By Mark Gutglueck
Robert Dalquest, the local boy made good who returned to Upland in apparent triumph where he cozied up to the political establishment and provided it with the coverage it needed to carry out its developmental imperatives in the face of a growing body of residents increasingly discontented with the city’s direction, appears to be on the brink of departure as a consequence of the recent election which has seen his primary patron at City Hall ousted and two new members of the city council put in place.
As the city has dealt with some pressing development issues over the last ten months, Dalquest in his role as Upland’s development services director has been at the helm of the city’s planning apparatus while three highly controversial development projects were given approval and/or environmental certification. These were done in all cases at the recommendation of the staff he heads, over the strident objections of a cross section of the city’s residents and without the projects being subjected to the exacting scrutiny of an environmental impact report. Rather, Dalquest, in his role as the city’s primary land use expert, has ushered those projects through a far less demanding environmental certification process known as a mitigated negative declaration, which utilizes the city’s elected officials in the form of the city council or the appointed members of the planning commission to sign off on an assurance that the consequences of the project will not adversely impact the district wherein those projects are to be placed, nearby neighborhoods, the infrastructure and utilities serving the area including streets, or the city overall.
The most recent of these controversial projects was considered by the planning commission this week, whereupon that panel gave it an environmental certification and called for the matter to come before it once more at its next meeting on December 9, where based upon the statements of several of the commission’s members it is anticipated the project will be given go-ahead with some conditions that were briefly discussed this week.
In the case of the first two controversial projects given approval earlier this year, residents have banded together to challenge those approvals in the form and forum of lawsuits filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court. It is anticipated that upon the planning commission’s approval of the most recent controversial project, a warehouse slated for the south side of 11th Street between Central and Monte Vista avenues, yet another lawsuit will be filed against the city in an effort to have that approval rescinded.
Resident discontent with Dalquest has been escalating, as Dalquest’s credentials as a municipal planning official, his experience in that role and his educational background should, they say, provide him with a command of land use and zoning policy and standards leaving him sensitive to the concept of incompatible proximate or adjacent land uses, but that he has largely ignored those principles in his effort to accommodate his political masters on the city council. They feel the city, under his guidance, has acquiesced in too many such incompatible uses, such as the Amazon Project and the Villa Serena Project, and that he and his department have been remiss in looking after the best interests of the current and future residents of the city.
The issue dealt with by the planning commission this week was a proposal by Yellow Iron Development and its principal Tony Spinrad to develop a 92,225 square-foot warehouse on 11th Street, near the western city limits.
Earlier this year, the city gave approval to Bridge Development Partners to construct a 201,096-square-foot warehouse intended to function as a distribution center for on-line retail behemoth Amazon to be located north of Foothill Boulevard and south of Cable Airport. That undertaking, known as the Bridge Point Upland Project, was to include 1,486 parking spaces for delivery vans and cars, and 25 dock high loading bays for 18-wheeler trucks. Projections were that there would be roughly 50 truck trips per day to deliver merchandise to the facility and in excess of 1,000 van or delivery vehicle trips per day with roughly or slightly fewer than 187 trips per hour in the morning rush between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 171 trips per hour in the evening rush between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Because Amazon is involved in on-line sales which do not involve the levying of sales tax, the distribution center’s presence in the city was to provide it with no sales tax revenue. Calculations were that over Bridge Development Partners’ certain 50-year lease life of the facility to Amazon that would represent at least a $100 million loss of sales tax revenue to the city and approaching a $250 million loss of sales tax over the potential 100-year lease life of the facility if Amazon were to pursue the option of renewing the lease in 2070. In a gesture intended to placate concerns over the city’s inability to collect this future sales tax revenue, Bridge Development Partners initially consented to making an upfront $6.3 million payment of in-lieu of taxes fees to the city and other non-municipal Upland institutions such as the school district and the chamber of commerce. Ultimately, after protests that the $6.3 million was insufficient to offset the destruction or damage to city infrastructure such as roadways, Bridge Point upped those payments to $16 million, and then ultimately to $17 million. The development agreement, as finally ratified, committed Bridge Development Partners to routing to the city $14.5 million in what was termed a “sales tax in-lieu fee” to make up for the city’s loss of sales tax from untaxed sales at the facility, on top of which Bridge Development Partners was to provide some $2.5 million of in-kind assistance to the city consisting of road improvements and/or signalization on Foothill Boulevard, Central Avenue, Benson Avenue, 13th Street, 15th and 16th Street.
On its way to approval, the project on February 12, 2020 was considered by the planning commission, which was to make a recommendation to the city council with regard to the project. With then-Commissioner Alexander Novikov absent, the commission took up the critical issue of the project’s environmental certification. Then-Commissioner Yvette Walker dissented in the commission’s 4-to-1 vote to ratify the mitigated negative declaration for the project, what was essentially a finding that any untoward environmental impacts would be offset by the conditions of approval imposed on the project. The panel voted 3-to-2, with Commissioner Gary Schwary and Walker in opposition, to recommend approval of the development agreement, by which Bridge Development Partners consented to provide the city with what was at that time the agreed-upon $16 million to make up for the project not involving the collection of sales tax and to offset the city’s infrastructure costs to accommodate the development, including repair to streets worn down by the trucks and vans that will operate out of the facility.
When the project itself was considered, a motion to reject it was made, garnering the support of commissioners Schwary, Walker and Linden Brouse. Chairwoman Robin Aspinall and Commissioner Carolyn Anderson dissented in that vote. Over the next two weeks, the members of the commission were subjected to pressure from project proponents inside and outside City Hall, as well as from lobbyists for Bridge Development Partners. On February 26, the commission reconsidered the project, and then took a follow-on vote, unprecedented in Upland history, to undo the February 12 decision that had denied the project approval. With Commissioner Novikov present, the commission reconsidered the matter, at which point Novikov joined with Walker in registering opposition to the project, while Schwary and Brouse reversed themselves from their February 12 votes, resulting in a 4-to-2 recommendation that the city council approve the project and its site plan.
In the ensuing weeks, the nation, state, region, county and City of Upland fell ever more firmly into the grip of the health threat crisis created by the widespread outbreak of the coronavirus. In March, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning public gatherings of 250 people or more and then mandated that the state’s general population isolate themselves and shelter in place, practically prohibiting municipalities from holding traditional meetings such as those of the city council, planning commission or other entities at which members of the public were free to attend and participate. With little regard for the burgeoning opposition to the Bridge Point project, the city council, the majority of which was leaning in favor of letting Amazon operate a distribution hub within the city, ignored the call by some of the more vocal members of the project opposition for the city council to postpone any decision on the project until such time as the city could resume holding public hearings at which the entirety of those within the Upland community who wanted to attend the meeting could do so and openly provide the city’s decision-makers with their input. Staff, led by Dalquest, responding to Bridge Development Partners’ desire for an early approval that would allow enough of the project to be completed in time for Amazon to function out of the center by the Christmas 2020 shopping season, dispensed with performing an unbiased evaluation of the project on its merits upon which the city’s ultimate decision-makers, the city council, would be able to determine whether Bridge Development Partners should be given an entitlement to proceed. Rather, staff began to openly militate toward the approval of the project.
At a specially convened Wednesday night meeting called for the specific purpose of considering approval of the project, the council conducted what was supposed to be the final hearing on the project on April 1. That session was not held physically in Upland’s city council chamber, but rather virtually from the respective council members’ homes or professional offices, with Mayor Debbie Stone being the only member of the panel at City Hall, where, from her office by means of a video hook-up with the others, she conducted the meeting cybernetically. A video of the council members and the audio of the proceedings, with a 30 to 40 second delay, was broadcast or displayed on the city’s local cable network as well as on the city’s website.
Mike Poland, Upland’s contract planner, briefed the council on the project. Dalquest, in his role as community development director, provided the council with an encapsulation of the development agreement, which, given its emphasis on the $17 million Bridge Development Partners had by that point agreed to provide the city if the project garnered approval, came across as a pitch for the project’s acceptance. The public was heard from by means of a telephonic exchange. Twenty people expressed opposition to the project, and 28, roughly half of whom were members of a church who had been hosted to a free dinner prior to the hearing and whose church was provided with a generous donation by Bridge Development Partners’ representatives, spoke in support of it.
Thereafter, the city council’s discussion ensued and its members voted to approve the mitigated negative declaration 4-to-1 with Councilwoman Janice Elliott dissenting. The council then accepted a lot line adjustment for the project site on a 5-to-0 vote. The council, voted 4-to-1 with Mayor Stone and councilmen Rudy Zuniga, Bill Velto and Ricky Felix prevailing and Councilwoman Elliott dissenting to approve the project and its site plan. The council further voted unanimously to approve the development agreement specifying the $17 million commitment in revenue Bridge Development Partners said it would guarantee the city. The votes provided Bridge Development Partners with an entitlement to proceed.
Shortly after the council’s vote to approve the project, Mayor Stone took action to remove Novikov and Walker, the two members of the planning commission who had voted against approving the project and remained committed in that vote, from the commission. Subsequently, the unabashedly pro-development Stone moved to appoint Dr. Brinda Sarathy to one of the vacant positions on the planning commission but rescinded that appointment upon learning that Sarathy had inveighed against the Bridge Point/Amazon project.
In the weeks after the council’s approval of the project, a group of citizens, convinced that Dalquest had fallen short of protecting the city’s residents from the onerous elements and consequences of the Bridge Point/Amazon project, formed a public action committee dubbed Upland Community First. Upland Community First then sued the city, entailing a writ of mandamus filing with regard to the Bridge Point project, which included a petition for an injunction against the project proceeding. The suit sought the voiding of the project’s approval, and that the city and applicant be required to complete a comprehensive environmental impact report first if the project is to again be considered. That legal action prevented Bridge Development Partners from moving forward on the project, and as pretrial legal skirmishing between the two parties has been waged, Bridge Development Partners and Amazon failed to achieve the goal of completing a sufficient portion of the distribution center to allow Amazon to carry out a significant percentage of its Southern California delivery operations from the Upland location.
Less than two weeks after the council vote to approve the Bridge Point project, at the council’s regularly scheduled April 13 meeting, that panel, again in a meeting held remotely and conducted digitally rather than in the forum of a public gathering, took up another highly controversial project, a proposal by FH 11 LLC, a subdivision of Frontier Homes, to develop 65 single family detached residential units on 9.2 acres within a 20.3-acre site. That site, at the juncture of 15th Street and 13th Avenue within the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, had previously been committed to serve as a stormwater detention basin, an intrinsic element of an elaborate flood control network serving as a repository for water that during a deluge is channeled away from properties to the north, including the Colonies at San Antonio subdivision, as well as other surrounding properties on the city’s northeast side.
Once more, city residents earnestly requested that the city council postpone consideration of the matter until such time as a proper public hearing could be held, wherein the council would have the opportunity to hear in person the full gamut of residential input on the matter. City officials declined to do so, and the city council again held a virtual hearing in which the public was unable to have direct contact with the city’s elected decision-makers.
During the course of the April 13 meeting, Dalquest, as Upland’s development services director, in tandem with Joshua Winter, the city’s planner on the project, gave an overview of the project proposal, known as the Villa Serena subdivision. The project, for which a residential specific plan was formulated, for approval required that the council sign off on a general plan amendment along with a zone change. Environmental certification of the project consisted of the city council reaching a consensus that the mitigated negative declaration done for the project was adequate, meaning that the council was satisfied that the conditions of approval for the project mitigated to acceptable levels any impacts the project would entail. Accordingly, no full blown environmental impact report was undertaken.
The density of the proposed Villa Serena project is roughly 1.75 times the density of the surrounding neighborhood, meaning that within the incoming development, seven houses would be placed onto an acre whereas in the nearby existing portion of the same neighborhood there were roughly four homes per acre. In addition, the height of the two-story homes included in the Villa Serena project created a circumstance in which the mountain vistas of many of the existing homes adjacent to the project were partially blocked, cut off or obliterated, and the privacy of those living in the existing residences was invaded, as the second story perches of the homes to be built allowed their occupants in many cases to see right into the existing homes. There was thus a widespread perception among the residents of the district where the Villa Serena project was to be located that in making his recommendation to the city council that the FH 11 LLC’s project proposal be approved and adequate mitigation of environmental issues be declared, Dalquest was ignoring the elements of the project they considered to be incompatible with the character of their neighborhood, and that he was evincing greater concern for the developer and his own political masters – the mayor and certain members of the city council who had previously committed to supporting the project – than he had for the residents of the area where Villa Serena was to be developed.
In the course of the April 13 meeting, members of the public were provided with the opportunity to remotely voice their views with regard to the proposal. 22 members of the public, most of whom live in the immediate environs of the project, addressed the council. All 22 registered opposition to the project. Thereafter, the council voted 4-to-1 to approve a motion by Councilman Ricky Felix seconded by Councilman Bill Velto to approve the residential specific plan, accede to a general plan amendment and parallel zone change, and then certify the mitigated negative declaration, tentative tract map and design review. Councilwoman Janice Elliott dissented from the majority in the vote.
Thereafter, the Friends of Upland Wetlands formed and is now pursuing a lawsuit against the city relating to its approval of the Villa Serena project, including the filing of a writ of mandamus and a petition for an injunction to halt the project.
More recently, Dahlquest became immersed in a third controversy, one which arises from a clash of compatibility between residential and industrial land uses.
In Upland’s current and immediately preceding general plan, the land use designations in the area at the city’s west side south of Foothill Boulevard and north of the city limits with Montclair, the zoning provides for variegated types of light and medium industrial uses. In 2005, despite the zoning in that area, Lewis Homes, which also goes by the corporate names of the Lewis Group of Companies and Lewis Operating Corporation, submitted an application with the city to develop a 31-acre project site at the northeast corner of 11th Street and Monte Vista Avenue into a 318-unit residential subdivision to be known as the Harvest at Upland. The planning commission and city council approved the application for the project in 2006, but the downturn in the economy that began in 2007 intervened. In 2014, the Lewis Operating Corporation signaled its readiness to revive that effort using a corporate sub-affiliate, SC Baldy View, and entered into a development agreement granting the company an entitlement to build and clearing the way for the project to proceed, subject to a series of steps, which included zoning adjustments and a general plan amendment. Having secured that entitlement, the Lewis Operating Corporation entered into an agreement with KB Homes to build the homes on the western 40 percent of the project. Subsequently, the Lewis Operating Corporation closed a deal with Lennar Homes to build the remainder of the homes within the Harvest at Upland subdivision. Work on those homes began and a portion of them have been completed, with many of them now occupied while construction on the remainder continues.
The eastern terminus of the Harvest at Upland development is Dewey Way. In 2015, another Lewis Group of Companies sub-affiliate, Lewis Land Developers, LLC, entered into a development agreement with the City of Upland to obtain an entitlement to build on the 19-acre site adjacent to the Harvest at Upland east of Dewey Way and north of 11th Street. That project, dubbed the Enclave, is to entail 192 residential units, comprised of 116 two-story detached condominiums and 76 three-story attached condominium units. Lewis held off on initiating construction at the site, intent on allowing sufficient time for the Harvest at Upland project to be completed. At its May 11, 2020 meeting, the Upland City Council, at Dalquest’s recommendation, approved an amendment to the 2015 development agreement with Lewis Homes for the Enclave at Upland project, extending the term of the development agreement from its expiration on July 27, 2020 to July 27, 2021. It is anticipated that with the work at the Harvest at Upland project now near completion, work on the Enclave will begin soon, either prior to the end of 2020 or shortly after the new year begins. This means, potentially, that work on the Enclave development will coincide with work on the Yellow Iron Development warehouse project, which is sited directly across the street.
This week, on Wednesday, November 18, the Upland Planning Commission took up consideration of a request by Yellow Iron Development and its principal, Tony Spinrad, to construct a 92,275-square foot warehouse building, consisting of 86,775 square feet of warehouse space with 2,750 square feet of ground-floor office space and a 2,750-square foot second-floor mezzanine, along with associated improvements on a 4.9-acre site located on the south side of 11th Street between Central Avenue and Monte Vista Avenue. The project site is located within the city’s light industrial/business park general plan designation and Upland’s light industrial zone. The project is to include 11 truck bays and two other truck loading facilities.
