His qualifications to serve as Barstow mayor are what distinguish him from his opponents, Paul Anthony Courtney said.
“I am educated, I own and operate several businesses, I teach in the classroom and I make leadership decisions every day,” he said.
Courtney is among three challengers, including Virginia Brown and Nathaniel Pickett, seeking to displace incumbent Mayor Julie Hackbarth-MacIntyre in this year’s Barstow municipal election.
The major issues facing the city, Courtney said, are “garbage and debris in the streets, too many vacant buildings and homeless sleeping in the streets.”
To deal with those issues, Courtney said, “Citizen review groups should be formed.”
There is money in the city’s general fund to redress those issues, Courtney said. In addition, the city can acquire grants to take on those problems, he suggested.
He has previously worked in government as a law enforcement officer and has served as an elected fire board member when the Barstow Fire Protection District was independent from the city, and has other governmental appointments under his belt, Courtney said.
Courtney has lived in Barstow, “on and off my whole life,” he said. “I was born at Barstow Community Hospital on May 18, 1961.”
He attended Barstow High School and subsequently earned an associates degree in administration of justice, a bachelor of arts degree in psychology, a masters degree in business management and a doctorate in business administration and entrepreneurship from Cambridge College.
He is the chief executive officer for PACE Services Corporation, where he has been employed since 1986, and an adjunct faculty member with Barstow Community College.
Combined with his fiancée Melonie Reliford, he has three daughters and one son, as well as six grandchildren.
The political team that has formed around Courtney said it is seeking his election “to re-engage citizens in the process upon which our American representative democracy depends” and “to invigorate the political process in our city for generations to come. There should be no more not voting because you or someone else gave up. We are committed to both utilizing time-tested best practices and harnessing the energy, creativity, skills, and insight brought to bear by each individual contributor. We seek to re-imagine the political process not as a separate and distinct domain of a self-selected group of people to whom brief attention is paid every few years and who believe they are entitled to the office, but rather as an ongoing and dynamic conversation by which we individually and collectively answer the most pressing and fundamental questions about how to improve our city through new ideas and processes.
We are committed to truth, lifetime learning, and personal growth. We believe that manipulating information to achieve the desired outcome is a small and temporary victory, and instead view measurable outcomes as ‘in progress’ rather than a fixed and predetermined measure. Through this lens, we, therefore, view ‘mistakes’ as opportunities for deeper knowledge and awareness and proactively reject pigeonholing and the ‘nay-sayers’ who seek to undermine us.”
-M.G.

His experience in politics, the private sector and the military place him in good stead to assume a position on the city council, LaPlante said. “My government career spans over 20 years in service with the U.S. Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am an experienced small business owner, and have another two decades of volunteering for the community at large and as a voter registration committee chairman.”
LaPlante said, “I am running for Victorville City Council because our city is in grave need of major change. Egos and special interests have taken over the People’s Council and We the People need to represent the City of Victorville. As a longtime Victorville resident, I know what our neighborhoods and our people need.”
With him, LaPlante said, what the voters see is exactly what they will get.
“I am vetted in the community and have their trust and faith because they know I am committed to their interests. I am a law abiding citizen and am committed to public safety.”
LaPlante is in a heavily-contested race. He is one of 21 candidates in this year’s city council race in which three seats are up. Those candidates include two incumbents, current Mayor Gloria Garcia and Councilwoman Blanca Gomez, as well as LaPlante, Lionel Dew, Terrance Stone, Robert Bowen, Frank Kelly, Elizabeth Becerra, Lizet Angulo, Adam Verduzco Jr., Craig Timchak, Webster Thomas, Ashiko Newman, Paul Marsh, Mike Stevens, Kimberly Mesen, Eric Negrete, Kareema Abdul, Ryan McEachron, Valentin Godina and Jerry Laws.
For him or anyone that is elected in this year’s election, LaPlante said, “The shutdown of a major portion of Victorville’s economy is the #1 priority.” LaPlante said he also sees “public safety and homelessness as significant issues” in the longer term.
A major issue facing the community at this time, LaPlante said, is “the city’s fiscal responsibility to its residents.”
Upon being elected, he said he will push for “a review of all city operations and swift changes by the council and staff to fully commit to save jobs for the working families of Victorville.”
LaPlante said he believes he can be a prime mover in ‘bringing about systemic and fiscally sound structural change at City Hall.”
His 35 years working in and around U.S. governmental operations gives him, La Plante said, if not a unique, then an uncommon, insight into how government work is carried out down the chain of command, which he said could be useful in gauging how directions should emanate from the decision-making level. Of his 30 years in California, “fifteen of those were spent in Victorville or the Victorville area,” he said. “I know my way around. I am a fiscal conservative who is against raising taxes.”
Proper management of the city, he said, “will pay for residents’ shared benefit by bringing in new pioneering businesses.”
Formerly a longtime member of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee, LaPlante was the executive board representative to the California Democratic Party for the party’s delegates in the 33rd Assembly District and was the San Bernardino County Democratic Party’s voter registration committee chairman.
He is easily distinguished from some of the council incumbents, LaPlante said, by not being in a position to profit personally from being a city official.
LaPlante called for “the reduction of overpaid administration salaries.”
He said “The residents of Victorville need new pragmatic leadership in order to reform our local government so it can work better for the residents and not the special interest groups.”
A graduate of Northwest High School in Indiana, LaPlante told the Sentinel, “I used my GI Bill benefits to earn an A.S. degree from Victor Valley College, in automotive engineering. I also attended the University of Maryland, Central Texas Collage and Barstow College. I have an A.A degree in history and political science.”
LaPlante has a 29-year-old son, Jeffrey, and daughter-in-law, Diana. “I am widowed,” he said, simply. “I lost my son’s mama in 2007.”
Now retired from the U. S. Army, he is a member of Victorville’s Homelessness Task Force. “We have a new wellness center with 300 more beds coming soon,” he said.
“I come from a proud family that has been involved in public service since World War II, when my father served the United States in the South Pacific with the U.S. Navy,” LaPlante said. “I was also a combat veteran of the 1st Inf Div Big Red 1 Iraq in 1991. In 1985 I served in the NATO European Theater of Operations in the Cold War.”
More can be gleaned about LaPlante and his candidacy at his website, rlaplante.com, and on Facebook.
LaPlante said that no matter the outcome of the November 3 election, “I am thankful for the opportunity to be considered by the voters for the honor of serving on the city council.”
-M.G.

Christopher Flores, who is going up against incumbent Paul Rodriguez in the November election to represent Chino’s First District said, “I am running for the city council as part of my calling to serve the City of Chino in a leadership role. I made the decision to run because I believe our city council can use someone new with 21st Century ideas, but who also wants to preserve the roots of Chino and see steady growth over the next 15 to 20 years. As a volunteer for the city and local nonprofit organizations, I am mentored by long-time community members, teachers, pastors, and coaches. I have learned that good leaders must first become good servants. My mission is to serve the people of Chino.”
He believes he is every bit as qualified as Rodriguez to hold the position of city councilman.
“As a real estate agent, I am entrusted with one of the biggest investments a family can make,” he said. “It is my duty to safeguard any money, deeds, or any other documents entrusted to me that relate to the transaction. I am obligated to provide reasonable care and diligence while being truthful and loyal to clients. Between my career and passion to serve Chino, I continue to build a track record of being honest, reliable and committed to serving people, especially the people of Chino. I believe I have a clear understanding of what people’s main concerns are and what they expect from their city councilman.”
He is distinguished from Rodriguez, Flores said, by “my energy and passion to continue serving and volunteering in the community. I have a mission to put the needs of our most vulnerable population at the forefront while listening to our youth because I relate as a peer. My opponent and I have differing views for the future for Chino, specifically on land use policy. I advocate for steady growth. I believe my servant leadership qualities along with my commitment to the people of Chino are the significant qualities that distinguish me from my opponent for this position.”
Flores said, “The major issue facing the city is the same issue facing renters and first-time home buyers: lack of financial resources due to the current pandemic. Famous restaurants, flower shops, and other businesses have either permanently closed, suffered major financial hardships, or let employees go. The city’s current budget has already experienced significant shortages, partly as a result of lower sales revenues from local businesses. This issue also has the potential of significantly affecting Chino’s quality of life, but with the right leadership and vision, Chino residents and business owners have a bright future to look forward to. No family or business should be left behind.”
He said, “The financial hardship should be redressed by continuing to take a conservative financial approach to our budget spending. I believe cutting-edge, simple-to-use digital platforms are part of the solution to help reduce spending as much as possible. Digital platforms have the ability to connect people, organizations, and resources with the aim to reduce spending while also creating revenue resources never imagined before.”
In addressing how he proposes the city will pay for the solutions he suggests, Flores said, “One thing I know about Chino is its commitment to fiscal responsibility. Our Chino City Council, city manager, and the executive management team have worked so well together in governing and prudently using the city’s general fund and general fund reserves. I propose the city continue to use these same fiscally responsible practices to ensure proper budgeting and oversight of taxpayers’ dollars.”
Flores acknowledged that “My exposure to municipal government is limited, as I consider this an area of development for me. I studied ethics and philosophy of law in college and learned to develop strategies for implementing social change through communication. I explored concepts related to rhetoric, public argumentation, and political thought. In theory, I studied and analyzed government and politics. I have relevant experience in real estate, such as working with a team of brokers, lenders, inspectors, escrow officers, and more to reach a common goal. My employment at a law firm gave me hands-on experience in legal proceedings. I work with an amazing non-profit organization located in the heart of Chino which is closely related to government operations. My education, volunteer work, and experience in law and real estate will  help me make a smooth transition in becoming the councilman District 1 needs me to be.”
Flores spent the formative years of his youth in Los Angeles, where he attended Cathedral High School College Preparatory. He moved to Chino as a young adult. “I have lived in Chino for over five years, and have friends and family who have lived in Chino for over 30 years. I look forward to raising my family in Chino for years to come.”
Flores obtained undergraduate degrees in philosophy and communications from California State University, Los Angeles.
A licensed California real estate agent since November 2017, Flores previously held a full-time position at a law firm as a legal assistant/intake specialist.
Flores is not married and has no children. “I am the proud uncle to several nephews and nieces and a proud godfather of one goddaughter,” he said.
Flores told the Sentinel, “If I am fortunate enough to be elected as a councilman, I want to assure the entire community, specifically residents living in District 1, that I will serve as an advocate for them at City Hall. District 1 is special in that it is home to our oldest neighborhoods and the majority of our Latino population. Our community requires an understanding of the current and future needs specific to District 1. Please visit chrisflores.org to learn more about my platform. Follow me on Facebook at facebook.com/flores4chino and Instagram @flores4chino.”
-M.G.

