February 19 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices

FBN 20210000613
The following person is doing business as THE PRINTWORX 1160 DEWEY WAY, STE B UPLAND, CA 91786: MANNING & MANNING LITHOGRAPHY, INC 2528 LAKE AVE ALTA DENA, CA 91001
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Registered with the State of California CI275199
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ SEAN MANNING
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/22/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 1, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021.
FBN 20210000017
The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JASMINE HENDERSON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/22/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021.
FBN 20200011671
The following person is doing business as GLOBAL TRANSPORTERS INC 786 N GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767: GLOBAL TRANSPORTERS INC 786 N GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Registered with the State of California C3732557
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ TERRENCE OSBORNE MORRIS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/23/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: OCTOBER 15, 2018
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/22, 1/29, 2/5, & 2/12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000417
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Tres Art Co; Tres Co, 5728 Newcomb Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: 5728 Newcomb Ct, Fontana, CA 92336, Nelly Avila Porras, 5728 Newcomb Ct, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Nelly Avila Porras
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/15/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/05/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).

01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000506
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Prestige Accounting & Tax Services, 14043 El Camino Pl C, Fontana, CA 92337, Norma Y. Hernandez, 14043 El Camino Pl, Fontana, CA 92337
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Norma Hernandez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/19/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/03/20
County Clerk, s/ M0597
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000120
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: The Sheet Metal Works, 491 Wildrose Ave., Unit J, Colton, CA 92324, Helen M. Wittman, 491 Wildrose Ave., Unit J, Colton, CA 92324
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Helen M Wittman
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/06/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000604
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Diordash, 13002 High Vista St., Victorville, CA 92395, Marcus S. Medina, 13002 High Vista St., Victorville, CA 92395
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Marcus S. Medina
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/05/21
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

FBN 20200010102 The following person is doing business as: FONTANA SMOG CHECK TEST ONLY 8171 SIERRA AVE UNIT R FONTANA, CA 92335 S MARTINEZ LLC, 8171 SIERRA AVE UNIT R FONTANA, CA 92335 The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. s/ SERGIO MARTINEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/28/2020 D5511 I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy Notice This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 11/27/2020, 12/04/2020, 12/11/2020, 12/18/2020 & Corrected on: 01/01/21, 01/08/21, 01/15/21, 01/22/21 & 01/29/21, 02/05/21, 02/12/21, 02/19/21

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

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
RONALD DEBIASI
NO. PROPS 2100049
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RONALD DEBIASI
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ADELE SCHULTE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ADELE SCHULTE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on March 3, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Adele Schulte
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 5, 12 & 19, 2021.

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

T.S. No. 19-21246-SP-CA Title No. 191210102-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0108-601-12-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 10/18/2007. 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: Guillermina Martinez, a married woman as her sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 10/25/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0600551 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 03/11/2021 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: $438,466.58 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 1510 North Lake Avenue Ontario, CA 91764 A.P.N.: 0108-601-12-0-000 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 19-21246-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: 01/26/2021 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 Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 & 02/26/2021 CPP350886

T.S. No. 19-21335-SP-CA Title No. 191260552-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-741-36-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/17/2006. 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: Kenneth Gabriel, an unmarried man Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 11/28/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0803327 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 03/11/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $560,049.12 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3471 Arcadian Shores Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-741-36-0-000 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 19-21335-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: 01/26/2021 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 Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 & 02/26/2021 CPP350885
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
CASE NO. PROPS 2001007
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TERRI A. DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TERRI A. DAVIS 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 JULY 1, 2021at 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.
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 Terri A. Davis:
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 2/19/21, 2/26/21 & 3/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN C. CRUZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100133
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN C. CRUZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DOMINIC CRUZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DOMINIC CRUZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2028679
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III to Efrain Angel Rodriguez

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: 03/17/21
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 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: Feb., 03, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2100792
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): The COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a charter county: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a public agency; MICHAEL A. RAMOS, in his individual capacity; JAMES HACKLEMAN, in his individual capacity; HOLLIS “BUD” RANDLES, in his individual capacity; ROBERT SCHREIBER, in his individual capacity: COLONIES PARTNERS, L.P, a California Limited Partnership; JEFFERY BURUM, an individual; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2020 SETTLEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND COLONIES PARTNERS. L.P. AND JEFFERY BURUM; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP, a non-profit 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 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):
247 West Third Street,
San Bernardino, CA 92415
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):
Aaron D. Burden, Esq.
P.O. Box 130370,
Carlsbad, CA 92013
Telephone: (619) 988-2663
DATE (Fecha): 01/26/2021
Clerk (Secretario), by Elisabeth Martinez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21
FBN 20210000965
The following person is doing business as TAMAR COUNSELING SERVICES 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786: DEBORAH J VINALL 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DEBORAH J.VINALL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: August 10, 2010
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 2/19, 2/26, 3/05 & 3/12, 2021.

FBN 20210001168
The following entity is doing business as ALLWISE RESIDENTIAL HOME II 9995 GENEVA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ALLWISE COMPANION CARE INC 14299 POINTER LOOP EASTVALE, CA 92880
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA C4167976
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/ WENDELL USON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/05/2021
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 February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.

FBN 20210000553
The following entity is doing business as NOTARY EAGLE: EMIGDIA’S NOTARY SERVICES 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
Mailing Address: 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
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/ EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 16, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000959
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lucifer’s Garage; Satan’s Henchmen; Heathen, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Heathen Nation LLC, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ David A. Lancaster
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2021
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).
02/12/21, 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21

FBN 20210000640
The following person is doing business as: FR BUILDERS 4617 PILGRIM CT CHINO, CA 91710; FR GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC 4617 PILGRIM CT CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ISRAEL RAVELO, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/29/2021, 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 CNBB04202101IR

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

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

FBN 20210000375
The following person is doing business as: ANDRE AKOPYAN TILE 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406; ANDRE AKOPYAN 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANDRE AKOPYAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202101MT

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

FBN 20210000434
The following person is doing business as: 1 STOP HARDWARE CO 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335; FREDDY J VELASQUEZ 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FREDDY J. VELASUQEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202103MT

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

FBN 20210001179
The following person is doing business as: TAQUERIA EL GORDITO FELIZ 4857 S. TANGERINE WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762; DIEGO A PLASENCIA 4857 S. TANGERING WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 02, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DIEGO A. PLASCENCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202101

FBN 20210001221
The following person is doing business as: LA MODELO MIX MIXHELADAS 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; JOSE MAGANA JR 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 923316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 03, 2001
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE MAGANA JR., OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202102

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; MOISES RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202103

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202104

FBN 20210001487
The following person is doing business as: JACTIVE 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JACQUELINE A SOTO 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JACQUELINE SOTO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202105

FBN 20210000976
The following person is doing business as: PARKER LANE 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; FELONDA PARKER 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; SHAWNA LANE 7828 N. HAVENA AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FELONDA PARKER, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202106IR

FBN 20210000979
The following person is doing business as: DAPRINTPLUG 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; PRINTCO SUPPLY, INC. 15345 ANACAPA RD UNIT B VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JONATHAN GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202107IR

FBN 20210000980
The following person is doing business as: KILO’S TOWING & TRANSPORT 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ MAILING ADDRESS 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; KILO KUSTOMZ MOTORSPORTS, INC. 2501 GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SANDRA L. GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202108IR

FBN 20210000714
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202109

FBN 20210001613
The following person is doing business as: ENERGIA TERAPIA PSYCHIC 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395; LILIAN VILLEDA 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LILIAN VILLEDA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202110

FBN 20210000570
The following person is doing business as: SOLYART BARBERSHOP 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374; SLEIMAN I MOUSSA 800 E. LUGONIA AVE SUITE D MOUSSA, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP 11, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SLEIMAN I. MOUSSA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202111IR

FBN 20210000555
The following person is doing business as: THE BIRRIA FACTORY 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; MARCO A CHAVEZ 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARCO A CHAVEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202112IR

FBN 20210000828
The following person is doing business as: A MIRROR IMAGE WINDOW TINT 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346; BENJAMIN P MUNOZ 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APR 28, 2011
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BENJAMIN P. MUNOZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202113IR

FBN 20210000804
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN HIGH WATER STORE 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; AUDELINA D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; RENE D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AUDELINA D. MONTERROSO, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202114MT

FBN 20210000857
The following person is doing business as: A-C FLOWERS 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017; ANA C MARTINEZ MENDEZ 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANA C. MARTINEZ MENDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202115MT

FBN 20210000619
The following person is doing business as: LOPEZ TRUCKING 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; MARIA D ESPINOZA 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; LUIS A LOPEZ 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT 01, 2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA D ESPINOZA, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202116MT

FBN 20210000636
The following person is doing business as: RICH AND FAMOUS BARBERSHOP 5480 PHIADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710; CHARLIE GARCIA 5480 PHILADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHARLIE GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202117MT

FBN 20210000835
The following person is doing business as: CALDEZ HOMES 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; JEFFREY SANDEZ 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JEFFREY SANDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202118MT

