As things stand at present, it appears that the 2020-21 school year in most of San Bernardino County’s 33 school districts will begin under a format that is closer to the traditional learning model of students being educated in classrooms than what was the case when the 2019-20 school year drew to a close. Still the same, the return to normalcy will not be complete.
Because of state and local public health orders and mandates, classroom instruction ended in all of the county’s public schools toward the end of March or no later than the beginning of April. The schools remained closed for the remainder of the school year, with a different intensity of remote instruction taking place among faculty and students from district to district, from school to school and from teacher to teacher.
The vast majority of the districts in the county are now firming up their strategies for instruction that will very likely see most students return to their classrooms for two to three days a week when the 2020-21 year begins in August.
Normal school function with students in place at their schools on all five weekdays is being contemplated in only a handful of the districts contacted by the Sentinel.
Rather, what is being called a “hybrid model,” which will keep students at home two to three days a week where they are to be engaged in a structured and formalistic distant or remote learning process, one which is intended to represent a refinement of the program that was in effect during the last three months of the 2019-2020 school year, will be followed in most districts.
Some districts have made commitments on the hybrid concept while others have previewed it to their school boards, which have yet to sign off on it.
Within the last month there has been a pronounced upsurge in confirmed coronavirus cases throughout San Bernardino County. If that trend continues, there is yet the very real possibility that several, a majority, or all of the districts will move to a complete remote learning model once again.
The school districts in San Bernardino County, like their counterparts throughout California, are negotiating the straits between the demands of educating their charges and maintaining the health and safety of students and staff members in the face of the potentially deadly COVID-19 virus.
In a dated mandate, the state called upon districts to provide their students with at least some level of in-person instruction. It is not clear whether that mandate is yet operative, given the flare-up of recent COVID-19 outbreaks.
There are variances in how the hybrid plan will be put into practice.
Tentatively in the Fontana Unified School District, for example, half of a given school’s students are to attend classes at the school on Mondays and Tuesdays, while the other half will be engaged at home in distance learning. All students would remain at home on Wednesdays, when classrooms would be thoroughly cleaned. The students who were engaged in remote learning on Monday and Tuesday would then attend classes at the school sites on Thursdays and Fridays and the remaining students would undergo at-home distance learning. Arrangements are to be made for any students who wish to meet with teachers on days they are not in the classroom. The district is to also allow parents to access on-line learning materials so they can serve as supplemental instructors to their children.
The Fontana district has not fully committed to the plan, but it appears purposed to do so. Word is that district officials will put it tentatively in place to see how it works out.
The Sentinel was provided with a hybrid instructional plan for another unspecified school district in the county. In that district, the Sentinel was informed, students with their last names beginning A-to-M will attend school on Monday and Wednesdays and every other Friday. Students with last names beginning N-to-Z will attend school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and every other Friday. The reason for that arrangement is to keep families together. Single student families and multiple student families may be moved to opposite days at the district’s discretion, as the district attempts to balance numbers district-wide. Distance learning is to take place on the days students are not on campus. Attendance is to be taken daily for all students, on campus or not, and assignments are to be graded. The methods for remote instruction are to include but not be limited to Google Classroom and Zoom. Students will be required to wear masks and will have their temperatures checked daily. They will not be permitted to use playground or gym equipment.
In the Fontana Unified School District, parents were recently surveyed with regard to their concerns over exposing their children to the coronavirus in a school setting. Roughly 20 percent of the responding parents, the district reported, indicated they would rather their children not go to a school site at any time until the danger of contracting the condition has passed.
Educational professionals have opined that given the limitations and lack of refinement and standardization with remote learning, the traditional five-day in-class school week model offers the best educational opportunity for the vast majority of students. Despite recent research that indicates school-age children make poor carriers of COVID-19 and are therefore not likely to be contagious, the sheer numbers of students attending school on most campuses raises the specter of schools spreading the contagion to one degree or another. For that reason, distant learning is considered a viable methodology for maintaining the learning process in the current environment.
Complicating the matter is that on Wednesday, President Donald Trump used the Twitter communication mode to threaten to withhold federal funds from any of the nation’s schools that don’t reopen in the upcoming school year, even if the rationale for maintaining closure is the coronavirus pandemic.
“The Dems think it would be bad for them politically if U.S. schools open before the November election, but is important for the children & families. [I] May cut off funding if not open!” the president tweeted.
It is unclear whether the president’s executive authority enables him to withhold funds already appropriated by Congress for use by the nation’s schools. Federal funding comprises less than ten percent of the money utilized by public schools in California.
There are a number of educators, including ones who affiliate with the Democratic Party, who share the president’s belief that the earliest return to a traditional classroom setting is important, and that allowing school-age children to adapt to a lifestyle that does not involve the structure of a formal educational setting will result in undesirable results for those students both as they mature and in their future academic pursuits.
One district where it appears students will attend school five days a week is the Colton Joint Unified School District. On that district’s website, Dr. Frank Miranda, who was appointed superintendent to succeed Jerry Armendarez after the latter’s abrupt leave-taking to accept the position of superintendent with the Santa Ana Unified School District in November 2019, states that he intends to make “regular visits to school sites, including attending special school events and visiting classrooms with union leaders, executive cabinet, directors and/or board members” and to conduct “Thursdays with Dr. Miranda” events, “where I will ask individual schools to provide me with a space on campus where I will spend a couple of hours.”
Christine McGrew, the official spokeswoman for San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre, yesterday told the Sentinel that how each of the county’s 33 school districts will structure their curricula and education modes “is basically a decision each of the districts have to make. The majority have included in their reopening plan different options to include the traditional learning environment, a distant learning option and a hybrid option that includes both distant learning and some limited classroom time for all students, with each student attending class on a reduced basis. That is basically what a majority of the school districts are doing.”
Deadlines for the districts to determine exactly how their schools will operate are approaching, McGrew said, and district officials are cataloging the options to be laid out to the various districts’ boards.
“Recently the San Bernardino Unified School District made a determination they would begin the school year with a distant learning approach,” McGrew said. “In terms of a deadline for making those decisions, the school districts have their school years set to begin from August 3 to August 26. Once each district’s plans are completed, they are being presented to the individual boards for approval.”
The plans could change if the circumstance so dictate, she said.
“If there is a second wave of the pandemic, safety is a priority,” McGrew said. “Based on what the state and local public health departments’ directions are, the decisions on whether to close the schools will be made, but we’re not there yet.”
The president’s recent threat to withhold funding if the schools are not reopened has not changed the dialog on how classes will be conducted, McGrew said.
“I don’t think the president’s statements are impacting the decisions,” she said. “The decision-making process for the districts has already advanced. As you know, California finalized its funding agreements with schools at the end of June, so the districts are planning based on that agreement. They are moving forward out of the best interests of their students’ and staffs’ safety and health. Those are the top priorities, and then, of course, the learning program. I don’t think the president’s comments are impacting the districts’ decisions.”
-Mark Gutglueck

