20210000857
The following person is doing business as: A-C FLOWERS 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017; ANA C MARTINEZ MENDEZ 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANA C. MARTINEZ MENDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202115MT

FBN 20210000619
The following person is doing business as: LOPEZ TRUCKING 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; MARIA D ESPINOZA 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; LUIS A LOPEZ 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT 01, 2016
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/ MARIA D ESPINOZA, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202116MT

FBN 20210000636
The following person is doing business as: RICH AND FAMOUS BARBERSHOP 5480 PHIADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710; CHARLIE GARCIA 5480 PHILADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710
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/ CHARLIE GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202117MT

FBN 20210000835
The following person is doing business as: CALDEZ HOMES 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; JEFFREY SANDEZ 580 W 33RD ST 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/ JEFFREY SANDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202118MT

FBN 20210001244
The following person is doing business as: KARE 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392; KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
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/ KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202101EM

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE # 112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALLD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202102IR

FBN 20210001257
The following person is doing business as: B & B TRUCKING 821 WINDSONG LN SAN JACINTO, CA 92582; LOUIS BROWN III 821 WINDSONG LN 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/ LOUIS BROWN III, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202103IR

FBN 20210001253
The following person is doing business as: GOMAR TRANSPORTAT 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; RODRIGO A GOMAR-MARTINEZ 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RODRIGO A. GOMARR-MARTINEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202104IR

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202105IR

FBN 2021001156
The following person is doing business as: LET’S GO 3200 E. GUASTI RD. SUITE 746 ONTARIO, CA 91761;[ MAILING ADDRESS 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710]; DUNAMIS ALLIANCE LLC 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710
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: DEC 13, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JAMES TUTHILL, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/05/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202106IR
FBN 20210001041
The following person is doing business as: ACE PLUS TUTORING 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE REDLANDS, CA 92374; ADRIAN N CRUZ 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE 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/ ADRIAN N. CRUZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202107MT

FBN 20210001050
The following person is doing business as: LA COCINA DE YAYA 372 W 32RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; IDALIA C BAHENA 372 W 32RD ST 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/ IDALIA C. BAHENA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202108MT

FBN 20210001151
The following person is doing business as: H & M TRANSPORTATION 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 10253 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92374]; HENRY P CERVANTEZ 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324; MICHAEL A NEGRETE 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324
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/ HENRY P. CERVANTEZ, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202109IR

FBN 20210001609
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM; HUMBLE MEDIA 1266 N. MOUNT AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
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/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202110IR

FBN 20210001870
The following person is doing business as: AUTO PARTS SOLUTION 17460 ORANGE WAY FONTANA, CA 92335; MASALVA LLC 13581 FOXGLOVE WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
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/ ABEL A. SALVADOR, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/24/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202111IR

FBN 20210001817
The following person is doing business as: THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICE A LCSW CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LN. SUITE 245 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 559 BEAUMONT, CA 92223]; THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICES, A LICENSED CLINICAL WORKER CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 245 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: 02/24/2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CRYSTAL V. BURNS, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/23/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202112IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the February 26 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 02-25-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Beset by a majority of the city council seeking to delve into questions relating to his efforts to promote the fortunes of business interests providing him and his political campaign fund with money and other gratuities and perquisites, San Bernardino Mayor John Valdivia this week threatened to sue the city he leads in an effort to head off those inquiries.
Early this week, word was being bruited about the county seat that the council would move as early as this week to fire City Manager Robert Field and begin the process of removing Valdivia from office. Field has been alleged by some to be assisting the mayor in both directing city money into the pockets of Valdivia’s political, personal and business associates and assisting developers linked to Valdivia in getting entitlements to proceed with their projects within San Bernardino’s city limits.
While the council did in fact convene what turned out to be a raucous special meeting on Wednesday night, February 24 held by teleconference to consider taking action with regard to the effort to redevelop the downtown Carousel Mall and examine recurrent reports of favoritism, bias and conflicts of interest having tainted the competition to select a master developer for that project, the council pulled up short of cashiering Field and lost any resolve it might have had to seek the mayor’s removal under an obscure provision of the city charter. The kibosh was put on the mayoral impeachment process, at least temporarily, by multiple considerations, including Valdivia’s use of his mayoral authority to preside over the meeting and the intimidation factor of the mayor’s high-powered attorney threatening legal action against the city if a move to relieve Valdivia of his elected post was made. That legal threat stood off the two members of the council whose support in an effort to depose the mayor would be absolutely crucial, First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez and Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett.
Shorett is the dean of the city council, and both that panel’s longest serving current member and historically Valdivia’s bitterest and most abiding rival and detractor. Despite his enmity with the mayor, Shorett said pursuing Valdivia’s removal from office in the aftermath of his threat of legal action made it “inappropriate at this time” as it could expose the city to a potentially costly legal battle.
Sanchez in the 2018 election came into office during the same electoral cycle when Valdivia was elected mayor, having been supported in that contest by the electioneering support network that makes up the Valdivia political machine. Upon being sworn into office in December 2018, it was universally recognized that Sanchez was one of Valdivia’s firmest allies, as within hours of their swearing in the newly elected councilman signed onto the mayors effort, which did not immediately but eventually proved successful, to remove then-City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller, a move which tightened Valdivia’s grip on City Hall. While Sanchez early on supported Valdivia in his consolidation of power during the first six months of his mayoralty, differences developed between the two over a series of issues, sundering their relationship by the end of their first year in public office together. Now, some two years and two months after the older man was sworn into office as mayor and the younger installed at the same time as councilman, Sanchez is, along with Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin, nipping at Shorett’s heals in the race for the title of being Valdivia’s fiercest political foe. In the aftermath of Valdivia’s threat of legal action, Sanchez like Shorett made a quick size-up of the situation, and decided discretion would be the better part of valor. The council seeking to politically neuter the mayor by wresting the mayoral gavel from his grip would be ill-advised, Sanchez said Wednesday night, potentially allowing Valdivia to extract “bags of money” from the city.