By Mark Gutglueck
The City of Upland this week backed away, at least for the time being, from the prospect of issuing pension obligation bonds.
Based upon a sale job by financial advisor Suzanne Harrell, Upland city staff and the city council in recent weeks have given consideration to deferring until well into the future the increasingly hefty burden of the City of Upland’s pension debt.
In the 2001/2002 timeframe, Upland’s political leadership voted to substantially increase the pension benefits of its employees after prognosticators predicted that the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment pool would function magnificently on a consistent basis going into the future. The State of California, cities and other governmental entities participating in that system continually endow it with contributions on behalf of their employees. The system, based on the input from its financial advisors, places that money into a host of diversified financial instruments, including stocks, bonds, treasury notes and real estate. The constant influx of money from its agency contributors and the returns on those investments supply the California Public Employees Retirement System with a never-ending revenue stream to provide those governmental retirees involved in the system with their pensions.
A presumption in the California Public Employees Retirement System’s charter is that the investment pool will experience on a yearly basis a 7.5 percent return or greater on those investments. When the 7.5 percent return is achieved and the payments from the governmental entities that employ or employed the system’s participants continue to flow in, the system is self-sufficient and self-sustaining. When the 7.5 percent earning goal is not reached, those governmental entities must increase their contributions into the system. With the massive downturn in the U.S. economy that began in 2007 and the six straight years of sluggishness that ensued, known in some circles as “The Great Recession,” the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment returns diminished, igniting a public pension crisis in California that has continued ever since, as the individual governmental entities saw their pension debt, referred to as an “unfunded pension liability,” mount.
In Upland, the pension debt crisis was exacerbated by the action of John Pomierski, who was mayor for more than a decade, from December 2000 until March 2011, at which point he was indicted by a federal grand jury on political corruption charges, including bribetaking, for which he was eventually convicted and imprisoned. To keep a lid on his depredations, Pomierski arranged to buy the silence of the handful of city employees who recognized what he was up to and the larger circle of city employees who had suspicions by increasing their salaries and benefits. Doing so without making it obvious that a cabal of city employees, including members of the police department, were in on the graft entailed increasing the salary and benefits for virtually all of the city’s employees, including fattening their pensions. As a consequence, as of June 30, 2012, the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liability, calculated on an actuarial basis, had reached $88,994,066. It steadily grew thereafter, reaching $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2018, and then climbing ever more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of June 30, 2019 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020.
With the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment performance still failing to reach the 7.5 percent goal, as in the case of achieving 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2019-20, not only is Upland’s unfunded pension liability escalating, but the amount of money being diverted from the city’s general fund to simply stay current on its pension obligations is increasing as well. This year, fiscal 2020-21, $9.1 million of the city’s $43.6 million general fund is being devoted to making payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System. Next year, 2021-22, that payment is anticipated to jump to $9.6 million
Thus, despite its midrange population at 78,000, Upland has a pension fund deficit rivaling cities twice its size. And because it is not a huge municipality, Upland does not have a current or likely future revenue stream capable of matching that growing debt and simultaneously funding service operations at full capacity. As a consequence, over the next decade-and-a-half, Upland residents are likely to see their municipal service levels diminish.
Taking stock of the consideration that in recent years the cities of Ontario, La Verne, Baldwin Park and Carson have availed themselves of the long-term financing strategy of issuing pension obligation bonds to reduce the amount of money being paid annually to the California Public Employees Retirement System, Upland city officials conferred with Suzanne Harrell of the firm Harrell & Company, a municipal financial advisor, with regard to potentially issuing pension obligation bonds of its own. According to Harrell, Upland should be able to reduce its annual pension costs and in time reduce its unfunded pension liability through a strategy by which the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the pension obligation bonds will then be invested in higher yielding securities that will bring in a rate of return greater than the interest to be paid on the bonds.
That strategy involves a gamble that the stocks and other securities that Upland will invest the proceeds of the pension obligation bonds in will perform well and provide the investment returns hoped for.
On Thursday, September 10, the Upland City Council held at the 3 p.m. hour a specially-called meeting/workshop to consider the potential of the city issuing pension obligation bonds.
Previewing the bond-issuing option was Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker. After a brief overview, Parker deferred all of the heavy lifting to Harrell, who had already delivered to the city through her firm, Harrell & Company, a 26-page boilerplate report on pension obligation bonds.
Harrell’s report states that the California League of Cities has identified pension obligation bonds as “an approach to address unfunded pension liabilities.” Harrell further related that the “city may issue pension obligation bonds at lower interest rates to pay off the unfunded actuarial liability.” This can be done, she said, by “refinanc[ing] 7% payments at a lower fixed rate of 3.3%, including the cost of issuance” and the “savings realized can add to reserves and/or be used for other city priorities.”
Harrell sought to blunt criticism of the use of pension obligation bonds by entities such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Government Finance Officers Association. Those naysayers maintain that pension obligation bonds are credit negative. Harrell countered that pension obligation debts can actually be credit positive by means of a higher debt funding ratio. The critics say that pension obligation bonds extend the maturity of the financing mechanism and thereby commit the city to a longer debt service period. That is not necessarily so, according to Harrell, who maintains that the maturity of the bonds can be matched to the existing maturity, life or sunset dates of the city’s other debts or investments. Another disadvantage of pension obligation bonds is that they do not provide an opportunity for early prepayment, their detractors claim. According to Harrell, the bonds can be refinanced after ten years. Pension obligation bonds impact the city’s debt capacity, those advising against their use say. That does not matter, Harrell says, since the unfunded actuarial liability is already a debt. Pension obligation bonds entail a complex structure, those who find fault with them suggest. Harrell insists that a traditional structure can be used in formulating pension bond issuances. Pension obligation bonds are an investment vehicle subject to the vicissitudes of the market, entailing considerable risk, the doomsters warn. Harrell characterizes the bonds not as an investment but rather as a debt management tool.
In touting the pension obligation bonds, Harrell said they had the advantage of not requiring voter approval and their issuance could be subject to a judicial validation proceeding. There is existing law pertaining to debt refunding allowing pension obligation bonds to be, she said, “treated as refinancing an existing obligation.”
Challenges by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to the validation process used for the issuance of the bonds by other cities, she said, are “unlikely to prevail.”
Harrell said her “recommendation is to adopt a pension liability funding policy to address further unfunded actuarial liabilities.”
At Thursday’s meeting, mayoral candidate Lois Sicking-Dieter, treasurer-candidate Greg Bradley and Third District council candidate Carlos Garcia cautioned the city against blindly utilizing the pension debt bond issuing solution to overcome the financial challenges brought on by the current funding demands of the pension system it is funding.
Garcia said the council should not rush into such an arrangement. “I want to make sure you really take some time to think about the bond measure being discussed today,” Garcia said. Referencing the upcoming election, Garcia said, “We have, potentially new council members. They should be part of this discussion.”
Bradley sounded a similar theme, and expanded it. “I’m here to speak against the pension obligation bond at this time, before the election,” Bradley said. “Upland has experienced financial troubles for a decade, as city leaders have mismanaged city finances and dismantled institutional systems and procedures intended to foster transparency. The actual truth is we have no idea what our city might look like in just a few months. This is not the time to make large changes to obligations or commitments. A pension obligation bond to cover the unfunded accrued liability may be something to consider after the new council is seated. We will have a better idea of the investment environment at that point. If elected, I would insist that we have a plan to stop adding new debt before we consider a bond to push off old debt. You can’t get out of debt while you’re adding new debt,” he said.
Sicking-Dieter told the council the city should consider a “robust” program to retire the city’s pension liability. “I recommend the city council vote down the use of pension obligation bonds,” she said, “and at the very least place this discussion on hold until we have a full city council, a seated city treasurer, potentially a new mayor and a new city attorney.”
Sicking-Dieter then read as extensively as she could in the speaking time she was permitted a warning to governmental entities from the Government Finance Officers Association. In that caveat, the association, said it “recommends that state and local governments do not issue pension obligation bonds for the following reasons: The invested pension obligation bonds’ proceeds might fail to earn more than the interest rate owed over the term of the bonds, leading to increased overall liabilities for the government. Pension obligation bonds are complex instruments that carry considerable risk. Pension obligation bonds structures may incorporate the use of guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, or derivatives, which must be intensively scrutinized as these embedded products can introduce counterparty risk, credit risk and interest rate risk. Issuing taxable debt to fund the pension liability increases the jurisdiction’s bonded debt burden and potentially uses up debt capacity that could be used for other purposes In addition, taxable debt is typically issued without call options or with ‘make-whole’ calls, which can make it more difficult and costly to refund or restructure than traditional tax-exempt debt. Pension obligation bonds are frequently structured in a manner that defers the principal payments or extends repayment over a period longer than the actuarial amortization period, thereby increasing the sponsor’s overall costs. Rating agencies may not view the proposed issuance of pension obligation bonds as credit positive, particularly if the issuance is not part of a more comprehensive plan to address pension funding shortfalls.”
With Mayor Debbie Stone seeking reelection and Councilman Bill Velto challenging Stone for the mayor’s position, the council came across as reluctant to embrace the pension bond issuance solution, given the way in which it might be played in the election campaign.
One problem of perception the council faced was the belief in some circles that Harrell stands to realize something beyond what she is being paid for her basic advice as an advisor if the city elects to issue the bonds, such as being party to an arrangement by which she obtains a commission on the issuance.
When the question of whether that was the case was broached during the council discussion, it appeared as if City Manager Rosemary Hoerning was seeking to deflect the issue, indicating that so far, at least, Harrell was working on behalf of the city “out of the goodness of her heart.”
The council came across as skeptical about that, at which point an admission was made that if the city pursued the bond issuance strategy, Harrell stood to profit in some fashion. With that squarely in the open, the council grew tentative, as if its members individually or collectively were put off by the potential that the citizenry might conclude that they were depending upon direction from someone who had a conflict of interest with regard to the outcome that might emanate from the advice given. A consensus formed to have city staff delve further into the option and provide the council with fuller information before any issuance of the bonds is made.
Conservative financial advisors are less than enthusiastic about pension obligation bonds, pointing out that they are intended to fund the unfunded public pension debt by creating further debt. This has been likened to paying off the money owed on one credit card with another credit card.
-Mark Gutglueck