“Significant” differences have manifested among the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, top county officials, the county’s stable of in-house attorneys known as the office of county counsel and an outside law firm brought in to salvage the county’s position after early going in what many considered to be the relatively minor case of false arrest and civil rights violations brought against it by Jimmie Williams III has exposed the county to potential liability in the millions of dollars.
At the root of the problem is the sheriff’s department’s unwillingness to acknowledge it made a series of errors when its officers arrested Williams four times in repeated cases of mistaken identity, which was compounded by its refusal to make a simple notation in its computer system that would have obviated such errors in the future.
At the core of the issue is that Jimmie Williams III, 36, bears a name very similar to Jimmie Antonio Williams Jr. as well as sharing with him the same birth date. Williams Jr has an extensive criminal record. Williams III’s only criminal history consists of his having been repeatedly misidentified as Williams Jr. by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
On four occasions, in 2006, 2009, in June 2018 and most recently in July 2018, Williams III of Victorville, who has no criminal convictions whatsoever, has been arrested by the sheriff’s department when it failed to distinguish between him and Williams Jr., with whom Williams III has no familial relation.
The July 2018 arrest came about as the consequence of what the county’s attorneys have now been forced to acknowledge was the sheriff’s department’s pretextual encounter with Williams III in order to make his arrest after the deputies involved failed to verify that Williams III was actually Williams Jr., for whom they had a valid arrest warrant.
The sheriff’s department’s, the county’s and the individual officers’ legal position has been compromised by the officers having somehow failed to keep their stories straight as to why the last encounter with Williams III came about. According to the sheriff’s department, deputies came to Williams III’s residence in June 2018 in response to a silent alarm. When they confronted Williams III, he complied with a request that he show them identification, and they arrested him on a warrant for Williams Jr., despite Williams III explaining to them the confusion over his and Williams Jr.’s identities. Williams III was released shortly thereafter, upon the department having been provided with clear documentation that Williams III was not Williams Jr.
Less than a month later, another deputy, apparently functioning on the belief that Williams III was Williams Jr. and not having taken proper stock of the mistake his colleagues had made the previous month, went to Williams III’s home, claiming he was there to speak to Williams with regard to a child protective services matter relating to his son. At some point in his interaction with Williams III, the deputy informed Williams III he was actually there to arrest him on a felony warrant.
The entirety of that encounter was video-recorded by Williams’ doorbell camera, which shows that despite Williams again seeking to inform yet another member of the sheriff’s department of the mistake the department was making for the fourth time, the deputy escalated the matter to a physical confrontation, wrestling Williams III to the ground and then arresting him on felony obstruction and resisting arrest charges.
The county board of supervisors, after learning of the claim and lawsuit brought against it by Williams III and his attorney, Jonathan Ray Russell, previously resisted entering into a settlement, setting the matter on a course for trial.
Ultimately, the office of San Bernardino County Counsel, led by County Counsel Michelle Blakemore, opted to bring in the law firm of Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, which specializes in defending public entities and police departments in wrongful death, wrongful prosecution, malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest lawsuits.
Over the last year, however, there have been a number of developments in the case that have resulted in the matter devolving to the point where the relationship between the county and Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi has been poisoned, information the sheriff’s department never wanted revealed is about to be disclosed, and Williams III is about to walk away with a multi-million payday.
At the heart of the case is what has been described as an “almost perversely obstinate” refusal on the part of the sheriff’s department to utilize its long-extant and vaunted informational system to flag either or both the entries it has with regard to Williams III and Williams Jr. in such a way as to prevent any confusion between the two.
Officially titled the “Central Name Index,” the sheriff’s department’s database includes entries on all individuals with whom the department has had any previous contact, either physically in person or by extension through its investigative or enforcement work. Quite often wrongfully referenced by a significant number of deputies with the department as the “Criminal Name Index,” it contains the names, addresses, available contact information, arrests, convictions, information gleaned from arrest or investigative reports, field encounter cards, interview and interrogations notes and San Bernardino County Superior Court records, along with arrest and conviction data extrapolated from the State of California’s Criminal Identification and Information Services Bureau’s data base, the JDIC [the County of Los Angeles Justice Data Interface Controller] data system, and the NCIC [the National Crime Information Center] data base. The Central Name Index can be accessed from computers at all of the department’s stations and from the mobile unit computers contained within patrol cars. For reasons that are not clear, the department failed to put into its Central Name Index information to distinguish Williams III from Williams Jr., despite the system being designed to accommodate any and all information relating to a subject available deemed to be of use to a law enforcement officer who accesses the data base for any type of operational activity.
After each of Williams III’s arrests, when it was established or reestablished that Williams III was not the individual the arresting deputies assumed him to be, department officials insisted that the arresting deputies had done nothing wrong and had acted appropriately and without malice.
If, indeed, San Bernardino County can succeed in propounding that construction of events in defending the case with regard to the first three of Williams III’s arrests, it will have a far more difficult go of it when the matter goes to trial with regard to the July 2018 arrest. On that occasion, the arresting officer was apparently acting on information that came to the department as a consequence of the encounter the department had when it arrested Williams III the previous month, after which William III’s actual identity was made clear to at least some members of the department. The arresting deputy also utilized an elaborate fabrication relating to a child protective services issue to lure Williams III into position for what is now recognized by the county’s lawyers at all levels – both in-house and outside legal representatives – as a false arrest. Despite that recognition among competent legal authorities, the department is persisting in maintaining that the arrest was justified. The issue of the department’s and it’s officers claims in this regard is beset with complication for the county. Two of the Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi attorneys representing the county in the Williams III matter, Natalie Price and Aamir Raza, have reached the conclusion that at least one of the deputies has made and continues to make demonstrably false assertions with regard to the facts of the case, which in turn resulted in Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, relying upon those prevarications, having made false representations to the court. This has created a crisis by which Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi wants to bail on the case, a circumstance that is not likely to be overcome unless the county is willing to devote a considerably greater amount of money – well in excess of $500,000 – in legal fees to be paid to the firm in excess of what it would otherwise pay to keep it in place.
Moreover, the case, if it goes to trial, will very likely result in intense illumination being shed on the sheriff’s department’s Central Name Index, in particular an aspect of that data base which allows the department to maintain two sets of data with regard to the subjects contained within it, one that is under normal circumstances considered confidential but will be released upon a court order or in accordance with agency-to-agency privilege and a second set of entries made with regard to the index’s subjects that are considered off limits to anyone outside of the department, including the courts,  which is double secured by password protection and a secret access protocol. It is feared that if Williams III’s lawyer explores the sheriff’s department’s rationale for refusing to enter identifying distinctions between Williams III and Williams Jr. into the Central Name Index, that line of inquiry will lead to the disclosure of the department’s secret files, which the defense is seeking to head off by in limine motions to exclude those files as evidence in the case. Whatever the court’s ruling with regard to the in limine motions, however, the existence of the department’s sub rosa files will be established when the means by which the distinguishing identifying information pertaining to Williams III and Williams Jr. could have been entered into the department files is presented during the course of the trial.
Relatively early in the litigation between Williams III and the county, the county had the opportunity to bring the matter to a close by agreeing to take steps to ensure that the sheriff’s department would no longer blur the distinction between Williams III and Williams Jr. and confer a settlement of $75,000 on Williams III. At present, the county is into Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi for well over a half of a million dollars with the prospect of that amount doubling as an effort toward a settlement is made. If no settlement is reached, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi’s legal fees will zoom to somewhere approaching $2 million, to cover the cost of the matter going to trial. It appears that Williams III and his lawyer, Jonathan Russell, can now expect a settlement in the low seven figures for agreeing to keep the case from going to trial in Central District U.S. Federal Court before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. If the effort at reaching a settlement fails, the county will be in the position of rolling the dice when the matter is heard by a jury before Judge Wilson.
Next week, County Counsel Michelle Blakemore is scheduled to brief the board of supervisors on the matter during a closed session from which the public is to be excluded. Blakemore’s presentation is to include a proposal that the supervisors consider signing off on a settlement prior to trial. The Sentinel was told that the lone hitch in making that settlement at this point is the board of supervisors’ collective reluctance to take action that will embarrass Sheriff John McMahon, who has continued to support his deputies and is unwilling to issue a public apology to Williams III, or in any way acknowledge that Williams III was wrongfully arrested.
-Mark Gutglueck

