By Clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the April 30 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 04-30-21

By Mark Gutglueck
West Valley Water District Board President Channing Hawkins blocked his agency’s effort to ensure that safeguards to protect the Mid-Valley water table were incorporated into the plans ultimately approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors for a truck stop now being built in Bloomington, information obtained by the Sentinel indicates.
Permitting the tainted water from the run-off from the truck stop to drain into the groundwater will create a circumstance, water professionals say, that will compromise local water quality in such a way that within the next 40 to 50 years water drawn from wells within the same watershed as the truck stop will become undrinkable, requiring a cleanup effort that will cost future generations hundreds of millions of dollars to redress.
A primary consideration in Hawkins’ move to short-circuit the district’s examination of the impact the development project would have on water quality was that the project’s proponent was Nachhattar Singh Chandi, a major campaign donor to Hawkins’ employer, San Bernardino County Supervisor Joe Baca, Jr.
The project in question, the Bloomington Commercial Center, is a truck servicing facility now being built at 10951 Cedar Avenue at the southeast corner of Cedar and Santa Ana Avenue in the unincorporated county community of Bloomington, three-quarters of a mile south of the I-10 Freeway.
In some measure because of Singh’s propensity and reputation for making generous contributions to the elected political leadership in the jurisdictions in which he pursues development projects, he has been able to in effect purchase lax application of development standards that prevent exacting environmental protection standards from being applied to projects pursued and completed by his various companies and limited liability corporations functioning under the umbrella of the major corporate entity he controls, Chandi Group USA.
Singh obtained a job at a gas station at the age of 21 shortly after arriving in the United State from India in 1991. Through hard work, leverage and risk, he acquired a Black Gold gas station in 1994. Having caught on to the way in which business is transacted and the development/governmental regulation system in Riverside County plays out, he parlayed that single gas station into the acquisition of a series of gas station franchises, greasing his way from one project approval to another with generous political donations. At present he has expanded his, his wife Susana’s and Chandi Group USA’s holdings to include 49 businesses with over 370 employees, including 21 ARCO AM-PM locations, eight Express Tunnel car washes, as well as multiple Del Taco, Subway, Starbucks, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Denny’s franchises. Chandi Group owns the Mecca Travel Center in Mecca in Riverside County, the major business office business complex in Indio, where Chandi Group USA is headquartered, and he has constructed a residential compound in Rancho Mirage that cost some $30 million to build and for which he has now reportedly been offered $48 million.
A major element of Chandi’s success is his willingness to provide extensive amounts of money to politicians, in particular incumbent politicians. He makes his contributions both directly to those candidates’ campaign funds, as well as to so-called “Super PACs,” political action committees, which bankroll the campaigns for favored candidates and cover the cost of attacks on disfavored candidates. Chandi put up over half of a million dollars for one such Super PAC dedicated to candidates for national office, which included $275,000 earmarked to support President Donald Trump in his 2020 reelection campaign. He was also involved in making direct contributions to U.S. Congressional candidates, particularly those in California and Southern California. He was also a major contributor to a political action committee devoted to candidates for state and local office in California. Singh in recent years has become one of the top three donors to elected officials in Riverside County, where the lion’s share of Chandi Group USA’s development and business activity takes place and most of its investments are lodged. In Indio, the geographical center of Chandi Group USA’s empire, Nachhattar Singh Chandi practically owns the Indio City Council, after having made more than $100,000 in donations to the political war chests of its members.
Chandi started out in life as the son of farmers in the impoverished northern India state of Uttar Pradesh. He resolved, at the age of 20, to come to the United States to make his way in the world. At this point, after spending three-fifths of his life in California, he has come to understand implicitly and explicitly that American politicians are for sale, and that those elected officials will clear the path for virtually any businessman who will provide them with the mother’s milk of politics – money – to keep them in office.
More than three years ago, it came to Chandi’s attention that the pay-to-play ethos is inculcated into the political culture of San Bernardino County even more than it is in Riverside County. By shifting a portion of his business and developmental focus northward and applying the same tactics of buying off the politicians there, Chandi is looking to substantially expand his financial empire. One of his first sallies across the Riverside County/San Bernardino County line was a proposal to develop what was represented as an upscale commercial project in the unincorporated community of Bloomington, what was historically an agricultural community which lies immediately adjacent to and just north of the Riverside County border and south of the cities of Rialto and Fontana.
In the 1870s, David Colton, the one-time sheriff of Siskiyou County, took on the enterprise of constructing the westernmost span of what was to be the second continental rail line into California, the Southern Pacific Railroad. Colton made the decision to build that railroad from Los Angeles on a straight line straight out toward Arizona rather than curving it up into downtown San Bernardino. Consequently, the rail line passed through what is today Bloomington. Similarly, when the Interstate 10 Freeway was laid out in 1956, it too was routed through Bloomington. Due west from Bloomington is Ontario International Airport. In addition to the freeway, four substantial east-west boulevards or roadways run through Bloomington – Valley Boulevard, Slover Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Avenue. As a consequence, over the last 60 years, gradually at first and then with greater rapidity, Bloomington has lost its agricultural identity and has become much more strongly identified with the transportation and trucking industries. The 6.01-square mile community had a population of 25,482 as of July 1, 2020. As an unincorporated county community, Bloomington is larger population-wise than six of San Bernardino County’s incorporated cities and towns – Needles, Big Bear Lake, Grand Terrace, Yucca Valley, Loma Linda and Barstow. Bloomington is inhabited by a relatively unsophisticated and largely impoverished populace. The median household income is $34,106 and the median family income is $35,936. About 19.8 percent of families and 25.3 percent of the population in Bloomington live below the poverty line. Ethnically, 64.4 percent of Bloomington’s inhabitants are Hispanic. The ultimate land use authority over Bloomington resides with the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, all of the the members of which do not reside in Bloomington and who are strongly influenced driven in their decision-making by the application of political donations.
Given all of those factors, Singh perceived Bloomington as an ideal launching ground for his expansion into San Bernardino County. Initially, he obscured the consideration that the project he was proposing was a truck stop. He represented it rather as a commercial project that would be centered around what the company’s agents said would be an upscale restaurant. The center would involve retail shops, two fast-food operations and a gas station, they said. In that form, the project initially garnered support and no opposition to speak of. Over time, the project changed. The gas station became a fueling station. The retail shops became a convenience store. The fueling station became a truck servicing operation. Ultimately, the restaurant component was dropped entirely. In its final form the commercial center had transformed into a truck stop.
The general lack of sophistication of the Bloomington population and the ultimate land use authority residing with the board of supervisors conferred on Chandi Group USA two advantages which would allow it to obtain an entitlement to proceed with the project while being bound by the least cost possible in addressing its environmental impacts.
Truck stops or truck servicing facilities involve intense activity which has serious environmental implications. Indeed, typically at such facilities a number of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contamination is present, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, petroleum oil, solvents, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chemicals, asbestos and lead. Exposure to the types of contaminants present, or potentially present, at trucking facilities threatens the public health, safety or welfare of a community in which it is located and neighboring communities.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, development projects are subject to environmental certification. Unless a development is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, known by its acronym CEQA, all projects in California must undergo an examination as to their impacts as part of the approval process. Agencies with land use authority – meaning the state, counties or cities – have a degree of latitude in how intensive that examination of environmental impacts and the attendant mitigations of those impacts are going to be.
The most comprehensive examination of those impacts is a full-blown environmental impact report, an involved study of the project site prior to development, an inventory of the project site’s contents and configuration including biological and botanical resources, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. It outlines alternatives to the project, an analyses of taking no action in developing the property and specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts if the project is approved and the development proceeds.
There are less intensive forms of environmental certification, which include environmental statements, environmental studies and various forms of declarations.
As the Bloomington Commercial Center project was wending its way through the planning process at the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Division, Chandi went to work at compromising the political masters of the personnel in that department. He conferred substantial political contributions on the members of the board of supervisors.
Prior to his election to the board of supervisors in 2020, First District Supervisor Paul Cook was a congressman. In 2018, Nachattar Chandi provided his congressional election campaign with $2,700. Chandi’s wife, Susana, likewise that year gave Cook’s congressional campaign $2,700.
In 2019, during the run-up for her election to the board of supervisors, Dawn Rowe, who had been appointed Third District supervisor in 2018, was provided with $2,000 by Susana Chandi.
Most importantly, Nachhattar Chandi targeted the Fifth District Supervisor, since Bloomington lies entirely within San Bernardino County’s Fifth Supervisorial District. As 2020 dawned, then-Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales, who had been supervisor since 2004, was on her way out, as the term limits members of the board of supervisors had been subjected to since the passage of Measure P in 2006 from that point forward limited board members to three four-year terms. Chandi took no chances. He provided $4,700, the maximum amount he could under San Bernardino County’s rules with regard to contribution limits, to Dan Flores, Gonzales’s chief of staff, who was running with Gonzales’s endorsement to succeed her as supervisor. Chandi made another $2,000 contribution to then-Fontana City Councilman Jesse Armendarez, who was also running for Fifth District supervisor. In addition, he contributed $4,700 to then-Rialto Councilman Joe Baca, Jr., who was in the race, as well. Chandi’s motivation had nothing to do with getting behind the one candidate he considered to be best qualified to serve as San Bernardino County’s Fifth District supervisor but rather to ensure that whoever won, he would stand in good stead with him.
After Flores was eliminated from the running by finishing third in the balloting that took place in conjunction with the March 3, 2020 California Presidential Primary, Armendarez and Baca went head-to-head in the November 3, 2020 election. Baca prevailed, and was sworn in on December 7, 2020.
Ultimately, under pressure from the board of supervisors, the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Division used the least exacting size-up of environmental issues pertaining to the Bloomington Commercial Center project, a mitigated negative declaration, to give Chandi Group USA clearance to proceed. In a mitigated negative declaration, the panel entrusted with a community’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the board of supervisors, undertakes an essentially cursory examination of the project before declaring that any untoward adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
Of note is that the documents prepared for the Chandi truck stop project relating to the impact on the water table beneath the project in the weeks and months before the board of supervisors met to vote on the project on April 6 were withheld from the public. County land use services employees, asserting that the county did not own the documents and that they were the proprietary product of the consultant retained by Chandi Group USA to compile them, kept them under lock and key in a file considered off limits to anyone other than select land use services division employees. Efforts by members of the public to see those documents were rebuffed.
With the date for the board’s consideration of the project approaching, West Valley Water District Board Member Greg Young familiarized himself with the initial study for the project, noting it did not provide any detail with regard to how mitigation of polluted groundwater contaminated by tainted stormwater runoff was to occur. In January, he undertook what he described as a “two-month odyssey” in an effort to find out what treatment that stormwater runoff was going to be subjected to. The initial study made no reference to any sort of water quality assurance strategy. Young examined the county’s MS4 permit, which pertains to the county’s overall and generalized strategy for dealing with stormwater discharge. From this, he learned that a water quality mitigation plan would be a required part of the permitting of the project. His request to see that plan was denied.
The West Valley Water District serves 93,000 residents in roughly 23,000 households as well as commercial and industrial customers in large portions of Fontana and Rialto along with all of Bloomington. Young, as the representative of the Bloomington subdivision within the district, insisted that his elected position with the district entitled him to make an examination of any issues that pertained to the quality of water provided to the West Valley Water District’s customers. Met with further resistance, Young persisted, sending a series of three emails, the last of which he said was “rather strident,” to county officials demanding access to the water quality mitigation plan relating to how stormwater that would wash over the truck stop was to be diverted and treated.
At that point, Young was permitted to view the documentation under highly restrictive conditions which required that he come to the county land use services office alone and without a cellphone or any device with a camera so that he could not photograph the documents, copy them or attempt to reproduce them in any way, and that he be monitored by a land use services staff member the entire time he was perusing the documents.
Young’s examination of the water quality mitigation plan revealed that the county had allowed Chandi Group USA to utilize the least intensive and least expensive methodology to arrest the flow of pollutants that will emanate from the site once it is has been converted to a truck stop. Contained in the water quality mitigation plan was, according to Young, an inventory setting forth the types of pollutants that were anticipated to come off the project site once it was operating as a truck servicing facility, those contaminants being fuel spillage, both gasoline and diesel, petroleum products, solvents or the byproducts therefrom borne by rainwater runoff washing over the vehicles and the pavement as well as the equipment, machinery, fuel tanks, barrels, pipes, troughs and other containers and conveyances at the site. The methodology for handling that runoff was to, in Young’s words, “let the native soil” do all the work in terms of stormwater dispersal instead of more stringent mitigation options. The way in which rainwater is to be dealt with, according to the document, will involve collecting that runoff into an infiltration chamber and then simply allowing it to merge into the soil. The water in the chamber, permeated with grease, oil, solvents, gasoline, diesel fuel, radiator fluid, transmission fluid and a host of noxious chemicals that are to to get washed into the system are not to be treated.
According to Young, a consultant working for Chandi confidently declared that the water table would remain safe using that methodology, based on the theory that the ground would serve as a filter through which the water would pass but the contaminants would be caught. The consultant, Young said, maintained that “as the run-off goes through all these layers of sand, the contaminants would get captured. This method was proposed quite cavalierly, despite a long history of water contamination in the region from man-made products and chemicals.”
At that point, Young said, it was clear to him why the documentation was being hidden.
Young went to West Valley Water District headquarters, where he alerted staff to what the county was on the verge of approving. Staff members appeared to take what he was saying seriously, expressing concern about the potential the untreated stormwater runoff from the project would have on the long-term viability of the water table beneath Bloomington as a source of domestic water. Young importuned his fellow board member, Kyle Crowther, who served with him on the district’s Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee, and the district’s acting general manager, Shamindra “Ricky” Manbahal, to consider what action the district could take to ensure more responsible handling of that runoff.
Manbahal acted. On Thursday, March 25, 2021, Manbahal scheduled for the following day, March 26 at 4:30 p.m., a special meeting of the Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee. The agenda for that meeting included an item that called for the committee to “consider requesting [the] County of San Bernardino to implement additional pre-treatment practices for storm/ground water.”
To complement that meeting agenda, Manbahal authored a staff report in which he noted that the district had previous issues with regard to the contamination of the district’s water supply by perchlorate, an oxidizer in rocket propellants and fireworks first detected in some of the district’s wells in 1997. By 1998, Manbahal noted, the district “shut down several wells to avoid exposure to the drinking water supply. The West Valley Water District started to install ion exchange treatment systems in 2005, a fluidized bed bioreactor treatment plant in 2011, and a fixed bed reactor treatment plant in 2016. To date, the West Valley Water District owns and operates eight water treatment plants, six of which are for perchlorate treatment.”
Manbahal further noted that “In 2019, the West Valley Water District shut down one well in the Lytle Creek groundwater basin after discovering methyl tertiary butyl ether, a fuel oxygenate exclusively used as a fuel additive, and two wells in the Rialto-Colton basin after discovering 1,2,3-trichloropropane, an impurity in certain pesticides. No other contaminants have been detected above the maximum contaminant levels set by the State Water Resources Control Board.”
With regard to the threat posed to the district’s water sources by the insufficient treatment of the stormwater runoff from the Bloomington Commercial Center, Manbahal wrote, “A typical watershed scale stormwater management approach is using a multi-best management practices (BMP) approach to managing the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The BMP sequence starts with pollution prevention and progresses through source control, on-site treatment, and regional treatment before the runoff water is discharged.”
Manbahal’s report stated that “Each multi-best management practices utilizes one or more components that work together to remove pollutants utilizing combinations of processes. The multi-best management practice(s) selected can minimize the rate of runoff by utilizing a hydraulic process, remove bulk solids by utilizing a physical process, remove settleable solids and floatables by utilizing a physical process, remove suspended and colloidal solids by utilizing a physical, biological or chemical process, and remove colloidal, dissolved, volatile, and pathogens by using a biological or chemical process.”
The committee had three options, Manbahal noted, those being “1) Take no action; 2) Request [the] county to implement additional pre-treatment measures; and 3) Determine if there’s nexus to the county.”
In his report’s conclusion, Manbahal wrote, “Staff recommends that this item be submitted for consideration, and that the board of directors approve this item and authorize the acting general manager to execute the necessary documents.”
In further preparation for the specially-called March 26 Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee meeting, staff obtained a copy of the initial study for the project. Zeroing in on that portion of the study relating hydrology and water quality, an analysis of certain conclusions in the study were made. Highlighted for discussion by the committee was the assertion in the initial study that that there would be “less than significant impacts” from the completion of the project or that it would entail “any violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements” or otherwise “substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.” Staff’s highlighting of passages within the document further brought into question language in the initial study that there was to be less than significant impact on the environment in terms of whether it would “decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.”
