The City of Victorville and its reestablished municipal fire department have seemingly buried the hatchet with San Bernardino County and its fire protection division.
This week, the Victorville City Council and the county approved a mandatory cooperative aid agreement to logically dispatch their public safety resources in those areas of the city and surrounding county where their jurisdictions and service areas overlap in a way that is intended to ensure the fastest response to emergency situations. The policy replaces one that allowed either department to essentially ignore a potentially life-threatening circumstance that was technically occurring outside that particular department’s jurisdictional service area even when that department was the most logical responder in that its personnel and equipment were physically closer to the location of the incident than all of the other department’s firefighter and paramedic teams.
The normally cooperative attitude of agency-to-agency privilege and coordination between the City of Victorville and San Bernardino County came under challenge to the point of breakdown as the result of multiple shifts going back several decades with regard to the agency entrusted to provide the city with fire protection and emergency medical service.
At the time of its incorporation in 1962, the City of Victorville was indirectly dependent upon the county fire department, which provided supervision of the team of volunteer on-call firefighters that composed the new city’s fire department, which had existed pre-incorporation in one form or another since 1926. In 1976, the city recruited Rudy Cabriales, a one-time border patrol agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service who had transitioned to a career as a firefighter in his hometown of Calexico before rising to become the fire chief of Coachella in Riverside County, to relocate to Victorville and become fire chief of an operation transitioning from being a county-supervised team of volunteers to a professional department. Cabriales built that organization into what some considered to be the premier fire department in the High Desert, and retired after 21 years as fire chief in 1997. Cabriales then ran, unsuccessfully, for the Victorville City Council in 1998. He ran again in 2000, achieving victory and a berth on the council.
In 2004, the Hesperia City Council in a highly controversial move closed out its municipal fire department and contracted with the county fire department for fire safety service.
In 2007, the City of Victorville undertook an intensified discussion of augmenting its fire department with the addition of a licensed paramedic on each of the primary fire engines run out of the city’s three fully-staffed fire stations. The full range of discussions extended to the advisability of phasing in that paramedic capability over the then-upcoming three or four years, or taking a leaf out of Hesperia’s book and instead dissolving the fire department in favor of contracting with the county fire department, which already had paramedics aboard its engines. Ultimately in May 2008, the city council, in a 3-to-2 vote, with Cabriales and then-City Councilwoman JoAnn Almond dissenting, voted to disband the Victorville municipal fire department as of July 1, 2008, and to contract with San Bernardino County and its fire service division for fire protection and emergency medical services.
Cabriales, while at the time of that vote acknowledging that the county fire department was capable of providing an adequate level of service, said he regretted the city surrendering local control of a vital city function, and he insisted the city was every bit as capable of providing its residents with adequate paramedic and emergency medical service as the county.
For ten years, the county fire department functioned as the fire protection service provider and de facto fire department for Victorville. During that interim, the county fire service division reoriented the terms by which it provided fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency medical service to the county’s cities that did not have municipal fire departments of their own. In the timeframe between 2015 and 2017, four of the county’s cities – San Bernardino, Needles, Twentynine Palms and Upland – moved to dissolve their existing municipal or community-based fire departments and allow the county fire division to take on that responsibility within their city limits. In forging those deals, the county arranged to have those cities annex the entirety of their city limits into a county fire service assessment zone, which entailed individual homeowners or parcel owners having to pay an annual assessment, which was at that point pegged in the neighborhood of $150. In addition, those cities agreed to divert a portion of their property tax revenue to the county to pay for the fire protection and paramedic service.
This represented a change in how the county had structured the fire service arrangements with cities in the past, one that formerly involved a simple contractual arrangement by which those cities paid the county a set amount of money out of their operating budgets – referred to as general funds – in return for the service.
Victorville balked at applying the new model – the one applied to San Bernardino, Twnetynine Palms, Needles and Upland – as the ten-year contract entered into in 2008 was winding toward a conclusion, since renewing the service arrangement would have involved annexing the 73.74-square mile city into a fire service assessment zone.
Instead, Victorville moved to recreate the municipal fire department it had closed out in July 2008 and transition back to owning and running the Victorville Fire Department. The county and the advocates of its fire protection division, including the firefighters themselves and their union, did not cotton to the idea of Victorville reasserting itself into the role of directly operating its own fire department. The matter grew somewhat contentious, and the ten-year anniversary of the county takeover of the fire department – July 1, 2018 – came and went with the county fire department still in the role of the city’s service provider.
In March 2009, the city had everything in place to once more take on the responsibility and burden of operating its own department, and the county fire department moved out of Victorville’s fire stations, where the fire engines, paramedic units, pumper trucks and other apparatus and equipment either previously owned by the city or paid for by the city as a part of the ten-year contract were supposed to be left in place.
Shortly thereafter, city officials learned that some of the equipment, tools, gear, implements and tackle had in some cases disappeared or was damaged, in at least a few instances as the result of sabotage, despite the county’s responsibility under the contract signed in 2008 that it maintain and preserve those items.
County officials, somewhat obliquely acknowledged that some damage had occurred, against a backdrop or atmosphere of employee and union resentment over the county’s loss of the Victorville contract.
The contretemps between the city and county fire services was palpable in the very strict protocol that evolved between the two entities immediately after the city fire department resumed operations. That protocol included a somewhat torturous application of a stilted city/county mutual aid agreement, which called for prior authorization for assistance across the city/county boundaries. The terms of the agreement were interpreted in a very strict sense, such that in emergency situations, when a city fire crew was closer to an event in the unincorporated county area outside the periphery of the city than a county fire unit was or when a county fire crew happened to be more proximate to the scene of a fire or medical emergency within the city, neither would respond to the scene of the emergency unless given explicit direction from their respective senior commanders through their dispatch centers to do so. This resulted in response delays in numerous instances, a subset of which entailed some dire circumstances wherein lives were put in danger.
At some point relatively recently, county officials and city officials, sizing up the situation and considering what was at stake – the safety of the public – decided to let bygones be bygones, so that now the principle guiding both departments is the stated intention and practice of “automatic response,” meaning that the closest unit will respond to a request for service even if that requires crossing jurisdictional lines, boundaries or borders.
In a document titled “Agreement for Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid between San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and City of Victorville” ratified by the Victorville City Council on Tuesday February 2, the concept of mutual aid is laid out. Thereafter, the document states, “District and city agree to participate in [a] boundary drop to adhere as closely as practical to the “closest resource concept” for the agreed-upon call types identified in the operating plan and signed by the fire chiefs of [the] district and [the] city.”
-Mark Gutglueck