Valdivia’s Favoring Of Chinese Developer Raises Further Graft Allegations

By Mark Gutglueck
San Bernardino Mayor John Valdivia’s actions in promoting certain developers over others, most recently with regard to the rejuvenation of the embattled county seat’s downtown core, has raised allegations and manifested evidence that he has been engaged in influence peddling involving bribes and kickbacks while engaged in his elected and official capacity.
The questions and suspicions about Valdivia’s connections to specific developmental interests come after what was represented as being an unbiased competition between eleven proponents to reclaim what was once the heart of the city’s commercial district.
Using his authority to coerce city staff, Valdivia arranged for no fewer than six of the competitors for the right to redevelop the now-defunct Carousel Mall to be eliminated from consideration, while simultaneously ensuring that the foreign-owned corporate entity which has entered into a reciprocally beneficial arrangement with him is provided with the inside track in the sweepstakes to reinvigorate the shuttered 43-acre site. A further evaluation process of the remaining five development teams offering their concepts of the future development of the property, following Valdivia’s interference, resulted in two of those companies being eliminated, and two merging their efforts in an effort to go toe-to-toe with the company Valdivia has formed a political alliance with.
On January 27, the city council, in a specially-scheduled study session Valdivia chaired, considered the makeover proposals for the mall being presented by the two remaining property development teams. During that study session recorded on video, Valdivia, aided by City Manager Robert Field, made misrepresentations about past city council action intended to confer the contract for the development project upon the foreign-owned firm that has provided him and his political machine with political assistance.
The January 27 study session during which Valdivia’s action took place came more than seven months after the indictment by federal authorities of Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar on political corruption and racketeering charges relating to pay-to-play and bribery arrangements nearly indistinguishable to the activity engaged in by Valdivia. Of note is that a Chinese company which provided Huizar with gifts, accommodations and favors the U.S. Attorney maintains were tantamount to bribes is the same company for which Valdivia is front-ending in the competition to renovate the Carousel Mall site.
The similarities between Huizar and Valdivia are striking. In Los Angeles, the largest city in California, the second largest city in the United States and the 23rd largest city in the world, Huizar was shaking down developmental interests or had otherwise involved himself in circumstances through which real estate developers plied him with cash bribes and campaign donations in exchange for his making use of the influence and power he had at City Hall to manipulate the land use process to obtain approval for those donors’ high-rise development projects downtown.
In San Bernardino, the seat of and largest city in San Bernardino County, Valdivia has repeatedly used his official position and his influence over both the city council and city staff to orchestrate action that has directly benefited his political benefactors, who likewise find themselves in the position of needing the approval of the panel Valdivia heads – the San Bernardino City Council – to obtain official go-ahead for projects which they have millions of dollars invested in and from which they intend to turn profits in the tens of millions, or even scores of millions of dollars.
Moreover, Valdivia, just like Huizar, was provided with travel and lavish accommodations by businesses engaged with the municipality and adjunct governmental agencies he leads, a comparison of the charges filed against Huizar by federal prosecutors and state campaign and personal economic interest statements filed on Valdivia’s behalf with the State of California show.
This is not the first time that attention has been drawn to Valdivia involving himself in selling his services as an elected official to those willing pay him. Still, the blatant manner in which the mayor is currently militating for the company in question, Shanghai Construction Group, and his his nonchalant reliance upon City Manager Robert Field in doing so seems to have made a deeper impression on the public consciousness than his earlier transgressions. Inexplicably or perhaps because he has grown overconfident in his belief that local, state and federal law enforcement agencies are indifferent to nonviolent and less than clear-cut fringe criminality involving judgment calls by elected and public officials which may or may not involve subtle and nuanced conflicts of interest done out in the open, Valdivia made a misrepresentation in the course of the public study session last month that was at a variance to what had occurred at a previous public study session in October and which is clearly contradicted by the public record.
The questions now remaining are whether the city council as it is now composed will vote in the manner Valdivia is ushering them toward on March 3, when that panel is to vote on whether the city will accept the Shanghai Development Group’s proposal or that of its last two remaining and now-merged competitors in the Carousel Mall reclamation project and, if Shanghai Development Group does get the nod, whether the FBI and U.S. Justice Department, which have been sensitized to and are on the lookout for just such violations of the public trust that Valdivia is engaged in, will step in to hold Valdivia as accountable for his actions as they did in bringing Huizar to the bar of justice for his actions.
The Carousel Mall and its primary historic constituent, the Harris Building, are iconic San Bernardino landmarks.
In November 1927, when San Bernardino’s population was little more than 22,000, Phillip, Herman and Arthur Harris, opened what was then the model of an ultramodern department store at the corner of Third and E streets.
The trio were the nephews of Leopold Harris, the founder of what was once the large Los Angeles-based clothing retail chain Harris & Frank.
The Harris brothers, beginning in 1905, had run a mercantile establishment in San Bernardino’s old Armory Building at 462 Third Street, between D and E Streets. In 1906, they relocated across Third Street near the same location. The first floor sold all hardware and groceries and the second floor was devoted to the store’s millinery and clothing departments. A store the Harris Brothers opened in Colton failed after an interim, but they had succeeded with a store built in Redlands in 1908.
The Harrises acquired property on Third Street east of E Street upon which they intended to construct the eventual flagship of their department store chain in 1919. It took several years for the building, known as the Harris Company, to be completed. It was intended to be, and was, an impressive edifice.
The 29-foot high main entrance archway was composed of Italian marble. The building’s doors were made of hammered copper. The exterior had alternating intricate stone and wrought iron ornamental grillwork, with the Harris coat-of-arms molded into the stonework.
The building itself was fireproof and comprised of a basement, first floor, mezzanine level, second floor, third floor and roof garden. It included all of the features of what was then a modern department store, including a tea room, lunch counter, beauty parlor and barber shop, a sit-down soda fountain, candies, stationery, and on the south side of the building on the ground floor, a grocery store called Sage’s Market. The southeast corner of the building had a staircase of colorful tiles, which led up to a second floor restaurant, the Café Madrid.
The store involved a layaway department and a gift wrapping window.
The Harris Brothers, were determined to make the department store, which went by the logo Harris’, the fashion center of the Inland Empire, and they became known as curators of fine clothing, shoes, hats and accessories. In addition to fitting rooms, the store had quarters for a seamstress to do alterations, and the final product would be picked up at the Dutch door to the seamstress’s shop or at the gift-wrapping window.
Fashion shows were a part of the store’s operations.
As the store matured, it was augmented with a fourth floor.
In the store’s lower or basement level was what was known as the Harris’ Budget Store.
On the first or street floor were departments for jewelry, costume jewelry, silverware, handbags, gloves, dress accessories, neckwear, hats, hosiery, cosmetics, notions, basic sportswear, campus debutante sportswear, women’s shoes, luggage, cameras and stationary, along with a luncheonette. The first floor also housed “The Men’s Store,” consisting of a men’s gift shop, men’s furnishings, men’s sport furnishings, men’s sportswear, men’s shoes, men’s clothing, boys’ furnishings, sporting goods, and a varsity shop with a university club.
In addition to the Café Madrid and the seamstress’s shop, the Mezzanine offered a book shop, record shop, candy counter, a service desk, beauty salon, optical department, hearing aids, a photographer’s studio and art needlework.
On the second floor were sportswear, dresses and a dress collection, formals, custom casuals, clothes for the individualist and young sophisticates, a designer’s room, a fur salon, a bridal salon, a showcase, coats, suits, popular dresses, a pin shop, millinery, lingerie, foundations, maternity shop, uniforms, a teen shop, junior dresses, junior sportswear, junior coats and junior suits.
On the third floor were domestics, bedding, curtains, draperies, lamps, furniture, dinnerware, China, glassware, giftware, flowers, housewares, appliances and small electrics along with a little girls’ shop, girls’ shop, little gents’ shop, toddlers’ wear, infants’ ware and children’s shoes.
The fourth floor was devoted to toys and games. It featured an auditorium and the personnel and executive offices.
In the separate but adjoining south building at 226 North E Street was the home furnishings center, furniture, carpets, rugs, appliances with a section devoted to Hoover appliances, a home planning center and television repair.
The Harris Company store provided lavish Christmas and Easter promotional displays, in some cases involving automation.
In 1947, the San Bernardino Harris Company store was the first building to incorporate what is today referred to generically as an escalator, one designed and built by the Smithtown, New York-based Peelle Company, which called its creation “the Motorstair,” as the Otis Elevator Company at that time held the patent on its own product, which was known by its copyrighted name escalator.
The company eventually grew to nine large department stores, which included stores in Bakersfield, Hemet, Indio, Moreno Valley, Palmdale, Redlands, Riverside and Victorville.
In 1966 the advent of the Inland Center Mall began to draw the city’s and the outlying community’s customers away from downtown San Bernardino. In 1969, city officials gave go-ahead to the concept of rejuvenating the downtown area with a shopping mall, one which was to be fleshed out with three anchors – JC Penney, Montgomery Wards and the existing Harris’. In 1972, the two-floor Central City Mall opened with 52 stores. In 1973 an addition directly linked the mall to the Harris Company. That improvement involved tiles and wrought iron from Portugal to create a resplendent stairway and landing.
The intent was for the mall to expand in increments over the years, involving nearby or adjoining mid-rise buildings, eventual fourth, fifth and sixth anchors, as well as an urban park and an aerial tram.
While more modest improvements to the mall were made, and at one point the number of stores and shops it contained grew to 117, the mall never reached the heights once envisaged for it.
By the late 1970s, the mall was facing the challenge of local gangs having settled upon it as a hangout, particularly during the peak shopping hours of Friday night until Sunday. Management of the mall twice changed hands, and over the next decade city officials differed over how to go about rescuing the facility. In the late 1980s, a concerted effort by city officials, the mall’s owners, developers and outside investors was made to revitalize it. The resultant makeover included outfitting it with a 36-foot colorful carousel near one of the entrances at the bottom floor, artistic façades and trendy interior decoration, efforts to appeal to families, particularly with young children, and strategies to discourage gang activity in, at and around the mall and its parking lot. Rechristened the Carousel Mall, it experienced something of a resurgence, but that was only temporary. In 1994, the mall was dealt an irreparable blow when the U.S. Department of Defense closed Norton Air Force Base, which severely hampered San Bernardino economically.
In 1981, Spanish retailer El Corte Inglés, S.A. acquired the Harris Company and its nine stores.
Harris’ Department Store in San Bernardino by that point was yet stately but old fashioned rather than at the cutting edge of the retail industry. It was that adherence to the old ways that gave it its cachet.
In 1997, the Harris Company undertook a $27 million effort to update its nine-store chain. The City of San Bernardino, yet committed to keeping its downtown core alive, put up some money toward that renovation effort.
Upon the completion of those chainwide improvements, the Harris Company merged with Gottschalks in 1998, and the stores were initially renamed Harris-Gottschalks. Most of the original Harris’ stores eventually dropped the name Harris’, except the Bakersfield, Indio and Moreno Valley locations, which continued to operate under the Harris-Gottschalks name. The original Harris’ in downtown San Bernardino, which was in direct competition with the Gottschalks at the Inland Center Mall, was closed on January 31, 1999.
After the closure, ownership of the downtown San Bernardino Harris’ building remained with El Corte Inglés, S.A.
In 2001, Montgomery Ward went out of business, which entailed the closure of its San Bernardino store. JC Penney was left as the only anchor at the Carousel Mall, and it too closed out at the San Bernardino location in 2003. Still, gunning for survival, the mall’s owners at the time sought to apply a mixed-use concept to fill vacated retail space nearest the mall’s 3rd Street entrance.
On March 29, 2005 the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved a ten-year lease agreement with two five-year options to extend for 28,892 square feet of office space at the Carousel Mall for use by its children and family services division. The original term of the lease was from September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2015. Other portions of the mall’s cavernous interior were filled with San Bernardino City School District offices.
LNR Property Corp. purchased the property in February 2006, declaring an intention to convert the existing structure into a high density residential and commercial project through tenant improvements. That effort stalled out, and in January 2008, LNR Corp sold all of the Carousel Mall property, minus the Harris Company building which remained in the possession of El Corte Inglés, S.A. and the JC Penney’s building which was owned by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, to Lynwood-based developer Placo San Bernardino LLC, for $23.5 million. Placo expressed serious designs on reinvigorating the mall and obtaining short-term financing to undertake improvements, signaling it was on a crash schedule to do just that. But that same year, CinemaStar shuttered its theater on the mall’s grounds.
Placo remained committed, however, refinancing its early short-term financing, with a $16.5 million loan from Center Bank.
In May 2010, with its plan stalled, Placo was failing to make its payments to Center Bank. The City of San Bernardino’s economic development agency swooped in and bought the property’s note and deed of trust from Center Bank for slightly over $13.1 million. The city, based on backroom discussions with county officials, had visions of filling large portions of the mall with county offices.
Relations between Placo and the city had entirely broken down by that point. Placo, which claimed it was still intent on making a go of revitalizing the mall, said it was being undercut by the city, which was militating to tenantize it with county government offices. The city pressed Placo to pay it the $5 million difference between the amount it had paid for the mall and the amount of money loaned it by Center Bank with interest.
In 2011, there were 33 shops in the mall.
In April 2014, San Bernardino County signaled that it would not renew its lease on the space within the mall, and its children and family services division would leave the premises when its ten-year lease expired the following year.
In November 2014, its bridges burned with Placo, the city began looking for another operator of the mall which might lure tenants to locate there. Then-San Bernardino Mayor Carey Davis and then-San Bernardino City Manager Allen Parker sent a letter to more than 80 “development concerns” soliciting return letters of interest to the city relating to the mall. Those letters sought the developers’ vision of what could be done with the mall. Purposefully, city officials avoided providing any description of its own dictates or limitations with regard to the property, wanting to see what the development community’s conception of the potential of the property was. Fourteen developers responded to the proposal, all of whom presented ideas which then-Deputy City Manager Bill Manis said “had legs and could really run with this project.” Further evaluation continued and Manis said three of those, AECOM/Fransen, Tishman and Hunt and were deemed serious enough for him and then-Community Development Director Mark Persico to engage them in substantial dialogue.
By January 2015, there were 17 businesses remaining at the Carousel Mall, including four restaurants. Whatever prospect the city once felt it had of luring the county into locating its offices there had by that point faded. The prospect of having a public/private partnership loomed larger as a solution to the makeover of the mall property.
In November 2015, the City of San Bernardino, in a move sanctioned by its city council, entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement with AECOM, the Fransen Company and KB Homes to redevelop the Carousel Mall commercially, simultaneously intensifying the adjacent Theater Square and capping the effort with town homes/condominiums to be intersticed with the shopping opportunities. The aggressive step toward rejuvenation of the county seat appeared to be moving ahead rapidly. The following month, December 2015, the city council as it was then composed signed off on AECOM, the Fransen Company and KB Homes pushing full steam ahead with bringing in restaurant and third party developers and establishing town square street lights, utilities, signage and the extension of Third Street as a paseo, i.e. walkway by 2017, constructing 60 units of apartments that would “wrap” the existing mall building and be placed in front of the existing garage by 2018, begin filling tenant-improved spaces at the mall with neighborhood retail stores by 2019 and adding 35,000 square feet of retail operations, 275 townhomes and a charter school by 2020. According to Vaughan Davies, a principal in AECOM, the existing parking structure at the mall would remain intact. From the synergy that would be created by the development to be achieved by 2020 and the cultural draw of the adjacent Regal Cinemas and California Theatre in the downtown area, further development of the mall property would take on a life of its own and continue over the next decade until the area would a thriving example of a postmodern urban landscape, Davies prognosticated.
To facilitate the redevelopment plans for the mall, in November 2017 city officials arranged for, and the city council assented to, the exchange of 115 acres of vacant land in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains at the city’s extreme northeast end for the 2.48-acres JC Penney site on the mall property.
Despite the scintillating predictions by AECOM, the Fransen Company and KB Homes for the rejuvenation of downtown San Bernardino, none of what was spoken about in such glowing terms in November and December 2015 ever came about. A major hindrance was that given San Bernardino’s impoverished demographics, financing to undertake an effort of the magnitude envisioned by the city, AECOM, the Fransen Company and KB Homes was simply not forthcoming, as lending institutions were not willing to engage in that sort of risk.
In 2018, John Valdivia, who had been San Bernardino Third Ward Councilman since 2012, defeated Carey Davis in that year’s mayoral race.
Valdivia’s administration picked up where Davis’s had left off, pursuing the retransformation of the Carousel Mall property.