The background to what occurred this week stretches back nearly a decade to the outset of Valdivia’s political career during the 2011 election. According to Valdivia’s detractors and critics, even at that time what they say is his pattern of involving himself in the public process to the detriment of those he represents and to his own benefit was evident. Then-Mayor Patrick Morris was overseeing city operations that had been running at a considerable and consistent annual deficit for nearly a decade. Those financial challenges were severely challenging the city’s ability to continue as a going concern. Morris’s effort to right the city’s severely listing financial ship consisted in large measure of holding a coalition on the council together that would maintain the resolve to limit spending. That spending consisted primarily of salaries to city employee which Morris maintained were too generous. A key supporter in this regard was then-Third Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker. Valdivia challenged Brinker in the 2011 election, and was heavily funded in that contest by the union representing the city’s firefighters. Largely on the strength of the support provided by those firemen, who were resistant to the concept of discontinuing regular pay raises to city employees, and further buttressed by the support of unions representing the city’s police officers and municipal employees, Valdivia ran an extremely well funded campaign, ousting Brinker, and effectively ending Morris’s ability to enforce fiscal discipline on City Hall. Shortly after coming into office, Valdivia publicly declared that the city had a clean bill of financial health and that the salary and spending reductions that Morris had been pushing, with Brinker’s support, to implement were unnecessary. Five months later, the city filed for Chapter Nine bankruptcy protection.
Throughout Valdivia’s six years on the council, there followed multiple examples of Valdivia trading his votes for campaign cash, circumstances in which one of Valdivia’s donors with a project or a contract that needed approval from the city council obtained the council support needed, including that from Valdivia. Word spread that after Valdivia’s campaign fund was endowed with money from a variety of donors, payments would be made out of that campaign fund to both actual and nonexistent companies or entities. The payment to those nonexistent or shell companies, it was alleged, was a way in which money originating with those donors who saw their companies or enterprises benefited by Valdivia’s votes made it directly to him rather than to his campaign.
In general, Valdivia enjoyed a reputation as the City of San Bernardino’s primary practitioner of pay-to-play politics, such that it was generally assumed that Valdivia’s votes were for sale. That reputation did not harm his political prospects or career but rather enhanced it, as deep-pocketed donors, knowing they could count on Valdivia’s support in exchange for their generosity to him, donated to him in substantial increments.
On January 1, 2018, Valdivia had $77,046.15 in his political war chest. In calendar year 2018, during his successful run for mayor, Valdivia received $442,055.40. In that 12-month period ending on December 31, 2018, he spent $551,796, leaving him with a cash balance of $5,354.98 and an outstanding debt of $15,886.43 as of of January 1, 2019. During 2018, Valdivia had so much money flowing into his campaign fund that he was able to make loans and donations to other political candidates, those being his political allies.
Typical donations from single donors to Valdivia’s mayoral campaign in 2018 and since that time ran to $1,000; $1,250; $1,500; $2,000; $2,500; $3,000; and $5,000. He was provided with donations of those sorts on multiple occasions, in some cases in the scores. Occasionally or somewhat less frequently, he received donations from single donors of 7,500; $8,000; $10,000; $20,000; $25,000; and $42,000. Two months ago, he had accumulated more than $200,000 in donations during the two political off-years since his 2018 election. As of January 31, 2020, he had $216,953.59 in his John Valdivia for Mayor 2022 campaign fund.
In 2020, four positions on the San Bernardino City Council were up for election, those being ones representing the Third. Fifth, Sixth and Seventh wards. Juan Figueroa, representing the city’s Third Ward was reelected. The three incumbents running in the other wards – Henry Nickel in the Fifth, Bessine Richard in the Sixth and Jim Mulvihill in the Seventh – were defeated. This represented a net loss for Valdivia politically, as Richard was a solid ally and Nickel was an on-again off-again supporter. Mulvihill and Valdivia were at odds. Nickel, Richard and Mulvihill were replaced, respectively, by Benjamin Christmas-Reynoso, Kimberly Calvin and Damon Alexander. Valdivia provided Alexander with support in his campaign against Mulvihill.
While Christmas-Reynoso and Calvin did not qualify as political neophytes and to some degree had been involved in political activity and campaigns prior to their own successful 2020 efforts, neither was prepared for the cutthroat level of politicking and backroom maneuvering that was de rigueur in Valdivia’s world. Even before coming into office, and certainly thereafter, they were given a second-row seat to the political action at the center of Valdivia’s universe, and witnessed in person the absolute nonchalance with which Valdivia interacts and has involved himself financially among the entities doing business with the city, ones subject to the decision-making process of the city council.
Absolutely apparent was the degree to which Valdivia favored some entities seeking to do business with the city or seeking permits or approval from City Hall for one endeavor or another. Equally apparent to them, once both Christmas-Reynoso and Calvin fully oriented themselves, was that the principle driving Valdivia’s favoritism was the generosity those he favored were bestowing on him.
The most egregious display of that favoritism in recent months involved the city’s efforts to redevelop the 34-acre Carousel Mall, an $800 million project literally a stone’s throw from the westernmost extension of the San Bernardino City Hall parking lot. In response to a request for proposals from the city, eleven companies by the August 2020 deadline for those submissions had expressed an interest in serving as the master developer of the site to be redeveloped. Without disclosure of what criteria had been used in making the determination, eight of those competitors had been eliminated. Two of those, Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group, had combined their proposal to remain in the running against the other yet-standing hopeful, Shanghai Construction Group America.