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the
State of California the undersigned will
sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at
said address below on: 09/25/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2017 TOYOTA 4T1BF1FK3HU783448  783448X CA
To be sold by XCLUSIVE KUSTOM COLLISION AUTO 10060 LINDEN AVE BLOOMINGTON CA 92316
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying
lien for together with costs of advertising
and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on September 11, 2020

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the
State of California the undersigned will
sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at
said address below on: 09/25/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2017 CHEVY 1GC1KUEY9HF207158  207158X CA
To be sold by ALYSSA GUTIERREZ 11327 EL FUEGO CT FONTANA CA 92337
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying
lien for together with costs of advertising
and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on September 11, 2020
NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the
State of California the undersigned will
sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at
said address below on: 09/25/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2017 DODGE 2C3CDXGJ7HH598821  8BHV611 CA
To be sold by LEE’S AUTO REPAIR 8898 EMERALD AVE FONTANA CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying
lien for together with costs of advertising
and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on September 11, 2020.
NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the
State of California the undersigned will
sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at
said address below on: 09/25/2020 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
2018 MAZDA 3MZBN1V37JM275640  8HHL556 CA
To be sold by XCLUSIVE KUSTOM COLLISION AUTO 10060 LINDEN AVE BLOOMINGTON CA 92316
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying
lien for together with costs of advertising
and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on September 11, 2020
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVDS2016516
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner BRIAN ALEXANDER NORITS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRIAN ALEXANDER NORITS to ZEN GALLOWAY
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/28/2020
Time: 9 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 29, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/21/20, 8/28/20, 9/04/20 & 9/11/20.

FBN 20200007180
The following entity is doing business as LD BOTANICALS, LLC 12636 PASCAL AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 TAMIA DAILY LD BOTANICALS, LLC 12636 PASCAL AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
Mailing Address: P.O BOX 296 RIALTO, CA 92377
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ TAMIA DAILY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/11/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JULY 21, 2015
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 8/21, 8/28, 9/04 & 9/11, 2020.
FBN 20200006704
The following entity is doing business as DEEP KREEK KENNEL 2516 SPRING DRIVE RUNNING SPRINGS, CA 92382 JOSEPH KELLY 2516 SPRING DRIVE RUNNING SPRINGS, CA 92382
Mailing Address: PO BOX 1554 RUNNING SPRINGS, CA 92382
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/ JOSEPH KELLY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 1, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/21, 8/28, 9/04 & 9/11, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO-20200006440
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Team EA Auto Sales, Inc., 500 East E. Street, #206, Ontario, CA 91764, Mailing Address: 16580 Cobalt Court, Chino Hills, CA 91709, Team EA Auto Sales, Inc., 500 East E. Street, #206, Ontario, CA 91764
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/ Eric Ricardo
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/22/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
8/21/20, 8/28/20, 9/4/20, 9/11/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO-20200007180
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: LD Botanicals, LLC, 12636 Pascal Ave, Grand Terrace, CA 92313, Mailing Address: PO Box 296, Rialto, CA 92377, Tamia Daily, LD Botanicals, LLC, 12636 Pascal Ave, Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Tamia Daily
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/11/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 7/21/2015
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
8/21/20, 8/28/20, 9/4/20, 9/11/20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2015236
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Rose O. Sanchez filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Rose Ortiz Sanchez to Rosa Ortiz Rivas
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 10/06/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 22, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/21/20, 8/28/20, 9/4/20, 9/11/20

FBN 20200007519
The following entity is doing business as UNDOCUMENTAL HEALTH 3698 N E ST APT D SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 MAYRA V BARRAGAN-O’BRIEN 3698 N E ST APT D SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
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/ MAYRA BARRAGAN-O’BRIEN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/19/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 4, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/21, 8/28, 9/04 & 9/11, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERT FACIO
CASE NO. PROPS 2000547
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUANITA L. FACIO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ROBERT FACIO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ROBERT FACIO be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 1:30 p.m. on SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for 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 8/28, 9/04 & 9/11, 2020

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2016393
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Renee LaNiece Jones filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Jaelani Ariel Jones to Jaelani Ariel Scott
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/29/20
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: August 13, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/28/20, 9/4/20, 9/11/20, 9/18/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007507
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: EC Tax Firm, 158 W. Foothill Blvd ‘A’, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1844, Upland, CA 91785, Ramiro A. Lupercio, 2520 Euclid Crescent E, Upland, CA 91784
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Ramiro A Lupercio
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/19/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/1/2017
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 8/28/20, 9/4/20, 9/11/20, 9/18/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERTO MARTINEZ VELASQUEZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2000591
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERTO MARTINEZ VELASQUEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MAYRA ALEJANDRA VELASQUEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MAYRA ALEJANDRA VELASQUEZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 1:30 p.m. on OCTOBER 1, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for 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 9/04, 9/11 & 9/18, 2020

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARILYN JANE IRVINE
CASE NO. PROPS 2000592
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARILYN JANE IRVINE aka MARILYN J. IRVINE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON AARON GREEN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON AARON GREEN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 1:30 p.m. on OCTOBER 1, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for 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 9/04, 9/11 & 9/18, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM L. SWARTZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2000605
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM L. SWARTZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON AARON GREEN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON AARON GREEN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on DECEMBER 23, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for 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 9/04, 9/11 & 9/18, 2020

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS 1923151
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): JOHN SULLIVAN
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTE):
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino Justice Center.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s  attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del contrademandante, o del contrademandante que no tiene abogado, es):
REA STELMACH, Esq., (State Bar No. 296671)
SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP
11630 CHAYOTE STREET, SUITE 3, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049  213-226-6922
DATE (Fecha): AUGUST 2, 2019
Clerk (Secretario), by Melissa Perez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/4, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020

FBN 20200007905
The following person is doing business as: SPONGEE 1513 W ARROW HWY, #18 UPLAND, CA 91786 EFREN C DY AGUILERA 1513 W ARROW HW SPACE 18 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/ EFREN C. DY AGUILERA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/28/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy l1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/4, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020