Those who are interested in vying for election at the municipal level in San Bernardino County will be required to take out and return candidacy papers during the nomination period, which starts next Monday, July 13, and ends at 5 p.m. Friday, August 7.
Because of concerns with regard to the coronavirus pandemic, the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters office is featuring a candidate registration process that will minimize human contact, at least in the initial stage of the application effort.
San Bernardino County municipal office hopefuls can initiate their applications by means of the “My Candidacy Gateway” portal on the registrar’s website, https://www.sbcountyelections.com/
Upon completing the initial candidacy application steps, the candidates can schedule an in-person appointment at the registrars office, located at 777 E Rialto Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92415, to finish their filing or do so through a video conference. The registrar’s office will not accept walk-in delivery of the applications without an appointment.
On November 3, the day the 2020 Presidential General Election will be held, mayoral and city council elections will be held in 23 of San Bernardino County’s 24 incorporated cities or towns.
In Adelanto, the city council positions held by Ed Camargo and Joy Jeannette, who was elected in a special election to replace indicted Councilman Jermaine Wright, are up for election this year.
In the Town of Apple Valley, Larry Cusack and Art Bishop will need to stand for reelection to the town council to remain on that panel.
In Chino, Mayor Eunice Ulloa’s term will end this year. Paul Rodriguez, who was appointed to replace Glenn Duncan as city councilman and then elected in a special election in 2018, will need to stand for reelection in District 1 if he wishes to remain on the council, as will Tom Haughey in District 4.
In Chino Hills, Art Bennett and Cynthia Moran must stand for reelection this year or leave office.
In Colton, appointed District 3 Councilman Kenneth Koperski, District 5 Councilman Jack Woods and District 6 Councilman Isaac Suchil have terms on the ultimate decision-making panel in the Hub City that will end this year, as does City Clerk Carolina Padilla and City Treasurer Aurelio De La Torre.
In Fontana, Jesse Sandoval and Jesse Armendarez are approaching the end of their current terms. Armendarez is in a run-off election against Rialto Councilman Joe Baca, Jr. for Fifth District county supervisor in November. As political prognosticators favor Baca in that race, there is speculation that Armendarez will seek to remain on the council in Fontana, such that he will be on the ballot twice in November.
In Grand Terrace, Sylvia Robles, Bill Hussey and Jeff Allen, who captured a position on the council in a special election in 2018, are due to seek reelection or leave the council.
In Hesperia, Rebekah Swanson and Larry Bird must seek reelection this year or forsake their current positions on the council representing the City of Progress.
In Highland, the incumbencies of Jesse Chavez in the city’s First District and Anaeli Solano in the Second District are set to expire. They have the option of seeking reelection.
In Montclair, Carolyn Raft is on track to stand for reelection to the city council and Tenice Johnson, who was appointed to the city council in 2019 when John Dutrey was obliged to resign from the council to move into the mayor’s post, will need to seek validation from the city’s voters as well to hang onto her council position.
In Needles, Tona Belt and Shawn Gudmanson, elected and reelected in 2016 respectively, will need to compete for reelection this year to remain in office, as will Councilwoman Louise Evans, who was appointed to replace former Councilman Clayton Hazlewood, who resigned.
In Ontario, Councilwoman Debra Porada and Councilman Ruben Valencia are up for reelection as are City Clerk Sheila Mautz and City Treasurer James Milhiser.
In Rancho Cucamonga, the council terms of Lynne Kennedy and Sam Spagnolo are drawing to a close this year as are those for Treasurer James Frost and City Clerk Janice Reynolds.
In Redlands, Eddie Tejeda, who was elected in 2016, and Toni Momberger, who was appointed to replace the late Pat Gilbreath and was then elected to a two-year term on the council in 2018, are due to run for reelection or relinquish their council seats. Also up for election this year in Redlands are City Clerk Jeanne Donaldson and Treasurer Robert Dawes.
In Rialto, Mayor Deborah Robertson’s term is ending this year as are the terms of councilmen Andy Carrizales and Rafael Trujillo, together with those of City Clerk Barbara McGee and Treasurer Edward Carrillo.
In Twentynine Palms, Steve Bilderain, in the city’s First District, and Joel Klink, in the Second District, are up for reelection.
In Upland, Mayor Debbie Stone is due to stand for election this year, and appointed Councilman Bill Velto must either run for council in the First District, where he lives, or vie for mayor to remain politically alive in the City of Gracious Living. Treasurer Larry Kinley’s term also ends this year.
In Victorville, incumbents Jim Cox, Blanca Gomez and Gloria Garcia, the latter of whom has been serving in the capacity of appointed mayor for more than five years, are up for election.
In Yucaipa, Third District Councilman Bobby Duncan, Fourth District Councilwoman Denise Allen-Hoyt and Fifth District Councilman Dick Riddell, who is currently the longest serving elected official in San Bernardino County, must stand for election this year.
In the Town of Yucca Valley, Jeff Drozd, now serving in the capacity of appointed mayor, and Councilman Robert Lombardo will see their current terms expire in November.
In San Bernardino, that city held elections for the council in the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh wards during the March 3 Primary Election. Incumbent Councilman Juan Figueroa won in the Third Ward race and challenger Kimberly Calvin won in the Sixth Ward race. In November, incumbent Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel will face Ben Reynoso in a run-off and incumbent Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill will need to overcome challenger Damon Alexander to remain on the county seat’s city council.
The City of Loma Linda held its election during the March Presidential Primary. Incumbents Rhodes Rigsby and John Lennart were reelected, along with challenger Bhavin Jindal, who defeated incumbent Ovidiu Popescu.
-Mark Gutglueck

California cudweed is a perennial herb that ranges from eight inches to almost three feet tall and two feet wide, has a pleasant fragrance and goes semi-dormant in the summer after blooming in the winter, spring and early summer.
Known scientifically both as pseudognaphalium californicum and gnaphalium californicum, it is a species of flowering plant in the asteraceae or sunflower family known by several other common names, including ladies’ tobacco, California rabbit tobacco, and California everlasting. It is native to the West Coast of North America from Washington to Baja California, where it is a member of the flora of many habitats, including chaparral. In California it is most often found near the coast from Sonoma County southward and in the Sierra foothills. This is an annual or biennial herb growing a branching stem reaching eight to 32 inches in height. Stem branches bear linear to somewhat lance-shaped leaves from nearly an inch to eight inches long. The green herbage is hairy, sticky and scented, with the leaves producing a distinctive aroma like maple syrup.
The flower head is a wide cluster of flowers, each enveloped in an involucre of rows of bright white phyllaries. The flowers are very long lasting when dried and are used in flower arrangements. Classification is disputed between the genera pseudognaphalium and gnaphalium, but it is presently classified as pseudognaphlium. There is also uncertainty in the common name; some sources refer to it as pearly everlasting, which is actually a separate species (anaphlis margaritacea). It can be used to populate an informal garden or wildscape. It reseeds itself prolifically, so those cultivating it should be prepared to pull seedlings from areas where it is not wanted.
Cudweed is an herb. The parts that grow above the ground are used to make medicine.
People use cudweed for conditions such as high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, diarrhea, gut infections, and many others, but there is no good scientific evidence to support these uses.
Butterflies and moths feeding upon it include the American lady, vanessa virginiensis; the orange tortrix moth, argyrotaenia franciscana; platyptilia williamsii; egira hiemalis; the everlasting tebenna moth, tebenna gnaphaliella; hellinsia phoebus; rifseria fuscotaeniaella; scrobipalpula psilella; eucosma apacheana; clepsis fucana; diastictis sperryorum; the everlasting bud moth, eublemma minima; cremastobombycia grindeliella; and patagonia peregrinum.

From https://calscape.org, Wikipedia, https://www.webmd.com/

Blue seems to be the authority color of July. Recently I am seeing blue pop up everywhere. Blue is the color of choice!
Our friends on the streets are happy to wear it, too. With panache, show off your summer blues this July while at the beach if you dare go there in the current COVID-19 climate, and while shopping, working, or at leisure.
Blue is heavenly and it is refreshing, too. You can’t go wrong with its stunning glow. It can be a blue denim piece, blue dresses, or tops that can kick up your summer wardrobe. Take your summer blues into the sun and have fun expressing yourself.

The fashion of the world right now is to avoid cost, and you can be stylish and frugal by pulling what you already have out of your closet.