The worst kept secret around San Bernardino City Hall was that Valdivia was militating on behalf of Shanghai Construction Group America, which is also known by its acronym SCG America. Moreover, Valdivia appeared to be pulling to effectuate the complete razing of the mall property at the earliest opportunity, despite the consideration that in October, when that matter was taken up by the city council as it was previously composed without Christmas-Reynoso’s, Calvin’s and Alexander’s presence on the panel, no commitment to demolish the mall’s structure’s had been given. When the council met on January 27 to hear from the Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group team and Shanghai Construction Group America their respective plans for the mall makeover, Valdivia slipped into the record his assertion that the previous council, in October, had signed off on the demolition. City Manager Robert Field did not take the opportunity he had to correct the mayor’s misstatement.
Valdivia’s misrepresentation had the appearance of benefiting some yet-unidentified demolition company as well as Shanghai Construction Group America, which is pursuing a redevelopment plan that will unequivocally require the dismantling of the existing mall buildings while the Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group team’s plan leaves open the possibility that those structures, either some part or all of them, might be incorporated into the transformation of the property.
For the majority of the council, which has long been inured of Valdivia’s machinations on behalf of those who are conveying money to him, what occurred on January 27 was par for the course. To Christmas-Reynoso and Calvin, however, who have not yet fully settled into the pay-for-play ethos that has permeated San Bernardino politics and which Valdivia has come to epitomize, the circumstance was just too much. Upon learning that Shanghai Construction Group America and its representatives and corporate officers were filtering money to Valdivia and doing so in ways that involved sleight of hand such that the provision of money or assistance to him was hidden or masked, at the city council’s regular meeting on February 17, Calvin made a motion to hold a special meeting to discuss the conflict of interest and other irregularities and improprieties she believed were inherent in the ongoing arrangements for the Carousel Mall redevelopment project. Christmas-Reynoso seconded the motion. The remaining council members, who were favorably disposed to the concept of holding the mayor to account or unwilling to risk the public reproval of opposing such an effort, fell into line. The call for the special meeting was approved unanimously.
City staff, upon determining when the full council would be available for such a meeting, scheduled it to be held remotely and by means of a video and audio teleconference on Wednesday, February 24 at 5:30 p.m. and agendized it. According to the agenda, the items to be discussed were “potential conflicts of interest and bias impacts regarding the request for proposal process for [the] redevelopment of the Carousel Mall property; consideration of [a] censure process related to conflicts and violations of the city charter, city municipal code, city code of conduct or state laws; and [a] determination of whether real or perceived improprieties warrant a rejection of [the] current bidding process involving the Carousel Mall.”
Formulating her thoughts, Calvin put together a 63-page document essentially describing actions by Valdivia that had come to her attention and circumscribing evidence and documentation relating to it. She provided that document to City Manager Robert Field, City Attorney Sonia Carvalho and City Clerk Genoveva Rocha. Prior to the meeting another much shorter document was prepared, one relating to the possible censure of the mayor.
Between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on February 24, just before the meeting was to commence, an email from Valdivia’s attorney, Rod Pacheco, was sent to City Manager Robert Field and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho.
Though Carvalho said in the course of the meeting that Pacheco’s email was a public document, the city has refused to release it. Based on references to the email during the meeting, Pacheco called into question the propriety of the 63-page document that was prepared by Calvin, possibly referred to it as a “manifesto,” and he questioned the legality of the action contemplated against his client. The email also, city council members seemed to suggest during the meeting, threatened or at least intimated legal action against the city if the council acted in any fashion against Valdivia.
Shortly after the meeting was called to order, the council heard prerecorded telephone messages from members of the public.
Robert Porter in his phone message said that Valdivia’s promotion of Shanghai Construction Group America “looks shady”
Lynn Ware told the council, “Over the last year and a half I have had my eyes opened wide to the existence in our community of inappropriate and unacceptable influences by special interests upon decisions and practices that disregard residents and steer us away from the greater good. I believe there is a pay-to-play environment here that is pervasive. It is alive and well. It is actively practiced by some and allowed by others or just simply ignored.”
Harry Hatch said the city council should consider a resolution of censure relating to the mayor and that Section 308 of the city charter allows the council to remove the mayor from office.
Treasure Ortiz decried “perpetual pay-to-play corruption” Valdivia had engaged in, consisting of “taking political donations” and engaging in “backhanded cash deals in the middle of the night at strip bars in Irvine. You guys have to take bold and courageous action.”
Athena Tan said, “There are a lot of concerns about legal conflicts involving council members and the proposed Carousel Mall developers There are also questions about unethical practices that may or may not be illegal.”
Leticia Garcia said “There is plenty of conflict of interest, not just with the downtown development. The reality is the mayor is selling out to these developers, engineers, contractors and demolition companies. He’s selling this city off for a pittance. He’s a Judas. It’s 30 pieces of silver per developer. This is what he is doing over and over again. It is not just with the downtown project. This is a pattern. It is an ongoing thing.”
Prior to the council discussion, Valdivia read excerpts from the San Bernardino Municipal Code pertaining to the conduct of city officials and the city council and how its members were to comport themselves during the meeting, extending to avoiding personal attacks on one another. In relatively short order, members of the council, including most notably Valdivia himself, were violating that protocol.
Early in the going, Councilman Fred Shorett, indicating he had been spooked by Pacheco’s email, which he described as a letter, sought to adjourn into closed session, apparently to discuss the email from Pacheco and its import before proceeding if the meeting was to continue at all.
“Based on some late breaking information, information I received via email that is legal in nature, I think we’re looking at potential litigation with regard to this meeting and what we’re trying to discuss tonight,” Shorett said.
Shorett said he had misgivings about conducting the meeting with “no back up material. I’m concerned about potential litigation with regard to this meeting and what we’re trying to discuss tonight. If we’re going to discuss any of what’s the subject matter tonight, at the very least we have to go into closed session to discuss this letter that came in late this afternoon.”