FBN 20200007664
The following person is doing business as: WEB ADA PRO 8215 ROCHESTER AVE SUITE 110 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ATLAS BUYING GROUP, INC 8215 ROCHESTER AVE SUITE 110 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ MARC STEINORTH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on:
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
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/4, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2017086
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner MY-KEL KYON SCRUGGS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
MY-KEL KYON SCRUGGS to KEL KYON TAO
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 010/13/2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S-17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: AUGUST 28, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/04, 9/11, 9/18 & 9/25, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007107
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rags of Riches; Fine and Paid, 320 North E Street STE 306, San Bernardino, CA 92401, 1971 Darby Street, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Kimmy Wilson LLC, 320 North E Street STE 306, San Bernardino, CA 92401
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/ Kimberly Wilson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/10/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/03/20
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).
9/4/20, 9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20
FBN 20200008358
The following entity is doing business as C & SAVE EMPIRE TRUCKING LLC 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335 C & SAVE EMPIRE TRUCKING LLC 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
Mailing Address: 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ CESAR J GONZALEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/10/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/11, 9/18, 9/25 & 10/2, 2020.
FBN 20200007745
The following entity is doing business as SWIFT FRAMING & DRYWALL LLC 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335 SWIFT FRAMING & DRYWALL 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
Mailing Address: 15071 VALENCIA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ OMAR A MARTINEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 17, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/11, 9/18, 9/25 & 10/2, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007278
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: AR Wiltshire Enterprises, 7950 Etiwanda Avenue, Apt 24101, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Ann R. Wiltshire, 7950 Etiwanda Avenue, Apt 24101, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Ann R. Wiltshire
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007272
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Educational Ties, 7317 Rosebay Place, Fontana, CA 92336, Irishia Williams, 7317 Rosebay Place, 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/ Irishia Williams
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 8/6/2020
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).
9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007016
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: English Beard Oil, 1680 W Arrow Rte, 162, Upland, CA 91786, Michael D. English, 1680 W Arrow Rte, 162 Upland, CA 91786
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/ Michael D. English
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/6/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 7/1/20
County Clerk, s/ H7178
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007532
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rock-N-Stilettos, 10347 Mendicino Rd, Adelanto, CA 92301, Tabitha Y. Webster, 10347 Mendicino Rd, Adelanto, CA 92301
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/ Tabitha Webster
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/19/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200007933
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Msperuviandelight, 8471 Greenleaf Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Sergio Hatto, 8471 Greenleaf Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Monique Buffum, 8471 Greenleaf Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
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/ Sergio Hatto
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 8/31/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 8/18/20
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).
9/11/20, 9/18/20, 9/25/20, 10/2/20

FBN 20200007253
The following person is doing business as: MI OFICINA INCOME TAX 8990 SIERRA AVE. SUITE E FONTANA, CA 92335; JOSE A. GARCIA 8990 SIERRA AVE. SUITE E 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: 11/02/2009
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. GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/11/2020
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 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202001MT

FBN 20200007251
The following person is doing business as: GARCIA & SON TRUCKING 17555 CORKILL RD SPC 53 DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA 92241; JOSE A GARCIA 17555 CORKILL RD SPC 53 DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA 92241
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE A. GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/11/2020
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 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202002IR

FBN 20200007249 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME
The following person is doing business as: EL BORREGO RESTAURANT 12345 MOUNTAIN AVE. SUITE E,F CHINO, CA 91710; CARLOS A LOPEZ 12345 MOUNTAIN AVE. SUITE E,F CHINO, CA 91710 This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 10/15/2018. Original File#FBN20180011705
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/ CARLOS A LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202003IR

FBN 20200007153
The following person is doing business as: ONTARIOS SMOG CHECK 5420 W MISSION BLVD. ONTARIO, CA 91762; EMISSION WORLD, LLC 1310 S RIVERSIDE AVE SUITE 3F-#133 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ BENJAMIN LIZAMA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/10/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202004CH

FBN 20200007071
The following person is doing business as: MASTER AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING 9253 ARCHIBALD AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730;[ MAILING ADDRESS 7615 ETIWANDA AVE. #268 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739-9998]; AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING SERVICES INC. 7615 ETIWANDA AVE #268 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
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/ OSCAR GOMEZ, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/07/2020
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 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202005CH

FBN 20200007007
The following person is doing business as: RIALTO TEST ONLY 630 W RIALTO AVE UNIT B7 RIALTO, CA 92376; CABALLERO SMOG CHECK INC. 630 W RIALTO AVE UNIT B7 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ ROGELIO LIZAMA, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2020
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 08/21/2020, 08/28/2020, 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020 CNBB33202006CH

FBN 20200007181
The following person is doing business as: TAQUISAS ALVAREZ 10724 LOCUST AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345; MARIA E ALVAREZ GAMEZ 10724 LOCUST AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 07/27/2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA ALVAREZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/11/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202001IR

FBN 20200007883
The following person is doing business as: DARKWING EXPRESS 276 SOLANA ST SAN JACINTO, CA 92582; REGINALD D MONTGOMERY 276 SOLANA ST SAN JACINTO, CA 92582
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ REGINALD D. MONTGOMERY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202002IR

FBN 20200007878
The following person is doing business as: ANGEL SKY 1516 WEST 18TH STREET #107 UPLAND, CA 91786; SERGEY HOVHANNISYAN 1516 WEST 8TH STREET #107 UPLAND, CA 91786
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SERGEY HOVHANNISYAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202003MT

FBN 20200007880
The following person is doing business as: FONTANA WINDOW TINT 8608 JUNIPER AVE FONTANA , CA 92335; MARA L VELASQUEZ GUEVARA 8608 JUNIPER AVE FONTANA, CA 92335; MARVIN D MARTINEZ BARRIOS 8608 JUNIPER AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
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/ MARA L. VELASQUEZ GUEVARA, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202004MT

FBN 20200007876
The following person is doing business as: EL BORREGO RESTAURANT 12345 MOUNTAIN AVE. SUITE E,F CHINO, CA 91710; JORGE COVARRUBIAS 12345 MOUNTAIN AVE. SUITE E,F CHINO, CA 91710; MARGARITA MARINEARENA 12345 MOUNTAIN AVE. SUITE E,F CHINO, CA 91710
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/ JORGE COVARRUBIAS, GENRAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202005IR

FBN 20200007874
The following person is doing business as: CENTRAL FIRESTONE 11195 S CENTRAL AVE ST #5 BONTARIO, CA 91762; JSW INFINITY, INC 11195 S CENTRAL AVE ST #5 ONATRIO, 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: 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/ JULIE A ROBERTS, CFO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/2020
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 09/04/2020, 09/11/2020, 09/18/2020, 09/25/2020 CNBB35202006MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the September 4 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 09-04-20