A corpse found near Amboy Road and Dandy Road on Sunday, January 31 represents the sixth body found in the area in or around Wonder Valley in the last 14 months, and has triggered even more intense speculation than was afoot previously suggesting a killer is at large in area.
Nevertheless, law enforcement officials have downplayed the discovery and intensifying rumors that the deaths are related and represent anything more than likely misadventures in the unforgiving Mojave Desert environment.
Unknown is whether one of the bodies is that of Erica Lloyd, who had driven from her home in Northern California to Joshua Tree National Park, back home and then back to Joshua Tree within a 48 period before vanishing last June. In December, it was disclosed that one of the bodies was that of a Wonder Valley resident, James Escalante, who nine days after Lloyd went missing disappeared from virtually the same spot where Lloyd’s damaged vehicle was left abandoned and less than two months later was found dead.
Three of the six bodies found have now been identified. Seemingly, enough time has elapsed since two of the bodies were discovered for DNA testing to have been completed to determine whether those match any known missing individuals from the local area, the Southern California region or elsewhere. If such identification has been made, there has been no public disclosure. DNA and other forensic examinations are being carried out on the body found January 31. It is not yet known whether results from those tests subjected to comparisons with available data on known missing persons will provide an identifying match.
Meanwhile, many of the residents of Wonder Valley, a remote unincorporated county community of fewer than 700 residents some ten miles east of Twentynine Palms spread out over 146.72 square miles, have expressed their belief that they are not receiving any protection either from the State of California or the County of San Bernardino. The California Highway Patrol no longer regularly oversees that stretch of Highway 62. The County of San Bernardino shut down its primary presence in town, Fire Station 45, in August 2019, and has discontinued sheriff’s department patrols, dispatching personnel to Wonder Valley only upon specific calls for service deemed serious enough to warrant a response.
The Lloyd and Escalante disappearances are both baffling and troubling, the more so because they occurred within the same relatively tight eight-to-ten-day timeframe, indications that both were or may have been in virtually the same spot when they disappeared, that law enforcement has, officially at least, ruled out foul play in the disappearances of both in the face of indications otherwise, and involve circumstances that in some respects come across as downright incomprehensible.
Erika Lloyd, a 37-year-old single mother who worked as a hairdresser, sojourned from her Bay Area home in Walnut Creek on Thursday, June 11 or thereabouts to San Bernardino County’s Desert Outback, where she had announced her intention to camp for a few days at Joshua Tree National Park. Her friends and family say the COVID-19 crisis had put a crimp in her work and cash flow as a beautician, and the situation suggests that she was seeking to make a getaway to the national park as a break from the tension in her life. She left her 12-year-old son in the care of a friend in Walnut Creek before departing. Of note is that before leaving, she deleted the contents of her Facebook page, though she remained active on Instagram until June 15.
According to her sister-in-law, Lloyd was “under a lot of stress and wanted to get away and unplug.”
An unconfirmed report is that one of Ericka’s friends, whose precise identity or gender is not available through any source found by the Sentinel, moved to Twentynine Palms in April 2020. There has been speculation that Lloyd had perhaps made the trip to see that person. It is unknown to the Sentinel whether Lloyd’s phone records provide any information with regard to whether she attempted to contact or indeed contacted that person.
In phone contact with her family and friends after her departure from Walnut Creek on June 11, Lloyd indicated she was on a road trip.
There is evidence suggesting she covered the roughly 533 miles between Walnut Creek and Joshua Tree National Park on Thursday, June 11, and was camping at the Jumbo Rocks campground the nights of June 11 and Friday, June 12, having left early on Saturday, June 13 to make the 533-mile return trip to Walnut Creek, arriving later that day, and spending the night there with her son and her roommate. The following day, Sunday, June 14, she departed Walnut Creek, again without her son, to return to the Jumbo Rocks campground, where, she represented to her friends, two people identified simply as “James” and “Christian” were looking after her campsite and, presumably, her camping gear. Later in the day of June 14, Lloyd arrived at Jumbo Rocks Campground. She noted in her journal that James and Christian were not there.
According to Lloyd’s mother, she spoke with her daughter for the last time on June 14 or June 15. She said Ericka was “talking really fast” and it sounded like she was driving. There was no known telephonic contact between Lloyd and anyone after that.
Park rangers on Monday, June 15 came across Lloyd’s vandalized 2006 Black Honda Accord in the parking area for the Indian Cove campground, some 21.9 miles from Jumbo Rocks but still within the confines of 1,234 square-mile Joshua Tree National Park. There was no camping equipment in the car or in its immediate vicinity when the rangers observed the vehicle. The back window had been completely shattered, the windshield on the passenger’s side in the front had been broken, and the dashboard damaged. The rangers noted the vehicle’s presence in a report, and left a note on the car. That evening, the car had been removed.
The next day, Tuesday June 16, a video captured the car leaving the north entrance into/exit from Joshua Tree National Park at 1:20 p.m, and the car was later videoed passing a school in Twentynine Palms at 2:50 p.m.
Around 4 p.m. on June 16, a California Highway Patrolman spotted Lloyd’s Accord parked on Shelton Road, east of Twentynine Palms, just north of the intersection with Highway 62, facing south toward the highway, at a distance just shy of 23 miles from Jumbo Rocks campground. The car was blocking the roadway such that it inhibited access onto Shelton Road, which is unpaved. The CHP summoned Twentynine Palms-based Bailey’s Auto Repair & Towing to tow the car. David Bailey, the proprietor of the tow company, subsequently told News Channel 3, based in the Coachella Valley, that the Accord’s rear window was completely busted, that the front windshield was smashed on the passenger side, that the airbag had deployed and radio was damaged. In addition, Bailey said, there was damage to the outside front of the vehicle in that the bottom of the radiator and the air conditioning condenser were pushed backwards as if the car had hit a very large object head-on. Bailey speculated that the car had run into a berm beside the road near the intersection of Highway 62 and Shelton Road.
Beginning on June 16, Lloyd’s friends calling her cell phone encountered no answer. They continued to try to reach her.
On Wednesday, June 17, her family reported her missing, giving indication she might be in the area of Joshua Tree National Park. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department dispatched a helicopter to scour the area. That effort was not fruitful.
Lloyd’s camping gear was located at a camping site in Jumbo Rocks Campground. An expensive Yeti cooler she was not known to have owned was found among her possessions at the campsite.
The Morongo Basin Sheriff’s Station was put on a special alert to be on the lookout for any sightings of her throughout the entirety of the more than 3,000 square mile desert area that includes Joshua Tree, Joshua Tree National Park, Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley and outlying areas. Park Rangers began searching areas within the park. Sheriff’s deputies, including ones with canines, searched areas at the entrance of the park and its periphery, as well as along Highway 62.
The Joshua Tree Search and Rescue Team engaged in an effort to find her or spot any signs that she was in the area.
On June 19, Lloyd’s parents caught a flight from Maryland to California in an effort to help with and intensify the search for their daughter. They posted photos of her and posters alerting the public to her disappearance in the area within the national park and in around Twentynine Palms and Wonder Valley. Those posters and media alerts put out by her family and law enforcement sought input from anyone who had seen her.
Friends and family persisted in trying to reach her by calling her cell phone. On June 20, it was answered by a man who said he had found the phone on June 18 “on Cottonwood,” that is on Cottonwood Drive in Twentynine Palms.
The media and poster blitz related to Lloyd’s disappearance prompted Martin Cox, who lives in Los Angeles County but owns a home in the desert, to come forward, saying he saw a woman matching Lloyd’s description on Saturday, June 20 at a rest stop on the 10 Freeway near Whitewater, some 57 miles from Wonder Valley and 45 miles away from the north entrance to Joshua Tree National Park. According to Cox, he believed a woman he saw “just staring off toward the west” who had no visible injuries was Lloyd, based on both her physical appearance and a distinct tattoo on her arm matching one that Lloyd had, which had been featured on the missing posters her family had distributed.
In the immediate aftermath of Lloyd’s vanishing and the search that ensued, the sheriff’s department put out that no foul play was suspected in the disappearance, and that there were no indications Lloyd drove her car out of the park. That would prove inconsistent, however, with the videos that later emerged indicating the Accord had left the park on the afternoon of June 16 and had been driven into Twentynine Palms, then ultimately to the intersection of Highway 62 and Shelton Road. The search conducted by the search and rescue teams in the days and week after Lloyd’s disappearance were mostly concentrated within the national park.
On June 25, 2020, ten days after Lloyd’s car was observed by rangers in a damaged and/or vandalized state in the parking area for the Indian Cove Campground, nine days after the car was found abandoned near the intersection of Highway 62 and Shelton Road and eight days after Lloyd was reported missing, 56-year-old James Escalante left the home located off of Shelton Road he shared with his girlfriend, whose first name is Sherry, and rode his bicycle toward Highway 62 to assist his girlfriend’s friend, Dee, whose vehicle was stuck in the sand, described as just off Highway 62, a mile or so from Shelton Road.
When Escalante, who also went by the nickname Blackhawk, reached the intersection of Highway 62 and Shelton Road, he used his cell phone to call Sherry, telling her that he could not find Dee or her car. Sherry thereupon made a three-way conference call to Dee and told her to honk her horn. According to Sherry, she could hear over the phone the honking of the horn. Escalante indicated he too could hear the horn and told Black, “I got it,” and hung up. Thereafter, Escalante never made contact with his Dee, and was never heard from again.
On July 22, 2020, a dirt bike rider found human remains in the desert at a location not precisely delineated.
On August 8, 2020, a man who was going shooting in the desert found a badly decomposed body on Shelton Road in Wonder Valley.
Oddly, Sherry did not report Escalante as missing until September 7, 2020, doing so after Escalante’s family expressed concern about his unexplained disappearance.
Meanwhile, the Lloyd family, still intent on finding Ericka, intensified its efforts, and leased space on billboards in the Morongo Valley to feature oversized and highly visible photos of their daughter and make notice of her being missing, while continuing to put up photos and posters throughout Joshua Tree National Park and in businesses in the Morongo Basin to encourage anyone who had sighted her to come forward. They also hired a mining and cave expert, Doug Billings, to explore those areas throughout the 3,000 square mile desert area encompassing Joshua Tree National Park, Wonder Valley, Twntynine Palms and their surrounding areas where Ericka was likely to have become lost or perished.
While conducting his search, Billings came upon a red bike believed to be the one ridden by Escalante when he disappeared. In the same timeframe that Billings was carrying out his search, two sets of human remains were found. One of those was located roughly a quarter of a mile south of Amboy Road and Wilson Road. It is believed that Billings’ search of the area led to that find. The other corpse was not too distant from Shelton Road and Highway 62. Based upon limited information available, that discovery appears to be the remains found on August 8.
Shortly after the discovery, one of those bodies was determined to be that of a man. Investigators said they found a cell phone nearby and believe it was Escalante’s.
On December 15, 2020, according to a published report, the coroner’s office notified Escalante’s family, who live in South Carolina, that the remains found on August 8 were those of James Escalante.
As of this time, there has been no disclosure as to the whether the other body that was found has been identified as Lloyd.
This week, after learning of the January 31 discovery of the remains near Amboy Road and Dandy Road, the Sentinel inquired of the sheriff’s department’s homicide detail as to whether reporting on the incident would interfere with any ongoing investigation. That prompted a response to the effect that such a report would not obstruct the department’s operations relating to the matter. Shortly thereafter, the Sentinel was contacted by the sheriff’s department’s spokeswoman, Cynthia Bachman.
Bachman said the information available to her was that there had been four bodies discovered between December 2019 and last Sunday.
Bachman said “Human remains were found in Joshua Tree National Park on December 23, 2019. On January 14, 2020 the remains were identified as Paul Miller, and his family was notified.”
Then, according to Bachman, “On January 16, 2020, human remains were found in Joshua Tree National Park. The remains found on January 16, 2020 were identified on February 12, 2020 as Tawny Camarillo. The cause of death is pending. Camarillo was last seen on May 13, 2019, in the area of Yucca Valley. Camarillo was reported missing on May 14, 2019.”
Bachman said “On July 22, 2020, a dirt bike rider found human remains in the desert. Those remains have not been identified.”
With regard to the corpse found last Sunday near Amboy Road and Dandy Road, Bachman said, “On January 31, 2021, human remains were found in a field area. Positive identification is pending.”
Bachman made no reference to the body discovered on August 8 proximate to Shelton Road and Highway 62, which was determined to be that of Escalante. Nor did she reference the body found on an as-yet undisclosed date in the same rough timeframe approximately a quarter of a mile south of Amboy Road and Wilson Road.
With regard to the discover of the Miller and Camarillo corpses or the bodies that turned up on July 22, 2019 and January 31, 2021, Bachman said, “There is no evidence that any of these cases are related.”

Ontario International Airport is staking a further claim to legitimacy as an international aerodrome with the addition of flights to and from San Salvador International Airport in San Salvador’s capital city of El Salvador in July.
Avianca Airlines, headquartered in Bogota, Columbia, announced that it will begin service between Ontario Airport and the Central American country this week. The new route represents the first service from the Inland Empire to Central America.
“We are thrilled to welcome Avianca to Ontario,” said Ontario City Councilman Alan Wapner, who is the president of the Ontario International Airport Authority Board of Commissioners. “Our international gateway airport and the Inland Empire have much to offer and we are confident that Avianca will quickly realize the benefits of bringing new service to Ontario.”
A member of the Star Alliance, Avianca will operate from Terminal 2 at Ontario Airport and serve the route with Airbus 319 aircraft, accommodating as many as 120 passengers in business and economy class seating.
According to a schedule released with the announcement, planes will depart from Ontario every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 1:15 a.m. California time and arrive in El Salvador at 7:05 a.m. San Salvador time. On Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, planes will depart from El Salvador at 7:10 p.m. San Salvador time and arrive at Ontario at 11:30 p.m. California time.
Mark Thorpe, the chief chief executive officer of the Ontario International Airport Authority, sounded an optimistic tone in noting, “Ontario is experiencing the quickest recovery among California airports, and third fastest among airports in the U.S., since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. While domestic travel accounts for much of Ontario International Airport’s recovery, it will be particularly gratifying to add Avianca’s international service.”
Airlines operating at Ontario Airport have announced plans to restart or initiate new flights to nine U.S. destinations by May. Meanwhile, international carrier Volaris began nonstop service from Ontario to its Mexico City base in November.