Of difficulty, however, is Valdivia’s propensity for seeking to convert matters that he deals with as a public official to his own financial advantage. It went without saying that any company or consortium willing to take on a project of the scale the Carousel Mall property redevelopment represented would need to have an immense cash flow, a portion of which could be used as political grease of the sort that could be diverted Valdivia’s way. Even before he had become mayor, as the City of San Bernardino was adopting to the reality of the 2016 passage of Proposition 64, which legalized the use and sale of marijuana for its intoxicative effect taken together with the passage the same year of Measure O, a city voter initiative allowing marijuana to be sold in the city, Valdivia began shaking down applicants for city business licenses and permits to operate cannabis-related shops or cultivation concerns. Upon his becoming mayor in December 2018, a much higher profile position than that of councilman, the degree to which he had merged his own personal financial and professional function with that of his status as an elected official became apparent. Thrown in stark relief was his company, AAdvantage Comm LLC, through which he served as a consultant to businesses looking to obtain project approval or obtain contracts or franchises with the governmental entities he heads, which include the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, a joint powers authority involving the cities of San Bernardino, Highland, Loma Linda, Colton and San Bernardino County engaged in managing the civilian use conversion of the former Norton Air Force Base into a publicly owned and operated aerodrome, as well as the Inland Valley Development Authority, a joint powers authority involving the cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Colton and San Bernardino County devoted to the improvement of the property around the airport. From shortly after the time he was elected mayor, Valdivia was appointed the chairman or president or vice president of the two joint powers authorities. In addition to using his elected and appointed status to obtain lucrative consulting or representational work with companies, entities or individuals, Valdivia has engaged, using taxpayer funds, in extensive travel around California, the United States and internationally to interact with business interests. These junkets, which are ostensible efforts to interest companies in setting up operations in San Bernardino or in one fashion or another invest or participate in the local economy, have also been used by Valdivia to generate money or donations for himself, or make investments in his political future, as it were.
One area of the globe in which Valdivia has shown a particular interest is China. One Chinese company in particular that Valdivia has had considerable interaction with is SCG America.
SCG America is a subsidiary wholly owned by Shanghai Construction Group. SCG America, headquartered in New York City and with a California office in Garden Grove, has been involved for more than three decades in developing real estate in the United States. Shanghai Construction Group was the general contractor for the Chinese Embassy building in Washington, D.C. that opened in 2008. The company currently has billions of dollars invested in developed real estate, undeveloped real estate, ongoing development and asset management in the United States.
In 2019, when San Bernardino asked for redevelopment proposals for the Carousel Mall, SCG America was one of the eleven companies or consortia that responded to that request. When the city dismissed six of those parties interested in undertaking the redevelopment project without specifying how those half dozen proposals came up short, SCG America was one of the five remaining companies in the running. After three of those five were informed that their bids to oversee the mall site conversion did not meet the city’s expectations, again with no explanation of the rationale for their exclusion from further consideration, SCG America was still standing.
On January 27, the San Bernardino City Council held a special study session, one that was not physically convened in one location but which was instead conducted electronically in keeping with Governor Gavin Newsom’s mandated orders to avoid large public gatherings as a precaution against the spread of the coronavirus.
Representatives of SCG America previewed their vision for how the former mall property should be developed. Their plan called for a mixed-use development with 1,875 residential units, including studio apartments, larger apartments and townhomes, along with offices, a hotel, a food hall, restaurants with outdoor dining, a fitness center with yoga facilities, retail and professional shops, and open space. The only element of the existing mall that would be retained under the project, which is to be given the name “Galand,” would be what the presenters said was to be an open-air community hub.
The other proposal heard was from the consortium of New York City-based Renaissance Downtowns and Los Angeles-based ICO Real Estate, each of which was originally one the eleven separate competitors, but which are now working jointly. They offered an assurance that their plan is financially feasible in a way that SCG America’s is not. Their approach was one built in large measure on upping the size of the downtown makeover area from the 43 acres currently under consideration at the Carousel Mall site to closer to 300 acres and creating a waterway through the downtown area, accompanied by a riverwalk. An upscale residential and commercial zone would branch off of that centerpiece. The Renaissance Downtowns/ICO plan was less detailed with regard to the types of commercial and residential uses that would articulate with the plan, with the proviso that those eventually will be derived through resident input as the project proceeds. As presented, there appeared to be a possibility that the existing Harris Company edifice might be preserved and incorporated into the modernization effort throughout the entire downtown area. The plan called for seeking federal grants and a proliferation of rooftop gardens where produce for local restaurants would be cultivated, a close if not precise throwback to the rooftop garden the Harris brothers had included on the Harris building.
The city council held off on hearing input from the city’s residents until after the presentations from SCG America and Renaissance Downtowns/ICO were completed. Thereafter public input was heard. A total of 76 people weighed in with regard to the makeover project, with two hours ten minutes and 35 seconds devoted to public comments. City Clerk Geneva Rocha began playing recorded telephone messages from the public recorded prior to the meeting at three hours 19 minutes and ten seconds into the meeting. The final speaker concluded at the 5 hour 29 minute and 45 second point of the study session.
Shortly prior to the public input, three hours 11 minutes and 35 seconds into the workshop, City Manager Robert Field offered what he said was “a brief update on the demolition process.
“We have basically completed the solicitation document to hire an architect to do what is called a bridging document,” Field said. “We’re going to treat the demolition project essentially – kind of sounds counterintuitive – but like a design build. We will hire a team that will be charged with designing the demolition process and completing and concluding it. So, that will be coming back to the council shortly. If anyone on the city council has any questions of me…”
At that point, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 11 seconds into the video of the study session, the mayor broke in. “Mr. City Manager, the demolition was so ordered beginning on or about the latter part of October 2020,” Valdivia stated. “Does that conclude your remarks regarding the demolition phase?”
“It does, yes,” Field responded.
That discussion related to the demolition of the structures on the Carousel Mall property.
In actuality, in October 2020 no such order by the council was made.
Indeed, Valdivia was militating on behalf of SCG America by attempting to slip into the public record an insinuation he knew to be untrue.
Valdivia’s reference was to a previous study session held by the city council on October 28, 2020. At that meeting, no order or direction to demolish the structures on the mall property was made.
Six days after that, on November 3, a municipal election corresponding with the Presidential General Election was held in which two of the then-serving council members, Henry Nickel and Jim Mulvihill, were defeated, respectively, by Ben Christmas-Reynoso and Damon Alexander. Eight months previously, in the March 3 municipal election corresponding to the California Presidential Primary election, another city council member whose term did not expire until December, Councilwoman Bessine Richard, was defeated by Kimberly Calvin. Thus, serving on the council on January 27 were three new members of the council – Christmas-Reynoso, Alexander and Calvin – who were not in attendance at the October 28 study session. Valdivia’s statement on January 27 that the demolition of the structures on the Carousel Mall property had been authorized in October was a prevarication intended to mislead the council’s three newest members into believing the city had already made a commitment to action that would benefit SCG America in its competition with Renaissance Downtowns/ICO.
Field, who implicitly and explicitly understood that what the mayor said was not accurate, neglected to set the record straight, going along with Valdivia’s attempt at deception.
Dr. Treasure Ortiz, a San Bernardino resident who ran for Third Ward councilwoman in a special election held in 2019 and who is being pushed by some residents toward a run for mayor in 2022, said she has “concerns about the misrepresentations that were made by the mayor, the city manager and SCG America to perpetrate misappropriation of funds and pay-to-play corruption during the January 27 study session. I know that numerous residents throughout all wards have expressed their concerns about the lies, attempt to misappropriate and the corruption, and have asked for a special meeting to be called so everything can be addressed publicly before the council’s March 3 vote on who is to get the mall redevelopment contract. More information has come to light regarding the mayor’s inappropriate behavior/promotion of SCG America to members of the community, city staff and council prior to the January 27 meeting and his personal and financial ties to SCG America and another major developer who was involved in the bribery scheme of LA Councilman Jose Huizar.”
Ortiz continued, “At the end of the presentation portion of the meeting on January 27, 2021, the mayor and city manager blatantly lied and tried to deceive the council about the $10 million demolition of the Carousel Mall. This was not a misspeak, accident or just getting ahead of ourselves. This was an attempt to misappropriate $10 million in public funds. Mayor Valdivia presented the demolition as ‘so ordered’ on or about the latter part of October 2020 and Robert Field agreed, but that is absolutely false. The meeting Valdivia was referring to was actually a study session held on October 28, 2020.”
Ortiz said “Valdivia stated during the October 28 recorded study session discussion was only to take place and no action was going to be taken; and no vote was taken. The city manager did note that after the new year he would come back with information on grant funding that may help offset the cost of demolition if the council was to go in that direction. There was no agreement for a bridging document or request for proposals [for the demolition]. Since October 28, no discussion of demolition has been agenized.”
Ortiz continued, “It is my understanding that the city manager has yet to correct what was said and state the demolition was not ‘so ordered.’ Nor has he tried to clarify why he did not tell the truth. The city manager’s willingness to collude with the mayor and deceive the council and the public in order to move forward an unapproved taxpayer funded project is illegal and will not be tolerated.”
Ortiz opined that Field’s action in backing Valdivia in the attempt to load the dice in favor SCG America is as serious of a violation of the public trust as that of the mayor.
“When a city manager goes out of his way to perpetrate this level of dishonesty and illegal activity, he has shown he cannot be trusted to manage the city any further,” she said.
More pointedly, Ortiz said, “SCG America and their representative, Ms. Jennifer Pang, willingly and openly lied about never soliciting an elected official from our city. The mayor and Councilman Juan Figueroa went and met with SCG America at their main office in October 2019. We know this because the mayor posted a picture of himself and Juan with the SCG America team, consisting of Winfred Zhang, Qi Zang & Jennifer Pang, to his social media accounts. The mayor’s post states that they were talking about development in our city.”
Ortiz referenced the indictment of Los Angeles Councilman Joe Huizar, comparing his actions to those of Valdivia.
SCG America was the developer of Perla on Broadway, a 450 unit luxury condominium project in Downtown Los Angeles completed in 2020 that was mentioned in Huizar’s indictment. SCG America Vice President Qi Wang, with whom, despite Pang’s denials, Valdivia and Figueroa met in 2019, was also the executive vice president of the SCG America subsidiary company called Broadway Elite LLC, which managed the Perla on Broadway project. In the FBI’s investigation into Jose Huizer, it was found that Huizar used what the U.S. Department of Justice referred to as “corruption political action committees” to launder his larger bribes.
“One of these so-called corruption political action committees was ‘Families for a Better Los Angeles,’” Ortiz said. “In that committee’s campaign disclosure 460 Form filing on May 9, 2019, it shows a $25,000 contribution from Broadway Elite LLC. Qi Wang and other employees of Broadway Elite LLC also donated directly to the campaigns of Jose Huizar and his wife Richelle Huizar.”
Huizar regularly was provided accommodations at several Chinese-owned hotels in the Los Angeles/Southern California area. In October 2020, Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc. the Arcadia-based subsidiary of the Chinese company Shenzhen Hazens, agreed to pay $1,050,000 as part of a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S, Department of Justice to resolve an investigation into the company’s conduct with public officials in the City of Los Angeles, which included bribery, honest services fraud, and foreign and conduit campaign contributions violations. Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc. was created by Shenzhen Hazens to acquire, operate and redevelop the Los Angeles Luxe City Center Hotel, which it purchased in 2014 for more than $100 million. Illegal activity involving Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc. and several U.S. politicians was uncovered by the FBI as a part of the investigation into Huizar. That activity included Jia Yuan employees making campaign contributions to several U.S. political candidates, some of whom were later reimbursed by the company at the direction of a foreign national, who was prohibited from participating in U.S. elections; Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc.’s providing in-kind contributions to several U.S. political candidates by hosting reduced-cost fundraising events at the Luxe Hotel, some of which took place at the direction of a foreign national who was prohibited from participating in U.S. elections; Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc.’s payment of indirect bribe payments to politicians; Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc.’s coordination or orchestration of trips by U.S. politicians to China, the expenses for which were wholly or partially defrayed or subsidized by Shenzhen Hazens.
Valdivia is one of those U.S. politicians Jia Yuan USA Co., Inc. was illicitly influencing.
Valdivia’s California Form 460s, i.e., his campaign fund disclosure documents, obtained by the Sentinel show that on at least two occasions in 2019, Valdiva made use of the Luxe City Center Hotel for meetings or fundraising activity, with his campaign paying what looked to be drastically reduced rates for those accommodations.
Documentation also shows that Valdivia’s campaign covered the $904.45 cost of using Intercontinental Hotel Group’s hotel accommodations on at least five occasions, for meetings and fundraising events, well below what would normally be charged to a member of the public or a company for using those facilities. Further documentation obtained by the Sentinel shows that DKN Hotels on December 29, 2020 defrayed for Valdivia the $3,000 cost of holding a pre-New Year’s Eve 2020/21 fundraiser gala at one of its hotels. At that liquor-lubricated event, Valdivia brought in tens of thousands of dollars to finance his future campaigns. DKN Hotels and Intercontinental Hotel Group, through a multitude of cutouts, are linked to SCG America.
The apparent effort by SCG America to launder money to Valdivia through his campaign while he is attempting to manipulate the city council to approve giving SCG America go-ahead to redevelop the Carousel Mall property, Oriz said, “is extremely disconcerting to see.” Pointing to “the case of Jose Huizar that is ongoing with companies and people that our mayor is involved with” Ortiz said, “Any connection to corruption must be looked at and addressed.”
In addition to regularly filing California Form 460s delineating political contributions and the spending of that money, elected officials in California are required to fill out Form 700 documents, statements of economic interest, showing income and assets those officials are receiving and possess.
Like all politicians, Valdivia is supposed to list the sources of income he is receiving. In a clever use of sleight of hand, Valdivia lists his business, AAdvantage Comm LLC, for which he gives “consulting” as the general description of the business, without specifying whence AAdvantage Comm draws its income. On the document he indicates an annual income of between $10,001 and $100,000 into AAdvntage Comm LLC, but does not disclose from whom the money originated. It is therefore impossible to know whether Valdivia received any income or payments from Shanghai Construction Group or SCE America.
Valdivia, in filling out his most recently posted annual Form 700 document, which was filed with the city clerk at 58 seconds after 10:56 am on May 29, 2020, acknowledged having traveled to Zhenjiang Jiangsu, China on July 19, 2019 and having returned on July 27, 2019, with $2,361 the cost of the trip having been defrayed by “Zhenjiang People’s Government of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.” The Form 700 describes the $2,361 as a gift covering “travel expenses during official government travel” and that the “Trip to China consisted of representation of the City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino International Airport Authority. Events attributed in this schedule were in attendance in the official capacity as mayor of City of San Bernardino and/or president of the SBIAA [the San Bernardino International Airport Authority].”
Of note is that in December 2019, in two installments of $10,000 each on December 17 and December 31, some two months after Valdivia’s and Figueroa’s meeting with Winfred Zhang, Qi Zang & Jennifer Pang of SCG America which Pang during the January 27 study session falsely denied took place, Valdivia’s electioneering fund was provided with $20,000 by Alexandria Zagha of Corona. On November 7, 2019, Figueroa received $5,000 from Zagha. In Valdivia’s Form 460, Zagha is described as an “underwriter” with “Old Republic.” In Figueroa’s Form 460, she is described as a “recruiter” with “Hire On.” Sources have suggested that Zagha is a cutout or laundering vehicle for funds originating with SCG America.
Ortiz said, “When looking at the Mayor’s 460s, his hotel lodgings and visits, connection to developers from China, trips to China and the Department of Justice’s report on the type of bribes and non-reported gifts Huizar received, one could easily interchange the name Jose Huizar with John Valdivia in the report findings. He is staying and visiting the same hotels that the Department of Justice reported were used by Shenzen Hazen to bribe Huizar and other elected officials. The hotels offered a place to hold meetings, fundraisers, and enjoy stays, all at discounted rates or no cost. Some of these hotels are also owned by partners of SCG America.”
She continued, “Mayor Valdivia has been known for his pay-to-play antics and has demonstrated his willingness to intercede on a political contributor’s behalf with his influence on certain council members and his power to veto. A letter from the city attorney’s office was read during a January 2019 council meeting stating that the actions of John Valdivia put the city in the position of potential litigation. We are now facing multiple lawsuits because of his behavior and not addressing his connection and Councilman Figueroa’s to SCG America may bring about another.”
Saying “It was my understanding that no one in the city was to show support for any developer under consideration for the downtown redevelopment project, nor were the two developers to promote their project publicly prior to the January 27 presentation to the council,” Ortiz observed, “It has been revealed that the mayor was openly sharing the promo video of SCG America to anyone who had the misfortune of passing by his office, including city staff, council members and residents. Why was this allowed? Why hasn’t this been disclosed? If the mayor had no ties to SCG America, why is he out publicly promoting that company on city time, in his official capacity as mayor? Why didn’t he speak up and say that he and Juan Figueroa have a relationship with SCG America? What is he hiding? And more importantly, what is he set to personally gain with this relationship and a potential $800 million dollar project up for bid in his city?”
The Sentinel through multiple phone calls to both Valdivia’s and Field’s offices at City Hall and emails sent to both sought responses to Ortiz’s statements regarding their action on January 27, and an explanation as to why Valdivia misrepresented that the city council last October had authorized the demolition of the structures at the Carousel Mall. The Sentinel sought from Field why he did not correct the mayor’s misrepresentation to prevent the three new members of the city council from assuming the city is committed to the complete removal of the structures on the former mall grounds. Neither the mayor nor the city manager responded to those inquiries and Valdivia spurned a request from the Sentinel to explain his relationship to SCG America.