By Mark Gutglueck
More than a half decade after their collective efforts resulted in 14 of San Bernardino County’s cities and towns transitioning from the at-large model they historically used in conducting their municipal elections to by-district voting, three of the four attorneys who forced that change are reluctant to address the negative aspects that alteration has had overall on the electoral process.
This election season, with eleven city or town council incumbents throughout San Bernardino County facing no opposition, only one of those four lawyers was willing to go on the record with regard to that circumstance and address whether the move to create subdivisions within several of San Bernardino County’s municipal jurisdictions had damaged rather than enhanced the democratic process.
All four of those attorneys – R. Rex Parris, Milton Grimes, Kevin Shenkman and Matthew Barragan – used a provision of the California Voters Rights Act to ensure, they maintained, that so-called protected minorities were not disenfranchised in the political process. That provision allowed them to allege that what is referred to as racially or ethnically polarized voting had occurred in certain cities or towns, and to then request that the city or town in question revamp its voting system such that wards or voting districts were created in which the residents of that ward or district would have exclusive voting rights to elect from within that ward or district a representative to the city council. If a city without resistance simply conformed with the request and adopted a by-district voting system, the attorney making the request was then entitled to recover from the city a $45,000 fee for having brought the city into what was characterized as compliance with the goals of the California Voting Rights Act.
If any of those towns or cities resisted the request, the attorney or attorneys representing an individual of standing challenging that particular municipal entity could then file suit under the terms of the California Voting Rights Act, and upon prevailing in demonstrating racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting in the city or town had occurred, be eligible to recover the entirely of their legal fees.
In 2001, the California Legislature enacted the California Voting Rights Act, under which a plaintiff or plaintiffs can file legal action against a governmental jurisdiction alleging polarized voting has taken place in its past elections and seek the remedy of having that jurisdiction switch from at-large elections to ones involving ward or district systems. The theoretical justification for having a city or governmental jurisdiction form such districts is the perceived likelihood that it will create political subdivisions in which the election of a member of an ethnic or racial minority is more likely to take place than in an at-large election. Upon proof being presented that such polarized voting exists, the courts will then require that the governmental entity in question adopt the ward/district system and require that the governmental entity pay the legal fees for the attorney or attorneys representing the plaintiff[s].
Polarized voting can be defined as a circumstance in which the number of registered voters belonging to a protected ethnic or racial minority within a specific jurisdiction exceeds, in comparison to the total number of registered voters in that jurisdiction, the ratio represented by a single member of that city’s or town’s council to the total number of members of that particular panel, when no members of that protected minority are counted among that council’s members. Protected minorities include African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and Asians. Thus, if any one of those protected minorities make up more than 20 percent of that municipality’s population but that city’s or town’s five-member council does not feature a member of that minority, then racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting is said to have occurred in that jurisdiction.
The California Voting Rights Act conferred upon the plaintiffs in such cases an overwhelming advantage in that though the plaintiff[s] stood to gain all money expended or owed in the matter to pay for the plaintiff’s or plaintiffs’ attorney’s efforts, the cities or towns sued under the voting rights act were not eligible to recover their fees if they prevailed in the litigation by succeeding in demonstrating that racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting had not occurred in their jurisdictions. Thus, the plaintiff[s] and the lawyers representing them in these legal actions brought under the California Voting Rights Act run no risk. On the other side of the plaintiff/defendant divide, the cities challenged in this way had to defray their own legal expenses if they chose to put on a defense at trial. Thus, even if a city prevailed, it sustained unrecoverable legal costs, and if it lost, it stood to suffer costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps beyond a million dollars in legal fees to be paid to the prevailing party. By the time opportunistic attorneys seeking a major payday through threatened or actual lawsuits under the California Voters Rights Act filed to ostensibly counteract racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting turned their attention to San Bernardino County, a handful of California cities elsewhere that resisted challenges made to their election systems under the California Voting Rights Act had already been unsuccessful in their legal defenses and were forced by the law and the courts to pay substantial amounts to cover those legal fees. In a number of San Bernardino County’s municipalities, city officials and residents where racially polarized voting had been alleged expressed umbrage at that suggestion and denied the assertions that there was a systemic or institutionalized racial or ethnic bias built into their political establishments. Nevertheless, a trio of lawyers – Lancaster-based R. Rex Parris, Malibu-based Kevin Shenkman and Los Angeles-based Milton C. Grimes – surveyed the San Bernardino County landscape and selected what what they considered to be the county’s most vulnerable jurisdiction among a handful of cities perceived to have foreclosed minority rights because of the relative scarcity of elected Hispanic office holders, despite a substantial Latino population.
Thus, Parris, Shenkman and Grimes settled upon the City of Highland, where despite more than 39 percent of the residents of that city being Latino, no Hispanics were serving on the city council. Highland thus became the first San Bernardino County city served with a demand that it alter the way it elects its council members. That lawsuit was filed July 18, 2014 in San Bernardino Superior Court by Parris, in conjunction with the Malibu-based law firm Shenkman & Hughes and the Los Angeles-based Law Office of Milton C. Grimes, on behalf of Lisa Garrett, a Latino resident of Highland. In response, the city put an initiative on the November 2014 ballot, Measure T, asking if the city’s residents were in favor of a ward system. Measure T went down to defeat, with 2,862 votes or 43.01 percent in favor and 3,793, or 56.99 percent opposed. The lawsuit proceeded and the city sought to assuage the demand by proposing to allow cumulative voting, in which each voter is given one vote for each contested position and is allowed to cast any or all of those votes for any one candidate, or spread the votes among the candidates. When the matter went to trial, despite making a finding that the socio-economic-based rationale presented by the plaintiff’s attorneys to support the need for ward elections was irrelevant and that the plaintiff’s assertion that district voting was the only way to cure the alleged violation of the Voting Rights Act was false, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn mandated that Highland adopt a ward system.
Thereafter, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Matthew Barragan, who was then the staff attorney representing the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund known by the acronym MALDEF, threatened lawsuits under the California Voter Rights Act against the cities of Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Chino, Fontana, Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Twentynine Palms, Upland and Yucaipa, as well as the towns Apple Valley and Yucca Valley. Despite the consideration that Barstow, Chino Hills, Chino and Redlands historically had fielded or at that point included Hispanic members on their city councils and that Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana historically or at that point had both Latino and African-American members of their city councils, all of those cities and all of those towns complied with the demands for shifts to ward systems, with those municipalities in many cases paying the lawyers the $45,000 cost those attorneys were entitled to under the California Voters Rights Act and which those attorneys sought for forcing those cities and towns into compliance.
At that point, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan checked out of the process, whereupon the cities or towns used consultants such as the National Demographics Corporation to draw up district or ward lines. Chino Hills, after consulting with the National Demographics Corporation, opted to utilize a different map, one drawn by two of that city’s residents, Brian Johsz and Richard Austin.
In case after case, the cities and towns adopted district voting or ward maps that were gerrymandered to provide the incumbent councilmembers an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that their districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections. One exception to this was in Chino Hills, where the Johsz/Austin map put three of the incumbents in separate districts and created two other districts, including one in which none of the then-current council members resided and one in which two members were living.
In none of those cases where the gerrymandering took place did Parris, Shenkman, Hughes, Grimes or Barragan raise any objections to how those district lines were drawn, even when they appeared to perpetuate the racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting that their threatened lawsuits were ostensibly aimed at curing.
Many of those observing that element of what occurred in those 13 cities that were forced into by-district elections after the lawsuit between Garrett and Highland concluded have independently remarked that it appears that Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan were not truly committed to redressing so-called polarized voting but rather shaking cities down in looking for a lucrative payday on the cheap by threatening a lawsuit and then accepting the $45,000 payment the cities were obliged to make to them upon the adoption of a by-district voting policy.