Two weeks after he was invited to do so, Redlands City Attorney Dan McHugh has yet to mount a defense of the policy that Redlands City Manager Charles Duggan has put in place preventing the city’s residents from directly participating in city council meetings.
In March 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a blanket order restricting large public gatherings from taking place as part of an effort to prevent the unmanageable spread of the coronavirus. In doing so, Newsom waived certain provisions of the Brown Act, California’s open government and public meeting law, specifically those which required that legislative bodies such as city councils, county boards of supervisors and agency directors such as school district and water district boards meet in a single physical location within the boundaries of the jurisdiction that particular legislative body represents. That waiver was made so the bodies in question could meet remotely by electronic means or teleconferencing. The governor in giving his order did not waive the requirement that those bodies accommodate members of the public in providing their input with regard to the issues or matters which the body in question is to take a vote on or enter a decision about.
Some cities facilitated the public participating directly in the electronic or online meeting process by supplying access codes to the citizenry which allow them to take part in the teleconferencing. Other cities and agencies gave the public telephonic access to the meetings, providing a public comment period during which phone calls were taken to allow those callers to weigh in on the topics or items being discussed at that particular meeting, prior to the city council’s or board’s decision being rendered through a vote.
A relatively smaller sampling of cities used more restrictive means with regard to public input; among those was Redlands. Redlands did not allow residents or the general public to phone in during the meeting, but instead required that members of the public wishing to address the city council with regard to the issues that panel was to discuss or vote on submit comment in writing, either by email or in a hard copy letter form by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting. A city employee would then read those statements submitted prior to the deadline during a designated portion of the meeting. After the city council’s May 19, 2020 meeting, that policy was changed to a requirement that the comments be submitted 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Those statements submitted after the deadline are not read and do not become part of the public record.
City officials said the policy was intended to allow citizens to communicate with the city’s ultimate decision-making panel, the city council, in a meaningful and timely fashion. A number of residents, open government advocates and legal experts, however, have pointed out that the policy constitutes a violation of the Brown Act, specifically those elements of the law which had not been waived by the governor. Those provisions of the Brown Act yet in place require that members of the public be afforded the opportunity to directly address governing boards during their meetings.
According to David Snyder, an attorney with the First Amendment Coalition in Sacramento, the city’s imposition of the requirement that comments be made in writing in advance of the meeting is out of keeping with California law relating to open public meetings.
“One requirement of the Brown Act is the public has the right to directly address the legislative body, and that means talking to the legislative body in real time at the time it is about to vote,” Snyder said.
Snyder said it appears Redlands city officials took Governor Newsom’s relatively narrow waiver of elements of the Brown Act to facilitate the holding of remote meetings and widened it to illegally obviate parts of the Brown Act that remain intact.
Snyder said, “The governor’s executive order waived the requirement…that all legislative bodies have a quorum in a physical location within their respective jurisdiction… [and that] a quorum of the council had to actually be in Redlands or at City Hall. The governor’s order and waiver made it possible to hold meetings remotely, but it did not waive the requirement that the public has the right to address the city council. The governor’s order does not change that right. The city cannot limit the public’s right to directly address the council by requiring the comments to be in writing 24 hours before the meeting takes place. Direct access to a legislative body was not one of the public’s rights that was waived by the governor.”
Snyder said the Brown Act ensures “the opportunity the public has to tell the city council or school board in person what they think about what that body is doing. Direct interaction is critical. That is not just a technical requirement but foundational to the right to speak to the legislative body in real time. It is the responsibility of city councils and school boards to figure out how to conduct meetings where that direct interchange can take place despite the pandemic.”
Adherence to the Brown Act is not an abstract principle, Snyder said. The Brown Act, as embodied in the California Government Code from Section 54950 through Section 54963, carries with it the weight of law, Snyder said. Government Code Section 54959 states “Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Though criminal prosecutions under the Brown Act are rare, Snyder said, the law itself and its language gives those wishing to pursue civil action recourse against any officials or bodies which can be demonstrated to have violated the Brown Act.
“The City of Redlands is definitely exposing itself to legal liability and the possibility of a lawsuit when it does not allow someone to comment,” Snyder said. “If such a suit were to be filed, the city could be found to be in violation of the Brown Act. That would form the basis of a judgment against the city.”
Snyder said logistical problems relating to accommodating large numbers of citizens wanting to address the city council with regard to action the council is to take exacerbated by the complications brought on by incorporating precautions relating to the spread of COVID-19 will not suffice as a legal justification for precluding the public’s rights to participate in the public decision-making process.
“Long lines of residents filing in to offer their comment to a legislative board happen all the time,” Snyder said. “City council meetings often run late. It is the city council’s obligation to figure out a way to both conduct meetings in as expeditious of a manner as possible and still honor the rights the public has under the Brown Act. These are challenges cities have had before the COVID pandemic. If city officials have 200 people who want to comment, they have to deal with that. A legislative body cannot take allowing people to comment or provide input off the table because it was a hassle in one instance. A city has to provide people with the ability to comment in real time. Those are obligations the city has to work out. This practice of requiring that written comments be submitted before the meeting does not meet the letter of the law and it does not allow members of the public to address their concerns directly to the body.”
On January 21 the Sentinel phoned Redlands City Attorney Dan McHugh, seeking to engage with him in regard to the legality or illegality of the City of Redlands’ public participation policy for city council meetings and hearings. McHugh did not return the call and the Sentinel followed up with a letter/email to him on January 22.
The email inquired as to whether he was the architect, or one of the architects, of the policy that requires the pubic to provide comments and/or questions regarding pending city council action in writing 24 hours prior to the meeting, and if it was his position that the 24 hours-prior-to-the-meeting submission deadline for public comments was a reasonable one that is in compliance with the Brown Act and all applicable law.
The Sentinel further asked McHugh if he was prepared to defend the city against any legal challenge that might arise from the city excluding input that arrived after the 24 hours-in-advance deadline from the public record of the city council’s consideration/approval of an item on the council agenda.
The Sentinel asked McHugh what the city’s rationale was for not allowing for telephonic contact between members of the public and the council during meetings.
The Sentinel requested from McHugh a citation of any specific language in the governor’s order which waived that element of the Brown Act requiring governing boards/legislative bodies to provide for direct interaction with the public during their meetings.
McHugh did not respond to the Sentinel.
Redlands City Clerk Jeanne McDonald did consent to speak with regard to the issue, acknowledging that “We [City Hall] flipped a little bit” in changing the deadline for submitting written comments from 4 p.m. on the day of the meeting to 24 hours in advance.
Without directly addressing why the city, in the face of resident discontent, did not reinstitute the same day deadline for providing written comment to the council, Donaldson defended keeping the 24-hours-in-advance deadline by saying, “It’s something we don’t want to change too often. We might start confusing people. At this point people are very familiar with those guidelines.”
She did not offer an explanation as to why the city had changed from the same-day deadline to the 24-hours-in-advance deadline.
Donaldson said she had taken the liberty of having comments that arrive too late for inclusion at one meeting read at the following meeting.
“What I have done with people who miss the deadline generally, unless they tell me otherwise, is have their statements read at the next meeting,” she said. “Some have not wanted me to do that, but for the most part, things that are submitted the day of the meeting are read at the next meeting.”
She acknowledged that in many cases the input offered by residents is time sensitive, as the council’s decision relating to many things takes place the day those items are first on the agenda.
As to Redlands’ requirement that citizen input be provided in writing rather than the city receiving phone calls from residents during the course of the meeting, as is being done with most other cities, Donaldson said, “We are trying to work toward” accepting calls from city residents during the course of meetings.
She said she did not have the technical expertise to know how the phone calls could be incorporated into the city council’s videoconferencing, saying that was something that needed to be handled by the city’s information technology department.
As to how the city arrived at the policy it now has, she said “It was a joint decision” involving City Manager Charles Duggan, City Attorney Dan McHugh, herself and some department heads. “We wanted to be fair,” she said. “We wanted to make it procedurally doable. It was what we came up with.” Nevertheless, she said, it was Duggan who had led the discussion, pushing toward the ultimate derivation of the policy.
“He is the city’s emergency operations director, and the ultimate decision-maker for those kinds of things,” Donaldson said.
With regard to Snyder’s contentions that the city’s policy is out of step with the Brown Act, Donaldson said, “I would have to defer to the city attorney. I can’t really respond to that with any kind of expertise.”
She said the city, city staff and the city council were being guided by McHugh, and were proceeding under the assumption he was offering competent legal direction.
“I believe we do comply with the Brown Act, within the guidelines of the governor’s orders,” she said.
Donaldson took exception to Snyder’s assertion that Redlands is out of compliance with the Brown Act and had run afoul of the law by not allowing for an exchange between the public and the city council during the council meetings.
“There is no dialogue that goes on between the public and council,” she said, asserting that has always been the case. “That was the way it was before COVID. The public could get up and they did have their time to speak, but there isn’t a dialogue between the public and the council. The public speaks and that is for the record. After that, the council has a discussion. There really is not an ongoing dialogue during the meetings.”
Donaldson said that the custom of the council not involving itself in a discussion with the public during the course of meetings was intended to ensure compliance with the Brown Act, which requires that all issues discussed by the council be agendized prior to the meeting. The public often strays into areas not on the agenda, she said, and if the council were to involve itself in expostulation and reply with citizens, the council would find itself discussing things that were not on the agenda.
-Mark Gutglueck

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s Marijuana Enforcement Team in recent weeks has encountered a wave of large-scale cannabis cultivation operations, predominantly in remote desert locations.
A pattern has emerged in the activity, which more often than not involves foreign nationals or recent immigrants to America, who commonly assert in their legal defense that they interpreted the recent liberalization of marijuana laws as license for them to grow the plant for profit.
Of note is that in taking action to shutter the facilities and effect the arrests of those involved in the elicit enterprises, officials are defining the greenhouses where the cultivation occurs as outdoor rather than indoor premises.
While California law allows adults to engage in the growing of up to six marijuana plants, and authorities have in many cases chosen to look the other way with regard to gardens involving a dozen or more plantings, the operations in question are boldly large, in some of the cases rivaling or exceeding the size of industrial cannabis nurseries. Regulations layered into the law further disallow in most jurisdictions, as in the case of San Bernardino County, the growing of marijuana outdoors. Commercial cultivation of cannabis must take place indoors under such regulations. Moreover, such operations require a permit and licensing.
On February 2, a team of deputies and investigators, in possession of a search warrant and in response to reports that a massive unlicensed and illicit marijuana cultivation operation was in place on property in El Mirage, swooped onto the site at 2 p.m. There, some 12.5 miles northwest of Adelanto, they found 12 people on or immediately proximate to the property, which featured greenhouses in which 18,884 plants were growing.
After a brief investigation into the circumstance, five of the dozen people at the site were arrested.
“The investigations revealed the cannabis cultivation was not in compliance with California’s Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and San Bernardino County’s ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis activity,” according to a statement by the sheriff’s department. “San Bernardino County has an ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis activity, which includes growing marijuana plants outdoors.”
Taken into custody were Chen Guo Jin, 48, of Sanford, Florida; Johnny Chan, 39, of Los Angeles; Zhi Fei Qian, 57, of Apple Valley; Kefei Wang, 34, of Concord; and Zhen Williamson, 52, of Denham Springs, Louisiana.
“The sheriff’s gangs/narcotics division will continue to enforce California’s cannabis laws and San Bernardino County’s ordinance regarding cannabis cultivation and distribution,” the department’s prepared statement read. “Property owners who are growing marijuana or are aware their tenants are growing marijuana on their properties violate state law and local ordinances, and may also be subject to civil or criminal sanctions. Those found guilty of violating state law and the county ordinance are subject to fines, prosecution and property seizure.”
The El Mirage raid on Tuesday came six days after similar busts at two locations, one in Lucerne Valley and one in Johnson Valley in which 1,903 marijuana plants and 306.5 pounds of harvested marijuana were seized on January 27. Arrested in conjunction with those cultivation operations were Basemen Hernandez-Cruz, 30, of Oxnard, and his brother, Gerardo Hernandez-Cruz, 21, of Santa Maria.
On January 6 at 8:30 a.m., the sheriff’s Marijuana Enforcement Team served a search warrant in the 2600 block of Parkdale Road in Adelanto, where they found 19,998 marijuana plants along with 186 pounds of harvested and partially cured marijuana. Also at the site were three firearms and a stolen truck.
Joining the drug squad in that operation was the sheriff’s department’s desert gang suppression team. The nearly 20,000 plants were being grown in 24 large greenhouses on the property. The law enforcement officers arrested and then cite-released 12 people who were present on the property. Members of both law enforcement teams spent more than eight hours at the site, dismantling the cultivation facilities and interrogating the suspects, all but one of whom claimed to be residents of Adelanto.
Cited were Shihua Want, 70, of Adelanto; Shi Xin Jiang, 66, of Adelanto; Liyon Dong, 36, of Adelanto; Xin Zheng Guan, 38, of Adelanto; Mei Jin You, 49, of Adelanto; Chun Tao Lu, 41, of Adelanto; Xiaoqun Yu, 53, of Adelanto; Jian Feng Yu, 47, of Adelanto; Wan Huang Wu, 42, of Adelanto; Xing Qiang Li, 45, of Adelanto; Xihong Huang, 26, of Adelanto; and Guang Yi, 22, of El Monte.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
Dan Richards, one of the managing principals in the Colonies Partners development consortium, is going to take up a position on the San Antonio Water Company’s board of directors as early as next week, the Sentinel has learned.
Richards is a colorful and controversial figure.
A West Virginia native and graduate of the University of West Virginia, he worked in the 1970s as a haberdasher.
With Steve Wheatley, he founded Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage in the early 1980s. With Wheatley, he was a member of the Foothill Fire District Board of Directors until the fire district was subsumed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 1989.Richards remained politically active, as a member of both the San Bernardino County and California Republican Central Committees.
As the head of the Colonies Partners, he purchased in 1997 from the San Antonio Water Company Liquidation Trust  489 acres of surplus water settling property in what is now northeast Upland for $16 million. The colonies Partners sold to the California Department of Transportation for $17 million 40 of those acres, which were then used to construct a span of the 210 Freeway.
Using his political connections, Richards obtained for the Colonies Partners clearance to develop the remainder of the property into the Colonies at San Antonio residential and the Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions. When those projects bogged down in litigation between the Colonies Partners and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, he engineered, through his and his company’s political connections to then-county supervisors Bill Postmus, Paul Biane and Gary Ovitt, a $102 million settlement, which ultimately landed Postmus in prison and subjected both Biane and Richard’s business partner, Jeff Burum, to a criminal prosecution, which ended, after an eight month jury trial in 2017, in acquittals.
A one-time president of the California Fish and Game Commission, Richards generated a brouhaha in 2012 when he travelled to Idaho on a hunting trip where he bagged a cougar, raising the hackles of environmentalists and animal rights activists. Over the years he has maintained powerful associations, such as former San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereaux, a fellow West Virginian, who attended the same college he did.
Richards is known to be a deep-pocketed donor to politicians, in particular Republicans. 