Proponents Of Voter-Approved Government Reform Plan Ask Supervisors To End Their Legal Action Blocking Its Implementation

This week, the proponents of a reform measure passed overwhelmingly by voters in November made an appeal to the members of the county board of supervisors to desist in their effort to thwart the will of the county residents who approved the ballot initiative.
Measure K called for reducing the supervisors’ nearly $300,000 yearly compensation packages and was given approval by more than twice the number of the county’s voters who opposed it. Now, as the county’s ultimate decision-making body whose generous salaries and benefits are being threatened by that reform measure, the supervisors have taken legal action to block the initiative from taking effect.
The Red Brennan Group last year qualified Measure K for the November 2020 ballot. Measure K called for reducing the members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to part time status, setting their combined annual compensation at $60,000 per year, consisting of $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in benefits, and limiting them to one four-year term in office.
The Red Brennan Group, formed and named in honor of the late government reform activist Kiernan Brennan, asserted that the $170,000 in salaries the supervisors receive augmented by as much as $120,000 in benefits and supplementary or add-on pay elevates the board members to a social and financial status that puts them out of step with the vast majority of the county citizens they represent, and further leaves the supervisors so determined to hang onto their lucrative positions that they are willing to take in hundreds of thousands of dollars from political donors with business before the county so they can conduct aggressive campaigns to convince the voters to keep them in office. In return for those donations, the Red Brennan Group maintains, the supervisors over the years have demonstrated a willingness to do favors for those donors by approving their development projects or approving their contracts or franchises with the county in a way that is beneficial to the donors but detrimental to the constituents the supervisors represent.
Measure K, the Red Brennan Group maintains, by substantially reducing the pay the supervisors are to receive, would leave them less desperate to remain in office and less vulnerable to being influenced by deep-pocketed interests willing to provide them with money to remain in office. Moreover, reducing the county’s ruling class’s pay to a level in line with the average amount of money made by county residents would make the county’s political leaders sensitive to the reality the average person must deal with, the measure’s sponsors believe. The measure’s one-term limit would doubly ensure that the supervisors would not be beholden to those seeking to corrupt them through offering them political money, the Red Brennan Group asserts, since the supervisors in office would not be in the position of having to raise money to stay in office.
Last spring, faced with the consideration that the Red Brennan Group had gathered the signatures of 75,132 county voters to qualify Measure K for the November ballot, the supervisors detailed the county’s senior staff members and the county’s stable of in-house attorneys, known as the office of county counsel, to see if there was some procedural or legal grounds to keep the pay reduction and term limit measure from going before the county’s voters. When that gambit came up empty, they speedily cobbled together what they called a county charter reform measure of their own which called for setting their pay at a level which would allow them to continue to make no less than $240,000 per year in total compensation and as much as $310,000 in total compensation, and which solidified the already existing three term limit imposed on the supervisors. The supervisors needed to gather no signatures to qualify their initiative for a vote, and were able to use their own authority to place it on the ballot. That measure was dubbed Measure J, and put on the November ballot above Measure K, which was a ploy to have the voters pass Measure J instead of Measure K, as historic voting patterns show that a measure or candidate that appears higher on the ballot is statistically more likely to prevail or pass.
When the vote was held on November 3 in conjunction with the 2020 General Presidential Election, Measure K passed overwhelmingly, with 516,184 or 66.84 percent of the 772,282 voters participating supporting it, and 256,098 voters or 33.16 percent opposed.
Simultaneously Measure J passed as well, but by a far thinner margin, 378,964 votes or 50.72 percent to 368,224 or 49.28 percent.
Because Measure K had garnered more votes and passed by a greater percentage, the elements in it that were in conflict with Measure J, namely the reduction of the supervisors’ individual total compensation to $60,000 rather than the roughly $280,000 on average they would be permitted under Measure J and the reduction of the number of terms the supervisors could serve from three to one, the compensation level and term reductions in Measure K were to go into effect.
The board of supervisors, bypassing the office of county counsel, hired the Los Angeles-based Sutton Law Firm and three of its attorneys, Bradley Hertz, James Sutton and Nicholas Sanders, who on December 2, 2020 filed on the supervisors’ behalf a petition for a writ of mandate naming the supervisors’ own employee, San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Lynna Monell, as a defendant, asking the court to order Monell not to take any action that would put Measure K into effect.
Though the Red Brennan Group was not named in the petition, the suit brought by the board of supervisors named Does 1 through 100, inclusive, among whom the Sentinel is informed, will be any and all members of the Red Brennan Group to eventually be identified by the county.
In the petition, Hertz, Sutton and Sanders maintain on the board of supervisors’ behalf that only the board of supervisors can determine its members’ pay; that the supervisors have a constitutional right to serve as many terms as they personally wish as long as they can maintain the support of the voters in doing so; that the Red Brennan Group, as Measure K’s proponents, packed too many provisions into the measure; and that Measure K interferes with the operation of county government.
According to the board’s writ of mandate petition, “Measure K suffers from… fatal flaws, which make it unconstitutional, legally invalid, and/or otherwise unenforceable.”
The suit maintains that throughout California, only county boards of supervisors, and not the voters via the initiative process, can set the level of supervisorial pay; that Measure K’s single lifetime term limit provision violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; that Measure K illegally intruded on matters exclusively delegated to the board of supervisors; that Measure K violated the single subject rule for ballot measures; that Measure K inhibits or impairs essential government functions; that Measure K violates California’s prohibition on retroactive term limits; that Measure K illegally adjusts sitting officials’ salaries; and that Measure K wrongly combined a term limit provision with a compensation provision.
In addition to seeking from the court an order preventing Monnell from taking any action that would implement Measure K’s provisions, the petition for a writ of mandate seeks a judicial declaration that Measure K is invalid and unenforceable or, in the alternative if the court determines Measure K is valid and enforceable, a declaration the measure’s provisions do not take effect until 2022 at the earliest. The petition further seeks that “this court award petitioner [i.e., the board of supervisors] the costs of this proceeding,” but does not make clear whether it is Monell or the Red Brennan Group who should bear the cost of paying the Sutton Law Firm as well as Hertz, Sutton and Sanders their legal fees.
This week, at the board of supervisors meeting on Tuesday, February 9, Tom Murphy, one of the principals in the Red Brennan Group addressed the supervisors. “The Red Brennan Group has been concerned about the growing size scope and performance of San Bernardino County government,” Murphy said, noting that Measure K had delved head on into “supervisor compensation and term limits. On the strength of 70,000 signatures Measure K was presented to county voters and approved by a supermajority of those voters. Measure K with its limit of one term and cap compensation was the only option for reform.”
Rhetorically, Murphy asked, “How did this board respond to the success of Measure K?” Answering, he said, “Rather than acknowledge the supermajority vote and take a leadership role to implement Measure K, this board chose to go to [court], effectively using the taxpayers’ resources against them. This is both bad leadership and bad politics from the perspective of the voters. This board is simply rubberstamping the direction given to them by county bureaucrats.”
Chad Keel, another Red Brennan Group member, told the supervisors, “On the strength of just five politicians’ signatures, Measure J was placed on the last November’s ballot to compete with Measure K. It lost by a huge margin and none of this measure is valid and your attorneys know this. Continuing to pay yourselves in accordance with Measure J amounts to theft of funds belonging to the citizens of this county.”
Keel said, “We invite you to reset your goals in moving forward, stopping the county’s continued abuse of the legal system to stop the expressed will of the county voters and stopping the unconstrained and overexpanding growth in the size of compensation of the county bureaucracy.”
Natalie Zuk, who functions as the Red Brennan Group’s chief spokesperson, said, “I am here on behalf of the 516,000 county voters who voted in favor of Measure K and want to see it through. The Red Brennan Group will work with anyone for the benefit of this county in good faith, but you can expect an absence of a showing of good faith and cooperation from yourselves. We invite you to vigorously defend Measure K on behalf of the 66 percent of county voters who approved this measure. In accordance with the California Elections Code, Measure K won. Therefore Measure J should have no effect, and we will aggressively defend that position in court.”
Zuk told the board, “The Red Brennan Group will support any candidates for the 2022 county supervisors election willing to serve in accordance with the terms set forth under Measure K and to forswear contributions from special interests in an effort to build trust in the political system within the county shown by actions rather words. We seek to deliver the best government to the county citizens for no more than the true cost of providing that product, with the leftover balance being used creatively to benefit this county’s citizens rather than its governing elite.”
Because Murphy, Keel and Zuk were addressing the board during its open citizen comment forum and the subject of Measure K was not on the board’s agenda, its members present in the county board chamber – Fourth District Supervisor and Board Chairman Curt Hagman, Second District Supervisor Janice Rutherford and Fifth District Supervisor Joe Baca, Jr. – and the two other members of the board participating remotely from their respective locations in the desert region of the county – First District Supervisor Paul Cook and Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe – were not at liberty to respond.
The lawsuit is being litigated in the courtroom of San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez.
-Mark Gutglueck