Shorett added that if the council then pushed ahead with the meeting after the closed session concluded, “I am not sure how far I would participate in the meeting because I think this in an illegal meeting.” Saying the meeting and its subject matter were “inappropriate at this time,” he made a motion to go into closed session.
Councilman Ted Sanchez seconded that motion.
City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, however, noting that they were convened in a specially-called meeting that per the agenda was noticed only as an open session, said that per Government Code Section 54954.2, “The council may not discuss or take any action that is not explicitly appearing on your agenda.” The council therefore could not adjourn into a closed session, she said.
With the open session at that point apparently back on track, Calvin sought to have Valdivia excluded from the meeting.
“The mayor should recuse himself from this this meeting,” she said. “The meeting is about him. We’re going to try to show there is a conflict between the mayor and one of the developers…”
Valdivia, as the presiding officer chairing the meeting, used his authority in that capacity to control, or attempt to control, the ebb and flow of the discussion, resisting at that point and at several others during the course of the meeting the direction members of the council, most particularly Calvin, were moving in.
“You are interrupting this meeting,” Valdivia said. “Ms. Calvin, you are out of order.”
“I am not out of order,” Calvin retorted.
“You are out of order,” Mayor Valdivia said. “The chair has that prerogative to call you out of order.”
“I am requesting that the mayor be removed from this meeting,” Calvin said.
“Ms. Calvin, your theatrics, your pageantry and your politics are interfering with the good governance of the structure of this city,” Valdivia said.
“The mayor should be removed from this meeting,” Calvin repeated.
“You’re interrupting, ma’am, and I don’t recognize that,” Valdivia said. “Cool down. You’ll get your political red [sic] light in just a moment.”
Valdivia, who was clearly disconcerted over being in the position of having to preside over a meeting in which the subject matter related to an examination of his action and which contained an item involving his own censure, nevertheless fought bitterly to remain in control of the proceedings, attempting, oftentimes unsuccessfully, to maintain a posture of composure and dignity. His authority as the council’s presiding officer did not extend to shutting the meeting down, though being able to do just that before the issues agendized were fully gone into was a consummation he wished to achieve. In this regard, he was provided with assistance from the otherwise highly unlikely source of Shorett, who once more sought to persuade the entire council that the meeting should be adjourned.
Shorett resisted Calvin’s call for continuing with the meeting and discussing the issues on the agenda with Valdivia excluded form the discussion, presumably with Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, who is the city’s mayor pro tem, overseeing the proceedings.
Shorett referenced Pacheco’s email once more.
“I received an email that had a letter attached that is legal in nature and it is very concerning,” Shorett said.
Calvin insisted that the meeting was a legitimate forum intended to bring the mayor to account for his actions. She obliquely suggested that Shorett was seeking to assist Valdivia get off the hook.
“This is exactly the moves people are talking about right now that keep these types of issues from being redressed,” she said.
Shorett insisted, “I am protecting the city from litigation. I’m simply saying we’re in a pickle here tonight. We’re on very unstable ground and I would think calmer heads should prevail.” He then made his last best appeal to Calvin.
“I’m not sure I disagree with what you are trying to achieve,” Shorett said. “You’re going about it the wrong way. It is not legal the way you are going about it.”
Carvalho jumped in.
“It sounds like it is going to be a challenging night, to keep you all within the parameters of the Brown Act,” she said.
The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law, which requires that elected public officials carry out in public all of their decision-making with regard to everything other than negotiations for land purchases, discussing employee discipline, hiring and firing employees, pending and ongoing litigation, discussing threats to the security of public buildings, to discuss the licensing of individuals with criminal records, considering the investment of pension funds and discussing the governmental entity’s final response to a state audit. The Brown Act also requires that the subject matter of those discussions that are held in public be announced 72 hours in advance.
Carvalho said, “We received a letter after 5 p.m. this evening from an attorney who represents the mayor – Mayor Valdivia. It is a public document. I distributed it in the best way I could, via email. The letter pertains to issues which were not agendized tonight, so we can’t discuss those issues. We have an agenda tonight. If the council desires to have a discussion based on the agenda tonight, we can do that, and we can’t go into closed session.”
Valdivia, resigned at that point that the meeting was going to go ahead, again used his position of authority to conduct the meeting to neutralize Calvin, who, at least for the duration of that meeting, had emerged as his primary antagonist. He suggested that the letter Calvin had written to the city manager, city attorney and city clerk was improperly represented and submitted.
“I’ll remind council members that illegal use of city logos, misrepresentation of staff members, and that this is a city manager/council form of government, that all staff reports shall be written by city staff. No legal help, no legal aid, no legal clerks or volunteers shall submit in writing to the city anything that misrepresents the city functions. That’s clearly a violation,” he said.
Valdivia then allowed the council discussion to proceed, recognizing the members based upon their ward numeration.
Sanchez, as the First Ward councilman, advocated against taking any action directly against the mayor, but rather calling for the imposition of rules to be put into place as early as possible that will prohibit elected officials from either taking more than a token amount of money from donors or otherwise prohibit those officials from voting on or doing anything in their official capacity impacting their donors.
“In March,” Sanchez said, “we have campaign reform legislation coming before us.
All these problems stem form the fact that it is perfectly legal five minutes before the council is going to decide on whether a special interest gets a license, an entitlement, whatever the case may be in the city, that individual can make a contribution of thousands of dollars to members of the council that are going to decide on behalf of the city whether this project moves forward or not. Mind you, that is not a conflict of interest. So, I know there’s the accusation – and they’re true – there are 460s that show that the mayor received plenty of money from special interests for years. He has, but the rules permit it. So, in March, we have the opportunity to change that.”
460s are campaign disclosure documents that all elected officials or candidates are required to fill out, which list who their donors are and how much money those donors provided to them.