Unlike the cases of the Bridge Point/Amazon and Villa Serena projects, the city council did not assume authority for providing final approval of the project. Rather, discretion over whether the project should be allowed to proceed was given to the planning commission. There are a number of people in Upland who perceive the development to be incompatible with the nearly-completed Harvest and the yet-to-be initiated Enclave residential projects. They feel the juxtaposition of the light industrial use with the residential uses will represent a diminution in the quality of life to those living in the residential subdivisions, as well as a threat to their health and safety. A number of those residents have expressed the belief that Dalquest’s recommendation to allow the warehouse project to proceed without an environmental impact report such that its environmental certification has now been provided by the planning commission’s mitigated negative declaration is a repetition of the questionable use of mitigated negative declarations in the Bridge Point/Amazon and Villa Serena project proposals, which are now mired in litigation.
Further, during Wednesday night’s hearing, a few things came to light that make the city’s acceptance of the project even more troubling to those who previously had reservations about the wisdom of locating just such a project at that site. In particular, it was learned, Yellow Iron Development has not yet lined up a tenant, or tenants, for the facility. Spinrad made that disclosure to the planning commission, stating at one point that he thought it possible the building might be occupied by two separate operations. For some, this stigmatized what Yellow Iron Development is proposing as an inadequately described and defined operation, such that the city does not have a full understanding of what it is being asked to approve.
Another representation made at Wednesday night’s meeting was the assertion that the total vehicle trips into and out of the facility per day would be limited to no more than 250. According to statements made during the course of the meeting, the “equivalent total” of vehicles anticipated at the warehouse is 214 daily, including 130 involving passenger cars and 34 involving trucks, specifically six two-axle trucks, eight three axle trucks and a quantity of 20 four-axle trucks. That limitation evolved out of an apparent concern with regard to the facility’s proximity to the Harvest and Enclave subdivisions. That proposed limitation was given with the caveat that if the operations at the warehouse could not confine themselves to the 250 vehicle trips per day limit, either Yellow Iron Development or the tenant would be required to return to the planning commission to seek clearance, which might not necessarily be granted, to increase that truck activity. This immediately struck many of those in attendance as implausible, and a manipulation of the approval process that was intended to allow a far more onerous degree of activity that would be incompatible with the project’s surroundings than was being openly acknowledged at the meeting. The developer was seeking approval of a project in which the exact nature of the operation and the exact or even approximate number of vehicles it would entail was unknown.
An analysis of known and indefinite factors relating to the project and the property upon which it is proposed to stand indicates that the eventual tenant will be called upon to spend roughly $92,000 in basic rent per month or $1.1 million per year to occupy the proposed building, based upon a $1 per square foot per month rental cost, which falls within the average rate in Southern California. Leasing would only be a small percentage of a warehouse’s operating costs. In addition, other cost elements to open the doors of a warehouse or distribution facility and make it operational would be involved, including but not limited to the provision of utilities, purchase of and debt service for the acquisition of equipment, vehicles and furnishings, plant maintenance, insurance, taxes and personnel. These costs could zoom to as much as $500,000 per month. In order to meet this financial burden, an energetic and intensive warehouse operation will be required, entailing trucks flowing in and out all day long, perhaps in three shifts per day. Yet, based upon what was said at the November 18 meeting, the eventual tenant will be prevented, from the outstart, from operating more than a very small number of trucks, including those engaged in receiving merchandise into the warehouse and then dispatching vehicles loaded with merchandise for either wholesale of retail delivery. This limitation would seem to reduce considerably the number of entities that would be willing to locate on the property, since the ability to generate sufficient income as a going concern involved in warehousing and deliver would likewise be diminished, perhaps to below that which would be profitable.
That consideration has led some in the community to conclude that Yellow Iron Development and Spinrad were purposefully underrepresenting the intensity of the future use of the property in an effort to obtain an entitlement for Yellow Iron Development to proceed. The perception is that Dalquest is far too sophisticated to not understand or have missed that reality, and that he and city staff were knowingly going along with the misrepresentation as to the intensity of use at the proposed warehouse, knowing that once operations were at full swing there, vehicle trips into and out of the facility will approach or exceed a thousand per day.
Addressing the planning commission Wednesday night was Carlos Garcia, who was elected earlier this month to fill the vacant position on the city council representing Upland’s Third District, in which the Yellow Iron Development warehouse project and the Harvest and Enclave subdivisions are located.
Speaking as an Upland resident rather than in his role as councilman-elect, Garcia said, “This does affect our community,” pointing out that the Harvest subdivision is nearing full completion with residents already living there, and the Enclave project will soon be under way. Garcia, who will be sworn into office soon and complete the term of former Councilman Ricky Felix who resigned in May to move to Utah, expressed the view that the warehouse as proposed does not fit the light industrial business park description contained in the city’s zoning code and, as such, is an incompatible use adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He said the truck traffic the warehouse will generate will prove problematic. “There is one way in and one way out,” Garcia said, noting, “We have already seen 18 wheelers on 11th Street.” The addition of the warehouse will exacerbate that problem, he said. He further alluded to the mystery relating to who will actually occupy the warehouse once it is built, saying Yellow Iron Development was “creating a project there, but do we have a tenant? There is nothing solid or concrete. There is nothing to tell us what is actually moving in there, so we can know the impact.”
Steve Bierbaum said that despite representations that the warehouse proposal was in compliance with the city’s zoning and land use codes, in fact Upland’s light industrial designation does not permit a warehouse facility. The primary issue, Bierbaum suggested, was the intensity of truck traffic that will emanate from and be drawn to the warehouse, and its immediate proximity to two nearby and separate residential neighborhoods. “This is not in compliance with the general plan,” Bierbaum said.
Lois Sicking Dieter told the commission, “I’m concerned about the proposed 11th Street development project. Staff has published an initial study with a recommendation for a mitigated negative declaration. This mitigated negative declaration includes individual environmental impacts which appear to be understated. Furthermore, the cumulative environmental impacts of other projects under development are not included. The cumulative environmental impact of these projects is seemingly significant and would best be evaluated under an environmental impact report in order to determine compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.”
Sicking Dieter continued, “This project consists of a three-and-a-half story warehouse/office building, expected to accommodate warehousing, office space, distribution of goods and services, including heavy duty diesel truck loading bays, trailer parking stalls, and over 200 vehicle parking spaces with a two-acre first floor and a second-floor mezzanine on a 4.9-acre site. This project does not appear to comply with designated zoning, the Upland Municipal Code, the general plan, designated truck routes or the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, we do not know the user. You have proposed that there is going to be 164 vehicles trips [per day]. How are you going to enforce that? This is seemingly understated, based on the capacity for this warehouse and available parking, and a 24 hours a day/7 days a week operation. Who is the intended proposed client?”
With one of the Upland Airport Land Use Committee members, Ronald Campbell, participating, the planning commission voted Wednesday night to deem the utilization of the 4.9 acres on 11th Street as a warehouse as being in accordance with the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Thereafter, Campbell no longer participated in the deliberations.
At this point, the membership of the planning commission, which had stood at six members and one vacancy this spring, has changed substantially. Three of the members of the commission at that time – Chairwoman Robin Aspinall, Gary Schwary and Carolyn Anderson – remain on the panel. But three of the former members – Alexander Novikov, Yvette Walker and Linden Brouse – have departed. Four new members – Thomas Grahn, Serge Mayer, Christine Caldwell and Patrick Shim – now round out the body’s membership.
Caldwell was the member of the commission who on Wednesday night most vociferously expressed reservations about the compatibility of the warehouse project with the nearby residential uses. When the vote was taken with regard to accepting the mitigated negative declaration for the project, which essentially certifies that all of the impacts from the project will be mitigated by the conditions of approval imposed on the developer, Caldwell and Schwary alone dissented. Aspinall, Anderson, Shim, Mayer and Grahn voted to accept the mitigated negative declaration as adequate.
In its discussion with regard to approving the project, the commission dwelt to a certain extant with regard to imposing conditions that might offset those aspects of the warehouse’s operations that some consider to be onerous with regard to the proximate residential uses. One of these was a condition suggested by Schwary that the trucks coming into and leaving the warehouse be prohibited from using Dewey Way, a north/south street which is slated to run from Foothill Boulevard to 11th Street. Dewey Way separates the Harvest and Enclave sites from one another and is to provide ingress to and egress from both of those neighborhoods. There was further suggestion with regard to tightening the restrictions as to the number of vehicle trips relating to the warehouse, and making them a part of the conditions of approval. Thus, the vote on the approval of the project was postponed until the commission’s next meeting, which is to take place on December 9. Based upon the tenor of the discussion, and Spinrad’s indication of his amenability with regard to the imposition of those conditions, the final approval of the project at the December 9 meeting appears to be inevitable.
Because the planning commission is considered to be the ultimate arbiter of the project, its approval, its environmental certification and its conditions of approval, those wishing to second guess that approval, assuming it is given, will need to pay a fee of $6,800 to the city to appeal that decision to the city council.
There is sufficient discontent among a cross section of Upland’s residents with regard to the anticipated project approval, the Sentinel has learned, that some challenge of the project appears highly likely. With the $6,800 cost of appealing the planning commission approval, some of those intent on making an issue of the matter are leaning toward yet another lawsuit against the city, as the initial expense in such a case would be the $450 filing fee at the courthouse and the $2,500 required to retain either of two law firms that have demonstrated a willingness to challenge Upland on its land use decisions.
Shannon Maust, who was elected earlier this month to represent Upland’s First District and will take office next month, indicated that she would be amenable to having the council reconsider the planning commission’s vote to approve the warehouse project if there is support for doing so among at least two of her council colleagues when the time comes.
“If there is substantial resident concern over this issue, then I think the city and the city council should become more engaged in a civic procedure to work those differences out,” Maust told the Sentinel on Wednesday afternoon, prior to the planning commission meeting. If, as Maust suggested, the council consents to reconsider the planning commission’s decisions with regard to the warehouse project, a lawsuit against the city contesting the project’s approval might be headed off.
Maust, in whose First District the Bridge Point/Amazon project is located, was opposed to giving that project go-ahead last April.
At the planning commission meeting Wednesday night, Maust was present, as was Garcia and Councilman Bill Velto, who defeated Mayor Debbie Stone for the mayoral post in the municipal election held on November 3.
A contingent of Upland residents is convinced that protecting Upland’s population from the untoward impacts of development are neither Dalquest’s first nor second priority. They have expressed the opinion that in any circumstance where either the residents of the city generally or residents within a specific neighborhood in the city have a dispute with a project applicant over the conditions of approval for that project, under Dalquest such questions are likely to be solved in favor of the developer rather than the city’s residents. For that reason, they are intent on seeing Dalquest relieved of his position as the city’s director of development services.
The Sentinel reached out to Dalquest this week, placing several calls to his office to which he did not respond. At the meeting Wednesday evening, Dalquest said he would respond to questions sent to him by email. The Sentinel sent him an email yesterday.
In that email, the Sentinel referenced the proposed imposition of limits on the number of trucks to be allowed to operate out of or into the warehouse, and whether Dalquest was concerned that such restrictions would discourage a tenant from locating his operation into the warehouse, and whether Yellow Iron Development’s failure to secure a tenant beforehand might complicate Spinrad’s and Yellow Iron Development management’s efforts to achieve financing to move ahead and complete the project. The Sentinel delved into whether Dalquest was concerned that the conditions of approval the planning commission will consider on December 9 might render the project Spinrad is proposing unviable as a warehouse.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest about resident concern that the eventual tenant has not been identified and apparently is not yet known to Spinrad, nor the planning commission nor the city, even as the commission is moving toward preconditioning approval of the project by limiting the use of trucks at the facility. The Sentinel inquired as to whether Dalquest believed competent planning procedure had been exercised when the city is committing to allowing Yellow Iron Development’s warehouse proposal to proceed when neither the proponent nor the city are knowledgeable about crucial project details.
The Sentinel sought from Dalquest whether he believed the residential and light industrial uses that will be juxtaposed along 11th Street vis-à-vis the Yellow Iron Development warehouse and the Harvest/Enclave subdivisions to be compatible and, if he did not consider them compatible, what elements of buffering should exist between them. The Sentinel asked if in Dalquest’s view there existed sufficient distance between the Enclave/Harvest sites and the Yellow Iron site to effectuate such buffering. The Sentinel asked Dalquest if in the event that he did not believe adequate space for the buffering existed, why he recommended that the Yellow Iron Development project be given go-ahead.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest about suggestions being heard around Upland that the Yellow Iron warehouse project was rushed before the planning commission while the current city council is in place at City Hall so that the complexion of values with regard to the planning process in Upland would be more favorable to the project than it will be after the new city council, which is to incorporate Maust and Garcia among its members, is in place.
The Sentinel in its email to Dalquest referenced how the current council has allowed controversial projects to be considered and approved without a full blown environmental impact report, instead deeming a mitigated negative declaration to be sufficient environmental certification for those projects. The Sentinel then asked Dalquest if as a land use and planning professional he was comfortable with such arrangements and whether he had any misgivings that at some future point in his career as a planning official this might come back to haunt him.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest point blank if he could say with complete confidence that he had done his best for the current and future residents of the Harvest subdivision and the future residents of the Enclave subdivision to prevent the Yellow Iron Development project from intruding upon their lives. The Sentinel asked if Dalquest, in general, believed that a mitigated negative declaration can suffice as an alternative to an environmental impact report.
In the email to Dalquest, the Sentinel noted that the character and zoning of the stretch of 11th Street between Central Avenue and Monte Vista has traditionally been more light industrial than residential and that the current zoning gives Spinrad and Yellow Iron Development leeway to develop a light industrial use there, while pointing out that the city nonetheless, when it approved both the Harvest and Enclave projects, seemed to be pushing the character of that district in a different direction, toward becoming a residential district. Given those factors, the Sentinel inquired of Dalquest if in his opinion as an urban planning professional he felt giving the Harvest and Enclave projects go-ahead, in hindsight, was a mistake. If he deemed that the city had made a mistake in allowing the land where the Harvest and Enclave projects are located to be converted to residential use, the Sentinel asked Dalquest what he thought the most responsible way of dealing with that paradox/dilemma was. The Sentinel asked him how, in his view, allowing a light industrial use next to more than 500 residential units made sense from a land use standpoint.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest to address Bierbaum’s contention and Garcia’s suggestion that Upland’s light industrial designation does not actually allow for the development of a warehouse.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest if he and his staff were in any way pressured politically to compromise the land use and planning standards he would normally adhere to so that the Yellow Iron Development project proposal was accommodated and, if so, if he had confidence that the soon-to-be-in-place city council, which will include Maust and Garcia, will look with approval upon his having made that compromise.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest if he considered the planning commission’s approval of the mitigated negative declaration on Wednesday night to have set in motion what will be the eventual approval of the project.
The Sentinel asked Dalquest if he considered the proceedings on Wednesday night to be a valid expression of the community’s will and a defensible exercise in the planning process.
Dalquest had not responded to the Sentinel’s email by press time.
One knowledgeable observer of activity and developments at Upland City Hall said there are two reasons why the city council’s cashiering of Dalquest in the near term is unlikely.
The first element of saving grace for Dalquest is that he and the city’s mayor-elect, Velto, attended Upland High School together and have a warm relationship. Indeed, this week when the Sentinel contacted Velto to ask if he considered the proposed Yellow Iron Development warehouse to be incompatible with the Harvest and Enclave residential developments, Velto sought to deflect the question by pointing out that there are existing light industrial uses in the 11th Street environs that are not inconsistent with the warehouse Spinrad is proposing. Velto redirected the question in such a way that he did not take into consideration the current presence of the Harvest subdivision and the future presence of the Enclave subdivision.
Another layer of protection and at least temporary job security for Dalquest built into the current circumstance, the Sentinel was informed, is that there is another even more spirited move afoot to have the council relieve City Manager Rosemary Hoerning of her position as the city’s top administrator. “I don’t think the city council will be willing to lose its city manager and development services director at the same time,” that individual said.
The planning commission is scheduled to consider approving the Yellow Iron Development warehouse project at its December 9 meeting, which is to be held at the Upland Civic Center in the city council chamber, located at 460 North Euclid Avenue, beginning at 6:30 p.m.