Velto Power Play To Elevate Himself & His Sponsor Richards To H2O Board Thwarted

A power play by recently-elected and newly-installed Upland Mayor Bill Velto was at least temporarily set back this week, as his effort to appoint himself and one of his political backers to the board of a water company that is slightly more than two-thirds owned by the city was delayed.
The unanticipated snag betrayed what some perceived as a fissure in the ruling coalition that Velto has been laboring with some degree of intensity and a less measure of success to assemble since his election. He will need that governing majority to remain intact if he is to push through with his political agenda for the next two years. The contretemps over the appointment provoked a show of temper and egotism Velto in his two years on the council has, with general success, sought to mask. Nevertheless, at one point on Monday night an outburst he engaged in appeared to threaten a rupturing with the senior member of the council to whom he owes, at least in part, his presence on the council which provided him with the platform to achieve the mayoralty in last year’s election.
Made clear by the confrontation was that at present Velto does not possess sufficient council alliances that will allow him to achieve the leverage of dominance he indicated he felt he is entitled to as mayor.
On Monday night, the council was scheduled to make four appointments to the board of the San Antonio Water Company. The City of Upland has a 93 percent shareholder interest in the West End Consolidated Water Company and a 68 percent shareholder interest in the larger San Antonio Water Company. Both those companies, along with wells owned by the city, are the source of the water the city provides to residences and business through its water department. As a consequence of its better than two-thirds ownership of the San Antonio Water Company, known by its acronym SAWCO, the city has essential control of its seven-member board of directors.
Because the San Antonio Heights Water Company supplies domestic water to San Antonio Heights, the unincorporated county community north of Upland and south of the Angeles National Forest, a tradition of reserving two of the seats on the water company board has been established. Given the city’s control of the water company, in making its selection of the company’s board members over the years, the Upland City Council has sought to designate individuals who are amenable to carrying out the city’s will with regard to the Upland community’s overarching water policy as is formulated by the staff within the municipal water department, which is a division within the city’s public works department.
The city in recent decades has had a pattern of appointing a single member of the city council to serve on the San Antonio Water Company board, and that individual has been charged with keeping the city council and top city administrators informed of how the water company is being managed and run. While there was at one time discussion of appointing all four city council members and the mayor to five of the water company’s board positions, that was never carried out because of concern that in rare instances where a conflict existed between the water company and the city, restrictions in California State Law with regard to conflicts of interest could create a situation in which all five of the city’s elected decision-makers and five-sevenths of the water company’s panel entrusted with making its corporate determinations would be unable to vote, paralyzing both entities. Indeed, a policy against placing even as many as two council members on the company board was adhered to because of concerns that in such instances where a conflict existed, the city would be reduced to having a bare quorum – three members – rendering a decision and the water company board would be in a position of seeing the number of its board members participating in hashing out such matters reduced to five. Moreover, because of the potential for such conflicts existing on a constant basis, the city would need to be on a continual lookout for such legal entanglements, and would need to go to the not inconsiderable expense of having the Upland city attorney monitor city council and company board action with an eye to warding off such conflicts. For that reason, there has long been an informal policy of appointing just one current member of the city council to the San Antonio Water Company Board of Directors, though there has been no reluctance on the part of the city to allow former city council members to serve on the company board after their affiliation with the city as elected officials has ended.
Under Upland’s protocol, as with most assignments and appointments made by the city to municipal commissions and its adjunct committees as well as to regional, intergovernmental and joint powers authorities, the mayor is entrusted with making nominations which are then subject to ratification by the full city council. On Monday night, February 8, the council was set to take up Mayor Velto’s nominations of Cable Airport owner and San Antonio Heights resident Bob Cable and former Upland City Councilman Tom Thomas to be retained on the San Antonio Water Company Board, as their current terms are coming to an end, along with the mayor’s nominations of himself and Dan Richards to replace former Upland Councilman Gino Filippi and Jose Sanchez, as their terms on the San Antonio Water Board are also drawing to a close.
Routinely, in Upland, substantial deference is shown to the mayor, such that his nominations, with very few exceptions historically, are honored and confirmed by the city council.
While half of the four nominations Velto made this week were accorded respect and ultimately given unfettered passage, two of them ground to an intractable halt, each tripped up over somewhat differing principles, both of which nevertheless had troubling implications. The mayor’s initial attempt to bull through with all four nominations revealed a lack of sensitivity on his part that demonstrated him as being in a real and substantive fashion out of sync with a majority of the council. It further exposed the degree to which Velto is testing the waters or otherwise attempting to make headway toward the ethos that prevailed in the first decade of the Third Millennium/21st Century under the rule of Mayor John Pomierski, whose political career ended in 2011 with a political corruption indictment that fetched him a two-year term in federal prison.
At the center of the contretemps Monday night was the confluence of the profit motive and the developmental imperative involved in the real estate industry, in which both Velto and his nominee, Dan Richards, are heavily involved to the tune of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and the act of governance, city policy and public control over a resource that is crucial to both Upland’s citizenry and the ability to develop real estate: the elixir of life, water. Thus, coming into Monday night’s meeting, Velto was already up against the widespread public perception that he was embarking on a course that would potentially profit himself, Richards and others similarly engaged in real estate development and sales to the detriment of the Upland residents he represents.
Immediately upon taking up the appointment item at the meeting, which was not held in one physical location but rather conducted by means of a teleconference in compliance with Governor Gavin Newsom’s restriction on large public gatherings as a means of limiting the spread of the coronavirus, Velto initiated his presentation by defending his appointment of himself and Richards, and asserting what he was attempting to do was on the up and up.
His first gesture that direction was to inform the council and the public that he would make no money – directly – by serving in the capacity of a San Antonio Water Company board member.
“I’m waiving any stipend or compensation I receive and contributing it to a charity,” he said of the pay provided to the members of the San Antonio Water Department Board of Directors. “I’m not taking any compensation for my role.”
He then couched his appointment of himself and Richards as part of an effort to protect the city and the water company by merging their oversight as much as possible, and lauding Richards as an asset to the community.
“I reached out to community members I thought had some interest in this,” he said. “I wanted to make sure that council members are part of the water company and Mayor Pro Tem [Rudy] Zuniga is there. I felt that myself being there and that Dan Richards, whose companies have invested half of a billion dollars in our city, was a qualified candidate with an extremely beneficial business background.”
To Velto, Richards’ success in the business world recommended him to the position. There are others who have drawn the opposite conclusion.
In his mid-20s in the 1970s, Richards worked as a haberdasher. By the early 1980s, he embarked on a career in real estate and real estate management, having gone to work for Jim Smirl and Smirl’s Vanguard Builders. A resident of Rancho Cucamonga, Richards ran successfully for a position on the Foothill Fire District Board of Directors. With his fellow board member, Steve Wheatley, he formed Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage, Inc. in 1983. In this capacity, he became involved in the upkeep, selling, buying and leasing of property. His experience as an elected official with the Foothill Fire District, which oversaw the fire department in Rancho Cucamonga until the district was subsumed by the city in 1989, gave him practical lessons in the function of government, and brought him into close contact with other elected officeholders as well as city officials, including city managers, planning directors, community development directors and public works directors, and an ease-of-presence among political operators and the region’s movers and shakers.
Richards became heavily involved politically, eventually becoming a member of both the San Bernardino County and California Republican Central Committees.
With Jeff Burum, Andrew Wright, Ray Crebs and 19 other investors, Richards created the Colonies Partners. In 1997, the Colonies Partners purchased from the San Antonio Water Company Liquidation Trust 489 acres of surplus water-settling property in what is now northeast Upland for $16 million. The Colonies Partners sold 40 of those acres to the California Department of Transportation for $17 million. Caltrans then used those 40 acres to construct a span of the 210 Freeway.
Thereafter, the Colonies Partners, with Richards and Burum as its managing principals, set about in earnest getting clearance from the City of Upland to develop the remaining acreage acquired from the San Antonio Water Company Liquidation Trust for what were dubbed the Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions.
Using his political connections and know-how, Richards utilized the money available to him and his associates to take political charge of Upland by supporting – indeed sponsoring and promoting – the election of John Pomierski as mayor in 2000. Because Upland had gutted its community development, planning, engineering and public works departments in 1998, Richards and Burum found themselves asking the city to welcome within its municipal limits development projects it was completely unequipped to oversee or regulate. Richards and Burum arranged for the city to hire contract planners and engineers to carry out the city’s accommodation of the development scheme, with the Colonies Partners reimbursing the city for those expenses. This created a circumstance in which the city’s development regulators found themselves in the position of being paid by the development company they were overseeing.
A major issue with regard to the development were the drainage issues that pertained to the project site, ones that were complicated by the simultaneous advent of the 210 Freeway, which created, during rainstorms, sheet flow and water runoff that could inundate the properties involved and those immediately adjacent to them. As the land where the Colonies Partners’ projects were being built was previously used for flood control purposes and was subject to four flood control easements that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District had recorded on the property in 1933, 1934, 1939 and 1962, the Colonies Partners undertook to create floodwater holding facilities on the property to ensure the homes and commercial structures to be built would not be submerged during a deluge.
Because the Colonies Partners’ political support of Pomierski had left him favorably disposed toward the company’s development program and because the city’s land use, planning, community development, engineering and public works officials were being paid indirectly by the Colonies Partners, there came about a lack of clarity with regard to which entity – the city, the Colonies Partners, the County of San Bernardino and its flood control district or the California Department of Transportation – was to be responsible for the flood control infrastructure that would need to be created as a consequence of the development of the Colonies Partners’ residential and commercial subdivisions and the construction of the 210 Freeway. San Bernardino County and its flood control district sued the Colonies Partners over that issue.
At that time, Jon Mikels was San Bernardino County’s Second District supervisor, and his jurisdiction included Upland. Mikels was insistent that any infrastructure built to accommodate the Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads developments be defrayed by the developers who would profit from those projects rather than the county and its taxpayers. In 2002, the Colonies Partners, in a strategy directed by Richards, infused then-Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Paul Biane’s campaign for Second District supervisor with $70,000. Biane defeated Mikels in that election.
When the county flood control district diverted floodwater runoff that originated from the 210 Freeway as well as from land west of the Colonies Partners’ projects into a huge pipeline that had its terminus on the property owned by the Colonies Partners and spilled that water into a 61-acre floodwater basin the Colonies Partners were constructing to hold the stormwater generated on the Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads projects, the Colonies Partners countersued the county and its flood control district. After four years of litigation, in November 2006, the board of supervisors voted 3-to-2, with supervisors Bill Postmus, Paul Biane and Gary Ovitt prevailing, to settle the suit with a $102 million payout to the Colonies Partners.
The Colonies Partners in March 2007 made a $100,000 donation to the Committee For Effective Government political action committee that had been set up by James Erwin; in May 2007 a donation of $100,000 to the Alliance for Ethical Government, a political action committee set up by Mark Kirk; a $100,000 contribution in June 2007 to the San Bernardino County Young Republicans political action committee, which was controlled by Paul Biane and his chief of staff Matt Brown; a $50,000 contribution in June 2007 to the Conservatives for a Republican Majority political action committee controlled by Bill Postmus; and a $50,000 contribution in July 2007 to the Inland Empire political action committee controlled by Postmus.
Erwin, the one-time president of the union representing San Bernardino County’s sheriff’s deputies, was one of Postmus’s political associates who in 2007 was hired to serve as assistant assessor when Postmus moved into the office of county assessor in 2007 after being elected to that position in 2006. Between 2004 and 2006, Erwin was working for the Colonies Partners as a consultant to assist the company in settling the litigation it had with the county and its flood control district.
Mark Kirk was Gary Ovitt’s chief of staff.
Biane’s chief of staff, Matt Brown, testified that in 2007, some months after the supervisors had voted to confer the $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners, he had received a telephone call from Dan Richards offering to make the $100,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Young Republicans political action committee, and that Richards said he wanted to personally inform Biane about the contribution.
In February 2010 the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office in tandem with the California Attorney General’s Office charged Postmus and Erwin with involvement in an extortion and bribery conspiracy relating to the board of supervisors’ November 2006 vote to settle the litigation between the county and the Colonies Partners by conferring the $102 million settlement on the company. In the criminal complaint, Dan Richards and Jeff Burum as the Colonies Partners co-managing principals, Colonies Partners public relations consultant Patrick O’Reilly, Supervisor Biane, and Mark Kirk in his capacity as Supervisor Gary Ovitt’s chief of staff were referenced as unidentified and uncharged co-conspirators. Both Postmus and Erwin pleaded not guilty to those charges.
During the first decade of the 21st Century, the Colonies Partners, led by Richards and Burum, proved to be the most prolific donors to the political funds of San Bernardino County’s elected officials. The money originating with the Colonies Partners and its major and minor principals was provided to those elected officials and candidates both directly to their campaigns as well as indirectly through intermediaries such as political action committees and independent expenditure vehicles. Postmus was provided with over $400,000 by the Colonies Partners and the individuals it counted as its participants and investors. Biane received some $180,000 from Richards’ and Burums’ company. Gary Ovitt and his political team received at least $140,000 from the Colonies Partners and those who composed it.
In March 2011, Upland Mayor Pomierski was indicted by a federal grand jury on bribery charges. Later that month, 13 months after Postmus and Erwin were charged in the bribery and conspiracy case, Postmus entered guilty pleas on all 14 of the felony counts against him relating to corruption on his part while he was in office along with a single drug possession count. An element of his plea agreement was that he would cooperate with prosecutors in their efforts to bring to justice others involved in the conspiracy and criminal wrongdoing he was admitting to.
A month later, in April 2011, Postmus was the star witness before a grand jury. In some measure upon the testimony that Postmus provided, in May 2011 that grand jury issued a 29-count indictment of Burum, Erwin, Biane, and Kirk.
The charges in the indictment superseded the charges filed against Erwin the previous year. Whereas in the February 2010 criminal filing against Postmus and Erwin, prosecutors had listed Richards, Burum, O’Reilly, Biane and Kirk as involved in the criminality that Postmus admitted to, the indictment handed down in May 2011 did not include Richards or O’Reilly.
Immediately after the indictment was unsealed and Burum, Erwin, Kirk and Biane were taken into custody, booked and eventually released on bail, the Colonies Partners and its constituent members, advised by their lawyers, discontinued making political donations, surrendering the company’s position as the most generous underwriter of political campaigns in the county to another developer, Reggie King.
The Colonies Partners spared no expense in assembling for Burum a legal dream team, composed of some of California’s most skilled and competent defense attorneys. Pretrial skirmishing was intense, with defense motions to dismiss the case being heard by Judge Brian McCarville. Judge McCarville granted some of those motions, while leaving other elements of the prosecution’s case intact. Thereupon. there were appeals to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside by the prosecution to reinstate the charges that had been dismissed, along with appeals by the defense to have charges upheld by McCarville dismissed. After more than a five-and-a-half-year delay during which there were two such rounds of appeals to the Fourth Appellate District and another to the California Supreme Court, the matter went to trial in January 2017 before San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith and two separate juries, one panel hearing the case against Burum, Biane and Kirk and the other impaneled to try Erwin.
Handling the prosecution in the main were Supervising Assistant California Attorney General Melissa Mandel and Senior Supervising Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope.