This year, the degree to which the mass move toward ward/district electoral systems in San Bernardino County has undercut the democratic process that change was ostensibly intended to boost was evinced in eleven separate elections in Colton, Highland, Apple Valley, Chino Hills, Hesperia, Redlands and Twentynine Palms where eleven incumbent councilmembers up for election in those races are not being challenged. In the cases of Highland, Apple Valley, Chino Hills, Hesperia, Redlands and Twentynine Palms, those cities and town are holding their first or second by-district election. For decades, Colton has had a by-district election system.
Highland Councilman Jesse Chavez, who was first elected to the council in 2016 when the city transitioned to by-district elections, is unopposed this year in his pursuit of reelection in Highland’s District 1. Highland Councilwoman Penny Lilburn, who has been on the council since 2004 and has served stints as mayor as well as mayor pro tem in the past, will serve four more years representing District 3 automatically, as no one has come forward to challenge her. Larry McCallon, who is currently serving as Highland’s appointed mayor and has formerly held that post as well as that of mayor pro tem, drew no opposition in District 5.
Apple Valley Councilman Art Bishop will accede to another term on the town council, this time representing Apple Valley’s residents in the newly-formed Second District. This is the first year that Apple Valley has held by-district elections. No one in the Second District emerged to challenge Bishop, who previously served as Apple Valley mayor and is retired as the fire chief of the Apple Valley Fire Protection District, which serves as Apple Valley’s fire department. Similarly, Larry Cusack, who was chairman of Apple Valley’s planning commission before he was elected to the city council and subsequently served a term as mayor, was given a free pass in this year’s contest, in which he was due to stand for election in Apple Valley’s First District.
In Chino Hills, Cynthia Moran, who has previously served as mayor, has no opposition in that city’s District 5. In Hesperia, no one is challenging Brigit Bennington, who was appointed to the District 4 council position last year after the city council cited what it said were residency violations to forcefully remove Jeremiah Brosowske, who had eked out a narrow victory over Bennington in the November 2018 election. In Colton, neither Kenneth Koperski, the appointed incumbent in the city’s Third District, nor Isaac Suchil, the elected incumbent in the Sixth District, have opponents. In Redlands, which experimented with district elections in the 1990s and returned to at-large elections only to reinitiate by-district elections in 2018, incumbent Eddie Tejeda attracted no one to contest him for the city’s northside District 2 seat on the council. In Twentynine Palms, incumbent Steve Bilderain, who was most recently elected at-large in 2016, in 2019 served as mayor and is now seeking election representing District 1, has no opponent.
Beginning three weeks ago, the Sentinel undertook a consistent effort to engage with Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan by telephone and through email or in person to ascertain from them their interpretations of the meaning and implication of the rash of uncontested elections in this year’s council races in San Bernardino County by which the incumbents are returning to office for four more years unopposed.
In emails sent to all four of the attorneys, the Sentinel asked if they believed a commonly expressed belief throughout San Bernardino County that the uncontested elections are an outgrowth of the mass move toward by-district or by-ward elections that took place across San Bernardino County over the last five years is accurate. Noting that Parris, Shenkman and Grimes had consistently maintained that the intention of their action in San Bernardino County, beginning with the Garrett lawsuit and moving forward, was to end racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting, the Sentinel inquired how it was that each of those attorneys as well as Barragan, who became involved in the election reform effort in San Bernardino County shortly after the other three attorneys took up that cause, then failed to act to prevent the cities and towns in question from gerrymandering the districts in a way that conferred an advantage on the incumbents then in office. The Sentinel sought from Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan whether they believed this gerrymandering, as some have asserted, undercut the reformist goal they were pursuing in pressing these municipalities to adopt by-district elections, and whether that gerrymandering is compromising the democratic process in that the drawing of the districts in a way that is favorable to the incumbents has resulted in nine uncontested elections this year alone in those cities and one of the towns where by-district elections previously did not take place. The Sentinel further inquired directly of the four lawyers why they had not acted, either individually or collectively, to prevent the gerrymandering.
The Sentinel sought from the four whether they believed that the proliferation of gerrymandered districts that followed in the aftermath of their election reform efforts rendered the election of protected minority candidates less likely rather than more likely. The Sentinel tried to elicit from Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan what their response would be to those who assert that in some cases what the by-district changeover did is actually make the election of protected minority candidates less likely.
The Sentinel asked each of the four attorneys whether, with the benefit of hindsight, they now wish that they had acted to prevent the gerrymandering that occurred in virtually every case where a San Bernardino County city or town adopted the by-district election model.
Additionally, the Sentinel asked if they had anticipated that moving to by-district elections would result in a significant number of elections that would go uncontested, and whether they believed a situation in which 11 council races throughout the county are going uncontested represents a diminution of the democratic process.
Each of the attorneys was queried as to whether he believed that a greater frequency of uncontested elections is a legitimate price that needs to be paid by the community to create the widespread regime of by-district voting and its hopefully consequent reduction in racially-polarized and ethnically-polarized voting.
The Sentinel asked each of the attorneys to cogently refute the assertion made by some that their intent in pursuing the change to by-district elections was mercenary in nature that was aimed more at ensuring they and in the case of Parris, Shenkman and Grimes their law firms and in the case of Barrigan his organization received remuneration for their efforts rather than achieving the ostensible goal of election reform, and that their individual and collective failures to prevent the gerrymandering that occurred as a consequence of the change to by-district elections in San Bernardino County is an indicator of that mercenary intent.
Neither Parris, Grimes nor Barragan, who is no longer affiliated with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and is now working as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, deigned to respond.
Shenkman told the Sentinel that he agreed that “Gerrymandering is bad. It is also unlawful in California – at the city level, it is contrary to Elections Code sections 21601 (general law cities) and 21620 (charter cities). You mention seven Inland Empire jurisdictions, of which we were involved in some but not all. We only had input into the district boundaries in one – Highland. The Highland districts were not gerrymandered. They also resulted in the first Latinos elected to the Highland City Council in the city’s entire history. I would say that is an unmitigated success. With respect to the other jurisdictions, even the ones in which we were involved in convincing the jurisdiction to adopt district elections, we were not involved in the drawing of the districts because nobody came to us with a credible and attractive case that the jurisdiction(s) violated those Elections Code sections; I’m not saying that the maps don’t violate those sections, I just don’t know.”
Shenkman elaborated, “As a more general matter, I would also agree that gerrymandering is a significant problem in California, and elsewhere. Thus far, the legislature has failed to give us the tools necessary to combat gerrymandering by local governments. They seem to have tried, but they have failed because they do not communicate with the people who will ultimately be responsible for enforcing the laws they pass. I would encourage the legislature to enact laws that actually have some teeth, so that we are in a position to combat gerrymandering when it occurs, and I’d be happy to help the legislature accomplish that.”
Shenkman said, “You mention that some unidentified people ‘point out that in some of the cases, the switch to by-district elections has made the election of protected minority candidates less likely rather than more likely.’ I don’t know who those people are, or what specific jurisdictions they think have made the election of minority candidates more difficult. What I do know is that all empirical studies demonstrate that district elections result in the election of more minority candidates. UC Riverside recently completed the largest and most comprehensive study of precisely this issue in California, and confirmed that district elections increase minority representation. (See Collingwood, L. & Long, S., Can States Promote Minority Representation? Assessing the Effects of the California Voting Rights Act. (Dec. 31, 2019) Urban Affairs Review). The paper is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419896854. I find this scientific empirical study to be far more credible than cherry-picked anecdotes by unidentified individuals who likely have an interest in maintaining the status quo.”
Moreover, Shenkman suggested, the phenomenon of candidates or incumbents running unopposed is nothing new.
“I think it is also disingenuous to suggest that elections in these jurisdictions were competitive before a switch to district elections,” he said. “They most certainly were not. Will the presidential election between [Donald] Trump and [Joseph] Biden be competitive in California in November? Of course not – everyone knows Biden will win by a large margin; the fact that the Republicans insist on having someone on the ballot does not make the election competitive in any substantive way.”
There is imperfection in the Democratic process, Shenkman said, because that is the nature of the beast.
“I would point out that social change does not happen overnight; and, while lawyers and judges can prompt that change and even accelerate that change, it takes a lot of effort ‘on the ground,’” he said. “We are proud to have given the people the tools to make change happen, and we look forward to continuing to see that change come to fruition.”