The board of supervisors on Tuesday appointed Dr. Michael Sequeira, M.D. as San Bernardino County’s public health officer.
He replaces Dr. Erin Gustafson, who has been interim public health officer since the retirement of Dr. Maxwell Ohikhuare in February.
Segueira, formerly the president of the San Bernardino County Medical Society, is considered, according to the county “a leader in the county’s medical community and an experienced local expert in emergency medicine,” who “for the past 30 years… has worked in leadership roles at the local, state and national levels, including as regional director of six hospital emergency departments, including hospitals in San Bernardino, Apple Valley, Colton, and Redlands.”
A member of the steering committee of the Inland Empire Opioid Crisis Coalition, which works on an educational program for opioid prescribing and overdose treatment and prevention, Segueira also serves as national risk director for Vituity Healthcare, in which capacity he has been keeping providers current with the latest clinical and research data on COVID-19.
“We are pleased to have a medical professional of Dr. Sequeira’s expertise and background work for San Bernardino County,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman. “We look forward to his leadership and counsel as we navigate our way out of this COVID-19 pandemic.”
Sequeira obtained his doctorate in medicine from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine in 1977.

After months of turning residents seeking to be tested for COVID-19 away, San Bernardino County public health officials are now urging as many people as possible to undergo testing for the potentially fatal malady.
Nevertheless, county officials continue to send mixed signals with regard to the public health crisis that has gripped the nation for more than eight months, including ones that seem to indicate the county no longer wants its residents to undergo testing.
The disease is exhibiting a resurgence locally, at the state level and nationally, prompting state and national leaders as well as health professionals to call for a return to the isolation and self-quarantining that was advocated last spring as a means to check the spread of the condition. Paradoxically, county officials are on the brink of suing the State of California in an effort to thwart Governor Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus-related mandates, which include a statewide curfew and the continued closures of certain businesses.
San Bernardino County got off on the wrong foot even before the COVID-19 crisis began in earnest in March. Trudy Raymundo served as the director of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health for nearly a decade, but had no expertise whatsoever with regard to medical or public health issues, having been put in place because of her putative skill in accounting and ability to keep a governmental division functioning within a budget. Because she was out of her depth in dealing with issues of medical science, Raymundo failed to recognize the seriousness of the approaching situation, and failed to use the leverage of the county’s size and spending power early to secure a sufficient quantity of the reagent and materials needed to carry out testing of the county’s population to chart the spread of the contagion in its early stages. This prevented tens of thousands of county residents who in March, April and May believed they might be infected from being tested. This left the county’s various medical professionals in both the private and public sectors flying blind in the initial stages of the disease’s onslaught.
Overwhelmed by the challenges the pandemic presented, Raymundo was practically paralyzed in her function as the county’s director of public health. With Raymundo essentially dysfunctional for a month-and-a-half, county officials at last in May recognized she was unequal to the task before her, and she was induced to resign.
After the State of California initiated a rating system that used a host of criteria to determine the level of threat each county was under and granted those counties evincing lower rates of infection a reprieve from the measures intended to slow the spread of the condition while keeping in place the more intensified restrictions in those counties where the infection rates and resultant deaths were spiking, San Bernardino County has been unable to create a break in the infection or death rates that would allow it to be removed from the state’s watchlist and proceed with the opening of those businesses or operations which medical professionals believe are breeding spots for the pandemic’s advance.
The state, seeking to incentivize testing, offered those counties that yet remained under the highest degree of restriction a bonus in the form of a less austere formula in calculating what the overall level of COVID-19-related danger the county was in if it upped its testing numbers. Between October 18 and November 16, San Bernardino County doubled the number of residents it was testing on a weekly basis compared to what it had been doing previously. Shortly after that, a surge in the disease nationwide manifested, including within San Bernardino County. The combination of the increase in the actual number of cases and the more thorough testing made San Bernardino County appear to be a coronavirus hotspot. Over the two-day period of Tuesday and Wednesday, November 17 and 18, San Bernardino County’s total number of COVID-19 cases grew by 3,369 – 1,756 on Tuesday, the biggest one day jump in county cases since the crisis began and 1,613 cases on Wednesday, the second-highest one-day increase. Having spent more than a week encouraging county residents to get tested, the county this week reversed course, having calculated that increased testing is resulting in evidence of an infection rate zooming out of control in the county, which, once documented, is giving the State of California further reason to keep the county under the highest level of restriction.
San Bernardino County, the fifth largest county in California population-wise, on Wednesday eclipsed Riverside County as the California county with the second highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases. At that point, Los Angeles County, the largest jurisdiction population-wise in the Golden State, held the dubious distinction of having the most COVID-19 cases, at 344,741. San Bernardino County, at 2.2 million, has one-fifth the population of Los Angeles County, with 10.1 million people within its confines. Yet the 78,298 confirmed coronavirus cases in San Bernardino County indicates that per capita, San Bernardino County is more heavily infected than Los Angeles County. In Riverside County, which has a population of 2.5 million, there were 77,636 confirmed cases, meaning that San Bernardino County has a higher degree of infection per capita than its immediate neighbor to the south, as well.
San Bernardino County’s sudden aversion to testing was demonstrated by the Sentinel’s efforts to wring from the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health the locations where the testing of county residents is being carried out. Multiple calls to the department’s spokeswoman, Lana Culp, together with an email requesting the test site locations, times and reservations protocols elicited no response whatsoever this week.
Indeed, the county, after seeking to cooperate with the state and Governor Newsom in the effort to have the COVID-19 restrictions it is being subjected to lessened, has now reversed course. The board of supervisors has asked County Counsel Michelle Blakemore to prepare a lawsuit, naming the state and Governor Newsom, which is to challenge the state’s coronavirus reopening plan and the criteria used in keeping San Benardino County in the most-restrictive category for the last three months.
Though she is bound to comply with the board’s direction, Blakemore has privately, the Sentinel was informed, ridiculed the board, in particular Supervisors Robert Lovingood, Janice Rutherford and Chairman Curt Hagman, as being childish and delusional in their desire to launch a legal action that is consigned to failure even before it will be filed.