Sanchez said the law and the rules allow money to influence the political process in a way that outrages those who are not involved in the political system. Experienced politicians are far too blasé about it, Sanchez said.
“We have new council members who come on board and say, ‘Wait a second. Is this really how we’re conducting business in the city?’ And guess what? This is how we’ve conducted business in the city since before I was born. It’s just as disdainful as it is for me as it is for the new council members. Council Member Reynoso, I know, finds disdain for this. Council Member Calvin finds disdain for this. So, I applaud them. Let’s go ahead and use that energy to get this legislation passed, so that this never happens again, because this gem of a project we have – the Carousel Mall and the downtown redevelopment – we are so lucky to be able to do this right now, and it’s all been spoiled by some zealous fundraisers who saw an opportunity to raise tens of thousands of dollars from special interests while these developers are trying to come in through the door.”
Sanchez said political reform rather than embarking on a crusade to throw Valdivia out of office is the solution. He said Valdivia’s 2018 victory entitles him to be mayor, no matter how much he has offended his council colleagues and some of his constituents with his profiteering in office.
“So, please, let’s try to redirect our energy to somewhere that’s legal, because honestly, this isn’t a coup, but it looks like it. The people have spoken and I think they were dead wrong when they elected the mayor we have right now. But with that said, they made their decision. And they said…”
That was too much for Valdivia, who interrupted, intoning, “Mr. Sanchez, direct your comments at the council members. You’re out of order, Mr. Sanchez.”
“Those individuals voted for the mayor to be the mayor for four years commencing December of 2018,” Sanchez continued. “There’s only one remedy to get rid of him before that four-year term is over, and that is through a recall. That is the only legal way that we can do that. We cannot as a body, a seven-member body, say we’re going to discount the tens of thousands of votes the mayor received. We just can’t do that. That is illegal. The city will lose millions of dollars. We’ll be humiliated as a governing body. The mayor will walk off with bags of money, of city money that was supposed to be used for repaving streets and trimming trees. If you really want him gone, we have to start putting in that footwork to do a recall. Otherwise, let’s move the city forward. This is not the way to do that.”
Valdivia took a shot at the First Ward councilman, his one-time ally.
“Mr. Sanchez, you ought to get back involved in your city council ward,” Valdivia said. “It’s disgusting. It’s a shame.”
A cacophony broke out, with at least five of the council members upbraiding the mayor for assailing Sanchez.
When that brouhaha subsided, Second District Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra was provided an opportunity to provide input, but was ultimately cut off before she could explore the issues she set out to focus upon. Ibarra sought to explore with Carvalho whether the council could discuss Pacheco’s email or at least its substance.
“The email we received… does touch on the conflicts and violations of the city charter and our municipal code,” Ibarra said. “So there is some connection between the email we received after 5 p.m. and what is before us.”
Carvalho asked if Ibarra was inquiring about whether the discussion she was advocating related to the conflicts of interest and violations of the city charter or whether she was seeking to take the council into closed session.
Taking that as an indication that there might be sentiment among a majority of the council that the discussion was heading onto thin legal ice, Shorett took the opportunity to test whether there was support for shutting the meeting down. He moved to adjourn the meeting, and Sanchez seconded the motion. Valdivia, heartened by that development, sought to indulge it.
Calvin, however, made a substitute motion to continue with the meeting, seconded by Christmas-Reynoso. Since substitute motions under Robert’s Rules of Order take precedence over an original motion, Calvin’s motion was to be voted on first. She sought to amend her motion to include that Valdivia leave the meeting. Valdivia resisted that, and was backed by Carvalho, who said the vote had to proceed on the substitute motion as Calvin had made it relating to simply allowing the proceedings to continue. The vote was taken. Calvin’s motion passed 6-to-1, with Shorett dissenting.
That interruption deflected the momentum Ibarra’s initial statement and question had created toward a discussion of the substance of the accusations that were swirling about Valdivia, as Ibarra had suggested that Pacheco’s email had opened just such a pathway for doing so. Valdivia deftly moved to divert the discussion elsewhere, and opened the floor to Third Ward Councilman Juan Figueroa.
Figueroa, Valdivia’s one last reliable ally on the council, said, “Nothing has really been provided as a report, so there is really nothing to comment on, yet.”
Valdivia used Figueroa’s statement as an opportunity to propound his assertion that Calvin’s letter laying out the substance of the case she was trying to make against him bore no imprimatur.
“There was no staff report provided to the public, although a 63-page manifesto was provided, but it was illegal and a misrepresentation of city logos and staff,” Valdivia said.
This prompted Carvalho to declare, “There was no 63-page manifesto ever prepared by the city staff or distributed by staff, nor is it the subject of today’s meeting.”
Referencing the “threat of litigation we received,” Carvalho said, “I’m stating to the city council and to every member of the public that I had absolutely nothing to do with the preparation of any materials that you are talking about.”
Carvalho then asked City Manager Robert Field to make a similar declaration.
“We had no role in the preparation of any documents associated with tonight’s meeting,” Field said.
Valdivia’s, Carvalho’s and Field’s statements, which seemed to allude to Calvin’s letter but did not explicitly state so, while distancing city staff from its generation, notably did not contest the accuracy of its contents.
While Valdivia, Carvalho and Field appeared intent on remaining as removed from the so-called manifesto as possible, Shorett, in his remarks as Fourth Ward councilman, made a curious allusion to it, which seemed to suggest that there was some substance within it that was being disregarded. First Shorett lamented that the staff report relating to the issues before the council that evening was thin or nonexistent. “The subject matter is very, very vague,” he said. “Indeed, we have not received any back up. There is no back up or staff report.”