In May 2017, Postmus was brought in as a key witness for the prosecution, testifying over the course of two weeks. Under direct examination by Cope, Postmus testified that Erwin, who was then working as a consultant to the Colonies Partners, had blackmailed and extorted him into voting in support of the settlement by threatening to expose, while he was at that time serving as the chairman of the board of supervisors and chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, his homosexuality and drug use. He further testified that over the course of the slightly more than seven months after the settlement was made, he, Erwin, Biane and Kirk had been rewarded with $100,000 each in the form of donations made to them by the Colonies Partners through political action committees each of the four had set up for themselves and controlled. However, under cross examination by Jennifer Keller, one of the attorneys representing Burum, Postmus went sideways, and yielded to Keller’s suggestion that he might have been led into implicating himself, Burum and the others in the scheme after he was pressured by aggressive investigators with the district attorney’s office who had exploited his vulnerabilities, in particular his drug-addled and highly suggestible state, to plant false ideas in his mind that he had then recounted to them during further interrogations, before the grand jury and under Cope’s direct examination.
With the Colonies Partners defraying the reported $22 million cost of the defense for all four defendants which involved no fewer than nine attorneys, the trial lasted nearly eight months.
Ultimately, Burum, Biane and Kirk were acquitted of the charges against them and the jury hearing the case against Erwin deadlocked and was unable to return a unanimous verdict. Subsequently, the district attorney’s office dismissed the charges against Erwin.
Postmus, whose sentencing was delayed until after he provided testimony in the case against the others, was ultimately sentenced by Judge Smith to three years in state prison.
After the acquittals and the charges were dismissed against Erwin, the Colonies Partners and its investors/principals have once again begun making political contributions, such that they are now again among the most prolific of political donors in the county.
Last year, after the Colonies Partners had made direct political donations to three of the members of the board of supervisors and indirect political donations to another supervisor, the board of supervisors in November 2020 voted behind closed doors to settle for $65 million another lawsuit the Colonies Partners and Burum had brought against the county over the criminal prosecution and trial Burum had been subjected to. That $65 million wrung from the county was in addition to the $102 million the Colonies Partners had obtained in the 2006 settlement.
On Monday night, Velto told his council colleagues, “I have never done business with Dan Richards. I’ve never done business with the Colonies Group. The company I work for rents space in the Colonies [Crossroads commercial subdivision]. I’ve never done business with the Lewis Companies. I’ve never done business with any developer in this city. My role as mayor is one of integrity and honesty, and I hold this role in very, very high regard, and I know my obligation is to protect the [city’s] investments. I have a fiduciary duty to our residents and that is why I felt that I could maintain that role serving on the board of directors for the water company, of which the City of Upland is a supermajority stock holder.”
Without referencing former Councilman Filippi, whom Richards’ business partner Burum has differences with and whom Velto has accordingly decided not to reappoint to the San Antonio Water Company Board, and Board Member Jose Sanchez whose term is drawing to a close and who is in the process of moving out of state, Velto said he wanted to reappoint both Thomas and Cable.
“That left two positions open,” he said. “That is why I nominated myself as mayor and Dan Richards. I feel that we’re both very qualified as businessmen in the community to provide proper direction and to make sure it’s fiscally prudent and conservative in any investments in the future. I believe that Councilman Zuniga will make an excellent proxy for the city and that’s to continue the path I felt was in the best interest of this city. Everything I’m doing is in the best interest of the City of Upland. There is no control of the water company by any developer in our city.”
First District Councilwoman Shannan Maust, while indicating she had a comfort level with both Thomas and Cable because of their experience on the board and proven track records, said she wanted more information about Richards, remarking that she did not want to “vote blindly. Once on the board, it’s extremely hard to remove a member. It’s a pretty lengthy process.”
Third District Councilman Carlos Garcia indicated he, too, wanted more information, saying the council “did not have much of a chance to discuss this. It is such a specialty field. I don’t know Dan Richards at all.”
Velto’s nominations were revealed on February 4, four days before Monday night’s meeting. On Friday, City Hall was closed, as well as over the weekend. No background material on Richards was provided.
Garcia said he wanted someone with expertise relating to water on the board.
He indicated he was reluctant to push ahead with appointing Richards.
“In a lot of our campaigns we talked about transparency,” Garcia said. “I think opening this up to more applicants, at least for other folks who are very well qualified to submit an application, would fall in line with that transparency.”
Second District Councilwoman Janice Elliott said she had concerns about the appointive “process and conflicts of interest. I don’t like going into this without more information about somebody, particularly because of the fact that Mr. Richards does own so much property in Upland [and] because he is significantly politically influential. That in and of itself has raised additional questions as far as whether or not an appointment of him would make the community more trusting of us as a government. In addition, the difference between a government entity and the water company is the water company does not require form 700s [i.e., statements of economic interest required by the State of California of every elected public official and public employee who makes or influences governmental decisions]. You can tell if they [elected officials who do file statements of economic interest that are publicly available] have a conflict of interest. With Mr. Richards, the water company does not require that. They just use the honor system. If you’ve got a conflict of interest, you’re duty bound to declare it and recuse yourself on that, and I’m just not sure our residents are really comfortable with that. It is really important that we make a good decision.”
When it was suggested that his four nominations be voted on separately, Velto became defensive, in particular with regard to his nomination of Richards.
“I want to be very clear about this,” he said. “There is no political powerhouse with Dan Richards. Number one, he’s a resident of San Antonio Heights. He’s not a political powerhouse. There are other people in this community who are much more political powerhouses, if you might want to use that term.”
That came across as something of a prevarication, given Richards’ status as being a managing partner of the company that has demonstrated itself to be among the top two or three most generous contributors to San Bernardino County politicians historically. Velto was also being parsimonious with information pertaining to the political support Richards has provided him. Richards donated to Velto’s 2020 mayoral campaign $1,000, the maximum amount of money a donor can give to a city candidate under Upland’s campaign donations limitation ordinance. Velto made no mention of Richards’ support of his campaign, nor of the $1,000 provided to him by Richards’ business partner, Jeff Burum, nor the $1,000 provided to him by Burum’s wife, Kellie Burum, nor the $1,000 provided to him by James Previti, who is currently attempting to develop property in Upland owned by the Colonies Partners.
At that point, Councilman Rudy Zuniga, who has emerged as Velto’s firmest ally on the council, sought to reassure the other three members of the council that Richards would have far less pull than what others are crediting him as possessing.
“It’s a board of seven members,” Zuniga said of the San Antonio Water District Board of Directors, “and one person cannot make a change or do something by themselves. It’s a higher number of members than the city council, so, if they have ulterior motives, it’s not very easy for them to do that. I don’t see that any wrongdoing could be done by Dan Richards.”
Garcia reiterated his earlier statement, asking, “In the spirit of transparency, would it be possible to table this and have some opportunities for other applicants to submit applicants and then come back and make a decision? Obviously, if Dan Richards is the most qualified, then by all means [we should appoint him]. I think it would resonate really well with all of our residents if we provided this process.”
Velto, sensing that the council was usurping his role and authority in making the nominations in the appointment process, asserted himself by trying to rally City Manager Rosemary Hoerning to his defense, asking her who made the recommendations with regard to municipal appointments.
“The mayor typically makes the recommendations to the council, and it’s ratified by [the] council,” Hoerning responded.
From there, Velto pushed to make a case that he was being stepped over by his council colleagues.
“So, I want you to just be fair and understanding about that role right there,” he said. Having the council suggest other candidates for the appointment, Velto said, was tantamount to “diminishing [the mayor’s] role.”
Councilwoman Maust, without commenting on the nomination of Richards, took up the issue of having more than a single member of the council on the water department board, pointing out that former City Attorney James Markman had warned of the peril of conflicts between the city and the water company, which, if compounded by multiple council members being on the water board, would result in excess costs to the city of having to pay attorneys to monitor both city and company actions.
“What I’m looking at is a risk management subject in the sense that if we can try to insulate ourselves form a conflict interest, that is what I’d like to do,” Maust said.
Maust told Velto, “My suggestion is if the mayor pro tem [Zuniga] would like to come off the board and you go on as council representation, then we only have one of you still on the board and full representation. But I can’t support having both of you on the board and leaving the three of us to decide for the city and possibly be paying more money because of that monitoring.”
Maust expressed her belief that the field of candidates Velto had given the council to choose from was too limited.
“I think we need to be more diligent in trying to bring in… others, so to speak, into the arena,” Maust said. “I think if we had a better process already instilled, maybe it would have made for better people coming forward. I’m going to motion that Tom Thomas and Bob Cable are appointed to the water board,” she said, pointedly excluding Velto and Richards from her motion.
Zuniga leapt to the defense of the mayor.
“This is a mayor’s appointment,” Zuniga said. “So, I understand the transparency part, but now are we going to ask for each one of us to explain why we’re picking certain people to serve on our committees? This is Bill’s appointment. All mayors have made these appointments, so I don’t feel comfortable taking that away from him or any other future mayor.”
Velto tiraded against those who were objecting to Richards, calling them ‘individuals [who] want to be highly critical of people in our community who have stepped up, not only thorough business, but through charitable organizations and through groups of people who they know who have made substantial contributions to this community. To vilify, to make them out to be a villain of some kind because of their involvement in the community, [to say] they would not do what’s in the best interest of the city is very petty, as far as I’m concerned.”
He then defended the idea of appointing two members of the council to the water company board.
“I disagree with the city attorney saying it’s a conflict of interest,” Velto said. “I call it a protection of interest. I’m speaking from my role only. I want to protect the water company and I believe if we could have all the council members on the water company [board], I would have liked to see something like that. And that’s what I want to look at in the future, which I will have an opportunity to do if we delay this vote.”
He then warmed to the idea of delaying the vote on the appointments, including those of Thomas and Cable, suggesting that the concept of having all of the members of the council or four of the members of the council appointed to the water company board was worth pursuing.
“If the council wanted to delay the appointment of anyone until we get further legal advice as to whether or not we could seat more council members, I would be willing to do that to get more information for the process.”
Councilwoman Elliott said, “We’re not having a conversation as to whether or not the mayor has the right to make the appointment. He does, but it is also in our municipal code that the city council ratifies the decision. So, I’m not going to ratify an appointment without seeing information on that individual, and if two other city council members want to see more information on an appointment, then I think that would be a direction to go.” She then seconded Maust’s motion to appoint Tom Thomas and Bob Cable. That provoked Velto, who said they should consider ratifying all four of his suggested appointments. “We should look at all four,” he said.
It all went to hell from there.
Elliott said she had sufficient information about Thomas and Cable to vote on them.
“Neither of these people are new,” she said. “I have watched them. I don’t need to see anymore background because I know them. She said Thomas in particular had an understanding of water issues.
Velto suggested that expertise with regard to water issues was not an absolute necessity in board members, since they would be supplied with information from the water company’s “trustworthy staff” and would merely vote on recommendations presented to them.
Velto again sought to broaden the discussion to the council considering and ultimately accepting his four recommendations.
Elliott insisted on voting on Maust’s motion.
Zuniga, in attempting to broker a compromise, opened Pandora’s box when he said, “Well, I know you want to see Dan Richards’ qualifications, but are you okay with Bill’s qualifications as a businessman?”
Elliott ducked the question by saying “We’re not on that one right now. We’re on Bob Cable and we’re on Tom Thomas.”
“Well you’re splitting it,” Velto said. “I don’t know if that’s how it’s done.”
“Well, we just did it,” Elliot said. “We’ve got a motion and we’ve got a second.”
That visibly riled Velto, who as the mayor directs the proceedings.
He delayed the vote by asking if there were further comments from the council
Elliot called for the vote and Velto again delayed, asking for comments.
The vote to appoint Thomas and Cable then went forward, with all five approving that duo’s reappointment.
Thereafter, Zuniga immediately made a motion to approve Velto. Garcia seconded it.
That prompted Maust to inquire directly of Zuniga if he was prepared to leave the water company board if a vote went forward and Velto was appointed.
The question seemed to anger Zuniga, which betrayed that he was determined to remain on the water company board. “I’ll have that discussion with Bill,” he said.
Elliott at that point interjected, “I’m not ready to make this decision. With all respect, Mayor Velto, I really don’t know that much about your background.”
Velto’s nostrils flared.
“Do you have a bachelor’s degree?” Elliott asked.
“That’s not the discussion here, Velto said, bridling. “The discussion here is I’m a businessman. I’m a mayor of Upland. The residents of Upland voted for me for mayor. I think they put their trust in my decision-making.”
“Well, I’m not going to vote for you on this board without more information,” Elliott said. “I’d like to know about your education. What’s your educational background?”
“I’ve had some college,” Velto said. “How’s that? I was in the military. I’ve been in business for over 30 years. Actually, from the time I was ten years old I ran my own businesses. I’m a businessman. I make sound fundamental business decisions every single day. I’ve managed a real estate company with 3,500 agents, a multibillion dollar company. I was an executive vice president and general manager of that company. I’m now with Berkshire Hathaway. So, I’m fairly qualified to make business decisions, and that’s what these are. These are business decisions.”
Councilman Garcia inquired as to whether it was advisable for Velto to recuse himself from the discussion of, and vote on, his own appointment.
City Attorney Steven Flower said, “If Mayor Velto has announced that he will be waiving any salary or stipend from any position on the board, that waiver means he wouldn’t have a financial interest in the position. Therefore he wouldn’t have a conflict on this vote.”
Elliot then questioned Velto about whether he wanted a city takeover or buyout of the water company. Velto said he wanted to look into the possibility of bypassing the redundancies in the functions of both the city’s water department and the water company, and to have staff look into the advisability of a consolidation of the two.
With that, Velto was unable to mask his irritation.
“We don’t just sideline something because of personal interest, and it appears you have a personal interest in me not serving on the SAWCO [San Antonio Water Company] board,” Velto said.
When Elliott said she was not personalizing the discussion, Velto thundered, “You are making it personal. You want to know my education.”
Elliott responded, “I want to know your qualifications. Education is part of your qualifications.”
“I’m the mayor of the City of Upland, number one,” Velto retorted. “This is a role that I’m allowed to do, to take on. I’ve been in business for many, many years. These are business decisions based on staff recommendations. I’m not going to go out and test water. I’m not going to go out and measure depths. I’m not going to go out and make sure that the systems are all operational. That’s not the role of the board of directors, just like it is not the role of the city council to manage the city. That’s not what our role is. Our role is to vote for, vote against or make recommendations and that’s all that I do.”
The heat in the exchange between Elliott and Velto was of some moment and even historic significance. In January 2019, Velto was a member of the Upland Planning Commission. His previous efforts to be elected to the city council had been unsuccessful. At that time, the council had been reduced to four, the mayor and three council members. Fifteen residents had applied to fill the vacancy, including Velto. The field was reduced to seven, at which point the selection process had stalled out when no single candidate was able to garner more than two votes. Ultimately, Elliott joined with then-Mayor Debbie Stone and then-Councilman Ricky Felix in supporting Velto. In this way, Elliott played a crucial role in boosting Velto’s political career. The enmity that was brewing between the two over the water company appointments on Monday night was palpable.
Councilman Garcia broke in. “We’re still having an issue,” he said. “I know that Mayor Pro Tem [Zuniga] and the mayor are going to talk about having one person or another on there, so that leaves a little question mark.” Garcia suggested that voting Velto onto the board was “something we could come back to after that discussion… to have one councilperson to represent us there”
“We can postpone this thing, Velto said, resignedly.
“If we’re still up for that, I would like to come back to that,” Garcia said.
Zuniga said, “Mayor, if you want to wait, I will pull my motion.”
Velto said, “I don’t have a problem waiting, This is about making sure we are representing the majority interest of this city. Much like any other committees that I have appointed all of you to, I didn’t sit back and say what were your qualifications to serve on this commission, what was your qualification to serve on that committee. I didn’t do that because your role is to vote for, vote either to approve or deny, the recommendations on every committee or commission we serve on. None of us have extensive backgrounds in all of the committees we’ve been assigned to by me. So, keep that in mind.”
Maust attempted at that point to assure Velto she was not questioning his qualifications.
“When I shared my concern, [it was] not on qualifications,” she said. “It is that I disagree [with] having two council on the SAWCO board because of having to recuse yourself and because it does then take money to have to manage that.”
A clearly perturbed Velto said, “We’re going to delay this.”
Thus, with the Cable and Thomas appointments ratified, the Velto and Richards nominations remain in limbo. Further, the other vote that was scheduled to take place Monday night pertaining to the water company, to appoint Zuniga as the city’s proxy to vote all shares at the annual stockholder’s meeting of the San Antonio Water Company for the slate of directors, did not take place.
“We’re going to delay this to the next council meeting until we get further information from [legal] counsel,” Velto said.
The council is next scheduled to meet on February 22.
-Mark Gutglueck