FBN 20210000227
The following person is doing business as PROTECTION 1 FIREARMS 7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: JESSE EMBREY J7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
Mailing Address: 7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
This 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/ JESSE EMBREY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/08/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/15, 1/22, 1/29 & 2/05, 2020.
FBN 20200011781
The following person is doing business as JASON’S ELECTRIC 770 WEST ORANGE STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410: JASON R ORTIZ 770 WEST ORANGE STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
This 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/ JASON R. ORTIZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/01/2005
County Clerk, Deputy D511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/15, 1/22, 1/29 & 2/05, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200011780
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: BB’s Brims; Don’t B Flat Vocal Coaching, 950 N Dusenberg Dr., 08208, Ontario, CALIF 91764, Bridgette A. Bentley, 950 N Dusenberg Dr., 08208, Ontario, CALIFO 91764
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Bridgette A Bentley
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/29/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 12/28/20
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).
01/15/21, 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200011781
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Jason’s Electric, 770 West Orange Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410, Jason R. Ortiz, 770 West Orange Street, 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/ Jason R. Ortiz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/29/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2005
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).
01/15/21, 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200011794
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Mirror Mirror By “Hairdesigner-B”, 5404 Moreno St. #J, Montclair, CA 91763, Mailing Address: 4803 Prairie Run Rd., Jurupa Valley, CA 91752, Mirror Mirror By “Hairdesigner-N” LLC, 4803 Prairie Run Rd., Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Bianca Simmons-Hale
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/29/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/16/20
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).
01/15/21, 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000187
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Nubiyah Skincare, 14191 Redondo Court, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3594, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Gail A. Maldonado, 14191 Redondo Court, 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/ Gail A. Maldonado
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/07/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/15/21, 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200011576
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Venegas Painting And Drywall, 460 Julie St., Colton, CALIF 92324, Camilo Venegas, 460 Julie St., Colton, CALIFO 92324
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/ Camilo Venegas
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/21/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 12/15/20
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).
01/15/21, 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21
FBN 20210000336
The following person is doing business as: DANK WAYZ 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 BRIAN J PATTISON 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ BRIAN J. PATTISON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/14/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 8, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I2443
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/22, 1/29, 2/5 & 2/12, 2021.
FBN 20210000075
The following person is doing business as AH, LOVE 7174 BODEGA ST FONTANA, CA 92336: HELEN HONG 7174 BODEGA ST FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ HELEN HONG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/5/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 17, 2017
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 1/22, 1/29, 2/5, 2/12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000035
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Qualis Life, 4847 Arrow Highway, #418, Montclair, CA 91763, Mailing Address: 16125 Upland Ave, Fontana, CA 92335, Bryan A. Esquivel, 16125 Upland Ave, Fontana, CA 92335
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Bryan A. Esquivel
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/4/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 12/29/20
County Clerk, s/ DD5511
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).

01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000418
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Foothill Motel, 2512 W. Foothill Blvd, San Bernardino, CA 92410, Foothill Motel LLC, 2512 W. Foothill Blvd, San Bernardino, CA 92410
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Jagdish Patel
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/15/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO20200011028 The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Orthopedic Sport & Spine Medical Group, 330 E. 7th St 2nd Floor, Upland, CA 91786, Hamid U. Rahman M.D. a Medical Corp., 781 N. Redo Cir, Orange, CA 92869 Business is Conducted By: A Corporation Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. s/ Hamid U. Rahman M.D. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/03/20 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 04/01/2010 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). 12/25/20, 01/01/21, 01/08/21, 01/15/21 & Corrected on: 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21

FBN 20200010183 The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH W. 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 92311 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. Corrected on 12/25/20 and 1/1, 1/8 & 1/15, 2021 & 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21

FBN 20200010182 The following person is doing business as: JOSEPH W. 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 ECONOMIC REPORT [and] HIGH DESERT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT [and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY ECONOMIC GROUP [and] HIGH DESERT 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. Corrected on 12/25/20 and 1/1, 1/8 & 1/15, 2021 & 01/22/21, 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21

CITATION — PROBATE *
Case Number: TRUPS2000076
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 W. 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino Justice Center
ESTATE OR TRUST OF (Name): BOBBIE JEAN DAVIS LIVING TRUST, established April 10, 2019 Other
1. TO: CHRISTIAN RADLEY NICHOLSON, an individual
2. You are hereby cited and required to appear at a hearing in this court on:
a. Date: 05/13/2021, Time: 9:00 A.M., Dept.: S56
b. Address of court: same as noted above
3. At this hearing you are required to give any legal reason why the relief re-quested in the verified petition attached to and served with this citation, and filed with this court, should not be granted.
Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign language interpreter services are available upon request if at least 5 days notice is provided. Contact the clerk’s office for Request for Accommodations by Persons With Disabilities and Order (form MC-410). (Civil Code section 54.8.)
Date: JAN 11, 2021 (SEAL)
NANCY CS EBERHARDT, Clerk
By: AMY GAMEZ-REYES, Deputy
CN974959 DAVIS Jan 22,29,
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 22, 29 and February 5 & 12, 2021
FBN 20210000613
The following person is doing business as THE PRINTWORX 1160 DEWEY WAY, STE B UPLAND, CA 91786: MANNING & MANNING LITHOGRAPHY, INC 2528 LAKE AVE ALTA DENA, CA 91001
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Registered with the State of California CI275199
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/ SEAN MANNING
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/22/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 1, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021.
FBN 20210000017
The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JASMINE HENDERSON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/22/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021.
FBN 20200011671
The following person is doing business as GLOBAL TRANSPORTERS INC 786 N GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767: GLOBAL TRANSPORTERS INC 786 N GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Registered with the State of California C3732557
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/ TERRENCE OSBORNE MORRIS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/23/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 15, 2018
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/22, 1/29, 2/5, & 2/12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000417
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Tres Art Co; Tres Co, 5728 Newcomb Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: 5728 Newcomb Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Nelly Avila Porras, 5728 Newcomb Ct, 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/ Nelly Avila Porras
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/15/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/05/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).

01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000506
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Prestige Accounting & Tax Services, 14043 El Camino Pl C, Fontana, CA 92337, Norma Y. Hernandez, 14043 El Camino Pl, Fontana, CA 92337
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/ Norma Hernandez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/03/20
County Clerk, s/ 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).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000120
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: The Sheet Metal Works, 491 Wildrose Ave., Unit J, Colton, CA 92324, Helen M. Wittman, 491 Wildrose Ave., Unit J, Colton, CA 92324
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/ Helen M Wittman
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/06/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000604
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Diordash, 13002 High Vista St., Victorville, CA 92395, Marcus S. Medina, 13002 High Vista St., Victorville, CA 92395
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/ Marcus S. Medina
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/05/21
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).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FBN 20200010102 The following person is doing business as: FONTANA SMOG CHECK TEST ONLY 8171 SIERRA AVE UNIT R FONTANA, CA 92335 S MARTINEZ LLC, 8171 SIERRA AVE UNIT R FONTANA, CA 92335 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/ SERGIO MARTINEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/2020 D5511 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 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020, 12/18/2020 & Corrected on: 01/01/21, 01/08/21, 01/15/21, 01/22/21 & 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
Your registered FBN No. is 20200008985 and was filed in San Bernardino County on 09/30/20. Your related FBN No. is 20170000154 and was filed in San Bernardino County on 01/05/2017. The following person(s) has (have) abandoned the business name(s) of:
AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, 8001- ARCHIBALD AVE. STE B, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730, ISWA, INC., 8001- ARCHIBALD AVE. STE B, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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 misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand ($1,000) (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information of this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250-6277).
s/ASMA ZAHID
This business was conducted by: A CORPORATION
Began transacting business on: 01/09/07
County Clerk/s: D5511
Published: 10/09/20, 10/16/20, 10/23/20, 10/30/20 & Corrected on: 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
SANDRA D. DEBIASI
NO. PROPS 2000975
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of SANDRA D. DEBIASI
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ADELE SCHULTE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ADELE SCHULTE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S36 at 9 a.m. on March 3, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Adele Schulte
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 5, 12 & 19, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
RONALD DEBIASI
NO. PROPS 2100049
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RONALD DEBIASI
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ADELE SCHULTE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ADELE SCHULTE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on March 3, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Adele Schulte
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 5, 12 & 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DONALD JOHN MITCHELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100091
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DONALD JOHN MITCHELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JON MICHAEL MOCHERMAN, II in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JON MICHAEL MOCHERMAN, II be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 18, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 5, 12 & 19, 2021.
FBN 20210001125
The following entity is doing business as THE BUNNY LASS 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786 JENNIFER CIACCIO 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JENNIFER CIACCIO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/04/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 31, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2021.
FBN 20210001125
The following entity is doing business as THE BUNNY LASS 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786 JENNIFER CIACCIO 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JENNIFER CIACCIO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/04/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 31, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2021.
FBN 20000011392
The following person is doing business as: AMERIPRIDE MORTGAGE FUNDERS 3333 CONCOURS ST SUITE 4102 ONTARIO, CA 91764; AMERIPRIDE PROPERTIES, INC. 9377 HAVEN AVE. SUITE 110 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JFFREY FOHT, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/15/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202101MT