Former Victorville Mayor/Councilman Ryan McEachron over five days in the last week made a dynamic leap into third place in this year’s city council race, which featured 22 contestants. McEachron’s burgeoning vote total for several days put him on a trajectory to return to the Victorville City Council dais, but as of yesterday, he had again slipped into fourth place, just short of victory, as the three top vote-getters in this year’s race will qualify for a position on the council.
On the night of the election, at 10 p.m., when the first report of the results came in, a tally of the votes from 52 of Victorville’s 75 precincts had been made. At that point, incumbent councilwoman Blanca Gomez was leading the pack with 4,184 votes or 9.8 percent, followed by Elizabeth Becerra, at 4,020 votes or 9.42 percent, and Leslie Irving claiming third with 3,433 votes or 8.04 percent. Kareema Abdul was in fourth with 3,070 votes or 7.19 percent. McEachron was in fifth place, having polled 2,858 votes or 6.7 percent.
A 4 a.m. on November 4, all 75 of the city’s precincts had reported, and Gomez was yet in first place with 4,944 votes, slightly ahead yet of Becerra’s total of 4,909 votes. Irving remained in third with 3,857 votes and Abdul in fourth with 3,561 votes. McEachron held steady in the fifth place dark horse position with 3,539 votes, 22 votes behind Abdul. Later that day, at 4 p.m., Gomez was still the front-runner with 4,969 votes to Becerra’s 4,939 votes. Irving was in a strong third place position with 3,888 votes. Abdul, with 3,582 votes, maintained a 20-vote lead over McEachron at 3,562 votes.
On November 5, as more mail-in ballots were counted, Becerra, with 5,622 votes, overtook Gomez, at 5,610 votes, by a dozen voter endorsements. From that point going forward Becerra has remained in first place, widening her lead over Gomez, who has until present remained safely in second place. The same day, McEachron, with 4,279 votes, leapt past Abdul, whose total at that point stood at 4,139 votes.
On November 6, McEachron, with 4,470 votes, remained well behind Irving, at 4,763 votes, heading into the weekend.
On November 9, McEachron began to move up on Irving, making a net gain of 166 votes over her as more straggling mail-in ballots came into the registrar of voters office during the weekend. Irving at that point had logged 5,320 votes to McEachron’s 5,193. On November 10, McEachron continued to close the gap, as he registered 5,551 votes to Irving’s 5,608. No tallying was performed on Veteran’s Day, but on November 12, McEachron, at 6,212 votes, was 30 votes behind Irving, at 6,242. On November 13, McEachron bolted into third place, having registered 6,695 votes to Irving’s 7,667.
Over the weekend, McEachron maintained his third place position, but saw his 28 vote lead slip, as Irving picked up a net of 23 votes over him as of November 16. McEachron’s tally was at that juncture 6,713 votes to her 6,708 votes, a margin of five.
On November 17, Irving retook the lead by scoring a net positive of eight votes over McEachron, such that he had 6,748 votes and Irving had 6,751.
On November 18 McEachron posted 6,773 votes to Irving’s 6,779.
Yesterday, Thursday, November 19, Irving was pulling away, having pulled down 6,810 votes to McEachron’s 6,791, a lead of 18 votes.
Today, McEachron was drifting back further still, as he had notched 6,801 votes and Irving had bagged 6,824, widening her lead to 23. Of note is that 25 of the votes for McEachron were on provisional ballots which may or may not be discounted when the final results are tallied. As of today, 38 of the ballots containing votes for Irving were provisional ones. It is unknown outside of the registrar of voters office whether there is any commonality among those provisional ballots which contained votes for Irving and McEachron.
As time progresses, fewer and fewer mail-in ballots are drifting into the registrar of voters office. The election is due to be certified by December 11.
-Mark Gutglueck