Also highlighted was that efforts to control water runoff to prevent groundwater contamination specified in the report were only temporary ones that would be in place during the construction phase.
That highlighted text was “All individual projects implemented under the county’s general plan would comply with applicable federal, state, and local water quality regulations. Currently, the County of San Bernardino follows state standards for water quality and does not have their own specific standards. During construction, the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for Construction Activities that is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Storm water management measures would be required to be identified and implemented that would effectively control erosion and sedimentation and other construction-based pollutants during construction.”
Handwritten in the margin was “Post Construction?” That suggested water district staff believed there would be inadequate monitoring and safeguards once the project is completed.
Further highlighted for the committee’s review was language in the initial study relating to the county’s MS4 permit. An MS4 permit is a document issued by the federal government to a state, city, town, village, or other public entity which allows that jurisdiction to run a series of surface water or stormwater handling conveyances or conveyance systems to discharge that water either into the ground or into a stream, river or body of water. An MS4 permit is issued generally to the governmental jurisdiction for all of its discharge activity rather than any single release of water in a limited or circumscribed geographical area.
The language in the initial study stated, “Compliance with the county’s low impact development (LID) ordinance and the San Bernardino County MS4 permit requires capture and treatment of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. As part of the project’s final design review, the project would be required to submit a water quality maintenance plan demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using infiltration basins, bioretention areas, capture and controlled release tanks, or another best management practice. Such best management practices would slow the velocity of water and allow sediment and debris to settle out of the water column, thereby minimizing the potential for downstream flooding, erosion/siltation, or exceedances of stormwater drainage system capacity. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is located in Zone X, a designation that is used for areas where there is minimal flood hazard. Given that the project would implement best management practices to capture and retain stormwater on-site, as described above for compliance with the county’s low impact development ordinance and MS4 permit requirements, potential impacts related to the alteration of the site’s drainage pattern would be less than significant.” Noted in handwriting in staff’s copy of the initial study was “Chemicals going into the ground!”
Staff’s copy of the initial study contained this highlighted passage: “As described above, the project would implement on-site storage of stormwater runoff, as required pursuant to the county’s low impact development ordinance, providing an opportunity for debris, sediment, and sediment-bound pollutants to settle out of the water column prior to discharge downstream. The requirements of the county’s low impact development ordinance and the applicable MS4 permit are intended to protect water quality and support attainment of water quality standards in downstream receiving water bodies. The project does not involve use of septic systems, pet parks, agricultural land or other land uses commonly associated with high concentrations of nutrients, indicator bacteria, or chemical toxicity. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.” Handwritten into the document at that point was, “What!?”
Indications were that the district’s staff was preparing a case to support the West Valley Water District’s board of directors if the Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee recommended that the district request the county to implement additional pre-treatment measures, and the full board indeed elected to follow that recommendation.
Upon learning that the Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee and members of staff were contemplating having the district second-guess the county with regard to its land use decision on Chandi’s proposed truck stop project, Hawkins, who is employed in Baca’s supervisorial office as his special advisor, in the words of one West Valley Water District employee, “went ballistic.”
Interrupting Chandi’s developmental intent in Bloomington or San Bernardino County was contrary to Hawkins’ personal interest on multiple levels.
An immediate consideration for Hawkins is that his employment contract with Baca’s office provides him with total annual compensation of $187,271, consisting of a salary of $115,086 and benefits of $72,185. If the agency he heads as an elected board member/appointed president – the West Valley Water District – brought into question the environmental safeguards relating to the Bloomington Commercial Center, that action carried with it the potential of blocking or delaying approval of the project or resulting in Chandi Group USA being required to augment the project with an expensive set of water treatment systems to allow the stormwater to be discharged into the local water table. Such a requirement could tack on added costs of a half million dollars or more that Chandi Group USA would have to bear. Crossing up Chandi, one of Baca’s major political benefactors, in that way could very well be seen as an act of disloyalty on Hawkins’s part, or at least a sign that he was insufficiently committed to Baca’s agenda and was putting a higher priority on his own interests at the water district. As Hawkins serves at the pleasure of Baca, he would run the risk of losing his job if the district took action to complicate the approval of the Bloomington Commercial Center.
A longer-term consideration for Hawkins is the mutual, indeed intertwined, political interest he has with Baca in staying on the good side of the deep-pocketed Chandi. After graduating from Howard University in 2001, Hawkins went to work as a field representative for Joe Baca, Sr., who was a Congressman from 1999 until 2013, representing first the 42nd Congressional District and then the 43rd Congressional District. It is widely assumed that Joe Baca, Jr. has aspirations of replicating at least some if not all of the political ground covered by his father. Joe Baca, Sr., prior to becoming a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was both a California State Senator and an Assemblyman. It is further assumed that upon leaving the board of supervisors for higher office, Joe Baca, Jr., who served as a member of the California State Assembly for a single two-year term from 2004 through 2006 and is yet eligible to serve ten more years in the California Legislature, will look, perhaps, toward a return to Sacramento. His name recognition and established political career would also make him, at some point, a logical eventual candidate for Congress. Baca is very likely to endorse Hawkins as his successor as supervisor, should he seek higher office. Baca’s chief of staff, Ed Chavez, is not a resident of the Fifth District and is therefore not eligible, at present, to succeed Baca. In a circumstance in which Baca makes an effort to take on a legislative role in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. and Hawkins vies for supervisor, Chandi’s financial support and that of his employees at Chandi Group USA could be crucial to both of those electoral efforts.
Thus, the contemplated move by the West Valley Water District to at the very least complicate Chandi Group USA’s effort to get an entitlement for the Bloomington Commercial Center to proceed carried with it a potential negative political implication for Hawkins he ultimately acted to circumvent.
The Sentinel is informed that Hawkins vectored maximum force toward Mandahal, upbraiding him for indulging Young in his move, which involved Board Member Kyle Crowther, in making an issue of the fashion in which the stormwater runoff at the project was to be dealt with.
Manbahal, who was hired as the district’s chief financial and administrative officer in August 2019, in December 2019 moved into the role of de facto general manager of the district after 16 of the district’s department heads alleged mismanagement and favoritism on the part of then-General Manager Clarence Mansell, and Mansell became a virtual recluse in his own office for the next ten months. Mansell went out on paid leave in October 2020, at which point Manbahal officially moved into the role of interim district general manager. Indications are that Manbahal was and is looking toward succeeding Mansell in the role of full-fledged general manager. Hawkins threatened to dash that prospect forthwith upon learning of the specially-called March 26 Operations and Planning Committee meeting, the Sentinel was told, accompanied by intimations that any other staff that embraced the call for having the district request that the county implement additional pre-treatment measures of the runoff of that water before it is injected into the local water table were likewise risking losing their positions with West Valley.
Manbahal, with Hawkins gunning for him if he did not prevent the Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee inquiry from metastasizing into an interruption of the Bloomington Commercial Center’s approval, obtained from Joanne Chan, the district’s operations manager, a statement in an email that “The county’s measures are in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.”
The county, Chan indicated in the email, as the permit holder was to “monitor discharges and comply with all regulated water quality standards and submit required reports to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.” In addition, Chan stated that the “Stormwater pollution prevention plan lists all activities and conditions at the site that could cause water pollution and lists detailed steps the facility will take to prevent the discharge of any unpermitted pollution.”
Furthermore, Chan noted that the county was the MS4 permit holder and that county staff should be relied upon to “inspect the site for stormwater compliance. The risk level is determined by many factors, including the type of business activity, the Standard Industrial Classification Code, applicable state permits, hazardous material use, and other factors. The San Bernardino County Department of Public Works determines the risk level for the business based on the following factors, including, but not limited to: hazardous materials used on site, the potential for pollutant discharges, ongoing efforts to implement effective best management practices, site size and location, including proximity to rivers and streams.”
Chan said of the water quality management plan for the project, “As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this plan is intended to provide information related to the project’s generation and mitigation of water quality pollutants and assessment of hydrological impacts.”
At that point, the Sentinel is informed, Greg Young, who was the most passionate advocate of the district taking a stand and holding the county to account, and Crowther, who also had expressed concern about the disposition of the stormwater runoff from the project, elected to drop the matter, given their impression that pressing it might result in Hawkins terminating Manbahal and any other staff members who defied his wishes. The committee tabled the issue.
On April 6, the board of supervisors met and unanimously approved allowing the Bloomington Commercial Center to proceed. The board pushed ahead with granting the project a mitigated negative declaration, glossing over what was for the county’s planning professionals an embarrassing, indeed mortifying, moment when the documentation for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act to justify that declaration was examined. To those paying attention, it was clear the Chandi Group USA’s consultant had used material that was copied and pasted from a previous document for a different project in Sun Valley, in Riverside County. The board of supervisors ignored that faux pas, doing nothing to have the documentation corrected or examined for integrity, accepting an inapplicable reference as the justification for the action it took.
In the aftermath of the board’s vote, the Sentinel initiated inquiries with both Baca and Hawkins relating to the environmental implication of the Chandi Group USA’s Bloomington truck stop project.
The Sentinel sought from each whether they believed the collection of the contaminant-laden strormwater run-off from the Chandi truck stop into an infiltration chamber and then injecting that unfiltered and unscreened water into the water table is a safe and acceptable methodology for dealing with stormwater at that site.
The Sentinel asked both Baca and Hawkins if they were concerned with the impact the long-term accumulation of contaminants emanating from the Chandi truck stop will have on the viability of the Mid-Valley aquifer as a future water source.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if he believe it proper for the board of supervisors to have allowed the environmental certification of the Chandi truck stop project to have taken place by means of a mitigated negative declaration rather than a full-blown environmental impact report.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if he was in any way alarmed or concerned at the way in which the county withheld the documents relating to the environmental certification of this project, most particularly with regard to water quality impacts, from the public.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if he perhaps did not fully understand or appreciate the potential that the Chandi truck stop will have on water quality in the Mid-Valley.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins why he had sought to prevent the district or one of its divisions or committees from looking into the water treatment methodology that is to be used at the Chandi truck stop, and if he was in some fashion requested or ordered by Supervisor Baca to take the action that he did in his capacity as board president to prevent the West Valley Water District from making an inquiry into the water treatment methodology that is to be used at the Chandi Group USA truck stop. The Sentinel asked if Hawkins on his own, out of concern that allowing the West Valley Water Board or one of its divisions or committees to carry out such an inquiry might result in his termination with Supervisor Baca’s office, acted to prevent an inquiry into the water treatment methodology that is to be used at the Chandi Group USA truck stop.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins for his response to those who have suggested that he betrayed the confidence and trust of those who elected him to the West Valley Water District board by preventing an inquiry into the water treatment methodology that is to be used at the Chandi truck stop. The Sentinel asked Hawkins why he had not stood up for his constituents and ensured that there were adequate safeguards put in place to protect the groundwater beneath the Mid-Valley in the face of the challenge represented to it by the advent of the Chandi truck stop.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if he had quantified, in monetary terms, the amount of savings that Chandi Group USA realized by not having to create a system to purge the contaminants in the stormwater run-off to be collected in the infiltration chamber before that water is injected into the water table.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if Nachhattar Singh Chandi’s status as one of Joe Baca, Jr.’s primary political donors had any impact on his or the district’s stance with regard to the Chandi Group USA’s truck stop project. The Sentinel asked Hawkins if he was counting upon the financial support of Nachhattar Singh Chandi in any of his future political endeavors.
The Sentinel asked Hawkins if there was some benign reason for the West Valley Water District not carrying out an inquiry into the water treatment methodology that is to be used at the Chandi truck stop and if he could express why the district rejected the concept of reviewing the county’s action in approving the Chandi truck stop project.
Neither Baca nor Hawkins responded to to the Sentinel’s inquiries.
On April 20, Naseem Farooqi, the West Valley Water District’s public affairs manager, who had been detailed to field the questions asked of Hawkins, responded.
“Although in our normal course of business we would not be involved in stormwater management of municipal discharge issues, our staff attempted to acknowledge a question posed by a board member. This is not our field of expertise and it is not the agency’s role to permit or prohibit these issues,” Farooqi stated.
Through other means, those affiliated with the district sought to unofficially convey to the Sentinel that the West Valley Water District does not involve itself in land use decisions made by the county, even when those decisions relate to property that overlaps the district’s jurisdiction. It was made clear to the Sentinel that the West Valley Water District does not apply for nor issue separate MS4 stormwater or sewer system permits, and that it does not have the role or staffing to analyze if a potential stormwater discharge complies with existing laws and regulations. Responsibility for the Chandi Development project resided with the County of San Bernardino, those sources speaking to the Sentinel on background insisted. It was pointed out that county staff members inspect both commercial and industrial sites for stormwater discharge compliance. The only stormwater discharge permit the West Valley Water District maintains, the Sentinel was informed, is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that the district’s water treatment discharges are in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Board Member Greg Young, while acknowledging that the district does not have land use authority within its jurisdiction and that in this case the methodology for offsetting any impacts upon water quality were overseen by the county, nevertheless pointed out that the West Valley Water District staff, in preparing its report for the March 26 Engineering, Operations and Planning Committee meeting, had circled in on a crucial shortcoming in how the county is planning to deal with the stormwater runoff at the Chandi truck stop site.
“Infiltration chambers are a best management practice, but are ones that should be used in conjunction with other best management practices to ensure maximum containment of pollutants,” Young said. “The county’s practice of using infiltration alone is the exact opposite of what Ricky Manbahal, the district’s general manager, described in his staff report. My entire premise is if you are going to use infiltration, it needs to be in conjunction with other types of pre-treatment as Ricky is describing in his report.”
The Sentinel pressed forward with seeking to get from both Channing and some of the district’s senior staff members whether they felt, irrespective of what the county’s authority and decision was, that using a mitigated negative declaration to do the environmental certification for the Chandi Truck Stop project was advisable.
The Sentinel also inquired of West Valley Water District Acting General Manager Shamindra Manbahal, Operations Manager Joanne Chan and Water Quality Supervisor Janet Harmon, all of whom are steeped in knowledge and expertise about water, its sourcing and quality in ways in which the members of the county board of supervisors are not, whether they considered using an infiltration tank to collect the stormwater runoff from the project and then injecting it into the water table without first screening out the oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, solvents, petroleum products or their byproducts or other chemicals is an acceptable methodology of dealing with that stormwater.
This provoked Farooqi, who suggested the Sentinel was acting unethically in seeking to have Hawkins, Manbahal and Chan respond to the original questions asked of them which they had chosen to not answer.
Emphasizing the contention that the district did not have land use or water quality permitting authority within its jurisdiction, Farooqi said the Sentinel’s presentation of information in the emails containing those questions was “incredibly inaccurate and misleading. On multiple occasions, the West Valley Water District provided you with detailed and factual information by our licensed engineers regarding our scope of responsibility and authority. Your statement regarding the opinion of the professionals within our water district is inaccurate. As I shared in my previous email, the committee (G. Young, Crowther) decided to take no action. Any further allegations fall very far from the truth.”
Farooqi then added a statement attributed to Kyle Crowther, who is the West Valley Water Board’s vice president, worded as follows: “In March, we met with staff on this issue and our staff recommended no action needed to be taken based on the fact that the West Valley Water District does not oversee, permit or prohibit municipal discharges. Understanding that these issues are not within our agency’s field of expertise or role, Director Greg Young and I accepted this recommendation.”
This was followed by this statement attributed to Hawkins: “This issue was discussed at the Engineering, Operations, and Planning Committee. However, the committee did not elect to forward this item to the full board; therefore, neither I or the full board have been involved whatsoever.”
Young said, “As I became aware of the issues and what the county was doing, I reached out to my colleague and fellow Engineering and Planning Committee member, Kyle Crowther. We jointly decided to call a special meeting to discuss the possibility of issuing a letter of concern to the county. However, it was very clear that there was a lot of anxiety from the staff about getting involved into the business of the county even if it may affect us in the future. Since there was so much anxiety about speaking out to the county on a matter entirely in their jurisdiction, I decided to not push staff and my fellow board members any further on the subject and instead decided to pursue my existing efforts with the Coalition for a Better Bloomington and the board of supervisors.”
Young added, “I will continue to speak out against any agency large or small engaged in practices that expose our valuable water resources to potential contamination. I would always welcome any of my colleagues in the entire water industry and West Valley to join me in such efforts to advocate for protecting our groundwater from preventable contamination. The county’s lowest common denominator approach to protecting our water should not be allowed to continue without the raising of concern, and we as leaders in our community should be willing to stand up to such a lax practice. I would warmly welcome them to stand with me. This is about more than just Bloomington. This could hurt many communities throughout the county if this continues.”