Nevertheless, Shorett said, “There’s some documentation that’s been sent out. It was posted on the website for review, but it’s all a bunch of stuff that didn’t go through proper channels, didn’t go through proper procedures.” Shorett did not clarify what website he was referencing.
Pointedly, like Valdivia, Carvalho and Field, Shorett did not dispute the accuracy of the material supporting the accusations against Valdivia. If his reference to the “documentation” was in fact to Calvin’s letter or the “manifesto” referred to by Valdivia, his objection to it seemed to run along the lines that it had not been fully examined by city staff.
“I’m not making a judgment on whether the mayor should stay in office or not,” Shorett said.
Curiously, while there were multiple references to the consideration that there was no staff report, there was no explanation as to why no staff report was prepared for the meeting and why Field and Carvalho consented to the holding of the meeting without one.
Shorett returned to his contention that the city did not have sufficient grounds to force Valdivia’s removal.
“I’ve seen people go out in handcuffs, and that’s one way of getting rid of them,” he said. “I’ve seen people being recalled. That’s another way to get rid of them. And I’ve seen people resign. That’s basically the three ways that we have…”
“Or they get voted out of office, Valdivia interjected.
“Well, of course that’s another way,” Shorett said, “but I’m talking about somebody that’s currently sitting in office.”
Shorett continued, “I know they’ve been quoting Section 308 of our charter. I think it’s been misinterpreted.” He said his interpretation of Section 308 was that a council member or the mayor could only be removed by the council for not meeting the residency or voter registration requirements. “Those are not the cases here so I have a real problem with this meeting here tonight,” Shorett said. “This meeting is not legal. I think we’re really on shaky ground. I think we’re looking very bad to the public. He was voted in and whether you like it or not, he’s in office. The only way to get him out is to vote him out, recall him, have him be convicted of a crime. This train is being driven by some outside sources that have some other issues and concerns about this, the future of this city.”
Valdivia opened the floor for Christmas-Reynoso.
“We look bad when we argue in public,” Christmas-Reynoso said. “I am a newly elected council member. The reality is… I don’t like to air out dirty laundry.”
Nevertheless, Christmas-Reynoso said there was a case to be made against Valdivia.
“There was one meeting I ever had with our current city mayor,” Christmas-Reynoso said. “It was before I was technically sworn in. It was about a week before. I was shown immediately upon entering this meeting an eight minute video that I came to find out was shown to pretty much everybody on the third floor of City Hall. It’s an eight minute video of Shanghai Conglomerate Group America.”
Christmas-Reynoso continued, “So, I became aware… what was coming down the pipeline clearly was a much needed redevelopment of our downtown. I agree with everybody in our community: We’ve got to redevelop this, but I’m not going to do it at the cost of some conflicted interest or maybe an implicit bias. I’m not saying that is fact, but I’m going to give you the facts. I had this meeting. I was told that… these people build bridges overnight and that he [Valdivia] was trying to court for the downtown the redevelopment of the Radisson [Hotel]. We needed to build hotels.”
Christmas-Reynoso recounted irregularities with regard to the city’s process for trying to select a developer of the Carousel Mall property.
“We had the joint teams who came together – Downtown Renaissance USA and ICO Realty and then you have Shanghai Conglomerate Group America,” he said. “The two that came together tried to reach out. I couldn’t get access to the Shanghai Conglomerate anything related to the project proposal, but I became aware that some people on the council dais had actually seen it. That was an issue. I never pressed it. I’m learning. Bear with me as I learn. Learning that that was the reality, I was contacted by Downtown Renaissance and ICO Realty.” Saying, “I can’t point you the finger,” Christmas-Reynoso said, “City staff was directing them not to participate in a scheduled January 13 IE Chamber of Commerce meeting in order to simply go over their process of development. They eventually backed up.”
Christmas-Reynoso’s narrative jumped two weeks ahead.
“The meeting happened on the 27th [January 27],” Christmas-Reynoso said. “Everyone saw it. I at that time messed up in not making a motion to continue until every council member’s questions were satisfied. I know that I have that ability now.”
Christmas-Reynoso said, “After that, I was contacted after the 27th meeting by a member of the Shanghai Conglomerate Group of America, Mr. Jimmy Feng. Mr. Jimmy Feng messaged me on my personal cell phone number. I became aware he also messaged Councilwoman Calvin on her personal phone number. I don’t engage in any city business on my personal phone. That’s not how we’re supposed to conduct business. I said, ‘Never contact me on this channel.’ What I did ask afterwards, when he responded, I said, ‘How did you get it [Christmas-Reynoso’s personal phone number]?’ He said council staff gave it to him.”
Reynoso said he did not believe what Feng said was true.
“No one I’ve come across, and especially the person I trust the most, my city staff, they didn’t pass that number along,” he said.
Christmas-Reynoso then undertook to explain why the provision of his personal phone number to Feng represents a serious issue.
“I have to cite some city code,” he said. “I’ll give you bullets here that make me feel as though this process must be reopened in order to just provide fairness to everyone. There were eleven participants, I understand, who bid for this project. If one of the three was being advertised to me potentially in a meeting before being sworn in, I can’t separate that from a conflicted interest on the dais. So, under the section of the municipal code 2.58.050, letter F states, ‘In order to ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, the mayor and city council shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.’ Letter H: ‘The mayor and city council shall respect the confidentiality of information considering the property, personnel or affairs of the city. They shall neither disclose confidential information’ – such as my cell phone number – ‘without proper or legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal financial or other private interests.’”