FBN 20200011389
The following person is doing business as: DONE RIGHT DRIVING SCHOOL 6787 COLE AVE #236 HIGHLAND, CA 92346;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 3093 HIGHLAND, CA 92413]; RAYMOND J LASSANCE 6787 COLE AVE #236 HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ RAYMOND J. LASSANCE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1215/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202102MT

FBN 20200011513
The following person is doing business as: MB COMPANY 1455 MILLER DR COLTON, CA 92324; SHELLEY M GENNARO 1455 MILLER DR COLTON, CA 92324; MIRANDA V MARTINEZ 1455 MILLER DR COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SHELLEY M. GENARO, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/18/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202103MT

FBN 20200011627
The following person is doing business as: CHRONIC TACOS 806 S TIPPECANOE AVE STE B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; LW TIPPECANOE GAS INC. 58314 JOSHUA LN YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284
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/ SHUNDER SINGHPRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/22/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202104MT

FBN 20200011617
The following person is doing business as: UNITED M EXPRESS 1019 N. VERDE AVE RIALTO, CA 92376; DANIEL MONTALVO VILLA 1019 N. VERDE AVE RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DANIEL MONTALVO VILLA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/22/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202105MT

FBN 20210000061
The following person is doing business as: IE JUNK.COM 2281 MENTONE BLVD MENTONE, CA 92359; JEFFREY M ORDAZ 2281 MENTONE BLVD MENTONE, CA 92359; BRANDI L ORDAZ 2281 MENTONE BLVD MENTONE, CA 92359
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/ BRANDI L. ORDAZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/05/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202106IR

FBN 20210000258
The following person is doing business as: K.O. PRINTING GRAPHIX 954 W. 9TH STREET UPLAND, CA 91786;[ MAILING ADDRESS 15584 SESAME SEED AVE FONTANA, CA 92336]; JOSE R RODRIGUEZ 15584 SESAME SEED AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 07/17/2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOE R RODRIGUEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/11/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202107IR

FBN 20200011862
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324; ANDREA D OSORIO 1642 E WASHINGTON ST 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: 12/08/2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANDREA D. OSORIO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/30/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202108MT

FBN 20200011884
The following person is doing business as: ROSA LA MICHOACANA 1473 E. FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786; JORGE GUTIERREZ 1473 E. FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786; ROSALINA GUTIERREZ 1473 E. FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 06/06/2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JORGE GUTIERREZ, HUSBAND Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/30/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202109MT

FBN 20200011883
The following person is doing business as: LOKA CHORES, LLC 25586 STATE STREET LOMA LINDA, CA 92354; LOKA CHORES, LLC 25586 STATE STREET LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
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/ LORI BURNS, MANAGER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/30/2020
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 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202110MT

FBN 20210000371
The following person is doing business as: ROSAS UPHOLSTERY 778 E BASELINE ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1924 VIA DEL RIO ST CORONA, CA 92882]; KENIA ROSAS 1924 VIA DEL RIO ST CORONA, CA 92882
The business is conducted by: AN INIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 01/01/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KENIA ROSAS, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/14//2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202111MT

FBN 20210000313
The following person is doing business as: HIGH LIMITZ TOWING 519 S. CYORESS AVE. ONTARIO, CA 9762; HIGH LIMITZ TOWING LLC 519 S. CYPRESS AVE ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 01/11/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FERNANDO VIZCARRA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/13/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202112IR

FBN 20210000244
The following person is doing business as: SHADES OF TINT 1409 W HOLLT BLVD ONTARIO, CA 91762;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1409 W HOLT BLVD ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 01/01/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE A. LUNA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/15/2021, 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021 CNBB02202113CV

FBN 20210000227
The following person is doing business as: PROTECTION 1 FIREARMS 7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739;[ MAILING ADDRESS 7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739]; JESSE EMBRY 7262 CUMBERLAND PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
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/ JESSE EMBRY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202101IR

FBN 20210000089
The following person is doing business as: IGOR LAPIN ENTERPRISES 15904 STRATHERN ST STE #20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406; IGOR LAPIN 15904 STRATHEN ST STE #20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406
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/ IGOR LAPIN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/06/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202102MT

FBN 20210000101
The following person is doing business as: BODY SHAPEZZZ 2550 S ARCHIBALD AVE #F ONTARIO, CA 91761; YASMEEN G CHOUDRY 2550 S ARCHIBALD AVE #F 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/ YASMEEN G. CHOUDRY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/06/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202103MT

FBN 20210000156
The following person is doing business as: GEM’S 1200 E WASHINGTON ST SUITE F4 COLTON, CA 92324; MARIA F OSORIO-LOPEZ 1200 E WASHINGTON ST 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: 02/08/2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA D. OSORIO-LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202104MT

FBN 20210000272
The following person is doing business as: CUTS OF RUBY BARBER AND BEAUTY 8901 FONTANA AVE UNIT B FONTANA, CA 92335; ARISBE L CORRALES 8901 FONTANA AVE UNIT B FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ARISBE L. CORRALES, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/11/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202105MT

FBN 20210000271
The following person is doing business as: AK-PLUMBING 923 CREST FIELD DR DUARTE, CA 91010; MATTHEW R FRACASSO 923 CREST FIELD DR DUARTE, CA 91010
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/ MATTHEW R. FRACASSO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/11/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202106MT

FBN 20210000220
The following person is doing business as: YEYO’S SMOG & TIRE 607 W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; REDLANDS SMOG INC 24565 REDLANDS BLVD LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
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/ HECTOR CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202107MT

FBN 20210000273
The following person is doing business as: ROYAL CROWNS CLEANING SERVICES 7860 SAN BENITO ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ROYAL CROWNS CLEANING SERVICES 7860 SAN BENITO ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346
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/ ROBERTO LARA, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/11/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202108MT

FBN 20210000221
The following person is doing business as: ARTISTRY IN MOTION DANCE & FIT 10557 JUNIPER AVE UNIT J FONTANA, CA 92337; MIGUEL A LIMON-RODARTE 10557 JUNIPER AVE UNIT J FONTANA, CA 92337
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MIGUEL A. LIMON-RODARTE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202109MT

FBN 20210000313
The following person is doing business as: HIGH LIMITZ TOWING 519 S. CYPRESS AVE ONTARIO, CA 91762; HIGH LIMITZ LLC 13657 LUNA RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
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: 01/31/2019
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/ FERNANDO VIZCARRA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/13/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202110IR

FBN 20210000431
The following person is doing business as: EL BOTANERO LOCO 1371 W. 2ND ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; MICHELE J HERNANDEZ ALVARADO 1371 W. 2ND ST. 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/ MICHELE J. HERNANDEZ ALVARADO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202111IR

FBN 20210000452 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: 909 TOWING 6183 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92354;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1634 ROGERS LN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; BRYAN A BOQUIN 6183 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 03/20/2019. Original File# 20190003444
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 03/20/2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BRYAN A. BOQUIN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202112IR

FBN 20210000463
The following person is doing business as: WWW.LEGALPROCESSSERVICES.COM 1266 N MT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATEEYE LLC 1266 N MT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202113IR

FBN 20210000398
The following person is doing business as: MARIBEL’S CATERING 12754 COBALT RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92392; MARIBEL SOLARES 12754 COBALT RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIBEL SOLARES, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202114IR

FBN 20210000518
The following person is doing business as: REAPER OFFROAD 9908 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763; JOHN C GARCIA 9908 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOHN C. GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202115IR

FBN 20210000269
The following person is doing business as: GREASKULL TATTOO ALLEY 130 S MOUNTAIN AVE UNIT F UPLAND, CA 91786; GREASKULL TATTOO ALLEY 723 S HARBOR BLVD FULLERTON, CA 92832
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/ LUIS E. OLIVO, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/11/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202116IR

FBN 20210000218
The following person is doing business as: DIVERSIFIED TRANSPORT 305 N 2ND AVE #399 UPLAND, CA 91786; THREE POINT ENTERPRISES, INC., WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS THE T.P. COMPANY 1500 E TROPICANA AVE #132 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119
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/ TADD G. WYATT, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202117IR

FBN 20210000222
The following person is doing business as: KECKI CLEANING SERVICES 16689 FOOTHILL BLVD #108 FONTANA, CA 92335; ELIZABETH GONZALEZ 16689 FOTHILL BLVD #108 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELIZABETH GONZALEZ , OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202118IR

FBN 20210000503
The following person is doing business as: PURE & DRINKING WATER 1640 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404;[ MAILING ADDRESS 2185 W. COLLEGE VIEW AVE. APT 3065 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; FRANCISCO L GARCIA 1640 E. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FRANCISCO L. GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202119IR

FBN 20210000504
The following person is doing business as: TAZ.GURU2315 STATE LN BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 416 BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314]; KYLER J BULLOCK 2315 STATE LN BIG BEAR CITY, CA 92314
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 06/03/2019
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/ KYLER J. BULLOCK, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202120IR

FBN 20210000516
The following person is doing business as: MALU CREPES 600 S. RIVERSIDE AVE. APT 204 RIALTO, CA 92376; MAYRA P REYNA 600 S. RIVERSIDE AVE. APT 204 RIALTO, CA 92376; LUIS F SUAREZ JIMENEZ 600 S. RIVERSIDE AVE. APT 204 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MAYRA P. REYNA, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202121IR

FBN 20210000431
The following person is doing business as: SOLYART BARBERSHOP 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374; SLEIMAN I MOUSSA 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP. 11, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SLEIMAN I. MOUSSA OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/22/2021, 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021 CNBB03202122IR

FBN 20210000640
The following person is doing business as: FR BUILDERS 4617 PILGRIM CT CHINO, CA 91710; FR GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC 4617 PILGRIM CT CHINO, CA 91710
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/ ISRAEL RAVELO, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 CNBB04202101IR

FBN 20210000555
The following person is doing business as: THE BIRRIA FACTORY 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; MARCI A CHAVEZ 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARCO A CHAVEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 CNBB04202102IR

FBN 20210000561
The following person is doing business as: MG HOME GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; HOUSEKEY REAL ESTATE GROUP CORP. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELVIS A. ORTIZ-WAYLAND Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 CNBB04202102IR

FBN 20210000375
The following person is doing business as: ANDRE AKOPYAN TILE 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406; ANDRE AKOPYAN 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406
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/ ANDRE AKOPYAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202101MT