Jeremiah Brosowske’s political career, which less than three years ago initiated with a resounding bang, this week is on the brink of drawing to a close with little more than a whimper.
Judge David Cohn ruled on Tuesday that Brosowske’s removal from the Hesperia City Council in 2019 on non-residency grounds was warranted.
In 2018, at the age 27, Brosowske seemed poised to transform himself into an unstoppable political juggernaut destined for San Bernardino, Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
Having established himself four years before as a dynamic Republican Party political operative, Brosowske with the May 2018 death of Hesperia Mayor Russ Blewett appeared to have been handed a golden opportunity, one that put him on the fast track for seeming political glory. Events, some of his own creation, have now overtaken him.
Homegrown in the Victor Valley, Brosowske graduated from Granite Hills High School in Apple Valley and he enrolled at Victor Valley College, where he was elected to the Associated Student Body Council and Senate, serving in the post of parliamentarian and ultimately rising to the position of ASB vice president. He became thoroughly involved in campus politics at Victor Valley College and from there was drawn into what has been a continual life in politics, Republican politics specifically.
In 2013, Curt Hagman, who was about to be termed out from the California Assembly, orchestrated a silent coup to move then-San Bernardino County Republican Party Chairman Robert Rego out of the county party’s top spot and assume it himself. This better positioned Hagman to make a run for San Bernardino County Fourth District supervisor in 2014. Once he had acceded to the county party chairmanship, Hagman had repeated contact with the then-22-year-old Brosowske, who exhibited an uncommon enthusiasm and energetic intensity in his involvement on behalf of the party. Under Hagman’s tutelage, Brosowske was given one challenging assignment after another, which he dutifully fulfilled. According to Hagman, all 14 of the Republican candidates Brosowske worked on behalf of in 2014 won their races. Consequently, Hagman hired Brosowske at the age of 23 into the post of executive director of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee.
Meanwhile, Bill Postmus, who had once been the Republican Party chairman and chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors before he was felled by political scandal which resulted in a conviction on 14 public office corruption charges that prevented him from ever holding elected office in California again, was looking to get back into the political game. Though he could not be a politician/officeholder himself, Postmus was nevertheless looking to create a political machine that could be used for kingmaking. No longer able to hold the scepter, Postmus set about recreating himself as the power behind the thrown.
Postmus did so by going to Wyoming and starting a corporation – Mountain States Consulting Group. He then set up operations in Victorville under the name of Mountain States Consulting. He offered those seeking or holding political office assistance that extended to running or assisting in running campaigns along with fundraising.
Having been laid low because of sloppy bribetaking and engaging in quid pro quos in which the favors he was doing as an elected official in exchange for the money being supplied to him by those with business before the county had become blatantly obvious, Postmus learned from his errors. Mountain States Consulting was set up as a political money laundering operation in which those seeking to influence elected officials to have them use their power as county or city officials or legislators and take action to benefit them by approving their projects or awarding them governmental contracts or franchises did not need to make direct contributions to those politicians. Instead, they would hire Mountain States consulting to find a way to deliver that money to the politicians for them. Mountain States, of course, would make sure the politicians understood where the money had originated, but Mountain States serving as the cut out provided distance or insulation between the donor and the politician. In that way, the money that made its way to the politician did not look like a bribe.
One of the first people Postmus employed with Mountain States Consulting was Brosowske.
Two politicians Postmus had assisted through Mountain States Consulting were Paul Russ, who successfully vied for the Hesperia City Council in 2014 and Rebekah Swanson, who was elected to the Hesperia City Council in 2016.
With the opening created on the Hesperia City Council with Blewett’s passing, and Postmus looking to vicariously get back into office through Brosowske, he called upon Russ and Swanson to look favorably on Brosowske’s application to replace Blewett. Postmus was also able to get Bill Holland, who was on the Hesperia City Council and who had been immediately elevated to replace Blewett as mayor, to go along with appointing Brosowske. Postmus could achieve this because the stridently pro-development Holland drew his electioneering support from the development community, which was a major source of the money provided to Postmus for his political money laundering endeavors carried out through Mountain States Consulting.
The one hitch was that Brosowske did not actually live in Hesperia. That was taken care of easily enough, however. Postmus convinced one of his longtime political allies, former Hesperia City Councilman/Mayor Bill Jensen, to allow Brosowske to claim residence at his Hesperia home. Brosowske filled out the paperwork to apply for consideration as Blewett’s replacement, competing against Brigit Bennington, Victoria Dove, Russell Harris, Linda Holder, Robert Nelson, Anthony Rhoades, Veronica Rios and Chester Watts. Led by Holland, both Russ and Swanson voted to appoint Brosowske to the council in July 2018. Larry Bird, like Brosowske, Holland, Russ and Swanson a Republican, nevertheless was far less comfortable with the unquestioning loyalty his council colleagues had toward the building industry, and he was not willing to put Brosowske, beholden as he was to developers through his association with Postmus, on the council. He dissented in the vote.
In the fall of 2018, Hesperia was to hold the first by-district election in its then-30-year history. Those who had been due for reelection were Holland, Russ and Blewett. Thus, Brosowske’s appointment was good for just a little more than four months, and he was obliged to run in the November 2018 election if he was to remain on the council. Moreover, his claimed residence was at Jensen’s home. To vie in the race, he would need to find digs in District 2 and run against Holland, or in District 3 and run against Russ or in District 4. As it would be rather poor form to run against either Russ or Holland, who had just voted to appoint him to the council, Brosowske opted to take up residence in District 4. On August 31, 2018, he rented Unit 7 at the Sultana Mulberry Apartment Complex at 16784 Sultana Street in Hesperia after providing a security deposit of $1,000 and agreeing to pay $875 per month for a full year.
As luck and timing would have it, with the election approaching, one of the first votes Brosowske was called upon to participate in as a councilman related to the city covering the road construction costs for a subdivision in Hesperia being built by Frontier Homes and its principal, James Previti. Holland, who was unabashedly pro-development and whose political career to that point had been bankrolled by developmental interests, at that particular moment, less than two months before the election, did not want to give any of his four electoral opponents an opening to attack him for making taxpayer money giveaways to developers. He voted against having the city cover roughly $2 million worth of the costs for roads to be built to the Frontier Homes project. Meanwhile, both Brosowske and Russ had no qualms about voting to defray the cost of infrastructure that Previti, one of their major donors, would otherwise have to pay for.
At that point, more than a month before the election, there was a break between Brosowske and Holland. Though they had started the campaign season endorsing one another, before it was over they were advocating against the election of each other. Ultimately, in the November 2018 election, Brosowske posted a narrow victory over Brigit Bennington in the Fourth District; Holland outdistanced his three opponents, beating the closest one to him by ten percent; and Russ was ousted by 28-year-old Cameron Gregg.
The Hesperia City Council remained a solidly Republican body, as all five of its members – Bird, Brosowske, Gregg, Holland and Swanson – were members of the GOP. But overnight, the strident pro-development character of the panel had changed. Young Gregg is the son of Kelly Gregg, a close friend of controlled-growth advocate Al Vogler, the widower of former Hesperia Mayor/Councilwoman Rita Vogler. Vogler’s mantra calls for making the development community financially responsible for providing the infrastructure new development will require. Bird is likewise adamant developers and not taxpayers should pay for the public improvements needed to accommodate new development.
Previti, who put up substantial money to support the candidacies of Brosowske and Russ and who spent money in an effort to keep Holland from being elected in the November 2018 race, doubled down a few months later, paying for an effort to have the just-reelected Holland recalled from office. Holland, who was once the model of what the development community wanted in an officeholder, reflexively supporting any development project that came before him, found himself at odds with Previti, and suddenly in the camp of the slow-growth advocates. Ultimately, the Previti-sponsored effort to recall Holland failed. Along the way, Brosowske, beholden to Postmus, the development community and Previti, found himself in the position of having to support the recall effort. The enmity between Holland and Brosowske deepened.
There was still some talk of Brosowske’s bright political future. As one of Postmus’s protégés, he had access to the money that Mountain States Consulting Group was bringing in and the political machinery that Postmus was amassing. Postmus in his day had been the boy wonder of San Bernardino County politics, having been elected to the board of supervisors at the age of 29 in 2000. There was yet hope that Brosowske might come close to replicating that, and would prove a successful candidate for First District county supervisor in 2000. But that was based on the assumption that the foundation Brosowske had – being a member of the Hesperia City Council – remained intact.
In short order, things were no longer holding together for Brosowske and were starting to starting to fall apart.
His Achilles heel had always been Bill Jensen. Jensen had provided him with the ostensible residency he needed to be able to seek the Hesperia council appointment in 2018 that gave him his status as an incumbent, a power base from which he successfully ran for election in November 2018. It is unknown what prompted Jensen to turn on Brosowske. Perhaps it was his support of the Holland recall. Maybe it was Brosowske’s youthful arrogance, the way in which he conveyed a sense of entitlement to his political primacy. Perhaps Jensen had a falling out with Postmus. Whatever the reason, by the summer of 2019, Jensen was talking, and what he was saying was not favorable to Brosowske. Brosowske, Jensen charged, had never lived at his home, and Brosowske’s claim of residence there to qualify himself for appointment to the council was fraudulent. What was more, Jensen said, he did not believe that Brosowske was actually living at the Sultana Mulberry Apartments either.
Thereafter, Kelly Gregg, Cameron Gregg’s father and the owner of a security company, took it upon himself to set up video surveillance at the unit Brosowske was supposed to be living in at the apartment complex at 16784 Sultana Street. Brosowske’s coming and goings were monitored, including where he went after the city council meetings concluded and where he drove to after leaving his workplace at the West Valley Water District in Rialto. It appeared that he was living with his rather attractive girlfriend in Rancho Cucamonga.
A case was put together that Brosowske was not living in Hesperia, and in September 2019, the city council voted 3-to-2, with Larry Bird, Cameron Gregg and Bill Holland prevailing and Jeremiah Brosowske and Rebekah Swanson dissenting, to remove Brosowske from the council on non-residency grounds. The following month, the council, with Swanson dissenting, voted to replace Brosowske with Brigit Bennington.
Brosowske, represented by attorney Chad Morgan, sued the city and city council, seeking to be reinstated. He vowed to “fight for the citizens of Hesperia who elected me in the Fourth District.”
Morgan marshaled evidence that entailed proof, he said, that Brosowske lived at Apartment 7 at 6784 Sultana Street, including Southern California Edison and Southwest Gas bills beginning in September 2018, and Spectrum phone, internet and television bills that began later. Also included were texts between Brosowske and Jensen in the summer of 2018 which suggested that Brosowske might have indeed taken up residence at Jensen’s home.
The matter was considered by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge David Cohn. Cohn, considering all of the evidence came to the conclusion that both sides in the case met the burden of proof that Brosowske “was and was not domiciled” in Hesperia, including at Unit 7 at 6784 Sultana Street in Hesperia.
A key aspect of the case was timing, according to Judge Cohn. Based upon Jensen’s testimony and sworn declarations, as well as the rental lease Morgan presented, Cohn found Brosowske was not in residence in Hesperia’s District 4 when he took out the nomination papers on July 25, 2018.
-Mark Gutglueck