Continuing, Christmas-Reynoso said, “My last point is I became aware from – I won’t mention the city staffer because I’ve become aware that our city staff inside City Hall do not feel comfortable operating there freely as representatives of our offices and in communication through transparent channels – I was notified that the mayor was reaching out to city staff for personal numbers of sitting commissioners. That is illegal. I know that clear as day. I’m not going to make the stretch and the statement of saying he was trying to do this or that, but the fact of the matter is he did in fact reach out for commissioner contact information, and my guess is as good as yours as to why. With that, I guess I rest my case, but I feel as though I cannot – it doesn’t matter how beautiful the proposals are, how much I may have liked one over the other. You can speak to developers. I haven’t engaged either team because I feel conflicted. I stopped meeting with the mayor one-on-one because I felt as though I may become complicit in something I’m not aware of right now. So, I’m here before you, as a reassurance to the community. This is why the special meeting was called. That’s why there’s not a staff report. We needed to talk about this. We didn’t want to air this out. But there’s only a certain amount of time that someone who represents people can go hearing constant pressure and constantly being asked to be transparent. So, I’m being transparent with you. And that’s a series of events that factually has happened. That is the municipal code, and I’m your representative.”
Valdivia laid into Christmas-Reynoso. “You bring up a lot of water cooler hearsay but no evidence.”
Christmas-Reynoso responded, “This is also why Council Member Calvin didn’t want you to be in the meeting. I understand that now. And I figured this would happen this way. So I have respect for the city. You, Mr. Mayor, I won’t be engaging in answering any of your questions on this meeting.”
Lashing out once more at the Fifth Ward councilman, Valdivia said, “You’ve just disenfranchised several thousand residents in the ward you represent, but I understand your position, Mr. Reynoso.”
The mayor was obliged to recognize Calvin, as the Sixth Ward councilwoman.
She suggested that Valdivia had assisted Shanghai Construction Group in lobbying her.
“I do have a text message from Jim Feng, who states he got my personal cell phone number from the city council office, and that he then turned and listed the city council’s number in the text message,” she said.
Calvin said, “What we called this meeting for was to lay out clearly that there were some issues, that there were some areas of concern. The manifesto that you quote unquote call it, I don’t even know how all of you got it. That was sent to the city attorney, city manager and city clerk’s office. So, who sent it to who? I did receive something that the mayor was requesting it and wanted it. So, here again, this is why we cannot handle business in the City of San Bernardino, because our higher staff are in positions to where they are either being manipulated or bullied into giving you information that you aren’t supposed to have. That was not sent to you.”
Valdivia broke in. “Ms. Calvin, stay on point,” Valdivia said, telling her to make her presentation.
She said he was making her presentation for her.
“You are putting on display that you are privy to information that was only sent to the city manager, the city attorney and the city clerk.”
That prompted Carvalho to state, “Mrs. Calvin, may I please just say, unequivocally, I did not forward those materials to anyone.”
Calvin responded to Carvalho, “And the city clerk did also send me a message that she did not, either. So I guess that leaves one person: the city manager’s office.”
Calvin then directly addressed Valdivia, saying she intended “to lay out the case for conflict of interest through you, because I also saw that video advertising SCGA three times. The conflict of interest comes when you are not showing everybody’s video. You only showed one. So, if you really wanted me to have an impartial view of the two developers that we had narrowed ourselves down to, then you would have showed me both. But that is not what you did. That’s not what you did to my constituent who was there for another reason. She was there for city business, and you thrust her into that video. She didn’t ask you for that. Again, conflict of interest or showing where you were siding with one developer over the other. What I also understand is other city staff members have seen that video as well, the whole entire third floor.”
“There is nothing illegal about that, Ms. Calvin,” Valdivia said.
Calvin then referenced a website. “There were exhibits that were shown that have now been taken off,” she said. She said there were photos showing both Councilman Figueroa and Mayor Valdivia meeting with Shanghai Construction Group America corporate officers in 2019.
Calvin continued, “The other information out there that we need to take a hold of is SCGA subsidiary companies, LLCs, that are attached to [indicted Los Angeles City] Councilman Jose Huizar [who] was involved in some bribery. What we are here to state is that we need to further investigate developers or anyone else when information is brought to us that shows we are dealing with pay to play. This company…”
Valdivia interrupted.
“Ms. Calvin, Do you have any evidence of that?”
These companies…” Calvin attempted to continue.
“You constantly refer to that,” Valdivia said, continuing to talk over Calvin.
“Well, what we can do…” Calvin began to respond.
Valdivia interrupted her once more. “Ms. Calvin, this is all hearsay and speculation on your part. You have no evidence.”
“It is not against the law…” Calvin started, but was interrupted by Valdivia.
“It is not against the law…” Calvin tried again, but was once more drowned out by Valdivia’s interruption.
Collecting herself after Valdivia paused, Calvin said, “It is not against the law for council members and mayors to take donations from possible developers obtaining contracts in this city. We understand that. Do we need to change that? Yes, we do. But does that mean we need to ignore what is before us at this particular moment?”
Calvin said the city council had to demonstrate to “our constituents that we are absolutely choosing the right developer for San Bernardino for various reasons, not just for pay to play but for various reasons.”
Valdivia once again broke into Calvin’s presentation.
“Ms. Calvin, I’ll call you out of order. There is no pay to play here.”
“Don’t interrupt me,” Calvin said.
“You don’t have any direct primary source for what you say. Ms. Calvin,” Valdivia said. “You will not continue your speculation and hearsay and projection of illegal behavior.”
“You see how your mayor is behaving tonight because of what we are putting out here,” Calvin said. “We are not the law. I’m not trying to say we are the law. What we are saying is, ‘The City of San Bernardino has already made mention tonight in public comments alone. They are tired of it. To give the mere implication that your donations are tied to a pay-for-play act is unethical.”
“That’s speculation, Ms. Calvin,” Valdivia asserted. “You have no evidence of that. You’re constantly going with speculation.”
“That’s not speculation,” Calvin said. “That’s from a 460. We can look at the information.”
“I went and pulled your 460, too,” said Valdivia, displaying it on the video.
Calvin was unfazed.