Ontario High graduate Victor Glover went aboard the International Space Station this week.
A commander in the U.S. Navy, Glover was accepted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as an astronaut in June 2013. After completing training as a member of Astronaut Group 21 in 2015, he succeeded in being designated as a member of the first commercial crew of astronauts to be sent into space.
Born in Pomona on April 30, 1976, Glover attended Ontario High School, where he was both a quarterback and running back for the Jaguars and a member of the wrestling team. He graduated in 1994, having been recognized as Ontario High’s athlete of the year. He attended California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo on a wrestling scholarship. He was a member of the Phi Beta Sigma fraternity, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in general engineering in 1999.
Glover joined the U.S. Navy, completing advanced flight training in 2001. He subsequently trained as a member of the Marine Fleet Replacement Squadron, flying the F/A-18C aircraft. He was deployed aboard the USS John F. Kennedy during Operation Iraqi Freedom after he was assigned in 2003 to Strike Fighter Squadron 34, stationed in Norfolk, Virginia.
After his tour in the Gulf of Oman aboard the USS John F. Kennedy came to an end, Glover was assigned by the Navy to some cross-service training as a student at the Air Force Test Pilot School. Upon his graduation in 2007, he was designated a test pilot, and served a stint with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31, based at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake.
In 2011, Glover was given a billet as the department head for Strike-Fighter Squadron 195, stationed at the Naval Air Facility in Atsugi, Japan, and then deployed aboard the USS George Washington.
With the Navy, Glover flew 24 separate combat missions and made over 400 carrier landings.
In 2012 Glover went to work as a legislative fellow on the personal staff of Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His connection to McCain assisted him in being selected in 2013 to be a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astronaut program.
Glover possesses three master’s degrees, one in flight test engineering, one in systems engineering, and one in military operation art and science. He is married to Dionna Odom Glover, with whom he has four children.
As part of the private sector’s first manned foray into space exploration, Glover was part of SpaceX’s flight carrying three others – physicist Shannon Walker, Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi and United States Space Force Colonel Michael Scott Hopkins – to the space station. SpaceX – an acronym for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation – is a transportation services company founded in 2002 by Elon Musk for the purpose of reducing space transportation costs, with the primary goal of enabling the eventual colonization of Mars. On Sunday, Glover, Walker, Noguchi and Hopkins, secured inside a SpaceX Dragon, a reusable cargo space capsule developed by Musk’s team of aerospace engineers, blasted off from Cape Canaveral by means of a Falcon rocket. After a flight that lasted 27-and-a-half hours, the crew docked with the international space station at 11:01 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Monday.
-Mark Gutglueck

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 12/04/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2001/ CHEVY / 1G1YY32G015124600 / 6VLW221 CA
To be sold by HILO AUTO SERVICE 10075 ARROW RTE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying
lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on: 11/20/20

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL AND TRAILER
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel and trailer at lien sale at said address below on: 11/20/2020 9:00 am
VESSEL
1182HV, C0J21775F787, CA
DATE OF SALE-12/04/2020
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-14565 ARROW RTE, FONTANA, CA 92335
TRAILER
1AI1904, 17LAB19JDH14890AB, VANSO
To be sold by HENRY CORNEJO 14565 ARROW RTE, FONTANA, CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on: 11/20/20
FBN 20200008485
The following entity is doing business as LANGA CELLARS 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346 LANGA CELLARS LLC 3002 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346 Mailing Address: 30082 RED HILL ROAD HIGHLAND, CA 92346 This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ BARTOLOMEO ROSSO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/15/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 18, 2015 County Clerk, Deputy M0597 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 9/25, 10/2, 10/9 & 10/16, 2020 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

STATEMENT of Withdrawal From Partnership Operating Under a Fictitious Business Name FILE NO-20200008473 Fictitious Business Name of the Partnership: Pacific Shift, 7149 Powell Pl, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/23/2019 County Clerk File No. FBN20190005040 Name of Person Withdrawing: Carlos Soriano, 7149 Powell Pl, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 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/ Carlos Soriano I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. County Clerk, s/ I1327 9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO20200007704 The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: NK Jewelers, 2450 Vineyard Ave, Ontario, CA 91761, Mailing Address: 17780 Mesa Rd, Fontana, CA 92336, Noeila K. Moreno, 17780 Mesa Rd, Fontana, CA 92336 Business is Conducted By: An Individual Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. s/ Noeila Moreno This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/25/20 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 09/01/2015 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). 9/25/20, 10/02/20, 10/09/20, 10/16/20 Corrected on 10/30/20, 11/6/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20

FBN 20200009910 The following person is doing business as: BLUE SKY MASSAGE 1964 W 9TH ST, SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786 APE MEDICAL INC. 243 S ROSEMEAD BLVD PASADENA, CA 91107
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ CHARLES CHAO PANG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/26/2020 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 l1327 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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
FBN 20200009950 The following person is doing business as: PRO DIAMOND CLEAN LLC 3894 N. MOUNTAIN AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 PRO DIAMOND CLEAN LLC 3894 N. MOUNTAIN AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DENISE URRUTIA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 30, 2020
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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20

FBN 20200009949
The following person is doing business as: HOMETOWN REALTY 23570 KNAPPS CUTOFF CRESTLINE, CA 92404 ROSEMARIE LABADIE 23570 KNAPPS CUTOFF CRESTLINE, CA 92325
Mailing Address: PO BOX 3046 CRESTLINE, CA 92325
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/ DENISE URRUTIA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 21, 2020
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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
FBN 20200009932 The following person is doing business as: I’M SO INTO ME [and] UNITY NOW OFFICIAL 301 S LILAC AVE, SUITE #23 RIALTO, CA 92376 MIA D JACKSON 301 S LILAC AVE, SUITE #23 RIALTO, CA 92376
Mailing Address: 219 S RIVERSIDE AVE, SUITE #221 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ MIA D JACKSON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/26/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 1, 2020
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 10/30/20, 11/06/20, 11/13/20 & 11/20/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA, CASE NO. PROPS2000838 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by JENNY LYNN LIZARDE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JENNY LYNN LIZARDE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of FIDEL R. COLUNGA A.K.A FIDEL RANGEL COLUNGA. 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 December 29, 2020 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: JENNY LYNN LIZARDE
789 S 7TH ST COLTON, CA 92324
Telephone: 909-310-1823
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/06, 11/13 & 11/20, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BRYANT STANLEY
CASE NO. PROPS 2000798
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BRYANT STANLEY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TIFFANY STANLEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TIFFANY STANLEY 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 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 DECEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S-37 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: OCTOBER 26, 2020
Attorney for the Petitioner:
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 11/06, 11/13 & 11/20, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERT GERALD LIGHTFOOT
CASE NO. PROPS 2000021
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERT GERALD LIGHTFOOT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by REBECCA ANN LIGHTFOOT in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that REBECCA ANN LIGHTFOOT 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 JANUARY 7, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S-35 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: NOVEMBER 2, 2020
Attorney for the Petitioner:
TYLER H. BROWN, ESQ.
1152 N. MOUNTAIN AVE, SUITE 210
UPLAND, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 982-5086
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/13, 11/20 & 11/27, 2020

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200009425
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Holiday Pet Grooming Spa, 116 N. Riverside, Rialto, CA 92376, Wendy L. Hackett, 2955 Bautista Street, Riverside, CA 92506
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/ Wendy L Hackett
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/09/2015
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).
11/06/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010172
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: AZQ Photobooth, 17631 Valley Blvd Suit A, Fontana, CALIF 92316, Mailing Address: 13214 Kochi Dr, Moreno Valley, CALIF 92553, Antoni Z. Quebec, 13214 Kochi Dr, Moreno Valley, CALIFO 92553
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/ Antoni Quebec
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/29/20
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).
11/06/20, 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20
Foreclosure Notice
A.P.N.: 1005-311-53-0-000 Trustee Sale No.:2019-2412 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE UNDER A NOTICE OF A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM OF LIEN. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT DATED 2/18/2020 UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. Notice is hereby given that on 12/7/2020 at 1:00 PM, S.B.S. Lien Services As the duly appointed Trustee under and pursuant to Notice of Delinquent Assessment, recorded on 2/24/2020 as Document No. 2020-0063515 Book Page of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, The original owner: LESLIE A WRIGHT The purported new owner: LESLIE A WRIGHT WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER payable at time of sale in lawful money of the United States, by a cashier’s check drawn by a State or national bank, a check drawn by a state of federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state.: NEAR THE FRONT STEPS LEADING UP TO THE CITY OF CHINO CIVIC CENTER, 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO, CALIFORNIA 91710 All right, title and interest under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment in the property situated in said County, as more fully described on the above referenced assessment lien. The street address and other common designation, if any of the real property described above is purported to be: 1333 NORTH HILLS DR UPLAND CA 91784 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein. Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum due under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment, with interest thereon, as provided in said notice, advances, if any, estimated fees, charges, and expenses of the Trustee, to-wit: $8,932.16 accrued interest and additional advances, if any, will increase this figure prior to sale. The claimant, UPLAND NORTH HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a written Notice of Default and Election to Sell. The undersigned caused said Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located and more than three months have elapsed since such recordation. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call FOR SALES INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL (855) 986-9342 or visit this Internet Web site www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 2019-2412. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction if conducted after January 1, 2021, pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call FOR SALES INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL (855) 986-9342, or visit this internet website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 2019-2412 to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD SUBJECT TO THE NINETY DAY RIGHT OF REDEMPTION CONTAINED IN CIVIL CODE SECTION 5715(b). Date: 11/2/2020. S.B.S LIEN SERVICES, 31194 La Baya Drive, Suite 106, Westlake Village, California, 91362. By: Annissa Young, Sr. Trustee Sale Officer (11/13/2020, 11/220/2020, 11/27/2020 | TS#2019-2412 SDI-19730)
SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): SHARON JOY PEDIGO
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): LAWRENCE ROBERT BOYER, JR.
CASE NUMBER 20PSFL00848
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgement is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] have been residents of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
3. STATISTICAL FACTS
A (1) Date of marriage: March 8, 2003 (2) Date of separation: September 11, 2011 (3) Time from date of marriage to date of separation: 8 years 6 Months
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: Irreconcilable Differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to ward support to Petitioner [and] Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be confirmed by the court.
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
OTHER REQUESTS: Such other and further orders as the court deems just and proper.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
400 Civic Center Plaza
Pomona, California 91766
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
LAWRENCE ROBERT BOYER, JR.
IN PRO PER
417 S. SHELLMAN AVENUE
SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773
DATE (Fecha): July 13, 2020
by O Navarro, Deputy (Asistente) for Sherri R. Carter Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 11/13, 1120, 11/27 & 12/04, 2020