“Fashion is about dressing according to what’s popular or fashionable. Style is more about being yourself.”
~Oscar de la Renta

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2009782
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TORI TAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TORI FENGZHUO TAN to TORI TAN
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: 07/23/2020
Time: 10:30 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: May 29, 2020 By Justin Manassee, Deputy
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/03 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004767
The following entity is doing business as: ALLIES’S CRAFT HOUSE 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407 ALEXANDRA J BECKER 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ALEXANDRA BECKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/21/2020
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
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 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GROOVE’S KITCHEN 12838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710 JOAQUIN FLORES 2838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 16, 2020
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 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005319
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Kwang Construction Service, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763, Whole Home Project Resource LLC, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763
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/ Wen Chih Shen
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/11/20
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).
Published in the San Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005118
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: US China Properties Group, 12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3358, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Carlton Premier Realty, Inc,12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
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/ Laura Zhang
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/5/20
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/ V0956
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 Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LENA MASON, AKA: LENA
MAJORS-MASON CASE NO. PROPS2000144 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by WINSTON
LAMAR MASON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that WINSTON LAMAR MASON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.) The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S36 at SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on July 30, 2020 at 08:30 AM
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Attorney for Petitioner: BERL HILLEL SELSKI, ESQ., SBN 54531 24832 ELENA DR.
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 Telephone: (714) 404-3104
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on June 26, July 3 & July 10, 2020.

FBN 20200005391
The following entity is doing business as: GRIFFIN FITNESS 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761 PARALLEL VENTURES LLC 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761
This 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/ NANCY LI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/2020
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
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 6/26, 7/3, 7/10 & 7/17, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005444
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Side by Side Services, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763, Lawrence C. Beggs, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763
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/ Lawrence Beggs
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/17/20
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).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005574
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Careone Plumbing, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762, Paul Robert Ramirez, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Paul Robert Ramirez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/18/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Began Transacting Business: 6/22/14
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).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) 1 9STCV22549
SHORT NAME OF CASE: SOPHIA MINGYEUN YEUNG vs. GERARDO DELUNA
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (AVISO DEMANDADO): GERARDO DELUNA; COMMERCIAL ROCK CO., INC.; HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SOPHIA MINGYEUN YEUNG
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):
CENTRAL DISTRICT-SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 312 N. SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
The name, address and telephone number of cross-complainant’s attorney, or cross-complainant 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):
STEVAN COLIN (State Bar No. 110360)
GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
DATE (Fecha): JUNE 27, 2019
SHERRIR. CARTER EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE COURT
Clerk (Secretario), by RICARDO PEREZ, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 6/26, 7/03, 7/10 & 7/17, 2019

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
CASE NUMBER: 1 9STCV22549
Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
PLAINTIFF: SOPHIA MINGYEUN YEUNG
DEFENDANT: To (name of one defendant only): DEFENDANT: GERARDO DELUNA
Plaintiff (name of one plaintiff only): Complainant SOPHIA MINGYEUN YEUNG seeks damages in the above-entitled action, as follows:
General damages:
PAIN SUFFERING AND INCONVENIENCE [of] $30,000.00
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [of] $5,000
Special Damages:
MEDICAL EXPENSES (to date) [of] $2,905.00
1 9STCV22549
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 312 N. SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
BRANCH NAME: SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE
ATTORNEYS FOR(name): PLAINTIFF SOPHIA MINGYEUN YEUNG
STEVAN COLIN (State Bar No. 110360)
GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
Date: JULY 11, 2019
s/ STEVAN COLIN
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 6/26, 7/03, 7/10 & 7/17, 2019

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004595
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rodriguez Courier Services, 1473 Randy St, D, Upland, CA 91786, Jose R. Rodriguez, 1473 Randy St. #D, 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/ Jose R Rodriguez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/23/15
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).
6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CHERYL LYN SCOTT
NO. PROPS 2000131
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHERYL LYN SCOTT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JEFFREY SCOTT, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JEFFREY SCOTT be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The wills and codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 8:30 a.m. on JULY 15, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, 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:
R. SAM PRICE, ESQ.
SBN 208603
300 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 475-8800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 6/19, 6/26 & 7/03, 2020
FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GRAND TERRACE HAPPENINGS 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 JEFFREY E MCCONNELL 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/18/2020
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
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 6/12, 6/19, 6/26 & 7/3, 2020.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2009782
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TORI TAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TORI FENGZHUO TAN to TORI TAN
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: 07/23/2020
Time: 10:30 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: May 29, 2020 By Justin Manassee, Deputy
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/03 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004767
The following entity is doing business as: ALLIES’S CRAFT HOUSE 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407 ALEXANDRA J BECKER 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ALEXANDRA BECKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/21/2020
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
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 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GROOVE’S KITCHEN 12838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710 JOAQUIN FLORES 2838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 16, 2020
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 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005319
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Kwang Construction Service, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763, Whole Home Project Resource LLC, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763
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/ Wen Chih Shen
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/11/20
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).
Published in the San Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005118
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: US China Properties Group, 12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3358, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Carlton Premier Realty, Inc,12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
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/ Laura Zhang
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/5/20
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/ V0956
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 Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LENA MASON, AKA: LENA
MAJORS-MASON CASE NO. PROPS2000144 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by WINSTON
LAMAR MASON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that WINSTON LAMAR MASON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.) The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S36 at SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on July 30, 2020 at 08:30 AM
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Attorney for Petitioner: BERL HILLEL SELSKI, ESQ., SBN 54531 24832 ELENA DR.
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 Telephone: (714) 404-3104
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on June 26, July 3 & July 10, 2020.
FBN 20200005391
The following entity is doing business as: GRIFFIN FITNESS 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761 PARALLEL VENTURES LLC 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761
This 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/ NANCY LI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/2020
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
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 6/26, 7/3, 7/10 & 7/17, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005444
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Side by Side Services, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763, Lawrence C. Beggs, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763
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/ Lawrence Beggs
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/17/20
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).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005574
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Careone Plumbing, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762, Paul Robert Ramirez, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Paul Robert Ramirez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/18/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Began Transacting Business: 6/22/14
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).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOANNE BOLTON
NO. PROPS 1901197
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOANNE BOLTON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JAMES PAUL PRIOR, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JAMES PAUL PRIOR be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The wills and codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 1:30 P.M. on AUGUST 11, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, 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 7/3/, 7/10, 7/17, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
LORENCE RAY HUBLER
NO. PROPS 2000364
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LORENCE RAY HUBLER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by HEIKI ANGELA KEALOHA KAWAII, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that HEIKI ANGELA KEALOHA KAWAII 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-36 at 1:30 P.M. on AUGUST 6, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, 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 7/3/, 7/10, 7/17, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF BETTY L. CORY
Case No. PROPS2000352
To all heirs, benefi-ciaries, creditors, con-tingent creditors, and persons who may other-wise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of BETTY L. CORY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Frank Butske in the Superior Court of Cali-fornia, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Frank Butske be ap-pointed as personal representative to admin-ister the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for exami-nation in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal rep-resentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very im-portant actions, however, the personal representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The in-dependent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 4, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S35 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the peti-tion, 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 contin-gent 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 au-thority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledge-able in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
JAMES B CHURCH ESQ
SBN 170772
JAMES B CHURCH &
ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 9030
REDLANDS CA 92375
CN970399 CORY Jul 3,10,17, 2020
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS 1923157
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 STEIMACH, 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: 7/3, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (Número del Caso):
CIVDS1928059
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): GWAY INVESTMENTS, a partnership; JEFF J GWAY, an individual and partner of GWAY INVESTMENTS; LILLIAN GWAY, an individual and partner of GWAY INVESTMENTS AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTÁ DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): PAC-VAN, INC.
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 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la información a continuación.
Tiene 30 DÍAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y más 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 más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisión a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos 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 poniéndose 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 por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación de $10,000 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is (El nombre y dirección de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Bernardino, SAN BERNARDINO, CENTRAL, 247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is (El nombre, la dirección y el número de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Law Offices of Gary A. Bemis APC, Gary A. Bemis 92508, 3870 La Sierra Ave., Suite 239, Riverside, CA 92505
DATE (Fecha): SEP 18 2019
Debra Pedrosa, Clerk (Secretario)
(SEAL)
7/3, 7/10, 7/17, 7/24/20
CNS-3375598#
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVDS2010780
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Leonidas Norca Gomero Zevallos filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Leonidas Norca Gomero Zevallos to Norca Gomero
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: 08/05/2020
Time: 10:30 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: June 10, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005724
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Quick Call Notary, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762, David M. Coronado, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762, Denise A. Vega, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762
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/ David Matthew Coronado
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/25/20
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).
7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20
FBN 20200005769
The following person is doing business as: NEEDLES PIONEER CEMETERY MUSEUM [and] AHA 417 F STREET (AKA NO 1 GRANDVIEW) NEEDLES, CA 92363 ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ASSOCIATION – AHA 417 F ST NEEDLES, CA 92363
DLN: 26053745001669 CCN:
Mailing Address: 420 E ST NEEDLES, CALIF 92363
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/ RUTH MUSSER LOPEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/26/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy 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 7/03, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020.
FBN 20200005185
The following person is doing business as: DRUM SYNC ACADEMY 9559 CENTER AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 KYLE M SCHWEIKHARD 10350 BASELINE RD SPC 25 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 90701
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ KYLE SCHWEIKHARD
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/09/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/06/2011
County Clerk, Deputy D5
511
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 7/03, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020.
FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as: INLAND PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, 9655 MONTE VISTA AVENUE, SUITE 402, MONTACLAIR 91763; ELBERT CHANG M.D. INC; 1131 COOKE AVENUE, CLAREMONT, CA 91711; JOSE A.M. SANTIAGO MD INC , 2772 ARBOR LANE, ONTARIO, CA 91762, GENE S. HONG, M.D .,INC, 794 VIA ESPIRITO SANTOS, CLAREMONT, CA 91711; ALI SALEM MD INC. JOHN KIM D.O. INC., 9043 SALEM MD INC., 9043 SYCAMORE AVE., MONTACLARE, CA 91763; RICK SIRIRATSIVAWONG MD INC, 9043 SYCAMORE AVE., MONTACLARE, CA 91763; NICOLAAS GROBLER, JR., M.D., INC; 7833 SIERRA VISTA STREET, RANCHO, CA 91730; SHAHRAM KHORRAMI, M.D. INC, 3219 SILVER MAPLE DRIVE, YORBA LINDA, CA 92886; ATIF QADEER, MD INC, 5554 ALMADA ST., CHINO HILLS, CA 91709, JOHN KIM D.O., INC. 3196 MARIGOLD CIR., DIAMOND BAR, CA, 91765
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN. 21, 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/ ELBERT CHANG, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/01/2020
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 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202001MT

FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as: TM ROOFING, 26405 APACNETL TRAIL, RIM ROREST, CA 92378; P.O. BOX 4176, BLUE JAY, CA 92317 LUIS A. MARTINEZ, 26405 APACETL TRAIL, RIM ROREST, CA 92378
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS A. MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/04/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202001MT
FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as FLIP MASTER; 6315 COMPTON AVE., RIALTO, CA 92377; HIGH HORIZONZ, LLC. 6315 COMPTON AVE., RIALTO, CA 92377
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: NOT APPLICABLE
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/ ALEXANDER AYALA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/08/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202003MT

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005383
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lexi Global, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784, Lexi Global Corporation, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784
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/ Raul Saldana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 25, 2020
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 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF AVA RUTH CROWELL
Case No. PROPS2000346
To all heirs, benefi-ciaries, creditors, con-tingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of AVA RUTH CROWELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Kenith Crowell in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Kenith Crowell be appointed as personal representative to admin-ister 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 representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 4, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S36 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contin-gent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
ROMBOUD S. RAHMANIAN ESQ SBN 264707
LAW OFFICE OF
ROMY S RAHMANIAN APLC
33 E HUNTINGTON DR
ARCADIA CA 91006
CN970620 CROWELL Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 10,17 & 24, 2020.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ aka JOSE VELASCO
Case No. PROPS2000387
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ; JOSE VELAZCO; JOSE VELASCO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO 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 representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 18, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S-37 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contin-gent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
JOSEPH R. DONNINI, ESQUIRE SBN 184644
LEGAL VALUE FIRM, APLC
4641 TORRANCE BLVD.
TORRANCE, CA 90503
(320) 499-9535
team@legalvaluefirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 10, 17 & 24, 2020.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ aka JOSE VELASCO
Case No. PROPS2000387
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ; JOSE VELAZCO; JOSE VELASCO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO 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 representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 18, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S-37 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contin-gent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
JOSEPH R. DONNINI, ESQUIRE SBN 184644
LEGAL VALUE FIRM, APLC
4641 TORRANCE BLVD.
TORRANCE, CA 90503
(320) 499-9535
team@legalvaluefirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 10, 17 & 24, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
LA CHERRY
NO. PROPS 2000378
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LA CHERRY aka LA CULBERSON CHERRY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LILLIE MAE KEEL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LILLIE MAE KEEL be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9 a.m. on JULY 28, 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 4/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020

FBN 20200005597
The following person is doing business as OAK TREE LEGAL SERVICES 5861 PINE AVE, SUITE B-10 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709: ALEJANDRO MARRERO 5861 PINE AVE, SUITE B-10 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ALEJANDRO MARRERO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/19/2020
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
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 7/10, 7/17, 7/24 & 7/31, 2020.
FBN 20200005446
The following person is doing business as ELITE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 1619 E OAK HILL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761: MOSES VENEGAS 1619 E OAK HILL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ MOSES VENEGAS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2020
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 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 7/10, 7/17, 7/24 & 7/31, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005353

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: The Auto Nest, 869 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite O, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 46338 Durango Dr., Temecula, CA 92592, YMH Inc., 46338 Durango Dr., Temecula, CA 92592

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/ Yasir Tunuli
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 6/8/20
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).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005349

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Full Spectrum Home Savers, 6673 Logan Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Steven A. Campos, 6673 Logan Ave, 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/ Steven Campos
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
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).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005365
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Highway Bumpers, 15172 Macadamia Ct, Fontana, CA 92335, Edgar Guerra, 15172 Macadamia Ct, Fontana, CA 92335
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Edgar Guerra
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
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).

7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005870
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Goosehead Insurance, 473 E Carnegie Dr Ste 200, San Bernardino, CA 92408, Maria Montoya, 2997 Aztec Drive, Riverside, CA 92509-1980
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/ Maria Montoya
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/01/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 09/20/19
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).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005383
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lexi Global, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784, Lexi Global Corporation, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784
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/ Raul Saldana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/20

I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 25, 2020
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).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20
FBN 20200002833 The following person is doing business as: NEW ENGLAND DWELLING 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA KADESHA P ENGLAND 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ Kadeshaa England This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/03/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2020 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 3/20/20, 3/27/20, 4/3/20, & 4/10/20 Corrected: 4/17/20, 4/24/20, 5/01/20 & 5/08/20 Corrected: 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FBN20200005758
The following person is doing business as: GONZALEZ CONSTRUCTION, 7461 LYNWOOD WAY, HIGHLAND, CA 92346; GONZALEZ CONSRUCTION, INC. 7461 LYNWOOD WAY, HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
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/ LOURDES GUTIERREZ-PELAYO, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/25/2020
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 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202001MT
FBN20200005757
The following person is doing business as: LOYALTY INK; 17264 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT C, FONTANA, CA 92335; ADRIANA RENOVA; 17264 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT C, 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: NOT APPLICABLE
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/ ADRIANA RENOVA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/25/2020
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 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202002MT
FBN20200005825
The following person is doing business as: BENSON METAL POLISH & RESTORATION; 936 MONTE VISTA AVE., UPLAND, CA 91786; ELVIS MARTINEZ; 936 MONTE VISTA AVE., 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: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELVIS MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202003MT
FBN20200005823
The following person is doing business as: A.P.M.; 1515 ARROW SPACE #55, UPLAND, CA 91786; ASAEL PINTO MEJIA; 18308 GHEN ST., AZUSA, CA 91702
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
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/ ASAEL PINTO MEJIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202004MT
FBN20200005821
The following person is doing business as: OPERATION PATROL SERVICES; 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; JOSE Z MEDINA, 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; JUAN M. MEDINA, 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
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 Z. MEDINA, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202005MT