FBN 20210000433
The following person is doing business as: M&Z TRANSPORT 1253 W. LOMITA RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; MIGUEL ANGEL MARTIN REYES SANCHEZ 1253 W. LOMITA RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MIGUEL ANGEL MARTIN REYES SANCHEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/25/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202102MT

FBN 20210000434
The following person is doing business as: 1 STOP HARDWARE CO 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335; FREDDY J VELASQUEZ 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335
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/ FREDDY J. VELASUQEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202103MT

FBN 20210000437
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE’S BODY ART PAINTING 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324; MARIA O OSORIO-LOPEZ 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA D. OSORIO-LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202104MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the January 29 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 01-29-21

CalPERS, the retirement system for California’s state and a significant number of its county, municipal and smaller governmental agency employees, has drawn the curtain on much of the detail relating to the activity of Yu Meng, its former chief investment officer who resigned in August amid a scandal, the dimensions of which are not likely to be soon, if ever, publicly fathomed.
Nevertheless, what is already known about Yu’s tenure with the California Public Employees Retirement System and the still minor degree of outrage it has sparked carries with it the prospect that long overdue reforms of the system may be forced upon it by a slowly awakening public that is coming to realize it is footing the bill for the system’s excesses.
Meng, who goes by the first name Ben, was the state pension system’s chief investment officer for a relatively short 19 months before events overtook him. The degree to which the responsible officials in the organization for which he worked failed to exercise scrutiny, both as to his hiring and performance, is breathtaking.
He returned to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known by its acronym CalPERS, as its chief investment officer in January 2019 after having worked for the pension system in a lesser capacity previously. There was a marked lack of diligence by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s board and administrators at the time of his 2019 rehiring, particularly for an organization of the size and financial magnitude of CalPERS, which manages roughly $350 billion used  to fund the retirement benefits for some two million state, county, city, and school and water district employees.
The Chinese-born Meng came to the United States more than a quarter of a century ago and later became a naturalized American citizen while he was working in the American financial industry, including with Wall Street investment banks and CalPERS. In 2015, Meng returned to China to work as the deputy chief investment officer at the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, having been recruited by China’s Thousand Talents Program. The Chinese Administration of Foreign Exchange manages over $3 trillion in foreign currency purchases and investments for the Chinese Government. It is not publicly known for certain, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency believe that at that point Meng was recruited to work as a spy for the Chinese government. FBI literature characterizes the Thousand Talents Program as an asset in “China’s non-traditional espionage against the United States,” which employs or otherwise induces people who transit between the United States and China to funnel U.S. trade secrets and the product of taxpayer-funded research into the hands of the Chinese government.
While in his role with the Chinese Administration of Foreign Exchange, Meng gave an interview to the communist-oriented People’s Daily in which he said he was working for the Administration of Foreign Exchange out of a sense of patriotic duty to what he called “the motherland.”
In 2018, Marcie Frost, the chief executive officer for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System since 2016, set her sights on recruiting Meng to succeed Ted Eliopoulos as CalPERS’s chief investment officer, in anticipation of Eliopoulos’s departure to become vice chairman of Morgan Stanley.
Meng was hired under terms that were to provide him with a $633,932.75 basic salary, $910,645.50 in incentives and other compensatory arrangements before benefits, along with benefits of $215,911.60, for a total compensation package of $1,760,489.96 in 2019.
As might have been expected of someone of his means and understanding of the international, national and state financial markets, Meng was simultaneous to his work for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System engaged in making his own personal investments. At least some of those investments represented a conflict with the work he was doing for CalPERS.
By late 2019, Meng was registering as a blip on Indiana Republican Congressman Jim Banks’ radar screen. Some time after that, Banks remarked upon and questioned the investments CalPERS was making in certain Chinese companies and stocks under Meng’s direction.
In February 2020 Naked Capitalism, an internet-based publication which bills itself as engaging in “Fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power,” had begun looking into the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s investment activity. In April, Naked Capitalism posted a far more hard hitting piece which quoted financial analyst Nassim Nicholas Taleb questioning Meng’s honesty and competence in having failed to correctly manage CalPERS’s investment portfolio, in particular his move to dump two of CalPERS “left tail risk” hedging positions, such that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System gave up a hedge gain of over $1 billion in the larger of those holdings. Naked Capitalism in the posting pointed out misrepresentations Meng made when questioned about the decision. Taleb estimated that a series of questionable trading decisions Meng made in response to the COVID-19 crisis will result in a net loss to CalPERS of over $19 billion.
Things deteriorated from there, as the intense degree of scrutiny Meng was thereafter subjected to turned up a slew of irregularities, including his apparent yet ongoing relationship with the Chinese government and that he had advised CalPERS to invest heavily in the Blackstone Group after he had himself made an investment in that international investment fund. The infusion of funding from CalPERS boosted the value of Blackstone such that Meng saw an immediate profit of $70,000.
Naked Capitalism’s  reporting strongly implied that Meng had engaged in felonious conduct by failing to disclose his sale of 21 securities in 2019. Naked Capitalism also made a case that Meng’s personal investments tainted and negatively impacted the quality of his investment advice to CalPERS, such as in his involvement in the Blackstone Group and other private equity funds. The site pointed out that while expert analysts working for CalPERS were advocated offloading investments in several firms, Meng was having CalPERS hang onto those instruments, since divesting would have hammered the holdings in Meng’s personal portfolio.
Moreover, Meng’s relationship with the Chinese government attracted the attention of federal investigators. As early as March of last year the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission were scrutinizing CalPERS’s investment practices, including holdings in specific Chinese stocks, among them those of companies involved in weapons and military equipment manufacturing and research.
Congressman Banks suggested that California’s state, county and local governments as well as a large number of its public employees were furthering through CalPERS’s investments Chinese military efforts that are crosswise of the United States national interests and security.
Since Meng’s resignation in August, CalPERS and Frost have been less than fully forthcoming with regard to the myriad of investments and financial gyrations the organization made during Meng’s tenure as chief investment officer and the months immediately thereafter.
With questions about what Meng engaged in yet persisting, there is a possibility, indeed a likelihood, that the public, California’s taxpayers in particular, will make a hard focus not only on Meng’s activity, but that of CalPERS as a whole, both historically, at present and into the future.
Generous pensions conferred upon public employees over the last several decades have created a situation that is turning into a major drain on state, county and local budgets. Each year, those governmental entities pay into the retirement system on behalf of current employees. The funds managed by CalPERS, including its investment funds, provide the revenue stream used to pay the pensions of retired government workers throughout the state. The returns on CalPERS’s investments are a major portion of that revenue stream. When the returns on investments reach CalPERS’s earning goal, that money is distributed to the system’s retired members, the pensioners. When the earning goal is not met, there is no reduction in the benefits, but rather CalPERS then turns to the governmental entities that are its constituent members – the State of California, certain of the state’s 58 counties, a substantial number of the state’s 482 cities and towns, as well as many other agencies such as school and water districts – to make up the difference. Ten years ago, CalPERS’s investment return goal was 7.5 percent annually. More recently, that has been downgraded to 7 percent. Consistently with rare exceptions since 2007, CalPERS has failed to meet its earnings goals year after year, necessitating that the state’s governmental entities in Sacramento, at the  county level and locally take a percentage of their operating funds intended to provide governmental services and instead consign that money to payments to people no longer working to augment their pensions. With more and more retirees leaving the workforce every year and lifespans increasing, this is creating a financial crisis that will intensify going forward. In some jurisdictions, local governments are already paying nearly as much to their former employees than current ones. It is projected that by Fiscal Year 2030-31, more than half of California’s municipalities will be in a circumstance where more is being paid out in pensions than in salaries to the employees they will then have on staff.
The scandal that has enveloped Meng and is by extension engulfing CalPERS carries with it the prospect that it will bring so much attention to the irresponsible way in which governmental decision-makers have conferred upon public employees profligately overgenerous pension benefits and the cavalier management of the money provided to the public pension system which originated with the taxpayers that a critical mass of public support for a public pension reform movement will manifest, which will ultimately require that retired public employees see their pensions cut significantly.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
Mired in one intractable lawsuit over a large-scale warehouse they approved last April and having narrowly sidestepped another legal challenge last month only by balking at approving another controversial warehouse project, Upland city officials this week initiated the process of tightening the standards and criteria the city will apply in considering and giving go-ahead to such projects in the future.
Nevertheless, the city council left unaddressed the vexation at the very heart of the issue, which consists of questionable action perpetrated by past officials which allowed residential developments to be located within an industrial zone, creating a juxtaposition of mutually incompatible uses that City Hall appears unequipped to resolve. Still bedeviling the city are flaws in the city’s general plan, last updated in 2015, which embody potential clashes in land use that will subject current or future residents to an unhealthy living environment and undercut the reputation and authority of city officials.
As such, dual specters hang over the issue of intensified development of so-called light industrial facilities/distribution centers/warehouses in the City of Gracious living. One of those is what many consider to be the incompatibility of such operations with surrounding or nearby residential neighborhoods. The other is the destructive impact transportation-intensive warehouses or distribution centers will have on the city’s infrastructure, most notably its roads.
When the city council as it was then composed approved the project that is now the object of ongoing litigation, its members clearly understood that a significant cross section of the community was opposed to allowing the project to proceed. What they did not fully comprehend was the depth of the resentment that approval would engender. In the face of that resident discontent, one of the council members who supported the project’s approval opted to leave office and move out of the state. The mayor who supported allowing the large-scale warehouse to be built was voted out of office in November. Moreover, the willingness of city staff to allow the approved but now legally-challenged project to be subjected to a far less vigorous environmental certification process than is common with projects of its significance and scope has filled the atmosphere in and around City Hall with an air of distrust, with suggestions abounding that something untoward occurred by which inducements, i.e., bribes of some form or another, influenced the decision-making process related to the project.
The project, Bridge Development Partner’s proposed 201,094 square foot distribution center intended for occupation by retail behemoth Amazon, was approved by the city council in a 4-to-1 vote, with Councilwoman Janice Elliott dissenting and Mayor Debbie Stone, and councilmen Rudy Zuniga, Bill Velto and Ricky Felix prevailing. The meeting at which the approval was given, held on April 1, 2020, was conducted outside of a public venue. The council members participated by means of an electronic hook-up in an effort to comply with Governor Gavin Newsom’s mandate to avoid large public gatherings in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus. Despite city residents protesting the conducting of the meeting relating to such a hotly-contested issue by means of teleconferencing and the public’s participation being limited to phoning in their comments, the council proceeded with the hearing.
The 201,094 square foot structure, known as the Bridge Point Project, is proposed for construction on 50 acres south of Cable Airport, west of Benson Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard and east of what would be the logical northward extension of Central Avenue. Rather than requiring that Bridge Development Partners complete a comprehensive environmental impact report for the project, the city, under the guidance of Community Development Director Robert Dalquest, utilized environmental studies completed for the proponent to form the basis of the city’s environmental certification of the project, which was made by a mitigated negative declaration.