FBN 20200010183
The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH BRADY, INC. [and] ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT GROUP [and] BARSTOW REAL ESTATE GROUP 240 E WILLIAMS ST BARSTOW, CA 92311 JOSEPH BRADY, INC., 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
Mailing Address: PO BOX 2710 VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-2710
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JOSEPH W. BRADY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 4, 1989
County Clerk, Deputy A9730
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 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20 & 12/04/20.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER THE ESTATE OF:
FRANK MANUEL CARLIN
NO. PROPS20000857
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FRANK MANUEL CARLIN
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by FRANCES NORIEGA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that FRANCES NORIEGA 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. S37 at 8:30 a.m. on December 17, 2020 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 Petitioner:
MICHAEL C. MADDUX
1894 COMMERCENTER W. SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
909 890 2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 11/20, 11/27 & 12/4, 2020.
FBN 20200010182
The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH BRADY, INC. [and] THE BRADCO COMPANIES [and] BRADCO HIGH DESERT REPORT [and] THE SHOPS AT SPANISH TRAIL [and] THE SHOPPES AT SPANISH TRAIL [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY REAL ESTATE GROUP [and] BRADCO COMMERCIAL LEASING GROUP [and] BRADCO DEVELOPMENT [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE [and] BRADCO MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE [and] HIGH DESERT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL [and] MOJAVE RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT [and] MOJAVE RIVER ECONOMIC GROUP [and] HIGH DESERT VALLEY SURVEY (which began transacting business 08/01/2019) [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY SURVEY (for which no date for commencing service is provided) 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395 JOSEPH BRADY, INC., 12138 INDUSTRIAL BLVD., SUITE 250 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
Mailing Address: PO BOX 2710 VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-2710
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JOSEPH W. BRADY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/30/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 4, 1989
County Clerk, Deputy A9730
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 11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20 & 12/04/20.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010303
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Talamanca’s Products, 203 E Park St, Ontario, CALIF, 91761, Javier Castillo, 203 E Park St, Ontario, CALIFO 91761
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Javier Castillo
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/05/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20, 12/04/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200010078
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: KA Brand Shop Online USA, 7360 GUTHRIE ST, San Bernardino, CA 92410, Kimath Im, 7360 GUTHRIE ST, San Bernardino, CA 92410
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/ Kimath Im
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/22/20
County Clerk, s/ E4004
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).
11/13/20, 11/20/20, 11/27/20, 12/04/20

FBN 20200008679
The following person is doing business as: SB CASH AND CARRY 240 N. WATERMAN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; SB CASH AND CARRY 240 N. WATERMAN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 9240
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 07/13/2020
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/ JOUN SEDER, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202001MT

FBN 20200009340
The following person is doing business as: BEACH TO HILLS HOMES 15931 JANINE DRIVE WHITTIER, CALIF 90603; SHANON BROWN REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. 15931 JANINE DRIVE WHITTIER, CALIFO 90603
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/18/2019
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/ SHANNON COLETTE BROWN, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202002IR

FBN 20200009343
The following person is doing business as: YUMMY BITES FONTANA 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337; RADCHI A FLORES 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337; VIOLA M FLORES 16163 COLEEN STREET FONTANA, CA 92337
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/ RADCHI A. FLORES, HUSBAND Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202003MT

FBN 20200009344
The following person is doing business as: LEGACY SMOKERS 1091 S MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1501 COLTON, CA 92324]; DINA A ABDELHADI 1091 S MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DINA A. ABDELHADI, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202004IR

FBN 20200009415
The following person is doing business as: ROYALCLD$ 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHALYSA L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHALARRA L DIXON-SESSION 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHADONA L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; CHADEN L DIXON 2523 DUFFY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
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/ CHALYSA L. DIXON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202005MT

FBN 20200009404
The following person is doing business as: MARINE’S TAX SERVICE 390 N PALM AVE STE A RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1868 RIALTO, CA 92371]; MARGARITA MARINELARENA 390 N PALM AVE STE A RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 11/20/2014
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARGARITA MARINELARENA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202006IR

FBN 20200009414
The following person is doing business as: DUARTE’S MITIGATION 777 S. TEMESCAL ST. SPC. 13 CORONA, CA 92879; VANESSA DUARTE 777 S. TEMESCAL ST. SPC. 13 CORONA, CA 92879
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/ VANESSA DUARTE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/13/2020
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 10/16/2020, 10/23/2020, 10/30/2020, 11/06/2020 CNBB41202007IR
FBN 20200010079
The following person is doing business as: BEAUTEBYVEE 829 W FOOTHILL BLVD, SUITE B UPLAND, CA 91786;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1155 SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVENUE, SPACE 97 RIALTO, CA 92376; VIANDA C LOPEZ 1155 SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVE SPACE 97 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ VIANDA C LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202001MT
FBN 20200009878
The following person is doing business as: F&V MOBILE FIBERGLASS REPAIR 53161 TWENTYNINE PALMS HIGHWAY MORONGO VALLEY, CA 92256; FRANCISCO VALENZUELA 53161 TWENTYNINE PALMS HIGHWAY MORONGO VALLEY, CA 92256
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/ FRANCISCO VALENZUELA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/23/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202002MT
FBN 20200009876
The following person is doing business as: BIG WEST TOWING AND RECOVERY INC. 17316 EL MOLINO ST BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; BIG WEST TOWING AND RECOVERY INC. 17316 EL MOLINO ST BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ ALEJANDRO J. AVINA, C.E.O Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/23/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202003MT
FBN 20200009789
The following person is doing business as: GARCIA’S TRENCH LESS SOLUTIONS 4265 N F ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; VICTOR H GARCIA ESPINOZA 4265 N F ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; HUMBERTO GARCIA FLORES JR 4265 N F ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 9407
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/ VICTOR H. GARCIA ESPINOZA, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/21/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202004MT
FBN 20200010134
The following person is doing business as: CW & CM TRUCKING LLC 24853 6TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 3208 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92413]; CW & CM TRUCKING LLC 24853 6TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
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/ MARGIA F. CASTELLON, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: N/A
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202006MT
FBN 20200010113
The following person is doing business as: TWIST CUTZ 191 N PLYMOUTH WAY SAN BERNARDINP, CA 92408; ANTHONY D LOWE 191 N PLYMOUTH WAY SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANTHONY D. LOWE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202007MT
FBN 20200010466
The following person is doing business as: VM TRUCKING 551 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT. 44 ONTARIO, CA 91761; VALENTIN HERRERA BALTAZAR 551 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT. 44 ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ VALENTIN HERRERA BALTAZAR, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/04/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202008IF
FBN 20200010479
The following person is doing business as: LAKE ARROWHEAD VILLAGE DENTAL GROUP 28200 HIWAY 189 SUITE 01-250 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352;[ MAILING ADDRESS 292 E 40TH STREET, SUITE B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; ASH M DASON, DDS, A PROFESSIONAL DENTAL CORPORATION 292 E 40TH STREET, SUITE B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 06/30/2020
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/ ASH MOSES DASON, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/13/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB4620209MT
FBN 20200010222
The following person is doing business as: L&E MOBILE SERVICES 243 N MERIDIAN AVE SPC #118 SAN BERNARDINP, CA 92410; ENGLLEL I ULLOA MARTINEZ 243 N MERIDIAN AVE SPC #118 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ ENGLLEL I. ULLOA MARTINEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/03/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202010MT
FBN 20200010219
The following person is doing business as: TOP RANK TURF 22597 BARTON RD SUITE D GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1111 VALLEY SPRING LANE COLTON, CA 92324]; TOP RANK BUILDING MATERIALS INC 22597 BARTON RD SUITE A GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
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/ ABIE GARCIA JR, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/03/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202011MT
FBN 20200009803 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME
The following person is doing business as: CASILLAS TRANSPORT 1057 ½ W 7TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; DAVID CASILLAS 1057 ½ W 7TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 03/12/2018. Original File#FBN20180002838
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/ DAVID CASILLAS, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/21/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202012MT
FBN 20200010403
The following person is doing business as: AXLE’S MACHINE SHOP 10803 FREMONT AVE STE A&B ONTARIO, CA 91761; PORTABLE SPINDLE REPAIR SPECIALIST, INC. 10803 FREMONT AVE STE A&B ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARK A. TWOGOOD, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/10/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202013MT
FBN 20200010312
The following person is doing business as: LUCIAN’S PIZZA 33946 YUCAIPA BLVD STE B YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MAYALACOB LLC 33946 YUCAIPA BLVD STE B YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY
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/ CARLOS I. HERRERA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/05/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202014MT
FBN 20200010402
The following person is doing business as: FLOYD TAXI SERVICES 43033 HAMPTON DRIVE NEWBERRY SPRINGS, CA 92365;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX #99 NEWBERRY SPRINGS, CA 92365]; FLOYD G MISASA 43033 HAMPTON DRIVE NEWBERRY SPRINGS, CA 92365
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/ FLOYD G. MISASA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/10/2020
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 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020 CNBB46202015MT