A series of unfortunate events set amidst unprofessional action or incompetence on the part of officials with two Joshua Tree institutions led to the death of an elderly security guard for which a mentally-ill man is now on trial.
Adam Ahmed Almoula has not had an easy life. Over the last sixteen months it has grown immeasurably harsher.
His mother, a Native American, and father, a Saudi Arabian student studying in America, met while they were attending college in the early 1980s. The couple married and Amoula was born in 1983. When his father completed his education, he was purposed to return to Saudi Arabia. His mother, however, was unwilling to leave the United States. Almoula’s father returned to his native country, leaving his wife and young child behind.
The mother and child lived in Yucaipa, where she had been raised.
When Adam was yet a toddler, his mother began to show signs of systemic lupus erythematosus. Over the next several years, her condition worsened. In 1990, when Almoula was seven years old, one morning he awoke and a few minutes later found his mother dead in bed.
At that point, his maternal aunt, Victoria Keller, took him into her home and raised him.
Adam struggled as a child, living in a circumstance in which his father was lost to him and his mother was dead. Despite the kindness of his aunt, he suffered the indignity of being ostracized by his peers at school, who in reaction to his name and being informed that his father was a Saudi, called him a sandnigger, camel jockey and diaparhead. Some of the students were physically abusive toward him. His self esteem deteriorated.
In the midst of the circumstance in which Almoula was being mistreated by some of her other students, his teacher had him tell his classmates of his experience in finding his mother dead. This apparent effort to induce the others in his class to empathize with him and cease their verbal abuse redounded detrimentally when one of Almoula’s classmates instead told him that his mother’s body was rotting in the ground while worms were crawling into and out of her eyes and mouth.
While he was still an adolescent, Almoula was diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.
Another well-intended but possibly devastating blow to Almoula’s immediate and long-term development came about when he was prescribed medicines – anti-psychotic drugs – which he began to take as a teenager.
Almoula never acclimated himself socially, becoming and remaining a loner. He did not move through the normal patterns of adjustment. He did not join the military or receive any post high school education. According to his aunt, he had few friends, and those he did develop relationships with took advantage of him or were cruel to him in some way, which deepened and broadened his isolation.
When his aunt and her husband moved to the relatively remote desert community of Joshua Tree, he accompanied them there. The atmosphere in Joshua Tree was well suited to Almoula, as he was insulated from people. According to Keller, her nephew was at relative peace on her property, where she had goats and a donkey. Almoula, she said, was kind to the domesticated animals she was raising, and was fascinated by the wildlife that were a part of the natural desertscape, in particular the mojave jackrabbits.
Moreover, Keller said, despite his inability to develop close personal relationships with people, Almoula was compassionate, insisting on the occasions when she would take him into town in Joshua Tree or Yucca Valley or Twentynine Palms, that they show compassion for the homeless they would encounter there by giving them food.
In his early thirties, Almoula was diagnosed as having schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His medications were adjusted. There followed a period during which medical professionals sought to fine tune his pharmaceutical panel.
Only Almoula can know the inward effect of the permutations of the medications prescribed to him. Outwardly, those drugs appeared varied in their impact. At times Almoula came across as evened out, an indication that the medications were having their desired or intended effect. Sometimes he became excitable. Other times catatonic. At times, he transformed into a seeming zombie. It was not uncommon for him to come across as stoned.
The latter effect became problematic when Almoula would venture out into civilization, into town in Joshua Tree or occasionally Yucca Valley or Twentynine Palms. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement service to all three of those communities, since Joshua Tree is an unincorporated county district and the Town of Yucca Valley and the City of Twentynine Palms, both incorporated municipalities, contract with the sheriff’s department to serve as their police departments. Historically, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department does not quality as the most enlightened police agency nationally, in California or even in San Bernardino County. The county’s desert communities have for generations been places where the least well-educated, the lesser sophisticated, the most brutal, the least compassionate, the questionably competent and the laziest of the department’s deputies have been assigned. When the department’s deputies would encounter Almoula, relying on the department’s somewhat unreliable intoxication recognition protocol, they would deem him to be stoned, i.e,, under the influence. This, under the department’s code, gave the deputies license to beat him or otherwise mistreat him. It is unknown, precisely, how many of these encounters Almoula had with the department’s deputies. Official San Bernardino County Superior Court records reflect that on four occasions in the last ten years – December 12, 2018, March 24, 2019, June 6, 2019 and December 20, 2019 – the sheriff’s department mistakenly arrested him for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Ultimately, on August 26, 2019, the court dismissed the cases against Almoula growing out of the March 24, 2019 and June 6, 2019 arrests based upon the district attorney’s office requesting that they be dismissed in the interest of justice because what had been his supposed intoxication was determined to be a byproduct of his medication. Ultimately, this week, on Tuesday April 27, 2021, the court dismissed the case against Almoula that sprung from his December 12, 2018 arrest for being under the influence, again based upon the district attorney’s office’s acknowledgment that the arresting officer(s) was/were mistaken in assuming Almoula was intoxicated on street drugs.
Similarly, over the years, Almoula’s behavior and comportment has drawn attention to itself, and at least in some instances involved the sheriff’s department overreacting or misinterpreting the circumstance in which Almoula had come to be involved.
Almoula was arrested for misdemeanor battery on November 11, 2002. When the actual circumstances and events were outlined to the court, the charge was dropped on May 7, 2003.
On December 3, 2005, an incident in Joshua Tree resulted in Almoula’s arrest on two felony charges of abuse of an elder or dependent and assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm likely to result in great bodily injury. Thirteen days later, on December 16, 2005, at a court appearance without legal representation, Almoula pleaded guilty to the assault with a deadly weapon likely to inflict great bodily injury charge.
On February 4, 2013, Almoula was involved in what was referred to as a circumstance of domestic violence and was arrested by the sheriff’s department on two felony charges, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm likely to cause great bodily injury and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. On May 8, 2013, again appearing without legal representation, Almoula was induced to enter a guilty plea on the infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.
A one-time member of the prosecutor’s office acknowledged that pressing the 2005 and 2013 cases against Almoula was done to assist the sheriff’s department, whose deputies had roughed Almoula up in making the arrests, save face and help the county avoid potential liability. The prosecutor likened obtaining the conviction against the mentally ill Almoula to “shooting fish in a barrel.”
The sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office did not fare as well in a case that was made against Almoula that grew out of an incident occurring on December 3, 2007, the four-year anniversary of the 2003 incident. On December 3, 2007, Almoula was arrested and charged with infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant and misdemeanor vandalism. Those charges were dismissed on May 7, 2008, the four-year anniversary of the misdemeanor battery charge from the November 11, 2002 incident being dismissed.
According to his aunt, describing Almoula as violent is a mischaracterization. He has episodes of psychosis, she said, but emphasized, “He has never been violent toward me or my husband. He has always been very respectful. He never tore up anything. He never stole anything. He cannot socialize. He is is okay with my husband and myself. He has talked to some people that are around. It is painful to see people who try to take advantage of him. We live far out in Joshua Tree. He feeds the squirrels that are here. He talks about the animals. There is a kindness to him.”
According to Keller, on December 19, 2019, Almoula felt an episode coming on, one which he recognized by experience would not be suppressed by his normal regimen of medicine. Keller said both she and Almoula understood that the local hospital in Joshua Tree, the Hi-Desert Medical Center, did not have the facilities to deal with his condition, and that he would more properly be committed to what is referred to as Ward B at the county hospital in Colton. Keller said she and Almoula further knew that an effort by Almoula to self commit himself would be ineffective if he simply went to the Hi-Desert Medical Center, and that he would be discharged from that facility without getting adequate treatment. Therefore, she said, “He wanted to go to the county psych ward, where he knew he needed to be. He knew he was having an episode and that if the sheriff’s department brought him in on a 5150 call, they would have to take him in for a 72-hour observation hold. He couldn’t get that if he went there on his own volition, and he knew the Hi-Desert Medical Center did not have the facilities to treat him.”
5150 is law enforcement nomenclature for mentally ill.
They summoned the sheriff’s department, Keller said, around 6 p.m. on December 19, 2019, and the deputies arrived around 6:30 p.m. “They told me they were taking him to the county psychiatric ward, but instead they went to the end of the road and put him into a Morongo Valley Fire Station ambulance, and shipped him off to the Hi-Desert Medical Center,” Keller said. “At Hi-Desert, they gave him more psych meds to calm him down. I believe he had already medicated himself with the two anti-psychotic drugs he has. They gave him Ativan, which is incompatible with one of the medications he takes. Then they released him.”
That was at roughly 10:30 p.m. Almoula then set out to go back to his aunt’s house, located on Sunburst Circle. The Sunburst Circle turnoff is roughly 1.9 miles west on Highway 62 from White Feather Road, upon which the High Desert Medical Center is located. Walking along Highway 62, also known as the Twentynine Palms Highway, that night, Almoula failed to turn down Sunburst Circle, which would have taken him to his aunt’s house, and he just kept walking.
“He was already overmedicated, and they gave him even more,” Keller said of the staff at the Hi-Desert Medical Center. “He had a bad reaction to that. He was disoriented and apparently did not know where he was. He continued on foot westward on Highway 62.”
Almoula continued another mile to mile-and-a-half all the way through Joshua Tree and then covered the roughly seven miles between Joshua Tree and the outskirts of Yucca Valley. Almoula later told her, Keller said, that by the time he reached Yucca Valley he felt as if he was having a heart attack. He eventually made his way to the first commercial facility open at that hour, an AM PM Arco gas station. By that time, it was 3 a.m. on the morning of December 20, 2019. The clerk at the AM PM called 911. The responders were a California Division of Forestry and Fire Service ambulance crew. The crew drove him back to Joshua Tree to the Hi-Desert Medical Center. At the Hi-Desert Medical Center, a different shift was in place at 3:30 a.m. on December 20 than the one Almoula had encountered at around 7 p.m. on December 19. Almoula was administered more Ativan.
The staff on duty at that point believed the Ativan would have a sedative-effect on Almoula, and they escorted him to a place in the emergency waiting room for him to sit down. They told a woman employee in the waiting room and a 69-year-old security guard, Gary Pack, to prevent Almoula from leaving.
At around 5:30 a.m., just as hospital personnel were starting to fill out paperwork to put Almoula on a 5150 hold, he got up and left the emergency waiting room. Hospital staff confronted Almoula, persuading him to go back into the emergency waiting room. Shortly thereafter, Almoula again attempted to leave, heading into the hospital’s lobby, with Pack following behind him. As Almoula was approaching the entrance to/exit from the hospital, Pack managed to get between Almoula and the door, blocking Almoula’s exit. Almoula attempted to spin around Pack, and his legs entangled with Pack’s, kicking the security guard’s legs out from beneath him. Pack went down to the ground, breaking his left femur in the fall and momentarily blacking out. When Pack came to, he grabbed Almoula by his leg in an attempt to prevent him from leaving. When Pack then tried to get up, he was unable to because of severe pain in his leg and hip.
According to a witness, at one point while he was outside the hospital, Almoula picked up a rock in an effort to fend off a security guard, and then threw the rock at but missed the security guard. It is unclear whether the security guard referenced by that witness was Pack. Another witness stated that Almoula punched a security guard several times. From the sheriff’s department report pertaining to the incident, it is not clear whether the security guard Almoula was said to have punched was Pack.
Almoula was detained and arrested by the sheriff’s department for assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm and battery inflicting serious bodily injury and three charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance.
Pack underwent surgery on his leg and hip. He remained hospitalized for five days after the surgery and was sent home. On January 4, 2020, Pack developed a blood clot and died. The blood clot was considered to be a complication from the surgery he underwent for his broken leg. In this way, the district attorney’s office is proceeding with prosecuting Almoula on two charges – PC 245(a) (1) assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm with the likelihood of inflicting great bodily injury and PC 192 (a) voluntary manslaughter. At this point, the district attorney’s office is not pursuing the charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance against Almoula.
Because of Almoula’s mental condition, he was not considered sane enough to stand trial. Under such circumstances, defendants are generally sent to a state mental hospital to undergo evaluation and potential restoration of their sanity to make them eligible to stand trial. Because of the COVID-19 circumstance in the spring and summer of 2020, Almoula was not checked into Patton State Hospital until October. Psychiatrists there experimented with a number of medications in an effort to render him compos mentis, meaning he was capable of understanding the legal proceedings to which he is being subjected. After his return to the custody of the sheriff’s department, however, his access to the medications that rendered him fit to stand trial was cut off, and his mental condition has now worsened to the point that he is no longer able to participate in his own defense.
On Tuesday, April 27, he appeared in Department M2 in the Joshua Tree Courthouse before Judge Shannon Faherty. Judge Farherty appeared intent on moving the matter to trial at the earliest possible date.
Deputy Public Defender James Carson, who had recently replaced Deputy Public Defender Isaac Rees as Almoula’s legal counsel, pointed out that his client’s mental state has deteriorated since his medication has been cut off since he has left Patton State Hospital and is now in the custody of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga. Carson asserted that he could not give Almoula adequate representation without Almoula’s mental competency being maintained, which he said was not possible if his medicinal therapy  remains discontinued. He requested that the court order the sheriff’s department to reinstitute the daily administration of anti-psychosis chemical agents to Almoula.
Judge Faherty ordered Almoula’s medicinal panel to be reinstated and for Almoula to return to her courtroom on May 11 for a progress review on the restoration of his ability to understand the proceedings against him and participate in his defense.
There is some indication of dissent within the district attorney’s office with regard to Almoula’s prosecution. Deputy District Attorney Jason Gueltzow was previously prosecuting the case against him. He has recently been replaced by Deputy District Attorney Michelle Bergey.
Bergey did not respond to the Sentinel’s inquiries with regard to the case.
-Mark Gutglueck