A mitigated negative declaration is an environmental review determination made by an elected or appointed board of a governmental agency in which administrative and land use authority has been entrusted certifying that the environmental impacts from a project will be mitigated by the conditions of approval for that project. This contrasts with an environmental impact report, which delineates not only the impacts in detail but spells out explicitly what the mitigation measures for those impacts will entail, and requires the cataloging of viable alternatives to the proposed project.
The project’s opponents cited a bevy of objections to the project. One of those was the amount of traffic the project would generate, potentially jamming Foothill Boulevard, Benson Avenue, 16th Street, and Central Avenue during the morning and evening rush hours. Another concern was exhaust from the trucks and other delivery vehicles that would be part of the distribution center’s operations. The wear and tear those vehicles would have on the city’s streets was another source of citizen disquiet. Of major concern was that the site where the project is to be located represents potentially prime commercial property, with easy access to the main thoroughfare of Foothill Boulevard, and that it would not be utilized commercially. This consideration is exacerbated by Amazon’s business model, which involves retail sales that forego the collection of sales tax, such that the project would represent no income to the city. In approving the project, the city council signed off on a development agreement which was to confer on the city $17 million in infrastructure damage offsets and payments in lieu of sales tax. Nevertheless, the project’s critics maintained, the damage to the city’s streets and roads over the 50-year lease that Bridge Development Partners had on the ground upon which the warehouse was to be built, which reflected the anticipated life of Amazon’s presence at the warehouse/distribution facility, will likely require constant refurbishing and maintenance of the city’s transportation infrastructure which will exceed in cost the $17 million Bridge Development Partners is committed to pay the city in the development agreement. Project opponents further asserted that the zoning of the property – light industrial – did not permit a warehouse or distribution center to be developed there. Another issue was that the plans approved by the city council on April 1 of last year specified that 1,438 parking spaces were to be incorporated into the completed project, a number far in excess for what would typically be needed in the operation of a 201,096 square foot warehouse. This was an indication that Bridge Development Partners at some point intended to enlarge the facility, perhaps to the extent that it would involve 970,000-square feet under roof and three separate structures, as the company had originally proposed when it previewed the project to the community in June of 2019. The resultant intensity of use from such an expansion would likely trigger infrastructure creation, maintenance and refurbishment costs to the city exceeding $100 million over the 50-year ground lease for the project.
Of note was that prior to the April 1, 2020 city council vote to approve the project and the development agreement, the Upland Planning Commission, with then-Commissioner Alexander Novokov absent, on February 12, 2020 had considered the project and voted 3-to-2 in recommending that the city council not approve project. After two weeks during which the commission members were intensely lobbied, the commission on February 26 met once more to consider the project, this time with Novokov present. Despite Novokov casting a vote against recommending approval of the project, two of the commissioners who had voted against the project previously – Gary Schwary and then-Commissioner Linden Brouse – switched their votes, such that in a move unprecedented in Upland’s history, the planning commission reversed itself, voting 4-to-2 to recommend that the city council approve the project.
The firestorm of controversy that followed the city council’s April 1 vote, which entailed widespread suspicion that the decision-making process for the project had been tainted by graft, collusion and bribery, resulted in the city council ducking for cover. At the last regularly scheduled council meeting that month, the council asked city staff to examine the city’s regulatory requirements for warehousing based on multiple issues, including whether the city’s definition of warehousing needed to be defined in more detail and where warehousing should be properly located, along with what offsets warehouse developers should provide in conjunction with such undertakings.
The following month, with accusations that city officials had been paid off to forego subjecting the project to an exhaustive environmental impact report and approve the project over substantial resident opposition, City Councilman Ricky Felix abruptly resigned and moved out of the city on May 31.
In the weeks after the council’s approval of the project, a group of citizens, convinced that Dalquest as the city’s community development director 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.
On July 15, 2020, Upland Community First, represented by attorney Cory Briggs, filed a petition for a writ of mandate, naming the City of Upland.
A writ of mandate is an order issued to a public agency or governmental body by a judge to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.
The filing contended that the members of Upland Community First as well as other residents of Upland opposed to the project had their fair hearing and due process rights violated on April 1 when the hearing relating to the project occurred via teleconference, and that there are other defects plaguing the project approval. The impacts of the Bridge Point Project will be onerous, according to the petition for a writ of mandate, and the use of a mitigated negative declaration for the project as opposed to a full-blown environmental impact report provided the residents of Upland with inadequate safeguards against those impacts.
“Whenever a project proposed to be carried out or approved by a lead agency has the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact, the California Environmental Quality Act prohibits the agency from relying on a negative declaration,” the petition for a writ of mandate states. “Instead, the California Environmental Quality Act requires the preparation of an environmental impact report to identify and analyze the significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-term impacts, providing decision-makers with enough information to enable them to make an informed decision with full knowledge of the likely consequences of their actions, and providing members of the public with enough information to participate meaningfully in the project’s approval and environmental-review process. The California Environmental Quality Act also requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act further requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze all reasonable mitigation measures for a proposed project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. An environmental impact report must be prepared for a proposed project if there is a fair argument, supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, that the project may have an adverse environmental impact; stated another way, a negative declaration may not be used unless the lead agency determines with certainty that there is no potential for the project to have an adverse environmental impact. By way of example and without limitation, the administrative record is replete with evidence that the project will result in significant traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, among other environmental impacts. The project will also result in cumulative impacts unaccounted for in the mitigated negative declaration. The project’s significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment give rise to respondent’s legal obligation to prepare an environmental impact report. Respondent’s failure to prepare an environmental impact report is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.”
The hopes of Bridge Development Partners and Amazon that enough of the project would be completed by November 2020 so distribution from the Upland warehouse could take place for the Christmas 2020 shopping season were dashed when the court granted a motion for a temporary restraining order preventing work on the project from proceeding while the lawsuit is heard. The project remains on hold while the lawsuit continues.
Despite the city council’s request last April that Dalquest and the rest of the city’s community development and planning divisions look into the city’s standards and regulations relating to warehouses in the city, that report was not forthcoming for more than eight months. Meanwhile, another controversial warehouse/distribution facility proposal was wending its way through the Upland planning process.
Yellow Iron Development and its principal, Tony Spinrad, sought permission from the city to construct a 92,275-square-foot warehouse on a 4.9-acre site on the south side of 11th Street between Central and Monte Vista avenues on the western edge of the city in what is referred to as the College Heights. The property was zoned for light industrial use, which city officials maintained would allow a warehouse or distribution facility to be built there.
Complicating that matter, however, was that the 92,275-square foot facility, the site plan for which included 11 truck bays and two other truck loading facilities as well as parking spaces for 202 vehicles, was proximate to to the Harvest residential subdivision, which lies on the north side of 11th Street immediately to the west, and the Enclave residential development site, which is on the north side of 11th Street to the east. The Harvest project, comprised of 318 dwelling units, is largely completed and over 200 of those homes are now occupied. Work has yet to begin on the Enclave project, to entail 192 townhomes and condominiums, with construction slated to begin later this year.
Despite the controversy and legal challenge the Bridge Point/Amazon project had engendered when the city sought to substitute a far less exacting mitigated negative declaration for a full blown environmental impact report relating to the project, Dalquest and the remainder of the Community Development Department and the planning division once again sought to move the Yellow Iron Warehouse Project through the environmental certification and project approval process without requiring an environmental impact report, instead using a mitigated negative declaration. Just as they had with the Bridge Point project, the city’s planning and community development staff members recommended that the city’s decision-makers give the Yellow Iron undertaking go-ahead.
With the city council having been bitten with a lawsuit over its approval of the Bridge Point Project, Dalquest sought to unburden them of the trauma they had experienced previously by deferring the matter entirely to the planning commission, which was to take on full land use authority at its November 18 meeting and consider the project, including signing off on the mitigated negative declaration relating to it. The decision to hand decision-making authority with regard to the Yellow Iron project over to the planning commission appeared particularly calculated in that Mayor Debbie Stone, who had supported the Bridge Point Project and had overridden citizen requests to postpone the hearing on the project until a traditional meeting in which residents would be able to fully participate in the process could be held, was voted out of office on November 3, the same day on which two new members of the council, Carlos Garcia and Shannan Maust, who had gone on record as opposing the Bridge Point Project, were elected to the council.
At the November 18 planning commission meeting, the Yellow Iron project appeared to be on a trajectory toward certain approval. No residents from the Harvest subdivision spoke in opposition to the warehouse proposal. On a 5-to-2 vote, the planning commission approved making a mitigated negative declaration regarding the project’s environmental issues, with commissioners Robin Aspinall, Carolyn Anderson, Thomas Grahn, Serge Mayer and Patrick Shim prevailing over commissioners Gary Schwary and Christine Caldwell. After that vote, the discussion turned to the approval of the development plan review for the project, which would be tantamount to approval of the project itself. It was at that point that an exchange between Schwary and Spinrad revealed a certain lack of clarity as to what the project was to consist of.
“We don’t know exactly who our tenant is going to be yet,” Spinrad said. “We have been talking to [prospective] tenants.”
While acknowledging that the facility was going to be some order of distribution warehouse, Spinrad attempted to downplay the intensity of vehicle traffic the facility would generate. A representation made by both Spinrad and city staff at the November 18 planning commission hearing was 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 was to be 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, the last of those presumed to be 18-wheelers. That entailed what was for at least some observers a glaring paradox in that Spinrad, who said he had no idea of who the eventual tenant at the warehouse would be, was simultaneously able to predict how much truck and delivery vehicle traffic into and out of the warehouse facility would take place. Spinrad offered that proposed limitation 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 willing to be bound by a requirement to return to the planning commission to seek clearance, which might not necessarily be granted, to increase that truck activity.
At Schwary’s prompting, the full commission held off on approving the development plan for the project, asking that Spinrad return at the commission’s next meeting where he could flesh out in greater detail the full extent of the project. The expectation at that point was the project would be given go-ahead when the commission next convened.
By the time of the commission’s next meeting, held on December 9, word had at last spread among the residents of the Harvest subdivision that a warehouse project virtually next door to where they lived was on the brink of being approved by the city. Several of those residents at that point weighed in against the project, expressing their belief that the warehouse was incompatible with the nearby residences. Additionally, a city resident, Alipio De Veyra, represented by attorney Cory Briggs, came forward to appeal the commission’s approval of the mitigated negative declaration for the project. Ensuing from that appeal were a host of further of considerations and implications. One of those was the prospect of further litigation. As of December 9, the City of Upland was a defendant in 55 legal cases brought against it. Word on the street was that upon the Yellow Iron warehouse project gaining approval, a 56th lawsuit, citing that approval of the project without a full environmental impact report as a cause of action, was going to be filed against the city.