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

Sentinel 11-13-20

Privacy Group Sues To Have Court Divulge Sheriff’s Cell Phone Diversion Warrants

By Gail Fry and Mark Gutglueck
Though privacy advocates have hailed what they said were marginal improvements in how the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s blanket interception of cell phone communications are being disclosed to an unsuspecting public that may otherwise have no inkling its private communications are being compromised, those reforms have not been comprehensive enough, those advocates maintain, and legal efforts to limit law enforcement’s reach into people’s lives are ongoing.
At issue is whether law enforcement agencies in general and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in particular, will be able to continue to engage in the wholesale vacuuming and interception of cell phone communications based on warrants and affidavits for their issuance that can be indefinitely withheld from disclosure.
The first round in the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation’s effort to shed light on the monitoring of cell phone and smart device communications of both criminal suspects and members of the general public who are not known to be engaged in any criminal activity involved a lawsuit brought against the sheriff’s department which resulted in the plaintiff obtaining the basic identifying information pertaining to the warrants relating to the department’s electronic monitoring. That first lawsuit has now been dismissed. The second round is now under way, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation having filed suit against the San Bernardino County Superior Court, seeking to obtain the information contained in and upon which those warrants were issued, and challenging the court’s routine practice of sealing those search warrants, in virtually all cases indefinitely.
In 2012, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department acquired a so-called Stingray, a cell-tower simulator, capable of receiving cell phone signals in a targeted area, including those specifically sought by investigators as well as those of others using or simply carrying switched on cell phones within the range of the simulator who are not suspected of any criminal activity.
For the first 18 months the device was in its possession, the Sheriff’s Department made indiscriminate use of the Stingray, utilizing it over 295 times without seeking any sort of warrant whatsoever for its employment. When department officials were informed that data obtained through the collections was in admissible in a criminal proceeding, thereafter warrants were sought through the court as required by law.
In October 2015, the California Legislature passed and then-Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was co-sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and authored by California State Senators Mark Leno and Joel Anderson. That legislation imposed comprehensive requirements aimed toward enhancing digital and electronic privacy, and required that law enforcement agencies first obtain a warrant before they accessed or took possession of virtually any type of digital data emanating from, produced by, stored or contained within a device or the servers providing such digital service.
Under the provisions of the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in order for law enforcement agencies to access the digital records pertaining to the cell phone or internet activity of an individual or group of people in anything other than an emergency/life-and-death situation, police must first obtain a warrant to do so. Hand held communication devices such as smart phones and the current generation of even-less-sophisticated cell phones typically have a geographic position function which will allow a forensic analysis to ascertain the continuous geographic location of the individual in possession the device over the continuous span of time while the device is turned on.
The privacy right to not be subjected to such tracking by a law enforcement agency is legally suspended only in those circumstances where the police have obtained from the individual being tracked a waiver of his or her privacy rights or in the extraordinary circumstance of an emergency in which public safety is at risk or at issue and law enforcement or government agents must take action to avert catastrophe, death or dire consequences.
Another provision of the act is that government agencies are mandated to provide to the California Department of Justice information about warrants that don’t identify a specific target or in cases where they want to delay notifying the target. The Department of Justice on an ongoing basis must provide that information to the public.
References to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s Stingray both in the press and in other forms of public disclosure, including that the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department was using the simulator to target a far greater percentage of the county’s population than any other law enforcement agencies within the State of California using identical or similar devices to track the cell phone traffic of the populations within their respective jurisdictions, summoned the attention of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
An article that ran in the Palm Springs Desert Sun, which had as its basis an analysis of California Department of Justice data, revealed that on a per capita basis San Bernardino County law enforcement agencies sought and were granted more electronic warrants than all other law enforcement agencies in the State of California. According to the article, 93 percent of the warrants reported to the state by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department as a consequence of the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act  “were granted to investigate people whose identity was unknown to the department.”
In August 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation made a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act to obtain search warrant information for six specific searches that were made public by the Sheriff’s Department and which were disclosed to the Department of Justice. In the authorization requests for those six searches, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department had misspelled the term simulator in seeking warrants to utilize “cell-site stimulators.”
In its request, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sought court case numbers associated with the search warrants in an effort to allow the foundation’s researchers to locate in the various court files the search warrant affidavits spelling out the grounds for granting the warrants and to ascertain whether law enforcement agencies are complying with both the law and their own stated or written policies in obtaining the warrants. The request contained detailed information about each warrant made public by the Department of Justice, such as the nature of the warrants, the precise start and end dates of the warrants and verbatim quotes about the grounds for each warrant. The request sought the specific case numbers associated with the warrants so the Electronic Frontier Foundation could determine through court records, such as affidavits, whether the warrants were justified.
San Bernardino County denied the Electronic Frontier Foundation request, claiming it was “vague, overly broad,” and didn’t describe an “identifiable record.” The county also claimed that the material sought qualified as investigative records, and “that such records would be investigative records exempt from disclosure.”
On October 23, 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a petition for a writ of mandate naming the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Sheriff to force disclosure with regard to what it said were the highest number of electronic warrants per resident in the state, 231 in 2018 alone, those being authorizations to use the Stingray in its possession. Those warrants, once granted, provided the department with clearance to use its cell-site simulator to gain access to cellphone communications of suspects, as well as sweep up the cellphone conversations of unsuspecting nearby cell phone users.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition for the writ of mandate sought to have the sheriff’s department disgorge information relating to its collection of data using court ordered electronic surveillance warrants, citing how the department spurned the foundation’s effort to track the same information using a California Public Records Act request.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation explained its public records request for the court case numbers associated with the electronic search warrants would enable “researchers to locate court records” to ensure whether law enforcement was “following the law and their own policies when obtaining warrants” and that the public records request was for “detailed information about each warrant” made public by the Department of Justice.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in September 2018 Electronic Frontier Foundation senior researcher Dave Maass reached out to San Bernardino County to inform their counsel that the California State Attorney General had “specifically informed him that he can obtain the search warrant court numbers,” and confirming the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “request was narrow and contained granular detail on just six searches.”
In response to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition for a writ of mandate filed with the San Bernardino Superior Court, Deputy San Bernardino County Counsel Miles Kowalski maintained to the court that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was seeking information that was rightfully being kept from the public, including the search warrant affidavits pertaining to ongoing investigations as well as the identities of confidential informants assisting the sheriff’s department in its investigations. After some degree of back-and-forth it was established that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was not seeking that information at all, but rather simply the numbers of the search warrants, which the sheriff’s department was refusing to disclose.
While the case against the sheriff’s department was ongoing, the Electronic Frontier Foundation did obtain the warrant numbers from the Sheriff’s Department, while encountering roadblock upon roadblock in its efforts to unlock the information relating to how the Stingray was being employed, against whom, and what collateral information the department was accumulating, including the whereabouts and communication contacts of tens of thousands of San Bernardino County residents who were and are being unknowingly caught up in the department’s vacuuming of cell phone data, and what the ultimate disposition of that data is, extending to whether the department is continuing to warehouse that information for possible future use or analysis.
On May 16, 2019, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys Michael T. Risher, Stephanie J. Lacambra and David Greene wrote a letter to the presiding judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Judge John P. Vander Feer, in an effort to induce the court to unseal the search warrants and their affidavits to allow for public access to the information relating to the use of the cell phone simulators in the sheriff’s department’s possession in accordance with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
“We are writing on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation to ask that the court review and unseal 22 of its files that from what we can tell are indefinitely and completely sealed in violation of the Penal Code and Rule of Court 2.551,” Risher’s, Lacambra’s and Greenes’ letter states. “The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department has informed us that these files relate to search warrants authorizing electronic searches under Penal Code §1545.1 and pen register trap trace orders issued under Penal Code § 638.52. The statutory schemes governing these warrants and orders allow sealing only until they are executed or expire, respectively. Thus, these files should long ago have been unsealed under these provisions. Nevertheless, it appears that at the request of the sheriff’s department these court files remain completely sealed until further order of the court.”
A trap and trace device records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers called or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which that device is dedicated. A pen register is similar to a trap and trace device. A trap and trace device shows what numbers had called a specific telephone, i.e., all incoming phone numbers.
“In the course of this litigation,” the letter continues, “the sheriff’s department has provided the search warrant numbers of these six warrants, but refuses to provide the warrants themselves, asserting among other things that it cannot do so because they have all been indefinitely sealed by this court. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has since requested 18 other warrants pertaining to electronic searches that the sheriff’s department obtained under similar circumstances from this court. The department has provided two of them but has refused to provide the rest, again on the grounds that they are sealed. The two warrants that it did provide both contain sealing requests that were denied by the issuing magistrates, warrant numbers VVSW18-1048 and VVSW18-1286. It thus appears that the sheriff’s department requests indefinite sealing orders as part of every application for a warrant or court order under these statutes.”
The letter to Judge Judge Vander Feer continues, “Although the sealing orders prevent us from reviewing information about the proffered justification for sealing or even if any such justification was asserted, we believe that these files should be unsealed in whole or in part. Pen register or trap and trace orders must be disclosed after they expire. Some of the files at issue apparently involve orders “authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device which are methods of obtaining routing and dialing information for telephone calls and other electronic communications, respectively. These orders may be issued for periods of up to 60 days and extended for additional 60 day periods if there is continuing probable cause to do so. Until recently, a magistrate issuing these types of orders was required to direct that the order be sealed until otherwise ordered by the court. These indefinite sealing orders may well have violated the First Amendment.”
In their letter, Risher, Lacambra and Greene go on to state, “The legislature addressed this problem in 2016 by changing this provision so that it now requires that an order or extension order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device shall direct that the order be sealed until the order including any extension expires. This legislative history and the language of the amended statute make it clear that these sealing orders must now expire when the underlying order does, particularly given the constitutional requirement that the statute be read so as to promote public access. But it appears that the warrant application forms submitted by the sheriff’s department fail to comply with this statutory change, though it may well be that that issuing magistrates in many of these cases were not aware of this statutory noncompliance. Law enforcement must provide notice to the target if known within 30 days of the expiration of the order. The issuing court may grant delays [to] this period under certain conditions. If there is no identified target, the agency must provide notice to the Department of Justice after the order and any authorized delay periods expire. The department must then post information about the order on its website within 90 days. Information about all of the orders in question appears on the department’s website, which shows that they have been executed and that any nondisclosure order has expired.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys Risher, Lacambra and Greene further argued in their letter to Judge Vander Feer, “Executed search warrants become public ten days after they are issued. Many of the orders in question authorize the use of a cell site simulator. These devices commonly known as Stingrays, a brand name, masquerade as cell phone towers and allow law enforcement to locate specific cell phones by diverting these phones’ signals to the simulator rather than to the carrier’s real tower. They can also be used to determine the unique international mobile subscriber identifiers of unknown devices. Law enforcement must obtain a special kind of search warrant under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act before deploying a cell site simulator. Warrants issued under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act must comply with specific particularity and notice requirements mandated by statute and aimed to improve public oversight and transparency. They must also comply with Penal Code §1534, which makes all warrants and related documents public 10 days after they are issued, assuming they have been executed.”
Penal Code §1534 states in part, “A search warrant shall be executed and returned within 10 days after date of issuance. The documents and records of the court relating to the warrant need not be open to the public until the execution and return of the warrant or the expiration of the 14-day period after issuance. Thereafter if the warrant has been executed, the documents and records shall be open to the public as a judicial record.”
Risher’s, Lacambra’s and Greene’s letter maintained, “As with pen registers, the police must provide information about these warrants to the target if known, after execution; if the target is unknown they must provide the information to the Department of Justice, which then posts it on its website. Although the police may apply to the court for authorization to delay notice for up to 90 days at a time, the fact that information about these warrants was posted on the Department of Justice website shows that any such periods have long since expired.”
In their letter, Risher, Lacambra and Greene called upon Judge Vander Feer to “examine these warrant files and unseal any parts of them that are not properly sealed. Since orders to seal court records implicate the public’s right of access under the First Amendment, they inherently are subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny, including at the trial court level. Thus, the ‘court on its own motion may move … to unseal a record’ ‘entirely or in part.’” The lawyers told the judge that “any party seeking to restrict access has a continuing burden to show that the materials currently meet the standards for sealing” and “The court may order the records unsealed entirely or in part. If redaction of a record is sufficient, sealing the entire record is improper.”
While conceding that “The court may partially seal an affidavit as necessary to protect the identity of a confidential informant, which is protected under Evidence Code 1041,” Risher, Lacambra and Greene insisted that “any portions of the sealed materials which if disclosed would not reveal or tend to reveal the informant’s identity must be made public.”
Controlling law and case precedent further requires disclosure of any parts of sealed materials that can be provided with appropriate redactions and which will not compromise the identity of an informant or informants, even pertaining to matters that have yet to result in a prosecution, according to Risher, Lacambra and Greene in their letter to Judge Vander Feer.
And while “affidavits and related materials may be sealed in whole or in part as necessary to protect a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and minor victims’ rights to privacy,” Risher, Lacambra and Greene told Judge Vander Feer, “The Court of Appeal held that under both the First Amendment and the Rules of Court the public’s right to access to these materials may be denied only if the court after notice and hearing makes four supported findings: i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and for sealing; ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.”
Risher, Lacambra and Greene asserted, “these files should be completely or partially unsealed,” expressing their belief that “an examination of the materials will show that they should be unsealed under these rules at least in part because… information about these warrants and orders is available on the Department of Justice website indicates that any period for which the governing statutes authorize sealing has long since expired. These statutes therefore make them public unless some other statute or constitutional provision overrides that presumption. There can be no justification for sealing boilerplate parts of the files such as the outdated indefinite sealing orders or other parts containing general legal propositions unrelated to any specific case that were presented to the court. This information cannot be privileged, and because it does not relate to any individual case, cannot implicate any constitutional right. Moreover, there is no compelling interest that justifies sealing these materials. Both the Penal Code and the First Amendment therefore require that they be unsealed.”
Citing case law that evolved out of two prosecutions, People v. Hobbs in 1994 and People v. Jackson in 2005, Risher, Lacambra and Greene told Judge Vander Feer, “The court will have to determine whether any of the facts presented to support these delayed notification orders should continue to be sealed, but the remainder of these documents must be unsealed. We are not aware of any precedent authorizing a court to seal a warrant or judicial order as opposed to the supporting affidavit after it has expired or been executed.” The trio then reasoned that “this makes sense because it seems unlikely that a search warrant would itself contain much if any information that would meet the standards for sealing,” as “warrants do not generally contain the names of informants or the type of information that would jeopardize the right to a fair trial or constitute such a severe infringement on personal privacy so as to merit sealing.
“And there is an extremely significant countervailing public interest in government transparency and accountability by allowing the public to see how and why courts are authorizing the police to conduct digital searches,” Risher, Lacambra and Greene continued, adding, “Information that has already been disclosed cannot be sealed because there is no justification for sealing records that contain only facts already known or available to the public,” and they asserted, it “seems likely that much of the information in the sealed documents has been revealed in the course of criminal proceedings, either in discovery provided to the defense without any sort of protective order or in the preliminary hearings trials or other evidentiary hearings.
“Summary sealing of the entirety of the requested search warrants and supporting materials is not narrowly tailored to serve any legitimate government interest in sealing,” Risher, Lacambra and Greene further propounded, noting that the materials relating to one of the search warrants being withheld on the presumption they had been sealed by the court when that was not actually the case. “Some of the court’s files may be erroneously designated as sealed,” the letter states. “A boilerplate checkbox on the second page of one of the warrants that we did obtain from the sheriff’s department indicates that it is sealed until further order of the court even though the issuing magistrate specifically refused the requested sealing order. Because it appears that this application is a standard template and that the sheriff’s department always asks that these orders be sealed, this may lead to confusion and to the erroneous withholding from the public of files that a judge of this court has refused to seal.”
Risher, Lacambra and Greene asked that Judge Vander Feer review the 22 search warrants they referenced “to determine whether they are in fact sealed, unseal any files or parts of files that are not properly sealed under Rule of Court 2.551 (h) and the standards discussed above [and] take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that similar files both in the past and in the future are open to the public as required by law.”
On June 8, 2019, Judge Vander Feer responded to Risher, Lacambra and Greene. “I write today to inform you I do not intend to act on your request,” Judge Vander Feer wrote. There are two reasons. First, your request and contentions are before the court in a petition for writ of mandate, which proceeding appears to be approaching trial. Second, my position as presiding judge does not provide authority to second guess a trial judge or to sua sponte investigate our law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. As the statutory law you discuss makes clear, it is the role of the judge presiding over the proceeding to limit the reach of each warrant.”
At an October 9, 2020, court hearing in electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against the Superior Court, lawyers for the foundation confirmed that the case against the sheriff’s department and the county was dismissed after the foundation was provided with the identification relating to the electronic warrants it had sought and was provided with its attorney fees.
San Bernardino County County Counsel Kowalski told the Sentinel, “During the course of the litigation, the county was able to identify the search warrant numbers and give them [the Electronic Frontier Foundation] those sealed search warrant numbers. The county agreed to pay for their costs during the course of the litigation, and they dismissed the case. So, they partially succeeded in that they were able to get the numbers of the search warrants. The search warrants themselves were sealed by the court. They are currently involved in another matter seeking to unseal the search warrants. That is separate from this litigation.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, did not consider the limited success it had achieved with regard to being able to identify the warrants to be sufficient, as its overriding goal had been to ensure that the sheriff’s office and the county were making disclosure of its electronic monitoring activity in compliance with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Thwarted at obtaining the full range of information with regard to the electronic warrants granted by the San Bernardino County Superior Court as a consequence of Judge Vander Feer’s decision not to release the sought-after documents specified in Risher’s, Lacambra’s and Greene’s May 16, 2019 letter, the Electronic Frontier Foundation on October 8, 2019 filed its verified petition to unseal court records, naming the San Bernardino Superior Court, seeking to have the court identify all of the electronic search warrants it has issued, unseal 12 search warrants authorizing electronic searches under Penal Code Section 1546.1 and 638.52 and other related documents, and calling upon it to disclose, in keeping with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the First Amendment and Penal Code §1534 and consistent with the limitations in a defendant’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial and the confidentiality protection due to a law enforcement informant under Evidence Code § 1041, information contained within the search warrants themselves and the affidavits prepared to convince a judge to issue them.
Named as real parties in interest in the suit are the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office.
In its verified petition to unseal the court records, the Electronic Frontier Foundation claims “these files should long ago have been unsealed, at least in part” under the laws, which “do not allow for indefinite sealing.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation asserts state law requires that “copies of the warrants” are to “be provided to the target of the search and made public after they are executed or expire” if the target is known.
“Although the court has some authority to issue orders delaying notification under certain conditions, it cannot do so indefinitely,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation reasons, citing public information about warrants issued in 2017 and 2018, posted on the website of the California Department of Justice, which it asserts demonstrates “any such orders have expired.”
Additionally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation cites California Rules of Court that “require that any continued sealing of the records, even in part, be justified by specific findings on the record that have not to date been made” and the public’s First Amendment Right of access to the records “also requires unsealing” by the court.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation maintains that “contrary to these provisions” the San Bernardino Superior Court has allowed these records to “remain completely sealed until further order of the court.”
In response to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s verified petition to unseal the court records, a demurrer has been filed, which is an objection to the continuance of the suit, consisting of a defense asserting that even if all the factual allegations in the complaint are true, they are insufficient to establish a valid cause of action.
The matter is being heard by Judge Dwight Moore. Steve Pascover is representing the Superior Court. Deputy District Attorney Mark Vos and Deputy District Attorney Christine Masonek have represented the district attorney’s office in the matter. Representing the sheriff’s department is Deputy San Bernardino County Counsel Miles Kowalski.
Initially, the verified petition first sought the release of six warrants. In a letter dated January 24, 2020, the Electronic Freedom Foundations asked for six more warrants.
At an August 5, 2020, hearing the court confirmed that a stipulated agreement had been reached by the parties to have nine of the 12 warrants sought released from under seal  reviewed by the office of San Bernardino County Counsel and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to determine if they have any objections to the release of the warrants, with any objections to be forwarded to the court.
Vos told the Sentinel, “The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is opposed to the unsealing of the warrants to be handled in Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Superior Court, as there is a potential risk to the safety of certain parties named in these warrants. Regardless of whether a person is a victim, witness, or defendant, our office, along with law enforcement as a whole, has an obligation to do our best to ensure the safety of those who have matters handled in the criminal justice system.”
The court had scheduled for today, November 13, 2020, a hearing on the demurrer. Because, however, of a misunderstanding by which Rischer believed he could make his appearance telephonically from San Francisco and Judge Moore expected all of the legal representatives of the parties would be present in his courtroom, the hearing was postponed to January 15, 2021.