By clicking on the Blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the July 3 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 07-03-20

By Mark Gutglueck
The rubber is now meeting the road with regard to a controversial proposal by University Realty LLC to construct 350 houses on 209 acres that currently fall within the City of Loma Linda’s jurisdiction at that city’s furthest extension westward. The property in question lies proximate to Reche Canyon in Colton, a once rustic area that has become more urbanized as a consequence of incremental development of the area that has been ongoing for three quarters of a century and the intensification of the use of Reche Canyon Road, once a little-used back passage linking San Bernardino and Riverside counties which became a far more popular thoroughfare in the decades since the 1984 incorporation of Moreno Valley. As a consequence, on a typical weekday tens of thousands of vehicles traverse through the canyon, using the road as a shortcut to bypass the 60 and I-215 Freeways to reach San Bernardino, the I-10 Freeway, Loma Linda, Redlands and elsewhere in San Bernardino County.
Reche Canyon residents, many of whom originally moved there because they considered it an idyllic rural island in the midst of the rapidly urbanizing Inland Empire, are resentful of the University Realty proposal, which to succeed will require that the City of Loma Linda fully forsake its claim to authority over the expanse to be built upon while the City of Colton annexes the property. That annexation is required because the property in question, lying at the extreme west end of Loma Linda, is separated by nearly a mile from the closest available municipal infrastructure and utilities further eastward in Loma Linda, on the other side of some 3,000 acres of undeveloped wilderness referred to as the South Hills. Thus, Loma Linda cannot economically provide the road access, water systems, wastewater treatment services or other infrastructure needed to support the subdivision University Realty is proposing. Colton, however, has long established municipal infrastructure proximate to the 209-acre site. Once the property is absorbed by Colton, those services could be provided by Colton. In this way, it appears that what University Realty is trying to do is move the land use decision authority with regard to the property it is intent on developing from Loma Linda to Colton.
A mélange of further complications besets the proposal.
One of those is the legality of what University Realty is attempting to do through the annexation. From shortly after Loma Linda’s incorporation as a city in 1970, the degree of development that was to take place in the South Hills and how much of that area is to be preserved and kept off limits from development has been the subject of repeated actions by both the city council in its many permutations over the years and Loma Linda residents. In the 1970s, the city council as it was then composed committed to a deal whereby what had been most of the totality of the hills were to be safeguarded against development into perpetuity, in return for the northernmost portion of the hills being opened up for development. Grading of the north end of the hills occurred and that development took place, and then in the 1980s, when memory of the guarantee against further development of the South Hills had dimmed, more development took place, again conditional upon the remainder of the hills being preserved. Then in the 1990s, further incursion into the South Hills took place, with an assurance that further development would be prohibited. In 2006, Loma Linda’s voters passed Measure V, which preserved two thirds of the more than 3,000 acres left in the South Hills as permanent open space. Given the various measures and ordinances the City of Loma Linda has and the layers of South Hills property preservation requirements and development prohibitions, there is grounds to conclude that what University Realty wants to do in developing the property is prohibited, indeed outright illegal.
Into the mix is the strong identification of the City of Loma Linda’s governmental structure with Loma Linda University Medical Center, an Adventist institution. Loma Linda is a charter city, and its charter provides the city with the authority to issue municipal bonds to support construction and operation of the medical center, which demonstrates the fashion in which City Hall is held to be a supporting mechanism for the University Medical Center. Many of the city’s elected officials, current and historic, have been employees of or administrators at the medical center. In its nearly 50-year history, the City of Loma Linda has never had a member of the city council who was not an Adventist.
University Realty LLC, also known as Arizona State University Enterprise Partners, is an an arm of Arizona State University which is engaged in raising money for Arizona State University by acquiring donations of property which can be developed commercially, residentially, and industrially to create a revenue stream, ultimately passed along to the the university, or to otherwise make investments in real estate that can subsequently be sold at a profit, and to engage in development projects including what University Realty founder and chief executive officer M. Randy Levin terms “full service, ground-up development including acquisitions and entitlements of land, master-planning and building design, construction, and financing of office, industrial and multi-family projects.”
Levin/University Realty and Loma Linda city officials/City Hall share a devotion to the educational institutions they are respectively connected with. By assuring Loma Linda University Medical Center administrators that the project planned for the property to be annexed to Colton, dubbed Rancho del Prado, will provide housing suitable for doctors and other medical professionals working at the medical center, Levin has created a commonality of interest with Loma Linda city officials relating to having the project proceed. In this way, Loma Linda officials have shown themselves amenable to going along with the annexation proposal.
The Loma Linda governmental structure, nonetheless, was not a monolith in supporting University Realty’s development agenda. Some officials expressed reservations about the city surrendering its land use authority with regard to the property. Under Loma Linda’s standards, no more than one home could be constructed on each ten acres of the property under discussion. What University Realty is seeking is 16.74 homes per ten acres. Planning commissioners Doree Morgan and Larry Karpenko, in particular, have expressed reservations about the wisdom of going along with University Realty’s proposal.
Despite that reluctance on the part of a handful of Loma Linda officials, the Loma Linda City Council in October 2017 voted to send a letter to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees governmental jurisdictional issues, in support of letting Colton annex the property, after Arizona State University Enterprise Partners/University Realty, represented by Levin and Christine Aghassi, suggested the property should be moved into Colton’s sphere of influence. The letter stated that the property now in the possession of University Realty “cannot be served by Loma Linda with fire, police, water and other public services, either now or in the future. The City of Colton is the logical provider of these services.” The letter is widely interpreted as a clear signal that the majority of Loma Linda’s decision-makers were in favor of the project.
Levin and Aghassi have in the meantime hosted several community meetings in Colton, specifically in Reche Canyon, where they have sought to persuade local residents that the project will be a beneficial one.
They have not done a very effective job of selling the project to Reche Canyon’s residents.
Indeed, the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission has been overwhelmed with Reche Canyon residents weighing in against the annexation and development proposal. The Sentinel was unable to find a single communication between Reche Canyon residents and the Local Agency Formation Commission which endorsed the project.
Among the letters and emails sent to the commission is one from Brenda Johnson, a resident of the Reche Canyon area. Johnson said it its improper for Loma Linda to be pushing the project. “If it is not going to defray the cost of mitigation,” Johnson stated for the record, the City of Loma Linda should have no role in convincing the Local Agency Formation Commission to allow the annexation to occur and no part in encouraging Colton to let the project proceed.  Loma Linda “should shoulder the responsibility for the infrastructure” including “giving an alternative direction for traffic toward Loma Linda and away from Reche Canyon. Loma Linda should not be passing its congestion and growth problems onto its neighbors,” she said. Further, according to Johnson, “As it now stands, Reche Canyon is already a fire trap. Residents and 600 or more school children will be in grave danger if an evacuation ever becomes necessary.”
Cheryl Musee stated, “If there was a fire, major earthquake or flash floods, putting additional housing tracts in the canyon without a nearby fire station or proper road access to leave the canyon means that you will be putting us and thousands of others at risk of being trapped/dying should an emergency occur. Adding 200 homes in the future means increased fire risk to us all from human error or accidents, and overcrowding of a high fire risk area.”
Reche Canyon resident Mandy Miller said that in addition to fire safety reasons, she and her husband oppose the annexation and development plan because “It means our wildlife will be displaced. It means Reche ‘Canyon’ will become closer to Reche ‘City.’
According to Reche Canyon residents Patricio Rojas and Debbie Sabins, “The traffic is already out of control on that road because of the homeowners that live in Moreno Valley using our road for a shortcut.”
Toni and Art Quezada said they object to the “possibility of this turning into a doorway for someone to come in and develop this area.”
Bob Bennett said, “We already have to struggle with 25,000 cars a day, 99 percent of which come from Moreno Valley and surrounding areas. Not only would the additional traffic be frustrating, it would be life threatening.”
Danny Payne,  an administrator for the Citizens for a Better Reche Canyon Facebook Page, said he was opposed to the annexation “without significant action toward addressing the congestion and traffic safety problems that plague Reche Canyon. On most weekdays it takes my family 20 to 30 minutes to navigate the traffic bottleneck at the mouth of the canyon. It’s a worsening problem that must be addressed before any significant new development is considered.”