Robert Allen Shuey, whose affinity for violence and methamphetamine along with a penchant for drug dealing, theft and mayhem left a multitude of ruined lives in his wake, died under mysterious circumstances this week.
There were two conflicting accounts of how Shuey met his end.
One report was he died of an overdose in his house.
A second version was that Shuey’s exit from earth was even more violent than his everyday existence. Unverified at press time was that he was shot in the face from near point blank range while he was at his home in Blue Jay.
In his 30 years, Shuey was charged with 13 separate felonies and more than 20 misdemeanors stemming from 17 different cases/arrests in San Bernardino County alone. He was convicted on seven of those felonies and 11 of the misdemeanors. At the time of his death, two felony charges stemming from a single incident on May 21, 2020 were pending against him, those charges being first degree burglary and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.
Since turning 18 years old, Shuey was sentenced to prison or jail terms totaling seven years and 257 days.
Among the felony convictions Shuey sustained were for drug dealing, theft, assault, burglary and weapons charges. Several of his misdemeanor charges involved fighting or assault. At the time of his death, the district attorney’s office was considering filing charges, either as misdemeanors or felonies, relating to two physical assaults – indeed severe beatings – he had administered.
Shuey loved to fight and had engaged in far many more physical assaults than he had been criminally charged with. In recent years, he had bragged that he had put over a dozen people into the hospital.
In 2016, an inebriated Shuey beat a uniformed security guard working the grounds of the Lake Arrowhead Marina, Pedro Chavez, to a pulp, because he said, Chavez was flirting with his girlfriend.
Shuey’s savage attack on Alex Opmanis in January 2019 precipitated the July 2019 fatal shooting of Shuey’s friend, Sammy Davis. Indeed, Shuey’s infamy escalated as a result of his role as a catalyst in the death of Davis, 28. Shuey fled the scene after the shooting, gathering up what some believe as crucial evidence that might have served to exonerate Opmanis. Shuey’s involvement in Davis’s death came to public light in the aftermath of Opmanis’s arrest and the filing of murder charges against him.
The events which triggered the July 11, 2019 shooting went back some six months prior to that. In January 2019, Opmanis, then 27, who had previously made the acquaintance of Shuey through their mutual interest in dirt bike riding, was at the Dogwood bar in Blue Jay. Shuey, who lived not too distant from the bar, invited Opmanis, who had been drinking heavily, to come to his home. Opmanis at some point vomited while he was at Shuey’s house, after which a fight ensued. Opmanis was beaten severely and required hospitalization as a result, losing a portion of his vision in his left eye from the trauma Shuey had inflicted. The doctors treating Opmanis considered it necessary to insert a plate in his head because a portion of his skull had collapsed.
Encouraged by his family, Opmanis filed a civil suit against Shuey. The filing of the suit antagonized Shuey, an avid motorcyclist and gang member with a reputation for stabbing people. During the February-to-June 2019 timeframe, Shuey made repeated threats against Opmanis and his family, on occasion in public places and situations. In reaction, Opmanis obtained a handgun, a Glock 27 .40 caliber, which he routinely carried in his vehicle, a black 2000 Mercedes SUV.
On July 11, 2019 Shuey and another avid motorcyclist, Shane Codman, then 28, had ridden their motorcycles down from the mountain communities first to Corona and then to a “Bike Night” in Riverside, where they met up with Sammy Davis around 6 p.m., in the course of which they were consuming alcohol. The three left Riverside around 8 p.m., riding their motorcycles to return to the mountains. They intended to stop at Goodwin’s Market in Crestline to purchase hamburger and beer before going to Shuey’s home in Blue Jay for a late night barbecue.
Meanwhile, Opmanis had gone to Goodwin’s Market, located at 24089 Lake Gregory Drive in Crestline. An external security camera at Goodwin’s Market, operated by Scottsdale, Arizona-based Clear Protection Services, Inc. shows Opmanis driving into the store’s parking lot at 8:49 p.m., and an internal camera also operated by Clear Protection shows him coming into the store at 8:52 p.m., accompanied by two individuals, one identified as Osvaldo Nuno and another known only as Johnny. Davis, Shuey and Codman arrived at Goodwin’s Market at 9:02 p.m., as recorded by the store’s external security camera, and are seen coming into the store at 9:04 p.m. While Opmanis knew both Shuey and Codman, he had no previous encounters with and did not know Davis, who had spent the better part of the previous decade in prison.
According to an individual speaking on behalf of Clear Protection Services, the video surveillance system in place at Goodwin’s Market consists of several cameras, all of which run continuously and are not triggered by motion sensors or any other devices which interrupt the video surveillance.
The most telling piece of evidence in the case involving Opmanis is the video taken from one of the store’s external cameras which shows the parking space where Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV is parked very close to the center of its field of perspective. The store’s other cameras, while useful in putting the events of that evening in a temporal order, do not actually capture the shooting itself.
At 9:06 p.m., Opmanis, Nuno and Johnny are shown on the internal and then the external cameras leaving the store. Thereafter, Opmanis puts groceries into his Mercedes. Between 9:08 p.m. and 9:09 p.m., the external video shows Opmanis talking to Nuno and Johnny while they are seated in Johnny’s vehicle, which is parked proximate to Opmanis’s Mercedes. Johnny and Nuno in their vehicle drive out of the camera’s field of view.
The external camera shows Sammy Davis emerging from the store at 9:09 p.m., at which point he lights a cigarette and spots Opmanis. The camera’s audio picks up Davis yelling at Opmanis, “It’s on you, punk.” At 9:10 p.m. on the external video, Opmanis can be seen standing on the running board of his Mercedes and remaining wary of Davis, Shuey and Codman.
At 9:11 p.m., the video shows Johnny and Nuno pull back into the parking lot and park, lights on, behind Opmanis’s black Mercedes SUV.
Opmanis remained outside his vehicle looking in the direction of the bikers. Shortly thereafter, the audio on the video captures the sound of the three bikers starting their motors. At 9:12, the motorbikes’ engines are rumbling loudly. Between 9:12 p.m. and 9:13 p.m., amidst revving motorcycle engines, the bikers, with Shuey in the lead, begin to move out from the parking lot, crossing in front of the Mercedes. As they pass, Shuey can be seen flipping Opmanis off with his right hand, which causes his motorcycle to momentarily swerve while he is making the hand gesture. This provokes Opmanis, who responds by himself flipping Shuey off. Codman and Davis who were following Shuey out of the parking lot, suddenly turn hard left to come up to Opmanis. Shuey, who had briefly exited the parking lot, then made an immediate U-turn to return to the parking lot, joining the still helmeted Codman, who is in a verbal exchange with Opmanis. Sammy Davis is at that point parked near the rear of Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV. Shuey pulls in and parks in between Codman and Davis, at the front of Alex’s SUV. At 9:13 p.m. on the video, Opmanis is surrounded by the three bikers, and he appears to be having a loud and animated exchange with Davis and Codman as Shuey has arrived. Davis dismounts from his bike. Shuey removes his helmet, dismounts from his bike, and approaches Opmanis. Davis is at the rear of the Mercedes at the same time as Shuey takes off his helmet and his jacket. Shuey then dismounts. Shuey and Davis approach Opmanis, it appears aggressively. Codman remains on his motorcycle to the far right in the video camera’s field. Market patrons are scattered about, with cars coming and going and other commotion. Opmanis, who is toward the rear of the SUV, makes his way back to the front driver’s side door that is open. Sammy Davis at first moves in toward Opmanis, but then circles around the back side of Shuey. At that point, it appears that the assault on Opmanis begins, followed by a crucial 12-second gap in the video that was presented as evidence during Opmanis’s preliminary hearing. When the video resumes at 9:14:08 p.m., the physical altercation between Opmanis and Davis is in full swing more toward the rear of the SUV than the front. A shopping cart or carts can be heard rattling violently in the shopping cart corral next to Opmanis’s vehicle. Shuey approaches the fight as Davis and Opmanis appear to be hunched over and struggling. The fight between them moves toward the front of Opmanis’s SUV. Shuey has his phone out with its light engaged, and appears to be videoing the fight. Two shots are heard. Nuno gets out of the passenger side of Johnny’s vehicle, still parked behind Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV with the lights on. Nuno immediately returns to the vehicle and Johnny speeds off. Shuey moves rapidly away and ducks behind a parked car. Shuey is crouching down approximately eight to ten feet away from where Davis was shot, very close to the SUV.
After the shooting, Opmanis can be heard attempting to summon help. When Opmanis produces his phone to make a call and Shuey begins moving toward him, Opmanis yells, “Get back! Get Back!” and gestures strongly to Shuey. Shuey momentarily crouches behind a vehicle.
By 9:17 p.m., a woman, later identified as an off-duty nurse, is seen on the video attempting to administer to Davis. The nurse later reported that Davis reeked of alcohol.
At 9:17 p.m., Codman mounted his bike and rode off.
Shuey remained at the scene for more than four minutes following the shooting, at one point retrieving something from Davis’s person or next to him. He then made a hand gesture towards Opmanis, put his helmet on, started his motorcycle and rode away at 9:18 p.m.
Opmanis, who was originally represented by attorney Jeffrey Lawrence, subsequently by David Striker of the San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office and now by attorney Mark Geragos, has pleaded not guilty, asserting he was acting in self defense. Opmanis’s trial is scheduled to begin next month.
Davis, like Shuey, had an extensive criminal record, including a 2012 conviction for burglary, a 2011 conviction for receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor conviction for public intoxication, and a 2008 felony conviction for burglary. Just prior to the shooting, Davis had been released from prison after serving a portion of a sentence for assault.
It was anticipated that Shuey was going to be called to testify during Opmanis’s trial. He was considered to be a key witness for both the prosecution and the defense. There have been indications that Geragos and Opmanis’s co-counsel, Alexandra Kazarian, intend to make an issue at trial of the severe beating Opmanis had suffered at the hands of Shuey roughly six months before the shooting of Davis and Shuey’s participation in the assault upon Opmanis on July 11, 2019 just seconds before Davis was fatally shot to establish that Opmanis had a reasonable fear for his safety that justified the discharge of his weapon.
Shuey was yet facing the charges of burglary together with assault with a deadly weapon resulting in great bodily injury relating to the incident he was involved in on May 21 of last year at 27115 State Highway 189 in Blue Jay. Shuey was arrested by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputies working out of the Twin Peaks sheriff’s substation in the aftermath of that incident
Despite his multiple arrests and convictions, Shuey appeared until this week to lead a charmed life. Though he had been sentenced to more than seven years in prison, his actual time incarcerated was less than half of that. He was well-served by his attorney, Gary Wenkle Smith, who on at least two occasions kept him insulated from the often rough-edged wheels of justice.
There are indications that the sheriff’s department’s homicide detail, which was on the scene of the apparent shooting late Monday night, April 26 until late Tuesday morning, April 27, has not identified a suspect in the killing. The department has been tight-lipped with regard to Shuey’s death, and did not acknowledge questions from the Sentinel relating to it. Word has reached the Sentinel that a search warrant for Shuey’s residence was obtained in the aftermath of the shooting and executed on April 27.
Among those who knew him and of him, there was a perception that given the nature of his lifestyle, his indulgence in criminality and his tendency toward physical intimidation and violence, Shuey’s number was going to come up, probably sooner rather than later. Indeed, that is what appears might have happened Monday night. One of his acquaintances summarized the circumstance thusly: “He fucked with the wrong cowboy.”
Homicide detectives working the case face the challenge of sifting through a plethora of potential suspects, seeking among the dozens of those who had an animus toward Shuey for the one who might have held a deadly grudge.
Nevertheless, Robert Allen Shuey had friends. He was someone’s son and brother. He was someone’s father. He was appreciated, at least in one circle. By Thursday, tributes to him were lodged with a website, insideeko.com. One read, “Thank you for your contagious happy adrenaline, your friendship, and those favorite memories plus more you gifted me with while you were here. [I’m] gonna miss you, and wish I had spent more time with you, but I’m grateful for your time [I’ll] forever cherish. I Love you little big dawg, you were as real as they make em.”
Another said, “Damn man, damn. Love you brother. Breaking into and skating late nights on the ice rinks, mountain biking with you, your pops, and brother, going to your football games or having to go to Joe’s soccer games.”
“Life is too short,” read another. “We all lost another great friend. Robert Shuey you were so loved. R.I.P.”
-Mark Gutglueck