Incumbent Barstow Councilwoman Carmen Hernandez, who had led Marilyn Dyer Kruse by a close margin since the election returns first began coming in on election November 3, has seen that lead erode until at this point, she has now fallen behind Kruse.
On election night, November 3 at 10:30 p.m., with 12 of 19 precincts reporting, Hernandez had jumped off to a 10 vote lead, with 292 votes or 37.58 percent to Kruse’s 282 votes or 36.29 percent. In third place was Martha O’Brien, with 203 votes or 26.13 percent.
Wednesday morning, at 4 a.m. November 4, after all 19 of the precincts in District 4 had reported to the registrar of voters office, Hernandez retained her lead, but Kruse had picked up a single net vote in the overall polling. The incumbent had 379 votes to Kruse’s 370 votes, a lead of 37.64 percent to 36.74 percent. O’Brien had 25.52 percent. Later that day, at 4 p.m., the vote count showed Hernandez had increased her lead. The councilwoman had 384 votes or 37.83 percent and Kruse had 371 or 36.55 percent. O’Brien’s percentage stood at 25.52.
At 4 p.m. on November 5, Kruse was again gaining on Hernandez. The at-that-time second-place challenger had 400 votes for 36.93 percent and Hernandez was eight votes up at 408, with 37.67 percent. O’Brien was at 25.3 percent.
On Friday November 6 at 4 p.m., Hernandez appeared to be accelerating ahead of Kruse once more, as she at that point had laid claim to 427 votes or 38.13 percent to Kruse’s 412 votes or 36.79 percent. O’Brien was yet well off the pace at 25 percent. There was a single write-in vote that had been received.
After the week-end break, on Monday November 9, the registrar of voters office’s tally, released at 4 p.m., showed Hernandez unable to shake Kruse’s close and relentless pursuit. Hernandez was up by just seven votes at that point, with 458 votes or 37.66 percent to Kruse’s 451 votes or 37.09 percent. O’Brien was hovering at 25.25 percent.
On November 10, Tuesday at 4 p.m., the incoming ballots over the previous 24 hours ran in Kruse’s favor, as 13 ballots for Kruse came in as opposed to six for Hernandez, such that each had a total 464 or 37.21 percent. O’Brien had 319 votes or 25.58 percent.
Yesterday, Thursday, November 12, when the tally of the county’s ballots at that time was released, Kruse, with 522 votes or 38.16 percent, had pulled 18 votes ahead of Hernandez, who at that point had notched 504 or 36.84 percent. O’Brien had 25 percent of the vote.
Today, at 4 p.m. the registrar of voters office released the latest tally of the votes, showing Kruse widening her lead over Hernandez. At this point, Kruse has 546 votes or 37.66 percent to Hernandez’s 525 or 36.21 percent. O’Brien has registered 26.14 percent.
-Mark Gutglueck