Jim Eberle said the annexation and development is “not a good deal for anyone except the land developers, the Colton City Council and anyone who will profit from this who doesn’t live in the canyon.”
Lindsey Woods said the access to the project area would be limited to that “through an insufficient roadway and would demand resources from a city unable to accommodate the already established developments in the area. Having more residences developed in this area is irresponsible.”
Valarie Driskill lamented that the area is already marred by a “bottleneck. It is a solid line of cars from one end of the canyon to the other end. It takes 30 minutes to drive three miles.”
Faye Pribble asked the decision-makers overseeing the annexation request, “Are you out of your minds? Access would obviously be through Reche Canyon, which is already clogged with traffic. Are you simply trying to force a major highway through the canyon? We’re told there are ‘no plans in progress’ at present, but ‘somebody somewhere is planning, devising and developing’ and the end result will be to spread services and traffic control so thin as to disappear altogether.”
Reche Canyon resident Heather Tutton said that the canyon and its residents are being victimized by too many outside jurisdictions, including the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley and Loma Linda, all of which are angling to keep outside traffic flowing through the canyon, clogging its streets. “We’re too many cities in too many counties and we do not have a voice that counts,” she said.
Robert Lewis said, “This whole proposal is unnecessary and dangerous. When I chose to move into this canyon, it was to move out of the city, away from the stress it brings. Yet, here I am, looking at a proposal that would bring that city life right into our canyon.”
Paul and Darlene McMIllan in a letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission wrote, “Since a city’s sphere of influence paves the way for annexation and since Loma Linda has allowed the area to retain its rural character, we oppose the proposed transfer.”
University Realty principals Christine Aghassi and M. Randy Levin have sought to put their best foot forward by asserting their company is “doing this the right way” and that it will abide by the letter of the California Environmental Quality Act in obtaining environmental certification for the project. The two emphasized that they have held multiple meetings with residents so far and will continue to do so in refining the project. They have given two figures with regard to the footprint of the project, one being 209 acres and the other being 203.
After more than two years of discussion, University Realty LLC, submitted a draft of its Rancho del Prado proposal to Colton in December 2019. That triggered some degree of protest, in both Colton and Loma Linda. A group of residents in Loma Linda asserted that the annexation proposal was an effort to dodge the restrictions of the South Hills preservation element of 2006’s Measure V, passed in November 2006 by Loma Linda’s voters with 2,132 votes or 52.73 percent in favor and 1,911 votes or 47.27 percent in opposition.
Levin and Aghassi sought to stay on point, not allowing that protest to distract them.
“University Realty is seeking to conserve significant open space and provide single-family residential opportunities that will fund needed improvements for the Reche Canyon area,” the company stated.
The 430-acre property University Realty has acquired east of Reche Canyon Drive and the historic Hitchin Post Market, will be developed in such a way that it will preserve 227 acres visible from Loma Linda as open space and place the houses on either 203 acres or 209 acres below the ridgeline to the south. That property will be proximate or coterminous with existing housing tracts in Colton on Prado Lane and Crystal Ridge Lane.
Levin and Aghassi insisted that the project will not worsen traffic congestion but resolve roadway issues, as it will involve creating a “funding mechanism” for Reche Canyon Road improvements, such as traffic control and congestion relief, a secondary access route to Reche Canyon Elementary School and the neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of the school, they said.
The project will also increase the water main pressure in the area, according to Levin and Aghassi.
To allay the fire safety issue, Levin and Aghassi said the project proponents will pay for the establishment of a helipad to allow for quick emergency response.
Residents say that is nowhere near enough. They point out that the property was donated to University Realty, which can therefore afford to construct a roadway heading east-northeast or east through the South Hills, either reaching Barton Road in Loma Linda or stretching all the way to San Timoteo Canyon south of Redlands. In addition, residents insisted, University Realty should be required to construct a fire station.
Over the last two-and-a-half years, Colton Fifth District City Councilman Jack Woods, the self-proclaimed “Mayor of Reche Canyon,” whose district includes the canyon, has made contradictory statements about the project. Initially, he seemed to support it, suggesting at the time that it would provide significant road improvements that would alleviate gridlock. After Reche Canyon residents came out in opposition to the project, Woods changed tack, at one point suggesting there were sufficient votes on the council to keep the project from proceeding, and declaring the proposal “dead.”
Despite the residential opposition to the project, Colton city officials appear to be steering a middle path in the controversy, neither endorsing nor opposing the project, but still the same supporting the processing of University Realty’s application, maintaining that the city has to give the proposal fair consideration throughout the process.
On June 16, the city council voted 6-to-1, with Councilman Luis González dissenting, to kick off the environmental review process for the project. Pursuant to the vote, Michael Baker International will catalog the impacts of all aspects of the project. Michael Baker International is to receive $272,525 to do that analysis for the city. The company will be paid by the city, so that there is no suggestion that its employees are doing University Realty’s bidding. University Realty is to reimburse the city the entire $272,525 cost and also provide the city with a 15 percent administrative fee –  $40,878.75 – for overseeing and coordinating that work.
There were suggestions from some Colton residents that the council agreeing to go forward with the environmental analysis of the project signals that the city is going to ultimately approve it. Three of those predicted the city will not require University Realty to mitigate the impacts the project will impose on already overburdened Reche Canyon, with two iterating the belief the city will allow University Reality to complete the project without carrying out an exhaustive environmental impact report, and that the city will gloss over the environmental impacts, in particular the traffic issues, by giving the project a mitigated negative declaration. A mitigated negative declaration is a finding by a governing board, such as a city council, that all untoward impacts of a given project have been reduced to tolerable levels by the conditions of approval.
Mayor Frank Navarro told the Sentinel that was absolutely untrue.
“The project is in the very preliminary stages,” Navarro said. “Nothing is guaranteed. We will not be giving them a mitigated negative declaration. They are going to have to go through a full blown environmental impact report.”
Navarro said that “Arizona State University Enterprise Partners and University Realty’s team have had numerous community meetings. I have attended two or three to see what they are bringing to the table. There are plenty of questions to be answered. They aren’t going to be able to just ask for a mitigated negative declaration. I say again: There will be a full blown environmental impact report – nothing less. I know there are a number of people who are saying this project will be approved no matter what. That is not true. We have a process and anyone who knows me knows I am a very by-the-book type of individual. Our staff will will work through the environmental document certification process and the processing of the permits for this application and this project will either pass on its merits or fail on its lack of merit. Once the EIR [environmental impact report] is prepared and staff makes its analysis and opens the environmental documents for public review and comment, the environmental process will go forward, including questions and comments from the public. Responses to those questions and comments will be prepared and posted or provided back to the people who had those questions. Once that is completed, it will then go to the planning commission and they will have the opportunity to hold workshops where the entire community will be able to look at everything involved and any documents associated with the project.”
Nothing is being rushed, and the city council will not allow the safeguards that are applied to land use decisions to be shortcircuited, the mayor said.
“It is going to be a long process,” Navarro said. “Before there are any stakes in the ground, I am guessing it will be two-and-a-half to three years, and all of Reche Canyon’s residents will have their say when the environmental documents are made public. We have a top notch staff and I am confident they and we will do everything the city can to make sure all of the land use issues are properly addressed, public safety concerns are met, there are adequate services and we know what this development is bringing to the city.”
Nothing is being hidden, Navarro said, and no favoritism is being shown to University Realty.
“When the EIR is prepared, it will be open for public comment and scrutiny for either a 45 day or 90 day period, whichever is deemed appropriate,” Navarro said. “Staff will look at all of the aspects of the application and make its analysis for us to consider.”
The council is not driving the examination process, but rather overseeing it, Navarro insisted.
“As a council, we will not get directly involved in this process unless the planning commission denies the project and the developer appeals and it becomes a de nouveau matter,” he said. “It is a long process. No one can say, ‘We want to build 300 homes,’ and then just expect us to give them the documents and permits and allow them to proceed. As long as I am mayor, I will make sure the merits and benefits of any such project are thoroughly examined and the interests of Colton’s residents are protected. We want to make sure we cover everything. That is what we should do as public officials and what the people who have elected us have entrusted us to do, to follow the right process.”