In what was seen as an indicator of whether recently-elected Fontana City Councilman Peter Garcia would show independence from Mayor Acquanetta Warren, the Fontana City Council on April 27 approved the development of a nearly 200,000-square-foot warehouse in south Fontana.
Warehouse development in Fontana has become a controversial issue in 217,237-population Fontana over the last several years. Warren, who has been mayor since 2010, has embraced warehouses as a pathway to economic development in the blue collar city, to the point that she has earned the sobriquet “Warehouse Warren.” She has made a case that Fontana’s location on the West Coast not too distant from the Port of Los Angeles and near the confluence of the I-10, I-15 and 210 freeways, together with its proximity to Ontario International Airport and the advantage of rail lines that run through the city make it an ideal host for warehousing. Warehouses will provide jobs for unskilled and under-educated city inhabitants, Warren maintains.
Opponents to the proliferation of warehouses in the Inland Empire and particularly in Fontana cite relatively poor pay and benefits provided to those who work in them, the large diesel-powered semi-trucks that frequent them with their unhealthy exhaust emissions together with the bane of traffic gridlock they create.
Warren’s critics say she is less interested in the economic development and job creation warehouses represent than the hefty political donations their proponents provide her.
Warren is an entrenched Republican Party political boss, who commands the unquestioning loyalty of councilmen John Roberts and Phil Cothran, Jr., both Republicans. Her former ally, Councilman Jesse Armendarez, another Republican, gave up his council seat last year to vie, unsuccessfully, it turned out, for Fifth District county supervisor. In the November election, Warren endorsed Peter Garcia, a member of the Fontana School
Board who had been a member of the Fontana Planning Commission from 2009 to 2016.
Garcia emerged victorious. Despite Garcia having been endorsed by Warren, there was a question as to whether he would go along with her headlong pursuit of ever more warehouses in the city. Professionally, Garcia is a scientist with the California Environmental Protection Agency. At present, he is the Southern California regional executive manager for the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Site Mitigation Program, in which capacity he is responsible for protecting human health and the environment from hazardous substance-contaminated properties throughout California. He has a bachelor of science degree in biological sciences from Loyola Marymount University,.
Some of Warren’s opponents hoped that Garcia would defy Warren’s expectation that he would go along with her agenda of allowing transportation intensive warehousing to spring up at all order of locations around the 42.4-square mile city.
As it turned out on Tuesday night, however, those people were disappointed,
Over the objections of more than 30 citizens who weighed in against the project during the public comment portion of the meeting, Warren, Roberts, Cothran and Garcia voted to approve the plans for the 194,212-square-foot logistics and distribution facility, together with a restaurant on 8.68 acres at the southeast corner of Slover and Citrus avenues, directly north of Jurupa Hills High School and south of the Interstate 10 Freeway.
Opponents of the project believed that Garcia, as a former school board member, would prove receptive to concerns expressed by the Fontana Unified School District relating to the hazards such a facility would represent to the school and students there. That turned out not to be the case.
Councilmember Jesse Sandoval, a Democrat who vied against but lost to Warren in the 2018 mayoral race but was reelected to the city council in 2020, was the sole vote against the warehouse project.
Project proponent David Wiener, who had previously pursued developing the site into a shopping center, shifted to the warehouse concept after being unable to convince a major supermarket chain to become his tenant there..
-Mark Gutglueck

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (AVISO DEMANDADO): DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
REFUGIO ROBELO
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
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 direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Clerk (Secretario), by Nathanial Johnson, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse of Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud of Plaintiff’s Title Thereto, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) SB MANAGEMENT, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.
FBN 20210001983
The following entity is doing business as COLLECTIVE X 4133 E ADDINGTON CIRCLE ANAHEIM, CA 92807: ELIAS CONTESSOTTO 4133 E ADDINGTON CIRCLE ANAHEIM, CA 92807
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ELIAS CONTESSOTTO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021

FBN 20210001984
The following entity is doing business as DTV LOYALTY PROMO 2661 SOUTH CARL PLACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408: ELISHA JAVED 2661 SOUTH CARL PLACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ELISHA JAVED
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021

FBN 20210001982
The following entity is doing business as AMERICAN CAPITAL FUNDING 17211 PENACOVA ST CHINO HILLS, CA 91709: JOYCE ARCE 17211 PENACOVA ST CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JOYCE ARCE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003542
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Gearup Scuba, 14582 Pipeline Ave, Chino, CA 91710, The YSJL Corp, 1456 S Briar Ave, Ontario, CA 91762
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/ Joe Yong Ping Lin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/30/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).

04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210002449
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: La Bella Salon Suites, 5541 Arrow Hwy Suite A, Montclair, CA 91763, Toni Cummings, 461 Euclid Ave, Upland, CA 91786
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/ Toni Cummings
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/11/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 02/21/21
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003230

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Serrot Beauty Salon, 668 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 390 Caliente Dr, Norco, CA 92860, Alfredo Torres, 390 Caliente Dr, Norco, CA 92860
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/ Alfredo Torres
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/17/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FBN 20210000017 The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337, TAESHAWNA CLEMONS, 14762 SHADOW DRIVE, FONTANA, CA 92337 This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ JASMINE HENDERSON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/04/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A County Clerk, Deputy D5511 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021 & Corrected on 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21, 03/26/21 & 04/09/21, 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FBN 20210002262 The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ FREDERICO A PALMA This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021 County Clerk, Deputy I137 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of therights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San

Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021 & Corrected on: 04/09/21, 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003322
The following entity was doing business as GAMESTOP 3536 1883 N. CAMPUS AVENUE, SUITE B UPLAND, CA 91784: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Date of current filing: 11/16/2020
Previous FBN #: FBN20200010519
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 15, 2005
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003320
The following entity is doing business as GAMESTOP 1296 222 INLAND CENTER DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Date of Current Filing: 11/16/2020
Previous FBN#: FBN20200010515
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 4, 1996
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003326
The following entity is doing business as GAMESTOP 5047 2094 W, REDLANDS BOULEVAED, SUITE K REDLANDS, CA 92373: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Date of Current Filing: 11/16/20
Former FBN#: FBN20200010533
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: September 25, 2003
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.
NOTICE OF CONSERVATORSHIP OF THE ESTATE OF VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE
Case Number CONPS2000324
To any and all persons interested in the ESTATE of VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE;
Notice is hereby given that JENIFER FEJZIC, proposed conservator, has filed a PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT of PROBATE CONSERVATOR of the ESTATE of VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE, proposed conservatee
This notice is required by law. This notice does not require you to appear in court but you may attend the hearing if you wish.
A hearing on the matter will be held as follows:
June 8, 2021 10 a.m. Department S-36
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for JENIFER FEJZIC
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7 and 14, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003902
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: CJRL Capital Corp, 10535 E Foothill Blvd #460, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, CJRL Capital Corp, 10535 E Foothill Blvd #460, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
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/Jubilee Figueroa-Acosta
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003026
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Mind Growers, 1035 Driftwood Street, Upland, CA 91784, Mailing Address: PO Box 1094, Claremont, CA 91711, Alejandro Segura-Mora, 1035 Driftwood Street, Upland, CA 91784
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Alejandro Segura-Mora
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/01/2006
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2105448
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Richard Moore filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Richard Richy Moore to Richard Moore
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: 05/22/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, 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: February 19, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21
FBN 202100044494
The following entity is doing business as RESILIENT MARTIAL ARTS AND FITNESS 8654 BAY LAUREL STREET CHINO, CAL 91708: EXCELLENT ENGLISH EXPERIENCE, INC. 8654 BAY LAUREL STREET CHINO, CAL 91708
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/ GYANGDI LIU
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: APRIL 23, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JANICE LOUISE MANSELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100420
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JANICE LOUISE MANSELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SANDRA MARIE MANSELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SANDRA MARIE MANSELL 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 MAY 27, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy
APRIL 9, 2021
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Sandra Marie Mansell:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328-7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30 & 5/7, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RICHARD SILVA HERNANDEZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100387
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RICHARD SILVA HERNNDEZ has been filed by SHAWNA HERNANDEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BRNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHAWNA HERNANDEZ 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 MAY 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
APRIL 1, 2021
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: APRIL 1, 2021
Attorney for the Shawna Hernandez:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30 & 5/7, 2021.

FBN 20210003107
The following entity is doing business as RUSTIC ROOT DESIGNS 10259 DORSET STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: BRIANDA MEEWIS MENDOZA 10259 DORSET STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ BRIANDA MEEWIS MENDOZA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/25/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30, 5/7 & 5/14, 2021
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2107348
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: YILDA MARLENA CASTILLO filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
YILDA MARLENA CASTILLO to HILDA CASTILLO
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: 05/24/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, 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: April 12, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30, 5/7 & 5/14, 2021

T.S. No.: NR-51507-CA Loan No. *****7224 APN: 0227-193-03-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/4/2018.  UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE.  IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, or savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below.  The sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below.  The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Bryan Bradshaw and Lauren Bradshaw, husband and wife Duly Appointed Trustee: Nationwide Reconveyance, LLC Recorded 5/8/2018 as Instrument No. 2018-0165816 in book XX, page XX   of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, Date of Sale: 5/24/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: NEAR THE FRONT STEPS LEADING UP TO THE CITY OF CHINO CIVIC CENTER, 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO, CA 91710 Amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $795,045.94 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 13345 Rogue River Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 A.P.N.: 0227-193-03-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above.  If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property.  NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call (714) 986-9342 or visit this Internet Web site www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case NR-51507-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. For sales conducted after January 1, 2021: NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call (714) 986-9342, or visit this internet website www.superiordefault.com using the file number assigned to this case NR-51507-CA to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. Date: 4/19/2021 Nationwide Reconveyance, LLC 5677 Oberlin Drive, Suite 210 San Diego, California 92121 Sale Line: (714) 986-9342 By: Rhonda Rorie, Trustee (4/30/21, 5/7/21, 5/14/21 TS# NR-51507-ca SDI-20865) Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 30, May 7 & May 14, 2021

T.S. No. 18-20970-SP-CA Title No. 180549201-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1011-415-27-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/17/2005. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Junel J. Noriega and Claudia Noriega, husband and wife as joint tenants Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 11/29/2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0889600 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 05/18/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: At the Main (South) Entrance to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA. 91710 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $275,445.73 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 957 South Mountain Avenue #61 Ontario, CA 91762 A.P.N.: 1011-415-27-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 18-20970-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 04/16/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative CPP351027
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 30, May 7 & May 14, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004013
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Bravo Burgers-Redlands, 1911 Redlands Blvd., Redlands, CA 92373, Mailing Address: 41847 Via Balderama, Temecula, CA 92592, Vnat Restaurants, Inc., 1911 Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373
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/Emmanuel Vitakis
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2005
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004082
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Mason Notary Excellence, 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337, Mailing Address: 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337, Darriell Mason, 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Darriell Mason
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/20/2020
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003903
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: S&S Digital Conversions, 7211 Haven Ave., Suite E122, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, Sheldon S Smith, 5613 Carmello Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Sheldon S Smith
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/04/2021
County Clerk, s/
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).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003284
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Perkins Moving Company, 9353 19TH St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, John D. Perkins, 9353 19TH St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
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/John D Perkins
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/23/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21
T.S. No. 18-20970-SP-CA Titl
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES CARRITUE
NO. PROPS 2100519
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES CARRITUE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARC E. GROSSMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARC E. GROSSMAN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on JUNE 16, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: MARCH 10, 2021
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: James Lee, Esquire
100 N. Euclide Avenue, Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 608-7426
Email address: mail@wefight4you.com
Attorney for Fred Edward Carlson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel April 30, May 7 & May 14 2, 2021.
CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): 37-2020-00000926
ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CHU-JAN CHENG, an individual, HSIANG-MAN CHENG, an individual, PAUL CHENG, an individual, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TAN-HUI LIN A.K.A. KATY LIN, an individual.
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 infor-mation 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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion 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 telefonica 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 mas informacion 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 presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas 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 remision 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 poniendose 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 recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion 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 direccion de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – CENTRAL DISTRICT, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): MONISHA A. COELHO, ALVARADOSMITH, APC, 633 West Fifth St., Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 229-2400
Date: (Fecha) OCT 15, 2020
Clerk (Secretario)
By: M. MC CLURE, Deputy (Adjunto)
CN976760 CHENG Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIVDS2000458
ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CHU-JAN CHENG, an individual, HSIANG-MAN CHENG, an individual, PAUL CHENG, an individual, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): YTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons 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 infor-mation 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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion 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 telefonica 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 mas informacion 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 presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas 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 remision 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 poniendose 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 recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion 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 direccion de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO – CIVIL DIVISION, 247 West Third 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 direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): MONISHA A. COELHO, ALVARADOSMITH, APC, 633 West Fifth St., Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 229-2400
Date: (Fecha) OCT 28, 2020
Clerk (Secretario)
By: SANDRA ORTEGA, Deputy (Adjunto)
CN976759 LMXC3
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel at lien sale at said address below on: 05/07/2021 9:00 am
1601NU, ZZN80812D595, CA
DATE OF SALE-05/07/2021
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
To be sold by ONLY 1’Z GARAGE   17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 04/30/21