Hoping to defer until well into the future the increasingly hefty burden the City of Upland’s pension debt entails, city officials there are on the verge of issuing pension obligation bonds.
Upland, which is a mid-range city population-wise in San Bernardino County, in the 2001/2002 timeframe substantially increased the pension benefits of its employees after prognosticators predicted that the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment pool would function magnificently on a consistent basis going into the future. The State of California, cities and other governmental entities participating in that system continually endow it with contributions on behalf of their employees. The system, based on the input from its financial advisors, places that money in a host of diversified financial instruments, including stocks, bonds, treasury notes and real estate. The constant influx of money from its agency contributors and the returns on those investments provide California Public Employees Retirement System with a never-ending revenue stream to provide those governmental retirees involved in the system with their pensions.
A presumption in the California Public Employees Retirement System’s charter is that the investment pool will experience on a yearly basis a 7.5 percent return or greater on those investments. When the 7.5 percent return is achieved and the payments from the governmental entities that employ or employed the system’s participants continue to flow in, the system is self-sufficient and self-sustaining. When the 7.5 percent earning goal is not reached, those governmental entities must increase their contributions into the system. With the massive downturn in the U.S. economy that began in 2007 and the seven straight years of sluggishness that ensued, known in some circles as “The Great Recession,” the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment returns diminished, igniting a public pension crisis in California that has continued ever since, as the individual governmental entities saw their pension debt, referred to as an “unfunded pension liability,” mount.
In Upland, the pension debt crisis was exacerbated by the action of John Pomierski, who was mayor for more than a decade, from December 2000 until March 2011, at which point he was indicted by a federal grand jury on political corruption charges, including bribetaking, for which he was eventually convicted and imprisoned. To keep a lid on his depredations, Pomierski arranged to buy the silence of the handful of city employees who recognized what he was up to and the larger circle of city employees who had suspicions by increasing their salaries and benefits. Doing so without making it obvious that a cabal of city employees, including members of the police department, were in on the graft entailed increasing the salary and benefits for virtually all of the city’s employees, including fattening their pensions. As a consequence, as of June 30, 2012, the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liability, calculated on an actuarial basis, had reached $88,994,066. It steadily grew thereafter, reaching $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2018, and then climbing ever more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of June 30, 2019 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020.
With the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment performance still failing to reach the 7.5 percent goal, as in the case of achieving 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2019-20, not only is Upland’s unfunded pension liability escalating, but the amount of money being diverted from the city’s general fund to simply stay current on its pension obligations is increasing as well. This year, fiscal 2020-21, $9.1 million of the city’s $43.6 million general fund is being devoted to making payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System. Next year, 2021-22, that payment is anticipated to jump to $9.6 million.
Taking stock of the consideration that in recent years the cities of Ontario, La Verne, Baldwin Park and Carson have availed themselves of the long-term financing strategy of issuing pension obligation bonds to reduce the amount of money being paid annually to the California Public Employees Retirement System, city officials have conferred with Suzanne Harrell of the firm Harrell & Company, a municipal financial advisor, with regard to potentially issuing pension obligation bonds of its own. According to Harrell, Upland should be able to reduce its annual pension costs and in time reduce its unfunded pension liability through a strategy by which the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the pension obligation bonds will then be invested in higher yielding securities that will bring in a rate of return greater than the interest to be paid on the bonds.
That strategy involves a gamble that the stocks and other securities that Upland will invest the proceeds of the pension obligation bonds in will perform well and provide the investment returns hoped for.
On Thursday, September 10, the Upland City Council is slated to hold a workshop at which the potential of the city issuing pension obligation bonds is to be discussed. The staff member to preview that option is Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker. Much of what he is to present is based upon the contents of a 26-page report put together by Harrell & Company. It is not known outside of City Hall whether Suzanne Harrell will participate in the workshop. Her report states that the California League of Cities has identified pension obligation bonds as “an approach to address unfunded pension liabilities.” Harrell’s report further states that the “city may issue pension obligation bonds at lower interest rates to pay off the unfunded actuarial liability.” This can be done, she said, by “refinanc[ing] 7% payments at a lower fixed rate of 3.3%, including the cost of issuance” and the “savings realized can add to reserves and/or be used for other city priorities.”
Harrell sought to blunt criticism of the use of pension obligation bonds by entities such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Government Finance Officers Association. Those naysayers maintain that pension obligation bonds are credit negative. Harrell countered that pension obligation debts can actually be credit positive by means of a higher debt funding ratio. The critics say that pension obligation bonds extend the maturity of the financing mechanism and thereby commit the city to a longer debt service period. That is not necessarily so, according to Harrell, who maintains that the maturity of the bonds can be matched to the existing maturity, life or sunset dates of the city’s other debts or investments. Another disadvantage of pension obligation bonds is that they do not provide an opportunity for early prepayment, their detractors claim. According to Harrell, the bonds can be refinanced after ten years. Pension obligation bonds impact the city’s debt capacity, those advising against their use say. That does not matter, Harrell says, since the unfunded actuarial liability is already a debt. Pension obligation bonds entail a complex structure, those who find fault with them suggest. Harrell insists that a traditional structure can be used in formulating pension bond issuances. Pension obligation bonds are an investment vehicle subject to the vicissitudes of the market, entailing considerable risk, the doomsters warn. Harrell characterizes the bonds not as an investment but rather as a debt management tool.
In touting the pension obligation bonds, Harrell said they had the advantage of not requiring voter approval and their issuance could be subject to a judicial validation proceeding. There is existing law pertaining to debt refunding allowing pension obligation bonds to be, she said, “treated as refinancing an existing obligation.”
Challenges by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to the validation process used for the issuance of the bonds by other cities, she said, are “unlikely to prevail.”
Harrell said her “recommendation is to adopt a pension liability funding policy to address further unfunded actuarial liabilities.”
It is not clear whether Harrell stands to gain anything beyond what she is being paid for her basic advice as an advisor if the city elects to issue the bonds, such as being party to an arrangement by which she obtains a commission on the issuance.
The precise value of the bonds proposed for issuance is not specified in Harrell’s report.
Conservative financial advisors are less than enthusiastic about pension obligation bonds, pointing out that they are intended to fund the unfunded public pension debt by creating further debt. This has been likened to paying off the money owed on one credit card with another credit card.
The Government Finance Officers Association is an association of officials employed by government entities. In a warning to governmental entities, the association stated, “The Government Finance Officers Association recommends that state and local governments do not issue pension obligation bonds for the following reasons: The invested pension obligation bonds’ proceeds might fail to earn more than the interest rate owed over the term of the bonds, leading to increased overall liabilities for the government. Pension obligation bonds are complex instruments that carry considerable risk. Pension obligation bonds structures may incorporate the use of guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, or derivatives, which must be intensively scrutinized as these embedded products can introduce counterparty risk, credit risk and interest rate risk. Issuing taxable debt to fund the pension liability increases the jurisdiction’s bonded debt burden and potentially uses up debt capacity that could be used for other purposes  In addition, taxable debt is typically issued without call options or with ‘make-whole’ calls, which can make it more difficult and costly to refund or restructure than traditional tax-exempt debt. Pension obligation bonds are frequently structured in a manner that defers the principal payments or extends repayment over a period longer than the actuarial amortization period, thereby increasing the sponsor’s overall costs. Rating agencies may not view the proposed issuance of pension obligation bonds as credit positive, particularly if the issuance is not part of a more comprehensive plan to address pension funding shortfalls.”
-Mark Gutglueck