Nestlé Negotiating Equity Buyout Of Arrowhead H2O Operations

By Amanda Frye
Nestlé, a Swiss corporation which has been extracting water from an environmentally sensitive area in the San Bernardino Mountains without the properly-established water rights to do so for more than three decades and bottling it under the Arrowhead brand name, is on the brink of selling its water-related corporate holdings to another investor.
Nestlé has been reported to be in negotiations with One Rock Capital Partners, LLC , a private equity firm heavily funded by Asian investors, over the sale of Nestlé’s North American bottled water business, which includes the local Arrowhead Water bottling operation. In June 2020, Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc. announced it was going to sell its bottled water business in a push toward sustainability.
In 2015, Nestlé’s Arrowhead water withdrawals from the San Bernardino National Forest came under review and its expired permit questioned. Nestle takes groundwater from the headwaters of Strawberry Creek near Red Rock Wall and Highway 18 at the 5,000 foot level within the San Bernardino National Forest. Nestlé’s has a series of horizontal wells bored hundreds of feet into the mountainside draining millions of gallons of forest groundwater each year. A stainless steel pipeline system conveys the extracted forest groundwater southward to the 2,000-foot elevation level at the mountain’s foothills, where it is picked up by trucks near the site of the historic Arrowhead Springs resort and then taken to Nestlé’s water bottling operations and is sold as “Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water.”
Since 2015, Nestlé’s water diversion and water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest have been under investigation by the California Water Resources Board, which has oversight on all California water rights and diversions, including those on federal lands within the state. Pending is the board’s final report of its investigation. In December 2017, the water board’s initial review of its investigation limited Nestlé’s taking of water to 26 acre feet annually, but Nestlé has refused to comply, continuing to take 144 acre feet in 2017, 141 acre feet in 2018 and 210 acre feet in 2019, with no indication of compliance in 2020 or 2021.
An acre foot equals 325,851.4 gallons or 43,560 cubic feet, the amount of water that would cover one acre, 43,560 square feet, to the depth of one foot.
The streambed of upper Strawberry Creek is dry as Nestlé’s nearby stainless steel pipeline drains millions of gallons of forest groundwater. The national forest water was reserved upon its founding in 1894 for nearby communities and irrigation. Forest waters are essential for supplying water to the Santa Ana River and for local groundwater recharge. Nestlé, which has intensified the deterioration of the ecology in Strawberry Canyon and the national forest by its water extraction for years, is seeking to negate its responsibility and liability by selling the water bottling operation and walking away with $4 billion.
Elsewhere in San Bernardino County, in Deer Canyon above Rancho Cucamonga, Nestlé extracts roughly 76 million gallons annually from springs at that location.
A review of the historical record indicates that Nestlé has no water rights within the San Bernardino National Forest at the 5,000 foot level, but has conflated Strawberry Canyon with the original 1910 Arrowhead water bottling operation at a natural water source on the grounds of the privately-owned Arrowhead Springs Hotel at the 2,000-foot elevation level in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, where one of its corporate predecessors had established water rights, which were not passed on to the Arrowhead water bottling successors.
The Forest Service has not resolved this discrepancy, but is waiting on the California State Water Resources Board’s final report of its investigation into the matter. A new permit for Nestlé’s pipeline was issued in June 2018, with minimal mitigation measures despite an initial ruling by the state water board to reduce the water taken out of Strawberry Canyon while the investigation is pending.
Decades ago, Nestlé’s corporate predecessor Arrowhead Puritas was extracting water from Strawberry Canyon based on a ten-year permit issued by the National Forest Service in 1978 and renewed annually at a cost of $524 per year. Arrowhead Puritas was bought out by Beatrice Foods and then morphed into the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, which acquired the still-active permit. The BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company applied to extend that permit and, in 1987, while that application was still pending, Perrier purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company. The then-pending water extraction permit renewal required a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement and its environmental/ecological impact, which at that point the U.S. Forest Service did not have the immediately available resources to carry out. In a gesture of compromise, Perrier was allowed, pending the eventual Forest Service review, to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon by simply continuing to pay the $524-per year fee to perpetuate the water extraction under the terms of the expired permit. In 1992, when Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier, it inherited the Strawberry Canyon operation and continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the permit, which at that time existed under the name of the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co,” one that was never listed legally in corporate filings, but which is currently operating under Nestle Waters of North America, Inc.