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel at lien sale at said address below on: 05/07/2021 9:00 am
1602NU, ZZN80935D595, CA
DATE OF SALE-05/07/2021
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
To be sold by ONLY 1’Z GARAGE   17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 04/30/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2108532
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN IV filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES FLANNIGAN IV to Flannigan IV, James
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: 06/03/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, 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: April 20, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21 & 05/21/21

FBN 20210004194
The following entity is doing business as MONTCLAIR PLAZA DENTAL GROUP 8660 CENTRAL AVE. STE A, MONTCLAIR, CA 91763: S. DAVE SRIKUREJA, DDS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 25802 HUDSON CT. LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
A California Corporation  C4258718
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.
SUTHEEP DAVE SRIKUREJA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/22/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21 & 05/21/21

FBN 20210002374 The following person is doing business as: ADORA CONCEPTS 12168 HUMBOLDT PL CHINO, CA 91710; MARLYN A. VIRAY 12168 HUMBOLDT PL CHINO, CA 91710The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ MARYLN A. VIRAY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/10/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202105IR

FBN 20210002925 The following person is doing business as: BLUE HEAVEN TRANSPORT 7541 STONEY CREEK DR. HIGHLAND, CA 92346; DANNY MONTELONGO 7541 STONEY CREEK DR. HIGHLAND, CA 92346The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DANNY MONTELONGO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/11/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021

CNBB15202106IR FBN 20210003361 The following person is doing business as: TIMELESS CARDS & COINS 2185 W. COLLEGE AVE. APT #3065 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407;[ MAILING ADDRESS 2999 KENDALL DR. SUITE 204-117 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407]; RIGOBERTO AVILA MURRIETA 2185W. COLLEGE AVE. APT #3065 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ RIGOBERTO AVILA MURRIETA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/31/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202107IR

FBN 20210003551 The following person is doing business as: DEB’S THREADS 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324; DEBBIE M WALKER 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DEBBIE M. WALKER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202108IR

FBN 20210002825 The following person is doing business as: LA TIENDITA 2215 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; SILVIA BRAMBILA
ARECHIGA 2215 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ SILVIA BRAMBILA ARECHIGA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/18/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202109MT

FBN 20210003046 The following person is doing business as: THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES MARKETINGAND PROCESSING 8291 UTICA AVE #100B RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; CLAUDIA N THOMAS 8291 UTICA AVE #100B RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ CLAUDIA N. THOMAS, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/23/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202110MT

FBN 20210003258 The following person is doing business as: ARMSTRONG INSURANCE SERVICES 11161 ANDERSON STREET SUITE 105 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354; RENEE S ARMTRONG 24784 DAISY AVE LOMA LINDA, CA 92354The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 14, 2021By 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/ RENEE S ARMSTRONG, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/29/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202111CH

FBN 20210003201 The following person is doing business as: ALL PROFIT ENTERTAINMENT 77 S WASHINGTON ST SEATTLE, WA 98104; ALEX J BATES 77 S WASHINGTON ST SEATTLE, WA 98104The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ ALEX J. BATES, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB14202112MT

FBN 20210003199 The following person is doing business as: ALPHA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION 2069 SAN BERNARDINO AVE APT. #1179; JACQUELINE C VASQUEZ 2069 SAN BERNARDINO AVE APT. #1179 COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.s/ JACQUELINE C. VASQUEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202123MT

FBN 20210003196 The following person is doing business as: MIND YOUR BEES-WAX 15767 BUCK POINT LANE FONTANA, CA 92336; ABRAYSV LLC 15767 BUCK POINT LANE FONTANA, CA 92336The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ CURTIS L. BRAY, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202114M

FBN 20210003551 The following person is doing business as: DEB’S THREADS 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324; DEBBIE M WALKER 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DEBBIE M. WALKER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202101IR

FBN 20210003518 The following person is doing business as: OZS FASHION N SPORTS WORLD 13146 WARM SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394; MIRAZA HASSAN 13146 WARMS SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ MIRZA HASSAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/05/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202102MT

FBN 20210003586 The following person is doing business as: GARMETS OF PRAISE 2492 TORJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786; JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ 2492 TROJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202103MT

FBN 20210003593 The following person is doing business as: E & J HAULING SERVICES 8851 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD #1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; ERIC L SMITH 8851 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD #1 RAANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ ERIC L. SMITH, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202104MT

FBN 20210003993 The following person is doing business as: SAYULITA 369 1315 HARDT ST UNIT A SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; CESAR A SIGALA OORTIZ 1315 HARDT ST UNIT A SANBERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ CESAR A. SIGALA ORTIZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202105S

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the April 23 San Bernardino county Sentinel.