“Just the mere appearance of pay to play does go against our charter and our city code,” she said. “We should be more concerned. Yes, it comes to an individual decision, and we have to to remain ethical on our own integrity. What we are saying here: City of San Bernardino, there has been a pattern, and we need to further investigate these patterns because we don’t ever know. New council members such as myself, I’m not sure. I need to be able to stand strong and firm with my colleagues on the dais. I want to be able to make sure that my vote is ethical as well. What we are saying here tonight is please take a look, people, everybody, and take a look and evaluate yourself, so we are ethical and transparent with the decisions we make.”
Seventh Ward Councilman Damon Alexander sounded an ambiguous tone in reaction to the interactions among his colleagues during the meeting, and he appeared unable to reconcile the marshaling of evidence against Valdivia and his own political ties to the mayor, which included sharing the same political consultant, Chris Jones, and a commonality in the donors to their respective political campaigns.
Alexander expressed disappointment at what was going on, but his statements were so equivocal, it was difficult, indeed impossible, to tell if he was siding with Valdivia or Calvin with regard to the very obvious divide between the mayor and the newly elected councilwoman.
“I find myself disheartened by what I see,” Alexander said, without giving a clue as to whether he was decrying Valdivia for his conduct or angry with Calvin for belaboring it. “I want to see us move forward. I’m all about the policy and procedures by which this council should act.”
With one sentence Alexander indicated that he was open to what Calvin was suggesting. “If there’s an investigation, by all means, let’s conduct one.” Seconds later, however, he seemed to recede from that position, sounding as if he did not want to subject the mayor to any public reproach. “I was always trained praise in public, criticize in private. We all are losing here. This is not a winning situation for any of us.”
Ultimately, Alexander came across as utterly confounded by the contretemps that had grown out of Valdivia’s actions and the efforts by the city council, in particular Christmas-Reynoso and Calvin, to take issue with it. He appeared genuinely conflicted as to whether he should side with his two council colleagues, both of whom came into office with him as a result of the 2020 election cycle, or Mayor Valdivia. “All of us have valid points,” Alexander said. “Everyone of us sitting here have valid points, but how we conduct these valid points, and how the public perceives us is just as important as how we do things.”
Indirectly, Alexander circumscribed the manner in which the evening’s proceedings had been shifted off topic because of the way in which the council had been prevented – by Pacheco’s email, Valdivia’s conducting of the meeting, staff’s failure to prepare a staff report into which the so-called manifesto and its substance was incorporated and both Shorett’s and Sanchez’s trepidation with regard to possible legal action by Valdivia – from getting to the heart of the topics that were supposed to be discussed that night.
“I have not seen any quote unquote manifesto,” he said. “[Political] finance reform must come. All the things that everyone has said – from Councilman Reynoso, Councilman Sanchez, to Councilwoman Calvin, everyone, Shorett – is all vital. Who is receiving this information? Because everybody is talking, but is anybody listening?”
Thereafter, Christmas-Reynoso, realizing that there would be no action taken with regard to the mayor, sought to salvage a portion of what the meeting had been called for.
“I cannot comfortably move forward with the process as it is, so I’d like to reopen the bidding process for the redevelopment of the Carousel Mall,” Christmas-Reynoso moved.
That was seconded by Figueroa.
Shorett, however, sought to block that.
“I’m very concerned about going though a whole new process and opening everything up,” he said. “I don’t want to take another 13 years going through this process.”
Valdivia then indulged an inquiry with City Manager Field as to whether city staff’s recommendation would be available next week.
Field said city staff was finalizing its recommendation of which entity should serve as the master developer of the Carousel Mall makeover.
“The staff report will be on the agenda for March 3,” Field said. “It’s almost in final shape.”
Shorett then offered a “substitute motion that we wait for the March 3 meeting and hear what staff has to say about this. We don’t have to vote about it that night. Let’s let the process play out. Staff has already done the work. I make a substitute motion that we not vote on anything tonight with all due respect to my colleagues, I understand where you are coming from, but that we wait for two weeks to hear what the staff has to say, and vote at that time.”
Shorett’s substitute motion was seconded by Sanchez.
That motion passed with Sanchez, Ibarra, Shorett, Alexander and, surprisingly, Calvin prevailing and Christmas-Reynoso and, surprisingly, Figueroa dissenting.
Relishing the unexpected reprieve, Valdivia said, “Mr. Field, you have direction from the majority of the council to proceed on.”
Valdivia then said, “I want to address some of the concerns that were brought forward, allegations against me.”
That brought an objection from Shorett. When Valdivia attempted to continue, Calvin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ibarra and then by Shorett.
Ignoring them, Valdivia pushed on to make his presentation. The volume of his colleagues escalated to a near roar.
Carvalho broke in to say that the motion to adjourn that had been seconded needed to be voted on.
“If there is a matter on the floor you have to address the motion,” Carvalho said. “We have a motion to adjourn and there is a second.”
“My rights… are being trampled on,” Valdivia protested.
There followed a general cacophony in which Shorett could be heard telling Valdivia that he was out of order and Ibarra informing the mayor that a presentation from him had not been agendized
Valdivia, in a parting shot said, “The allegations are inaccurate and they are false,” as Calvin again made a motion to adjourn.
An audibly and visibly miffed Valdivia said, “I will adjourn the meeting, Ms. Calvin. You are out of order,” Valdivia said.
“You need to take a vote on that motion,” Carvalho said.
“No, we won’t,” said Valdivia. “We’ll just adjourn.”
Against a cacophony of protest, Valdivia could be heard saying, “Prerogative of the chair. Meeting adjourned.”
With Valdivia at that point having signed off, Carvalho then called upon Ibarra, as the mayor pro tem, to conduct the council in a vote on the adjournment motion. In an action rife with metaphorical significance, under Ibarra’s guidance, the council unanimously voted to adjourn.