At the December 9 meeting, first Schwary and then other members of the commission, including Aspinal and Mayer, raised the issue of the warehouse’s hours of operation, the upshot being that they wanted an assurance that the residents of the Harvest and Enclave neighborhoods would not be subjected to the sounds of trucks being loaded and driven into or out of the warehouse facility between, variously, the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Spinrad said he was unable to offer any such guarantee.
After reiterating that he did not yet have a tenant lined up, Spinrad said, “I really want to push against limiting who that tenant could be based on cutting operational hours. I just find it unnecessary. I think there’s already a mechanism to address this. Typically, these types of tenants, they don’t want to be traveling during the peak hours [i.e., morning and late afternoon rush hours], and so they will want to avoid the peak hours.”
Citing Spinrad’s intransigence on accepting a limitation on the hours of operation, the planning commission voted 6-to-1, with Commissioner Grahn dissenting, to deny the project approval.
This week, nearly nine months after the city council as it was formerly composed asked Dalquest and his staff to report on whether changes to the city’s regulations with regard to warehouses to be build in the city were in order, Dalquest made that report.
He told the council that there are ten properties with light industrial or general industrial zoning where a warehouse could be built, nine of which were large enough to accommodate a structure of 50,000 square feet or more. Typically, Dalquest said, a 50,000-square-foot warehouse would involve operations involving 17 truck trips daily or more.
There ensued some discussion on the question of whether the Upland Municipal Code permits a warehouse or distribution center to locate on a property zoned for light industrial use.
In the Upland Municipal Code, where the term light industrial is defined and described, no reference to warehousing is made.
Councilman Carlos Garcia said, “The definition doesn’t reflect what the code is stating.”
Dalquest responded, “The definition in the zoning code is a very broad definition. It lists some uses but it is not limited to what is listed.”
Nevertheless, at one point, Dalquest appeared to be using circular logic in lodging his interpretation that warehouses are permitted within light industrial zones. “Warehousing would fit under the warehousing listing in the zoning code,” he said. It was unclear whether he had misspoke in his second use of warehousing in that statement. Moments later, he said, “You could also consider warehousing as fitting within a very broad definition of warehousing.”
Dalquest said the term light industrial equates to clean industrial as opposed to heavy industrial, which could consist of operations involving smokestacks. Light industrial zoning, as does general industrial zoning, he said, allows operations with a substantial transportation component, such as warehouses. While the definition of light industrial zoning in the city’s municipal code does not specify warehousing, according to Dalquest, tables in the Upland Municipal Code show that warehouses are permitted within light industrial zones.
City Attorney Steven Flower said the controlling portion of the municipal code document relating to what uses could take place in various zones, including industrial zones, were the document’s tables, one of which, he said, indicates light industrial uses could include a warehouse.
An element of the discussion centered around the circumstance along 11th Street.
Dalquest relayed to the council the dilemma of the city having permitted Lewis Homes, the applicant in both the Harvest and Enclave projects, to “encroach” into an industrial zone. That took place well prior to Dalquest coming to the city, under the watch of his predecessor, Jeff Zwack. Both Dalquest and Mayor Bill Velto evinced a belief and attitude that the city and the Harvest and Enclave residents would need to live with the preexisting industrial zoning that surrounds those two residential subdivi                sions, and that the zoning should be perpetuated. Whenever the discussion appeared to be on the brink of veering off into a serious consideration of changing the designation on the undeveloped industrially-zoned properties along 11th Street to residential, Velto and Dalquest would steer the council away from that option.
Councilman Carlos Garcia, in whose District 3 virtually all of the undeveloped industrially zoned properties lie, and Councilwoman Shannan Maust came closest to suggesting that a change in the industrial zoning should take place when the council momentarily alighted on the issue of incompatibility between the proximate light industrial and residential uses.
“The confusion for me is, going back to our recent example of a 96,000-square foot building in a light industrial area, our code now reads that I cannot create noise, odor, vibration or other similar impacts,” Maust said. “How do we get around this? Clearly, a 96,000-square foot [building] in a light industrial [zone], across the street from a residential [neighborhood] is going to produce that. What I am asking is how do we self-correct, amend the municipal code to protect residents, not make it too hard on the businesses, because, just in that alone, it’s contrary to what the developer was bringing?”
Garcia noted that a lot of the areas the city deems to be available for warehouse development are in District 3.
“If you look at the College Heights area, this is historically where industry moved over the decades,” Dalquest responded. “So, for the most part, this was all industrial zoning for many years. It was only ten or 15 years ago, when Harvest and more recently the Enclave kind of encroached into this industrial area. For the most part, the College Heights area is where industry has been for many decades.” The “majority” of undeveloped parcels in that area, Dalquest said, remain zoned for industrial use.
“So I understand the fact that that’s the way it was before, but we also have now tenants within those communities,” Garcia said. “So this mix of new housing… it’s in an industrial area. I think what ultimately worries me [is] we’re allowing opportunities for warehouses to be built, and we don’t know who is going to go in them. You are building things where we have no potential for knowing if X, Y and Z are going to go in for sure. I think we need to pay attention very closely to some of these communities that are being built, such as the expansion of Harvest and the Enclave, which is coming as well.”
At that point Garcia obliquely suggested that the zoning in the areas in the city immediately proximate to existing residential areas be changed from industrial to residential.
“I think this is very important, and I hope the planning commission is listening,” Garcia said. “We live here. I’m responding to what a large number of my constituents have said, that this can’t be a dumping ground. We’re not a dumping ground.”
Velto suggested that the city’s industrial zoned areas remain slated for industrial use, even if they are flush up against a residential neighborhood. He mounted a defense of the city not requiring developers to disclose, prior to being granted an entitlement to build, the precise scope and nature of what they are proposing.
“I think the difficulty’s going to be… what the zoning is and what it allows already,” Velto said. “I think there’s a fine balance. The difficulty is when you start talking about build to suit, if somebody comes in [and] they want to develop what is allowable on there, sometimes they don’t even have a tenant in mind. They’re just a developer, a business, a property developer. So, sometimes businesses don’t want to say they’re coming in there yet, because of… the competition. So, we have to look into that and find out what is the best use, the highest and best use of that property. That’s what the planning commission does. That has to be looked at.”
Councilwoman Janice Elliott said she wanted to see land use decisions that were consistent with the city’s general plan.
This pivoted the discussion toward limiting the size of any warehouses that were proposed and approved and also imposing on them conditions of approval instead of changing the city’s zoning map to prevent incompatible uses from being juxtaposed.
Dalquest at one juncture sought to dissuade the council from imposing limitations on the sizes of warehouses.
“One thing you might want to consider… rather than a universal threshold based on building size [is] to require a conditional use permit,” Dalquest suggested. “There might be some instances where a 90,000-square foot building within the heart of an industrial area would be okay, but you could have a conditional use permit requirement if a warehouse was within a certain distance of a residential development.”
In this way, Dalquest appeared to be lobbying for avoiding a defined limitation on warehouse sizes in general, which would allow such operations to continue to exist in industrial zones untainted by intruding residential uses.
Mayor Velto asked, “Can we limit the amount of vehicle traffic from any site? Are we allowed to limit vehicle traffic from a site, as far as trucks? Can that be done?”
Before Dalquest responded, Elliott said, “It’s hard to enforce.”
Councilman Rudy Zuniga inserted, “We did it with Bridge.”
Dalquest, responding to Velto, said, “Talking about warehouses as a permitted use, we do not have any metrics that would restrict the operations of that type of use, so that would be something that would be highly unusual.”
Such conditions could be superimposed on project approvals by including an augmenting agreement, Dalquest said. “If you have a development agreement, now, then you can provide some of those kind of operational restrictions,” he said. “But absent the development agreement, having a use that is permitted by right, I don’t think you could limit the truck traffic. You might be able to limit the hours of operation when trucks come in.”
City Attorney Steven Flower hastened to add, “To require development agreements on all projects would be problematic.”
There ensued discussion, in large measure prompted by Councilwoman Elliott, relating to limiting the sizes of light industrial uses going forward. Gradations in that discussion specifically consisted of structures under 25,000 square feet, those between 25,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet and those over 50,000 square feet.
Dalquest told the council that if any of those limitations are codified, that would mean that existing warehouses or light industrial operations with square footages exceeding the limitations would no longer be in compliance with the municipal code, such that they would become legal nonconforming uses that would be subject to an amortization process by which those operations would need to vacate after a given number of years.
As the discussion was winding toward a conclusion, Councilwoman Elliott made a motion that city staff formulate language to be adopted in the municipal code that provides for warehouses of 25,000 square feet or less being permitted in light industrial zones and warehouses exceeding 25,000 square feet being prohibited in light industrial zones. Elliott’s motion also called for amending the Upland Municipal Code so that in the city’s commercial/industrial mixed use zones, warehouses of fewer than 25,000 square feet would be permitted by right, warehouses ranging in size from 25,000 square feet up to 50,000 square feet could be built subject to a conditional use permit and no warehouses exceeding 50,000 feet could be constructed. Elliott’s motion further stipulated that in the city’s general industrial zone, warehouses under 50,000 square feet would be permitted by right and a conditional use permit is to be required for warehouses between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet, while warehouses exceeding 100,000 square feet would not be permitted. With regard to warehouses in commercial/residential and commercial/office mixed use zones, no warehouse over 25,000 square feet could be developed and those of 25,000 square feet or less could only be constructed pursuant to the granting of a conditional use permit.
City Attorney Flower emphasized that the city council’s vote Monday night did not amend the city code, but rather initiated the process of making the code amendments proposed by Elliott. For the municipal code to be changed, the language of the new code must undergo presentation to and an examination by the public, and an environmental review which is to include a vetting by the planning commission. Thereafter, the code amendments are to return to the council for adoption.
The council voted unanimously to approve Elliot’s motion.
Asked if she believed the council’s action this week addressed her concerns relating to the warehouse project’s in the city, Elliott told the Sentinel that “The tables pertaining to permitted land uses in the Upland municipal code need to be updated to reflect the changes we agreed on. I made my motion to limit warehouse activity in Upland to reflect our residents’ concerns that large warehouses bring unwanted truck traffic and provide few quality jobs. Accordingly, large warehouses are not compatible with our general plan or our five-year economic development plan that was recently adopted. It appears to me that we will be required to use available land for housing purposes, wherever possible.”
Elliott said, “What was not addressed and needs to be addressed in the process of amending the zoning ordinance is the issue of existing warehouses that would be made nonconforming by the new requirements. It would be my preference that these businesses would be ‘grandfathered’ to allow for ongoing activities. It was my intention to only limit future large warehouses.”
In response to the Sentinel’s inquiry as to whether he was satisfied with the council’s action this week, Garcia said, “As of now, yes. To me, it felt like a good compromise, without saying there can be no warehouses anywhere in our city.”
Still the same, Garcia said, the city needs to come to terms with incompatible land uses that currently coexist side by side, and ultimately adjust the zoning in such spots or introduce buffers between the conflicting uses.
“We need to look closely at these conflicts between residential and industrial uses that are on top of each other,” he said. “To have existing houses right up next to a factory or industrial use is not good planning. We need to be smarter about that. It is going to cost us if there is a mishap, like a kid running across the street and getting run down by a truck. We should make preventing something like that occurring a priority.”
Garcia questioned whether the adopting of new square-footage restrictions on warehouses going forward would retroactively apply to existing warehouses, as Dalquest said. Like Elliott, Garcia said he did not intend to apply the standards being formulated for future warehouse projects to warehouses that are already in place and nowhere near residential neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, Spinrad has appealed the planning commission’s denial of the Yellow Iron project to the city council.