Characterizing County Democrats As Racists, Irving Resigns From Party Central Committee

Victorville Councilwoman Leslie Irving on February 8 resigned as a member of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee, characterizing at least some of her fellow and sister Democrats and the county’s party structure as “racist.”
Irving’s resignation is significant on multiple levels. She stood in the fourth position among the county party’s hierarchy as the third vice chair of the central committee. She was among a wave of African American women who came into prominence in the party during a substantial reorganization and realignment last summer that saw the county party’s leadership change. Her election to the Victorville City Council in November, in a contest which one incumbent Republican lost, one incumbent Republican did not seek reelection and one incumbent Democrat was reelected, resulted in Victorville transforming from a municipality governed by a Republican majority city council to one ruled by a Democratic majority council as well as one which is composed entirely of women.
Irving, who had a mixed political career in Los Angeles County before she relocated to Victorville, unsuccessfully vied for the Victorville City Council in 2018. Her win in last year’s election was seen as a breakthrough in minority and women empowerment. Her elevation to the Democratic Central Committee’s third vice chairwoman position appeared to advance her into an enviable spot politically, as she held the bully pulpit of being an elected official in what is San Bernardino County’s fifth largest city and the High Desert’s largest city, while exercising a not inconsiderable degree of influence over the local Democratic Party’s application of its electioneering influence, even as the Democrats have taken a commanding 460,387 or 40.9 percent to 334,233 or 29.7 percent lead over the Republicans in terms of voter registration countywide. Thus, Irving’s prospect for remaining in municipal office in Victorville beyond 2024, when she is scheduled to seek reelection to the council, appeared to be solid, and she was well positioned to seek election to higher office such as the California Assembly or the California State Senate as early as 2022 or perhaps beyond that.
For that reason, what from the outside looked like an abrupt decision early this week to leave the Democratic Central Committee was surprising.
Last year, in the election corresponding to the March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary, voting to fill positions on both the Republican and Democratic central committees for San Bernardino County took place. Republicans compete for the central committee posts in districts that match the boundaries for the county’s supervisorial districts while the Democrats choose their central committee members in districts that are either indistinguishable from the entirety of the assembly districts fully contained within the county or encompass those portions of the assembly districts lying within the county’s borders when those districts straddle both San Bernardino County and a neighboring county. As a resident of the 33rd Assembly District, Irving competed against 13 vying for six positions representing that jurisdiction on the central committee, finishing sixth, thus earning a berth among those entrusted to lead the Democratic Party in California’s largest county geographically and fifth largest population-wise.
Since 2012, the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee had consistently elected Chris Robles to serve as county party chairman. There was growing discontent among the central committee’s members with Robles’ leadership, in that during his tenure, despite voter registration numbers trending consistently in favor of the Democratic Party in San Bernardino County, the Republican Party and its candidates have consistently outhustled the Democratic Party and its candidates such that greater Republican voter turnout has occurred, leaving the Democrats neck and neck with the Republicans in terms of the numbers of elected officials representing San Bernardino County at the state and federal legislative level in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., and the Republicans holding the lion’s share of the elected positions at the county and municipal levels as well as on school districts and water districts around the county. After Robles was reelected as county party chairman after the 2016 election, a concerted effort to displace him formed among what was at first a minority of the central committee’s members. No fewer than three moves to depose him as chairman occurred in 2017 and 2018. Last summer, after four election cycles of continuous dysfunction by the Democratic Party in San Bernardino County, a move to oust Robles in favor Kristin Washington, who was previously active with the Redlands Democratic Club in outgunning the Republicans in her neck of the woods, took hold. A support network coalesced around her, and in July Washington was chosen as party chairwoman. Thereafter, most of the cabal that had kept Robles in power over the previous several years that yet exists within the central committee, which includes Ralph Trujillo, Wendy Eccles, Mary Feeney, Christina Marquez, Mark Westwood, Nancy Glenn, Sean Houle and Robles himself, was marginalized, and a new set of party functionaries were given positions of prestige within the central committee.
With Washington’s ascendancy, individuals in the party aligned with her captured most of the key posts in the committee as members of the executive board. These included Stacey Ramos as a candidate for first vice chair, Irving as third vice chair, Nancy Glenn as secretary, Martina Ortega as treasurer, and Nicholas Christensen as corresponding secretary. The lone exception to that was Jim Gallagher, whom Robles had installed years ago as a member of the committee’s executive board and who remained loyal to him on and off in more recent years, who has taken up the position of second vice chair.
With Washington in place, Irving saw her political reach increase. As the November 2020 election approached, Irving and Lizet Angulo, Gallagher, Christina Marquez, Scott Brown, Curt Lewis, Aaron Bratton and Nancy Glenn were named to the central committee’s panel to evaluate the candidates for office in the upcoming election to determine who would get the county party’s endorsements. This provoked some degree of controversy, since Angulo and Irving were candidates for city council in Victorville in that election as was Gallagher for city council in Chino Hills. An effort to attenuate this conflict was instituted by which the candidates were not allowed any say in the evaluation of their own candidacies.
On February 8, Irving tendered her resignation as a member of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee, stating there was a “pervasive stream of racist acts” ongoing in the local Democratic Party that had prompted her to leave.
Sources within the San Bernardino County Democratic Party viewed Irving’s departure from the county central committee with alarm, saying it may presage a crippling split between the party’s Hispanic and African American members.
Irving’s resignation came in the immediate aftermath of a statewide vote held by the Democratic Party in which representatives to the California Central Committee were selected. In the Democratic Party, state central committee members are elected from within their respective Assembly district boundaries to represent the Assembly district in which they reside.
The Democratic Party further conditions its selections to the state central committee in a way intended to derive a gender balance, with the same number of men as women being chosen to serve on the committee from each district. Thus, under the Democratic rules, “self identified females” compete against one another and “other than self identified females” run against one another in the contests for the California Central Committee.
Irwin is a resident of Assembly District 33 and was competing in this year’s race for the California Central Committee. While all Democrats residing in the 33rd District were eligible to run to represent the 33rd District on the state central committee and vote in the election, those seeking a position had to register as a candidate by December 15 and those wanting to vote had to mail in a request for a ballot by January 11. There were 21 women – or those self identifying as women – running for the California Democratic Central Committee to represent Assembly District 33, and 16 men – or other than self identifying females – running to represent the 33rd Assembly District on the California Democratic Central Committee. The top seven finishers in either gender category received a berth on the state central committee.
According to Democratic Party sources, a group of Hispanic Democratic Party members in San Bernardino County undertook a concerted and highly energetic effort to elect a slate of what was described as exclusively Latino and Latina candidates.
“The race for the state central committee requires a highly specialized campaign,” a party insider told the Sentinel. “To win, you need to work hard to get people to register to vote in the election and then get them out to vote for you. Just like last time, a relatively small group of Hispanic candidates and their people outhustled everyone else. Their slate was not balanced. It was not equally proportioned with Hispanic, white and black candidates. The campaign was organized so Latinos and Latinas would win.”
The seven top vote-getters on the female side were Sabrina Cisneros, Angela Mayo, Lesia Oneido Louro, Stephanie “Vida” Pazarin, Valerie Little, Yvonne M. Molles and Alexis Ileen DeJesus. The seven top finishers on the male side were Fernando Hernandez, Harold Hines, Michael Brian Mayo, Martin Gerardo Gonzalez, Valentin Godina, Mark Andrew Melendez and Brian Conley.
Several African American candidates finished out of the running in both races. On the distaff side, Leslie Irving, her sister Kellie Irving, Adelanto Councilwoman Stevevonna Evans, Apple Valley Unified School District Board Member Maria Okpara and Ramla Kimbrew, all of whom are African American, were unsuccessful in their state central committee candidacies. Also losing in the contest were a few Hispanic politicians who currently hold office, such as Victorville Councilwoman Blanca Gomez and Victorville Councilwoman Rita Ramirez.
Several of those running, including Leslie Irving, had hoped to get onto the California Central Committee to enhance their chances in vying against the current 33rd District Assemblyman, Thurston Smith, a Republican, who must stand for reelection to the Assembly in 2022.
The state central committee by-mail voting deadline had originally been set for January 27, but was extended one week to February 3. There was a several day delay while late-posted ballots were received and counted. It was in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of those voting results, in which Irving finished tenth among the women, that Irving made her resignation announcement.
“Leslie was being reactionary to losing,” the Democratic Party insider told the Sentinel.
The development of a schism between African American and Hispanic members of the San Bernardino County Democratic Party could have dire consequences for the Democrats, as they are up against the San Bernardino County Republican Party, which has historically been cohesive and well-coordinated in its electioneering efforts.
Word spread quickly, and the following day, Tuesday, February 9, Washington sent out an email to the central committee’s members, many of whom were shocked at the resignation and Irving’s contention about what had driven her to it.
“As you may have heard, our 3rd vice chair, Leslie Irving, resigned her seat on the central committee on Monday, February 8,” Washington wrote. “I wanted to update you and let you know that her resignation has been accepted. We thank Council Member Irving for her work on the executive board, most notably with our candidate endorsement process in August. We wish her much success in her new seat on the Victorville City Council.”
Washington continued, “In her resignation letter, Council Member Irving referenced a ‘pervasive stream of racist acts within the San Bernardino County Democratic Party.’ Since she did not share any other details with us about those acts, I have no further information to offer you.”
Washington, who is herself African-American, stated, “I want to be clear, though, that I take accusations of racism seriously and have zero tolerance for racist behavior in any form by any member. Meetings and events by the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee and our chartered clubs should always provide a welcome and inclusive space for political work by Democrats of every race. We must all work together if we expect to elect more Democrats in our county. So, if you have seen, heard or been subject to racist acts within this county party since our reorganizational meeting on July 18, 2020, please let me know, so that those acts can be properly addressed.”
The Sentinel today, Friday, February 12, emailed Irving in an effort to obtain clarification from her with regard to the circumstances she referenced in making her exit from the central committee.
In asking Irving to elucidate what she meant, the Sentinel inquired if her statement was intended to apply generally to the Democratic Party on a national or statewide level or specifically to the party within San Bernardino County, and whether she was still a registered Democrat.
The Sentinel asked Irving to delineate the specific acts of racism she referenced in taking her leave of the central committee.
The Sentinel asked Irving if she intended her action and announcement to serve as an indictment of the entirety of the county party, including its leadership, or if her statement applied to only a specific individual or set of individuals.
The Sentinel sought from Irving why, if the racism she referenced was indeed limited to a relative handful of people in the central committee, it would not have been better for her to remain in the organization to guide it around the pitfalls those members and their actions represent.
Irving had not responded to the email by press time.
There has been some degree of controversy in Irving’s political career previously, to the point of raising in at least one case, extremely complicated if not unique questions with regard to the legal and electoral actions of a candidate who becomes an elected official under a circumstance deemed improper or through electoral means held to be illegal.
As a politician in Los Angeles County before her move to Victorville, Irving held the distinction of being elected but then being denied the right or ability to take office.
In 2001, as a resident of Compton, Irving successfully vied for a position on the Compton City Council, posting a victory over her opponent, Melanie Andrews. Before Irving was sworn in to that office, however, accusations of voter fraud against her surfaced. A challenge to the outcome of the race, as well as that one for Compton mayor in the same election, was lodged in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The matter was heard by Superior Court Judge Judith C. Chirlin. After weighing all of the evidence and based upon what Chirlin and the California Second District Court of Appeal called substantial and credible testimony, a conclusion was reached that Irving had engaged in election fraud. Nine witnesses, at least six of whom did not speak English, testified against Irving, stating that she or her campaign had registered them to vote, even though they were not citizens. The most devastating witness against Irving was Elvita Andrade, whose testimony replicated in many respects that of the other eight witnesses. Andrade testified that although she had spoken with Irving through a translator, she had also spoken directly with Irving in English. Andrade stated she had told Irving, in English, that she was not a United States citizen. Andrade claimed that Irving’s response was “that citizenship had nothing to do with it, that it had nothing to do with the government, so that it would not [a]ffect my citizenship.” Andrade said she had been told to sign an absentee ballot application, which she did, and that either Irving or the translator would pick up the absentee ballot from her when it arrived. Andrade stated that when the translator came to pick up the absentee ballot, she had signed the ballot and gave it to the translator without marking or punching it. Someone other than Andrade, after she had given it to one of Irving’s campaign workers, marked and submitted Andrade’s absentee ballot, which was demonstrated to the court to have been counted in the election, according to evidence and testimony in the case.
Judge Chirlin found, and the Second District Division 1 California Court of Appeal confirmed, that Irving “either personally or through her agents, (1) knowingly solicit[ed] nine non-citizens to register for absentee ballots in violation of section 18100, subdivision (a);  (2) [was] present in the nine absentee voters’ homes while they were voting and telling them how to vote, in violation of section 18371, subdivision (a);  (3) fraudulently register[ed] nine non-citizens and assist[ed] them to vote or complet[e] their absentee ballots for them, in violation of section 18500;  and (4) solicit[ed] illegal votes from the nine nonqualified voters, in violation of section 18561.”
The trial court also disqualified Irving, under the provisions of section 18501, from ever holding office in California.
Irving appealed Judge Chirlin’s ruling to the Second District Court of Appeal, which in March 2003 ruled that Irving had indeed engaged in the “commission of offenses against the elective franchise” Chirlin had adjudged Irving to have been involved in and that Irving’s 2001 Compton City Council election was properly annulled. The Court of Appeal, while finding that Irving was disqualified from seeking or filling the council seat she had sought in the 2001 election for the remainder of that 2001 term, determined that because the case Chirlin was adjudicating was an electoral challenge rather than a criminal matter, the lifetime ban on Irving ever holding office again in California was improperly imposed. The Second District Court of Appeal ruling allowed Irving to run for and hold elective office thereafter.
Washington in her February 9 email to the members of the central committee said, “I will announce the steps for filling the vacant 3rd vice chair seat at the February general meeting on Thursday, February 25.”
-Mark Gutglueck