On a 6-to-2 vote, San Bernardino’s mayor and city council Wednesday night hired Rob Field, the former economic development agency director for Riverside County who was abruptly fired by Riverside County Chief Executive Officer George Johnson last February, to serve as San Bernardino’s city manager, effective September 21.
While the majority of the city council’s members were impressed with Field’s credentials, expressing confidence that the challenge of righting the City of San Bernardino’s listing economic ship lies right in Field’s wheelhouse, questions exist as to whether he embodies the talent, ability and willingness to sacrifice his own personal interest in an assignment which requires on one hand, parsimony and financial austerity on the part of the city’s workforce, and on the other, aggressive expansion of the city’s revenue in an environment where businesses are abandoning the city.
The range of Field’s experience with regard to governmental operations is impressive.
He graduated from the University of California, Riverside in 1989 with a bachelor’s degree in history. Two years later, he went to work as an environmental and development specialist with the Krieger & Stewart civil engineering firm in Riverside. After seven-and-a-half years with Krieger & Stewart, in 1999 he went to work for Riverside County as a mid-level employee in the economic development agency. He found himself on the fast track there, due in large measure to his patron, Supervisor John Tavaglione, who also employed Field’s brother, John, as his chief of staff. After three advancements over the course of six years, the last one into the position of assistant director, Field in 2006 was given a promotion out of the economic development agency into the position of director of Riverside County’s facilities management division. In that capacity, Field led a staff of 600 who variously oversaw design and construction of county projects, managed the county’s real property, and provided county properties with maintenance and custodial services. He was responsible for an $80 million operations budget and a $220 million capital budget.
In March 2009, Field’s career made a huge bound when Tavaglione, in conjunction with then-Riverside County Chief Executive Officer Bill Luna, in reaction to the planned retirement of then-Assistant County Executive Officer and Economic Development Agency Director Robin Zimfer, elected to merge the positions of county facilities management director with that of economic development agency director, thereby transforming Field into an assistant county executive officer.
Thereafter, Field expanded his educational credentials, earning his master’s degree from California Baptist University in leadership and organization, and obtaining extension certificates in both economic development management and land use and environmental planning from UC Riverside.
Under Luna, and the chief county executive officer who ultimately replaced Luna, Jay Orr, Field thrived in his career as a top level public administrator. In his capacity as assistant Riverside County executive officer/economic development agency director, he oversaw 24 divisions, a staff of 840, an annual operating budget of $650 million and a $1.5 billion capital improvement budget. Among his responsibilities were directly or indirectly managing, overseeing or supervising those department directors managing and operating the county’s workforce investment and development programs, the community services division, various housing programs, the county’s 36-branch library system, all of the county’s real estate, the county’s airports, the registrar of voters office, the county parks district, animal services, the agricultural commissioner and the annual Riverside County Fair & National Date Festival.
A Riverside native, he simultaneously involved himself in a number of social, educational and cultural activities. He was the chairman of both the Dean’s Advisory Council for the UCR School of Business and the UCR Highlander Athletics Association Board of Directors, a member the March Field Air Museum Board of Directors and the advisory council for UCR’s Economic Development and Innovation Center, as well as a board member of the Unforgettables Foundation.
At the end of his tenure with Riverside County, Field was one of seven assistant chief executive officers answerable to both County Chief Executive Officer George Johnson and Chief Operating Officer Lisa Brandl. He was earning an annual salary of $294,328.64 that was augmented with $28,402.12 in other pay along with benefits of $41,543.88, which provided him with a total annual compensation package of $364,274.64.
Johnson’s succession of Orr as the county’s chief executive officer in 2017 and Tavaglione’s departure as supervisor in 2018, however, would have a profound impact on Field.
Johnson had an eight year head start on Field, having begun with Riverside County in 1991. Both had progressed up the county chain of command in relatively rapid fashion, with Johnson’s key top management postings being that of director of the county’s Transportation and Land Management Agency and director of the Transportation Department. Johnson acceded in 2012 to the third highest position in the county, that of county chief assistant executive officer under Orr.
Ultimately, Johnson at some point lost faith in Field. Because of the strict policy in California of maintaining strict confidentiality with regard to the performance of public employees, what transgressions Field engaged in that put him on the wrong side of Johnson have not been disclosed. What can be pieced together is that Johnson came to have doubts in Field’s integrity, basic competence and honesty.
Problems with the county’s capital improvement projects manifested in which Field exercised less fiscal discipline in his management role than was expected of him. This was exacerbated by Field’s tolerance of contractors whose performance was less than satisfactory and whose financial and material wherewithal to complete the projects they had successfully bid on came under question. There were, in particular, problems with regard to the construction of the John J. Benoit Detention Center in Indio, intended to be a major holding facility for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in the central-east portion of the county. Originally approved as a $330.4 million project, it has been subject to no fewer than 29 change orders and amendments to the construction contract, which have boosted the price tag on the undertaking to at least $367 million. There have been reports of shoddy workmanship on certain phases of the project. Work on a critical element of the project ground to a halt when one of the subcontractors on the project fell into bankruptcy, requiring a receivership arrangement. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors indulged the facilities management division and Field in the delays and cost increases, at least for a time, increasing the overall budget on the project by $10.2 million to $340.6 million in February 2018.
Field provided assurances to the supervisors, the sheriff and the public that the project would reach completion by the end of summer 2019, and then missed that target date. By that point his credibility had begun to erode. Sheriff Chad Bianco, in addition to being disappointed over the missed completion date for the jail, also began questioning the need for funds in his budget to be diverted to other ongoing capital projects involving his department for which the facilities management division had already received funding. That led to questions about Field’s stewardship of funds relating to the county’s construction projects. Field getting crosswise of Bianco did not endear him to Johnson.
Field’s misrepresentations with regard to meeting the jail completion date dovetailed with concerns about Field’s overall reliability and the strength of his word. While it was recognized that in his role as economic development director Field was given wide latitude in promoting Riverside County to potential investors and corporations contemplating locating operations into the county such that he was allowed to engage in exaggerations that might result in additions to the county’s roster of commercial and manufacturing enterprises, it was understood that Field’s talent for puffery exceeded that of most other government officials. Field had simultaneously developed a reputation for advocating not just on behalf of the county but in favor of his own faculties, abilities and talent as well. For some, indeed, it has been difficult to say where Field’s promotion of the county left off and the promotion of himself started.
On February 4, Johnson gave Field his walking papers, the same day that Riverside County Public Social Services Director Sarah Mack was terminated. Some have suggested that it might not be technically correct to say that Field was sacked, but that rather he resigned when he was given that option in the face of being fired. The policy of maintaining confidence with regard to the performance and work history of public employees in California clouds the issue.
It appears that the silver-tongued Field was either able to divert the majority of the San Bernardino City Council’s attention from his firing by Johnson or was somehow able to convince the council as a whole that his termination and the grounds for it are immaterial.
The council’s primary focus is on finding a manager who can map the city out of the financial doldrums it has been unable to escape. In August 2012, the city was obliged to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. It remained in that state for four years and 10 months, emerging in June 2017. During that nearly five-year interlude, the city stiffed its creditors for slightly more than $350 million, while paying the law firm which guided it through the bankruptcy process $25 million. Under the umbrella of the bankruptcy, the city, which in 2012 had an annual operating deficit of $49 million, was able to save more than it was spending over the nearly five years it was in bankruptcy, establishing reserves of just under $40 million. Once the bankruptcy crutch was no longer in place, however, the city took in some $7 million less than it spent in 2017-18, ran an $11.2 million deficit in 2018-19, and saw that annual deficit jump to $16 million by the end of 2019-20. It is thus on a trajectory to burn through the reserves it was able to husband during the bankruptcy by December of this year or January of next year. In November, San Bernardino’s voters are to vote on a one-cent sales tax measure which city officials say is needed to keep the city from slipping into bankruptcy again, to be followed, quite possibly, by being placed into a receivership and then, perhaps, by the disincorporation of the City of San Bernardino, the county seat, altogether. City officials are less than confident the city’s voters will approve the tax initiative, which is designated as Measure S on the ballot.
Mayor John Valdivia and five-sevenths of the city council this week expressed hope that Field will have the ability to miraculously rejuvenate the city financially, primarily by luring businesses of all order to the city. If indeed Field can do so, he will earn all of the $356,000 in total compensation the city council has conferred upon him, consisting of $285,000 in salary, $25,000 in other pay and $46,000 in benefits.
Nevertheless, there is widespread concern that the city council, in the generosity it displayed toward Field, has fated him and the city to failure. There is skepticism that San Bernardino, long in a death spiral in which business after business has closed or moved from the city, can overnight reverse that course or even, in the interim of a few years or even a half-decade, effectuate that turnaround. Analysts have for some time noted that a major factor in the City of San Bernardino’s economic faltering consists less of the dearth of money that it is bringing in and more in the money it is spending. At the basis of this are the exorbitant salaries and benefits the city is paying its employees.
In neighboring Colton, a decade ago at the height of the recession that began in 2007, then-City Manager Rod Foster, facing economic reality head on, recognized that the city could not sustain its continuing municipal salary and benefit outlays. He initiated negotiations with the city’s unions, informing the employees’ labor representatives that the city was on the brink of engaging in massive layoffs of its workforce unless concessions on already in-place labor contracts were made. When the union balked, Foster imposed on himself a ten percent salary reduction, setting the tone for the needed austerity at the top. He repeated the warning that layoffs were imminent, at which point the unions consented to allowing that austerity to work its way downward.
In San Bernardino, the situation is far more dire today than it was in Colton ten years ago. Nevertheless, San Bernardino’s leadership appears to be more determined to protect its own financial position than to take the action necessary to prevent the city from plunging into the financial abyss it is rapidly moving toward.
In 2012, Andrea Travis-Miller was serving in the position of a high level assistant to then-San Bernardino City Manager Charles McNeely. Nearly a decade of deficit spending had pushed San Bernardino to the brink and McNeely to distraction. Travis-Miller was promoted to assistant city manager, and she and then-Finance Director Jason Simpson worked day and night to plug the city’s overwhelming budget gaps. When McNeely, concerned about what being at the helm of San Bernardino when it declared bankruptcy would do to his career and reputation, resigned, Travis-Miller gamely stepped forward and accepted the interim city manager’s post. In tandem with Simpson, Travis-Miller made a comprehensive review of the city’s financial books, the conclusions of which were so startling that the city council in July 2012 resolved to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection on the basis of a 45-page report from Travis-Miller recommending the city do just that. The city did so the following month. Travis-Miller bravely remained in place, soldiering on as acting city manager, disregarding the negative associations that attended her continuing association with a city in bankruptcy. She remained with the city until February 2013, at which point she took on the position of the executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Development Authority. Moving into the city manager’s post after her departure was Allen Parker, who was then succeeded in 2016 by Mark Scott. Scott at that point sought to convince Travis-Miller to return to San Bernardino to serve in the capacity of assistant city manager during the final phase of the city’s exit from bankruptcy. Travis-Miller, who had gone on to become the city manager of Covina after a stint as the executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Development Authority, acceded to Scott’s call. When Scott left the city in August 2017, convinced that Travis-Miller’s standing as a law school graduate, a member of the California Bar, her practice with the law firm of Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trestor from 2008 until 2011, her previous term as the city manager of La Mirada and her work as acting city manager in guiding San Bernardino through its financial immolation in 2012 to the safe shore of the Chapter 9 filing stood her in good stead to manage the city, Mayor Carey Davis and the city council unanimously hired her to do just that, conferring on her a three-year contract as city manager. Fifteen months later, however, John Valdivia, who had been the city’s Third Ward Councilman, was elected mayor. Upon Valdivia being sworn in on December 19, 2018, a personality conflict between the domineering Valdivia and Travis-Miller was at once obvious, with Valdivia trying but failing on that very day to convince a majority of the council to fire Travis-Miller. Over the next four months, Valdivia took one run after another in his effort to cashier Travis-Miller, continually falling short. When at last in April 2019 the council deadlocked 3-to-3 in a vote to suspend Travis-Miller, Valdivia used his tie-breaking authority as mayor to decide the issue. Travis-Miller remained on administrative leave until the following month, at which point a special election to select Valdivia’s successor as Third Ward Councilman was held. Upon Valdivia’s ally Juan Figueroa prevailing in that race and his being seated on the council, Travis-Miller was fired. The council soon thereafter replaced her with Teri Ledoux, whose previous municipal experience had consisted of work as a relatively low-level analyst in San Bernardino and then as an executive assistant to the city managers in Huntington Beach and La Verne before she was recruited by Travis-Miller to return to San Bernardino as her assistant city manager in late 2017.
Travis-Miller sued the city for wrongful termination. That suit was settled earlier this year with the city agreeing to pay her $750,000.
Ledoux, who had eclipsed the age of 60 at the time she was moved into the city manager’s position, was intent on retiring upon reaching the age of 62. By serving in the city manager’s post for the 16 months she has held that position, she has enhanced her standing in the California Public Employees Retirement System so that the $114,000 pension she was eligible to receive in 2019 has escalated to $181,275. She is set to begin receiving that annual pension upon her retirement next week. Given the thin nature of her skill set, Ledoux was overmatched throughout her tenure as city manager. She was unable to stanch the city’s hemorrhaging of red ink, such that San Bernardino spent some $18.67 million more on city operations while she was managing the city than the revenue it brought in during the same 16 months. Her inability to impose on the city the fiscal discipline it needed to end that deficit spending proved a factor in the city council’s decision to hire Field, who is expected to spur economic development that will result in revenue increases to erase, or at least substantially reduce, that deficit.
In the meantime, Travis-Miller, whose $750,000 settlement with the city included a clause calling for both sides to refrain from any negative or derogatory comments about one another, has again filed suit against the city and is seeking another $750,000, claiming that a Facebook posting by Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra in which Ibarra said she stood by the decision to terminate Travis-Miller has irreparably damaged the former city manager’s reputation.
Thus, Field is coming to San Bernardino as the sixth city manager since 2012 – or the seventh if Travis-Miller who had two tours in that capacity is counted twice. In each case, the city councils as they were then or are currently composed saw each successive holder of the position as the city’s savior.
Unless, however, Field can accomplish what each of his five predecessors failed to carry off – transforming the city economically – he is bound to be no more successful than any of them. Moreover, his acceptance of the highest salary ever conferred upon a San Bernardino city manager makes it unlikely he will be able to claim the moral authority he will need to convince the employees at City Hall to accept the drastic pay cuts that would allow the city to balance its budget and stave off what is looking like an inevitable second bankruptcy. Mayor John Valdivia and his two rivals on the council – Councilman Fred Shorett and Councilman Jim Mulvihill – were in unusual accord and came across as equally enthusiastic about Field. They were joined in that enthusiasm by Valdivia’s two council allies, Councilwoman Bessine Richard and Councilman Juan Figueroa, as well as Councilman Ted Sanchez.
Wednesday night, in the 6-to-2 vote to hire Field and confer upon him the $285,000 salary/$356,000 total annual compensation contract, Councilwoman Ibarra and Councilman Henry Nickel dissented.
Ibarra’s objection appeared to be based upon the amount of money contained in Field’s contract.
Nickel’s rationale for not supporting Field’s appointment to the city manager’s position was more opaque. Nickel indicated that he was going to “respectfully vote against” hiring Field.
Nickel, who is currently an analyst employed by San Bernardino County, was formerly employed as a staff analyst with the Riverside County Transportation Commission. That assignment put Nickel into communication with Johnson, who terminated Field in February. What, precisely, Nickel is privy to as a consequence of his Riverside County connections was not disclosed at Wednesday evening’s city council meeting. Nor is it known what information Nickel may have conveyed to his colleagues in private or during discussions, closed to the public, relating to the selection of San Bernardino’s newest city manager from among the 47 applicants who applied for the job.
–Mark Gutglueck