With what appears to be the sudden advance of the coronavirus throughout a significant portion of California’s population, in particular extending to a subset of the state’s counties including San Bernardino County, there is growing pressure to put the state, or much of it, back into lockdown.
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Governor Gavin Newsom in March instituted a host of precautionary measures that remained in place throughout April and May. With the outset of June, the State of California and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health began to progressively dismantle the regime intended to slow the coronavirus from spreading. Stay-at-home orders, closures of restaurants and service businesses entailing direct or close human contact, requirements that individuals wear masks in public, and both park and school closures were dispensed with.
Simultaneously, the number of coronavirus cases began to climb, both statewide and in San Bernardino County. Over the next three weeks, the spread of the disease began to pick up momentum.
On June 19, San Benardino County had logged 8,714 known cases of the condition. Over the next seven days, as of June 26, that total had grown by 2,576 to 11,290 cases of coronavirus, of which 248 had resulted in death. In the seven days since, there have been 2,386‬ new cases, pushing the total of county cases to 13,676, including 269 deaths. So, over the last two weeks there has been an average of 2,481 new cases per week or 354.43 per day, which translates to 14.77 per hour.
This is alarming, given that in the two weeks after the precautionary measures were put in place in March, there were an average of 32 new documented cases per week. That is, as of March 13, just one day after Governor Gavin Newsom made his first and most tame mandate relating to banning public gatherings of 250 or more people, there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 in San Bernardino County. On March 27, eight days after Newsom issued his March 19 lockdown mandate, the county had logged 64 known cases of the malady, and three deaths.
While the greater degree of testing being carried out now as opposed to in March no doubt accounts somewhat for the larger numbers of detected cases, it appears the disease is spreading much more rapidly now then it was in the early stages of the crisis. This has led to the growing belief that the suspension of the precautions last month was premature.
In an effort to determine the validity of that perception, the Sentinel this week sought to engage with San Bernardino County’s public health officer, Dr. Erin Gustafson. On Wednesday, the Sentinel posted a letter to Dr. Gustafson in care of the county’s public spokesman, David Wert. Again on Thursday, the Sentinel sent the same letter to Dr. Gustafson, this time through the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health’s spokeswoman, Lana Culp. The Sentinel did not hear back from Dr. Culp by press time. The Sentinel’s letter reads:
Dr. Gustafson…
Basically, the rate at which the coronavirus is spreading in San Bernardino County at present, based solely on the raw testing results, seems to be far more pronounced than it was in March, April and May.
Is this perception accurate?
Based on everything you know, in San Bernardino County is the virus spreading at a faster rate now, in late June and early July, than in May or April and March?
The county and the medical community are testing county residents at present at a more accelerated pace than in months past.
Does this fully account for the seeming acceleration of the spreading of the virus? Generally, has the percentage of those found infected among those tested increased as time has passed? Or has the percentage of those found infected among those tested stayed relatively the same? Or has the percentage of those found infected among those tested diminished over time?
To the best of your knowledge, does contracting COVID-19 and then recovering from it render one immune to the disease thereafter?
Does recovering from COVID-19 end one’s status as a carrier of the disease?
Given the greater numbers of county residents known to be afflicted with the coronavirus at this point than when the precautionary restrictions were in place, is it advisable to have dispensed with those precautions? Stated another way: If the circumstance in March, April and May, when a relatively minuscule percentage of the population was affirmatively known to be afflicted with COVID-19, was such that it was prudent to have the host of restrictions that the governor decreed and which you, as the county health officer, imposed locally, how is it that now, with far higher numbers of the county’s population confirmed as being currently infected, the restrictions are not warranted?
At this point, do you feel it advisable to reinstitute the precautions that were in place in March, April and May?
Is the population at serious risk by being as open as it is now?
How much risk do you, as public health officer, deem tolerable?
If, in your view, reinstituting those precautions is not advisable, can you explain why that is and what different situation exists now that renders taking those precautions unnecessary?
Is there a vaccine on the cusp of being widely available? Does that explain why the precautions previously in place are no longer deemed necessary?
Is there some other consideration that explains why the precautions are no longer needed?
As the county health officer, are you hamstrung by those higher up the chain of command in the county from instituting the full range of measures that you would apply if you had a free hand?
Are you free to impose any restrictions relating to public health that you deem fit?
Must you run your recommendations by the higher-ups in the county in order to convert them into an order?
If you were absolutely free to dictate public health policy in San Bernardino County, would you put the restrictions back in place? Would there be any other restrictions that were not instituted that you would, if you were at liberty to do so, impose?
Were the restrictions, in your view, ended prematurely?
The restrictions were in place, by my tally, just about 11 weeks before, in gradual stages, they began to be lifted. There was reluctance to comply with many of the restrictions by a given segment of the population all along. Protest against the restrictions began in earnest, if I am recollecting properly, at the end of April or early May. Was public unrest a factor in winding the restrictions down?
The economy was drastically impacted by the societal shutdown. Was this the major factor in dispensing with the precautions?
Do economic factors outweigh health concerns?
Have you run any projections as to what the cost of ending the restrictions prematurely is going to be in terms of fatalities?
That is, if the restrictions were still in place and remained in place either until the virus runs its course or a reliable vaccine comes along, what is your projection of how many fewer people in San Bernardino would die than is going to be the case now that most of everything is opened up?
Is everything that can be done to safeguard the public health in San Bernardino County being done?
I recognize, Dr. Gustafson, that you have far more pressing things to deal with than to answer my questions, and I appreciate you devoting time to answer them.
…Mark Gutglueck (951) 567 1936
Lana Culp was able to field a few of the questions. “We’re doing a lot more testing,” she said.
With regard to the disease spreading more rapidly at present than previously, Culp said, “It seems to be, but we can’t say it is spreading to more people,” because of the unevenness of the testing patterns over the past three-and-a-half months.
Culp said that there was significant social interaction in June even beyond what is normal, given the number of demonstrations and protests in reaction to the George Floyd killing.
She said she would seek more definitive answers from Dr. Gustafson.
In the meantime, Governor Newsom appears to have taken the upsurge in coronavirus cases in several areas around the state seriously. On June 18 he mandated that Californians wear masks in public settings. Then on Wednesday July 1, Newsom mandated a new round of lockdown measures, ordering indoor operations for several business sectors, including restaurants, wineries, drinking establishments, movie theaters, family entertainment venues, zoos, museums and cardrooms in 19 counties, including San Bernardino County, to remain closed until further notice.