Sentinel 04-23-21

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
The California State Water Resources Control Board today acted to curtail the Arrowhead Spring Water Company’s drafting of prodigious quantities of water from an ecologically sensitive canyon high in the San Bernardino Mountains.
The state has told the company that it must reduce the 62.56 million gallons of water it has been taking out of the San Bernardino Forest annually in recent years to 2.365 million gallons.
The action, which came less than a month after Nestlé Waters of North America divested itself of all of its American water holdings including the Arrowhead brand, recognizes the long-held contention of environmentalists that the water bottling company has for more than three decades been overdrafting water from a spring complex to which its rights are non-existent, disputed or overstated.
Nestlé Waters of North America was until last month owned by Nestlé S.A., a Swiss multinational food and drink processing conglomerate corporation headquartered in Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland.
The State Water Resources Control Board made its determination in the face of a two-year running drought in the Golden State and following numerous complaints of profligate water use by the bottler, which led to a multi-year investigation into Nestle’s unauthorized spring water diversions at the 5,000 foot elevation level in the San Bernardino National Forest.
For 29 years, as the owner of the Arrowhead Drinking Water Company since 1992, Nestlé Waters of North America had been drawing on the order of 60 million gallons of water from Strawberry Canyon on average per year pursuant to a permit issued in 1978 to the former operator of the water bottling concern.
Nestlé extracted the water from the Strawberry Canyon watershed, selling it under the Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water brand name. Nestlé acquired the Strawberry Creek water diversion system from Perrier in 1992. The permits for the water extraction system, consisting of borings, horizontal wells, tunnels, pipelines and other appurtenances, expired in 1987. Nestlé, as did Perrier, maintained its operation in Strawberry Canyon by continuing to pay a $524 annual fee while the Forest Service delayed carrying out the environmental review for the renewal of the permits. The current U.S. Forest Service pipeline permit is around $2,000, and expires in August 2021.
Nestlé’s activity, which has long been decried by environmentalists, came under increasing fire as a statewide drought which lasted for more than five years after it first manifested in 2011 advanced. In 2015 environmental groups were gearing up to file a lawsuit claiming the U.S. Forest Service had violated protocols and harmed the ecology of the mountain by allowing Nestlé Waters North America to continue its operations in Strawberry Canyon for 28 years after its permit expired. At that point, the Forest Service moved to make an environmental review. In the meantime, Nestlé continued its water extraction, pumping an average of 62.56 million gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino Mountains. Environmentalists lodged protests with the water rights division of the California Water Resources Control Board, alleging Nestlé was diverting water without rights, making unreasonable use of the water it was taking, failing to monitor the amount drawn or make an accurate accounting of the water it was taking, and wreaking environmental damage by its action.
Following a two-year investigation, state officials arrived at a tentative determination that Nestlé had the right to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year. Nestlé had gone far beyond the water drafting limit the company was entitled to, the State Water Resources Control Board said, and was actually drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons), such that 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) the company was taking was unauthorized, according to a report released on December 21, 2017.
The water rights division recommended that Nestlé immediately end its diversions beyond the 26 acre-foot threshold or otherwise marshal evidence supporting its current level of diversion within 30 days.
While Nestlé continued to maintain it had established rights to roughly 190 acre-feet of water per year in Strawberry Canyon, it was unable to produce any historical record of water rights approaching the volume of its diversion.
On April 23, 2021, the State Water Resources Control board issued a revised report of its investigation and a draft cease and desist order directing the company which now owns the Arrowhead Spring Water Brand bottling company to stop its unlawful activities, which was defined in the cease and desist order as taking any more than 7.26 acre-feet (2.342 million gallons) of water annually out of Strawberry Canyon.
Nestlé Waters of North America’s successor/parent company, BlueTriton, has 20 days to respond to the draft order and request a hearing, or the State Water Board will issue a final order.
The action comes as state agencies are ramping up their efforts to build California’s water resilience amid a second consecutive dry year. At the direction of Governor Gavin Newsom, state agencies are coordinating closely with local water districts and municipalities to track and actively respond to changing conditions and issues that impact public health, safety and the environment.
During the historic December 2011-to-March 2017 drought, the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights received multiple complaints alleging that Nestlé’s continual water diversions depleted Strawberry Creek, resulting in reduced downstream drinking water supply and impacts on vulnerable environmental resources. The division conducted a field investigation, which led to the tentative quantification of Nestlé’s water rights at 26 acre-feet (8.47 million gallons) annually with recommendations that Nestle only take amounts within its established water rights. Afterward, the State Water Board received an additional 4,000 comments and thousands of pages of information from the public alleging continued excessive water diversions, including that it had utilized 180 acre-feet (58,680,000 gallons) taken from Strawberry Canyon in 2020, which significantly expanded the investigation that culminated with today’s proposed enforcement action.
“It is concerning that these diversions are continuing despite recommendations from the initial report, and while the state is heading into a second dry year,” said Jule Rizzardo, the California State Water Resources Board’s assistant deputy director for the Division of Water Rights. “The state will use its enforcement authority to protect water and other natural resources as we step up our efforts to further build California’s drought resilience.”
The Sentinel’s examination of documentation that Nestlé relied upon in justifying its intensive drafting of water out of Strawberry Canyon illustrates that the Swiss company’s assumption of water rights there relied on inapplicable case law and the substitution of property outside of the National Forest which was misrepresented as being within the National Forest. It thus appears Nestlé is not entitled to the 26 acre-feet or 8.47 million gallons of annual extraction rights credited to it in December 2017, and may not be entitled to the 7.26 acre-feet or 2.365 million gallons the State Water Control Board has now allotted to Arrowhead.
Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc., a corporate subsidiary of the Swiss-owned Nestlé Corporation, acquired an expired permit for a pipeline right-of-way to transport water through the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains when it bought out Perrier in 1992. Perrier had acquired the permit when it purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, formerly called Arrowhead Puritas, in 1987, at which time the permit was yet active. That permit, which expired in 1988, allowed a pipeline across the forest which transported water extracted from a significant below-ground source in the San Bernardino Mountains. In 1978, Arrowhead Puritas, without renewing the permit for transporting the harvested water from Strawberry Canyon extracted by means of boreholes and horizontal wells, applied to be allowed to continue that activity, for which it paid the U.S. Government $524 per year, then a standard fee for such uses in all National Forests. The Arrowhead Drinking Water Company had assumed water drafting operations from a series of predecessors. But that assumption was based on a dubitable assertion of water extraction rights, for which no basis in the public record exists. Other than renewing the pipeline permit, none of the companies or their corporate predecessors has paid for the forest water it has taken.
In 1929, the California Consolidated Waters Company was formed to merge Los Angeles’ three largest water bottlers and distributors of “Arrowhead Water,” “Puritas Water” and “Liquid Steam.” The property, bottling operations, water distribution and administration of Arrowhead Springs Company, Puritas of California Consumers Company and the water bottling division of Merchants Ice and Storage were all administered by California Consolidated Waters Company. Soon after, California Consolidated Waters, without having obtained any valid authorization or rights, put in place tunnels, boreholes and horizontal wells at the higher elevation of 5,200 feet at the headwaters to Strawberry Creek in Strawberry Canyon.
Charles Anthony, acting president of the Arrowhead Springs resort property and Arrowhead Springs Corporation, sold upper Strawberry Canyon water rights he did not own in the National Forest to California Consolidated Waters Company.
When Nestlé inherited the operation in Strawberry Canyon from Perrier in 1992, it continued to operate under the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company” shell and the United States Forest Service allowed Nestlé to continue to utilize the expired permit, sending its invoices for the $524 annual charge to use the “irrigation” transmission pipeline in Strawberry Canyon to the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company. It was concern over the ecological devastation this continued water extraction was having that grew into outrage, which resulted in calls for action by the National Forest Service that led to the report released in December 2017.
The state groundwater recordation relating to the Nestlé/Arrowhead water activity, which is now under the control of BlueTrion, is yet listed under Beatrice’s “Arrowhead Drinking Water Co.”
This is a matter of contractual agreements versus water rights holders. The “Arrowhead Springs Water Company” incorporated in Los Angeles had an agreement with the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company (the water rights holder and property owner) extending only to obtaining water from Cold Water Canyon, which was then transported to Los Angeles, bottled, sold and distributed. The water bottler obtained no water rights. It only had a water contract.
Nevertheless, the State Water Board appears to have created a 7.26 annual acre-foot water right for Nestlé from this early water diversion on the private property, even though there is no evidence water rights were transferred from the hotel property to the water bottling entity.
Of crucial importance is that Nestlé’s water withdrawals are taking place on San Bernardino National Forest lands where water has been reserved since its founding on February 25, 1893.
Federal reserve rights and overlaying landowner groundwater rights should apply in this case. Appropriation through adverse possession, known as prescriptive rights, is not applicable to U.S. Forest lands. On record is a single adverse possession case pertaining to the San Bernardino Mountains, what is referred to as the Del Rosa Judgment, which through an adverse appropriation process, gave water rights reserved for the National Forest to the Consolidated Waters Company, a now defunct entity, to which Nestlé made an inappropriate claim. The company has conflated physical springs with spring water, as defined in bottling regulations for food labeling purposes. A foreign entity, Nestlé was never a landowner of, nor in, the National Forest.
There is no documentation that Nestlé or its predecessors-in-interest had any valid water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest for Upper Strawberry Canyon or “Indian Springs” tunnels, from where the water bottled as Arrowhead Spring Water was drawn prior to 1893, nor pre-1914 water rights, as it claimed. The early water bottlers associated with the Arrowhead name drew their water from sources other than Strawberry Creek or Strawberry Canyon. Some contracted water from the Arrowhead Hotel property owners. Some bottlers of “Arrowhead water” were said to use “Los Angeles city” and “hydrant” water. There were multiple companies bottling “Arrowhead water” starting in 1909. The water bottlers and the water rights owners functioned as separate entities pre-1914, which is well-documented by archived lawsuit testimony, judgments and other sources. There is a difference between the water bottling company and the Arrowhead Hotel and Arrowhead Hot Springs property and water rights owner. This is a matter of contractual agreements versus water rights holders.
The “Arrowhead Springs Water Company” incorporated in Los Angeles had only an agreement with the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company (the water rights holder and property owner) to obtain water from Cold Water Canyon, which was then transported to Los Angeles, bottled, sold and distributed. The water bottlers obtained no water rights. They only had a water contract.
The San Bernardino National Forest was established February 25, 1893, thus any claims for water or land within the forest boundaries were required as publicly noticed in 1894. The water rights associated with the Arrowhead Springs Property ultimately stayed with the property as documented in recorded deeds at the San Bernardino County Recorders Office.
Arrowhead Springs Water Company water was from Cold Water Canyon, known as “Agua Fria,” located at the base of Arrowhead Mountain on the NW quarter of Section 12 T1N R4W of the Arrowhead Property. Portions of Cold Water Canyon and its creek are on the Arrowhead Hotel property. Cold water from fissures from stratum on precipices were said to feed Cold Water Creek at this location. A pipeline on the high mesa in this location was run to capture some of this water for bottling. This 1909-1913 water use for bottling is well documented in repeated testimony from the court cases 11399 and 12532 in 1910 and 1913.
There were broken contracts, injunctions and lawsuits between the bottler Arrowhead Springs Water Company and the water rights and property owners, the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, which caused deteriorated relationships.
In 1912/1913 the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company resolved to build a water bottling facility near the Arrowhead Springs Hotel to bottle and distribute Arrowhead Springs water. The hotel stood at an elevation of roughly 2,000 feet. The water bottling enterprise was then named Arrowhead Springs Company. In 1917, Arrowhead Springs Company moved its water bottling works to a new facility in Los Angeles at Washington and Compton avenues. However, the water rights remained with the property, not the water bottling works.
The Cold Water Canyon creek water was captured in a pipe to transport water for bottling. “Agua Fria” was the name for the water of Cold Water Canyon, which was also referred to as “Indian Springs” in 1917. The spring “Fuente Frio” was also used for water bottling in 1909, according to several sources, as this was listed as Penyugal Cold Springs. Fuente Frio is located in Arrowhead Canyon on the Arrowhead Spring Property in a ravine north of the hot El Penyugal Spring. The Arrowhead Water Company of Los Angeles bottled the contracted water from Cold Water Canyon. Reportedly, the company switched to using water from Fuente Frio during the winter when Cold Water Creek turned muddy. The 1910 lawsuits and fraud charges against Arrowhead Springs Water Company later put the LA Arrowhead Springs Water Company out of business. However, shareholders recapitalized another bottling company, Arrowhead Cold Springs Company, which filed for bankruptcy in 1912.
When Arrowhead Hot Springs Company started its own water bottling company, Arrowhead Springs Company, next to the hotel, it bottled water from the 1,900 foot-elevation Penyugal Springs, the hottest spring below the hotel, along with other springs such as 2,022 elevation Granite Hot Springs on the west mesa near Penyugal and the Fuento Frio cold spring up the canyon from Penyugal. Among the products the company offered were soda and ginger ale, as well as water containing substances that today would be difficult to market. Arrowhead, for example, advertised one bottled water product under the Penyugal Springs label as being high in arsenic and “Arrolax” meant to serve as an aperient or laxative. In very minute quantities, arsenic was then considered a nutrient. Arrowhead Springs water was marketed as high in radiation content.
So, two water companies – Arrowhead Springs Water Company and Arrowhead Hot Springs Water Company – were bottling water and competing to sell and distribute water and products after the relationship between them deteriorated, with lawsuits and injunctions filed. Ads show Arrowhead Springs Water Company’s Arrowhead Springs water was also called Indian medicine water with an American Indian featured on the Arrowhead Water label. The Arrowhead Hot Springs Company was the owner of the Arrowhead Springs Property, and retained the water rights. The business was later Arrowhead Springs Corporation.
The bottled water withdrawals on San Bernardino National Forest lands seem to have started around 1929 with an addition at tunnel 2, at which time the Arrowhead Springs Corporation (Ltd.) sold false rights on forest lands to water bottler and distributor California Consolidated Waters in what appears to have been an attempt to raise funds for a bond debt and use water sources other than those on the hotel property. The Arrowhead Springs Corporation admitted no “warranty” rights above section 12 in T1N R4W, located at the base of the Arrowhead, in an agreement which would have included Indian Springs’ two tunnels 1,000 feet north of the Arrowhead Springs Property boundaries and west of the landmark Arrowhead and the Strawberry Canyon wells/springs and tunnels, at the approximate 5,200 foot elevation.
It was the dubious claims by then-Arrowhead Springs Hotel property owner Charles Anthony that Consolidated Water could could obtain water from the undisclosed forest lands and run a pipeline to the hotel property. Anthony had no right to authorize the water extractions nor the two-mile pipeline.
False claims were acknowledged in some documents. Basically, the false claims made by Arrowhead Springs Corporation to the California Consolidated Waters Company involved false water rights and easements on San Bernardino National Forest lands leading to the unwarranted water withdrawals from the National Forest since 1929.
Arrowhead Springs Corporation didn’t transfer water rights to Consolidated Waters, but rather made up new ones in the San Bernardino National Forest so Consolidated Waters could develop more water sources, give Arrowhead Springs Property more water and promote the Arrowhead name by bottling and selling the water while Arrowhead Springs Corporation profited. The appropriation of non-existent rights became the basis for the adverse possession case involved in the Del Rosa lawsuit.
Federal property is immune from adverse possession; a county court ruling which awarded adversarial rights to a claimant on federal property therefore would not be deemed valid under any circumstances. The federal government was not party to the Del Rosa suit and the San Bernardino National Forest land was not mentioned in the suit. Title insurance clauses exempted water rights title on federal lands, which would have invalidated legal water rights on Forest Service lands to Nestlé’s predecessors-in-interest.
These facts can become confusing if location is not the focus. The “1929 Indian Springs tunnels” referenced in a 1929 letter by San Bernardino lawyer Byron Waters have been documented in survey plat maps filed in Map book 2 pages 18 and 19. According to the 1929 pipeline survey plat map, these tunnels are located in T1N R4W, which when plotted on USGS/USFS maps are located 1,000 feet north and 200 feet west of the NE corner marker of Section 11, placing these tunnels directly on the E ½ of Sec 2 T1N R4W, which is San Bernardino National Forest land. Nestlé’s upper Strawberry Canyon wells/tunnels/springs are also on National Forest lands T2N R3W. Moreover, the Del Rosa Suit never authorized the appropriation of Section 30, where most of the wells are located.
Nonetheless, these “Indian Springs tunnels” and upper Strawberry Canyon water rights, located at the 2,700-foot and 5,000-foot elevations, respectively, were not claimed as reserved at the time of the forest’s founding in 1893. There is no historical record that the Arrowhead Property owners were using these areas in the National Forest for water. Thus, the Indian Springs tunnels like the upper Strawberry Canyon sites appear to be a “taking” of forest land ecosystems and water starting in the 1920s. “Indian Springs” tunnels on the San Bernardino National Forest land T1N R4W E1/2 of Section 2 and the Upper Strawberry Canyon water withdrawal sites T2N R3W were not the site of the water used for the first water bottling and therefore no pre-1914 rights can be conferred in any way.
Moreover, in 1930, Consolidated Waters quitclaimed water rights of these “Indian Springs” tunnels to Arrowhead Springs Corporation on page 125 of Book 648 pg 122. Archived documents indicate that there is an “Indian Springs” tunnel pipeline running under U.S. Forest land. Nestlé has no valid pre-1914 water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest. The Del Rosa lawsuit was an adverse possession suit that purports no valid claim of forest water or land for Nestlé’s predecessor-in interest within the San Bernardino National Forest boundaries.
The 1929 letter from Byron Waters appears to be an attempt to build the adverse possession case for California Consolidated Waters and Arrowhead Springs Corporation. Byron Waters’ letter is an admission that these “Indian Springs tunnels” are man-made tunnels by appropriation without permission and on federal lands with a legal description that confirms their location on San Bernardino National Forest land. Federal property is immune from adverse possession. These Indian Spring tunnels are not the water source for pre-1914 water bottling which took place on private land contained on the Arrowhead Springs Property.
Federal and State property adverse possession immunity was never considered in the Del Rosa lawsuit or by the State Water Resource Control Board. The San Bernardino National Forest was founded on February 25, 1893 and public notice to stake a claim within the boundaries was given for a 90-day period in 1894. Thus, any claim of water within the San Bernardino National Forest would be subject to the 1894 rule and not the 1914 rule.
Boundaries and surveys are highly relevant in this case. The United States Geological Service’s and the United States Forest Service’s topographical maps of the San Bernardino Mountains are properly used as base maps to establish forest service versus private property boundaries. It is clearly evident from the historical record that private owners did stake claims to water and property based on these official topographical and quadrangle maps and reflected boundaries. Rights reserved under federal law and overlaying landowner groundwater rights thus apply to this case.
An examination of the historical record indicates that Nestlé had and BlueTriton has no rights of water withdrawal for surface or groundwater in the San Bernardino National Forest. While there is indeed a corporation chain of title for Nestlé/BlueTriton and their predecessors-in-interest, there is no documentary proof of chain of title for the “real property” water rights filed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office.
There is a lack of clarity as to which 1909 Arrowhead Water bottling company Nestlé/BlueTriton claimed and is claiming as a predecessor-in-interest, between the Los Angeles-based Arrowhead Spring Water Company and the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company or Arrowhead Springs Company or Arrowhead Cold Springs Company.
Nestlé’s corporate chain of title is essential for its successor-in-interest, BlueTriton.
Over the last generation, there have been billions of gallons of water withdrawn from public land in the San Bernardino Mountains within the National Forest which has negatively impacted the endangered and threatened species habitat, the forest ecosystem and deprived the valleys below with groundwater recharge. Dried creek beds and diminished damp headwater springs offer visual evidence, and the ecological travail to the National Forest has been extensively documented in reports by the Forest Service.
There is evidence to suggest that Nestlé had come to recognize some time ago the dubious nature of its water rights claim in Strawberry Canyon, where the spring complex it used in its Arrowhead Pure Spring Water bottling operation was located, and that the water rights it actually owned pertained to water at the 2,000 level near the grounds of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, which is reportedly tainted with radiation as a consequence of the uranium in the bedrock there. Nestlé Waters of North America was beset with other challenges, legal and otherwise, relating to its water holdings throughout the United States, including those in California, Colorado and Maine. Last year, Nestlé made known its North American water holdings were up for sale.
Late last month, Nestlé shed its Nestlé Waters North America division, selling that portion of its operations pertaining to bottling drinking water in the United States and Canada to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC, in partnership with Metropoulos & Company in what was represented as a $4.3 billion transaction.
One Rock and Metropoulos obtained from Nestlé Waters North America its American/Canadian water portfolio including everything but the North American marketing rights to Perrier. Now in the possession of Poland Spring® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Deer Park® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Ozarka® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Ice Mountain® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Zephyrhills® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Arrowhead® Brand Mountain Spring Water, Pure Life® and Splash, One Rock and Metropoulos have consolidated those holding under the name BlueTriton Brands.
The Sentinel’s effort this afternoon to reach C. Dean Metropoulos, the CEO of Metropoulos & Company, at his headquarters in the Playboy Mansion, was unsuccessful. Given the time differential between the West Coast and the East Coast, the Sentinel’s effort this afternoon to reach Metropoulos & Company spokeswoman Hannah Arnold, was made too late to reach her at her Washington, D.C.