A certain degree of mystery attends reports that Upland Mayor Bill Velto is dabbling in water speculation. Unknown at this point is whether Velto’s interest in H2O is on behalf of the city or for himself. Efforts by the Sentinel to find out exactly which is the case were not successful by the end of this week.
What is known is that in 15.62-square mile municipality, City Hall in almost but not quite total measure has control over water and its availability.
The San Antonio Water Company, which was originally incorporated as a mutual water company on October 25, 1882, has consistently provided water service to its active shareholders for over 140 years. Those shareholders include those living in its direct service area in the unincorporated county area north of Upland, San Antonio Heights, as well as the cities of Upland and Ontario and the Monte Vista Water District, and Holliday Rock Company and a few remaining grove irrigators within within the original Village of Ontario area, which extended to cover Upland until the city’s 1906 incorporation. The City of Upland owns 68 percent of the company’s stock, and the city is the major consumer of the water it produces. All but five of the city’s properties purchase water through the Upland municipal water division.
Those five properties, all of which were at one point parts of thriving citrus farms, yet purchase water used for cultivation purposes, bypassing the city system.
In the past, orange, lemon and grapefruit grove owners purchased water directly from the San Antonio Water Company. With the demise of each successive agricultural operation as the owners sold their property to land speculators or developers, the city purchased from them the water shares. The owners of the five properties that yet have a direct relationship with the San Antonio Water Company did not divest themselves of the shares because, to one degree or another, the properties were not developed to the same intensity as the other propserties and each maintained a degree of agricultural use or landscaping that required water in a quantity that would justify hanging onto those water shares.
In those five cases, the San Antonio Water Company maintains a conveyance system for the properties that is independent of the water mains that provide water to the rest of the city.
City officials have for some time coveted the water shares monopolized by the owners of the five properties but have not been able to convince them to let go of those shares.
This is a relatively obscure element of the city’s ongoing existence, which recently came to light when two of the properties were put up for sale.
One of those is the Cracker Jack Mansion and the other is the Nisbet Estate. Each harkens back to a significant portion of Upland history and equally significant personages.
The Cracker Jack Mansion, located at 1936 North Euclid Avenue,
was built in 1931 by Henry G. Eckstein.
Eckstein’s place in American history is tied in with two brothers, Frederick and Louis Rueckheim, who had emigrated to America, settling down in the Chicago area. At some point in the 1890s, Frederick, a candy maker was working on perfection a confectionary consisting of popcorn and peanuts covered in molasses. Initially, the product, which was first popularized when offered at the 1893 World’s Fair, congealed together in chunks until Henry tried adding a small quantity of oil – a closely guarded trade secret. That allowed the kernels and peanuts to separate. The product, while growing in popularity, was still somewhat limited in its distribution potential as it was packaged in metal tins, which the product more expensive and difficult to sell in smaller quantities. In 1896, Eckstein hooked up with the Rueckheim brothers. Over the next two years, Eckstein perfected a way of packaging the product in single serving sizes that maintained the the freshness and crispness of the snack for shipments to the population centers on the East Coast. By 1899, Cracker Jack was being sold, much as it is today, in slim “waxed sealed” waterproof cartons. The company was reorganized as Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein a few years later, by which point it employed 400. In 1908, a Tin Pan Alley composer, Jack Norworth, came up with “Take Me Out To The Ballgame,” which contained the line, “By me some peanuts and cracker jack.” By 1912, the Rueckheims and Eckstein were fabulously wealthy.
A few years later, Eckstein purchased 20 acres on Euclid Avenue, north of what is now the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and 19th Street. Initially, Eckstein built a winter home, a 980-square foot, two bedroom single bath abode surrounded by citrus groves where he would spend the coldest part of the winter away from Chicago. In 1931, he had a six-bedroom, six-bath mansion constructed on the property, one which had a basement of nearly 2,000 square feet, with total square footage of 8,409 square feet. Also on the property was a two-story barn, with a stable on the ground floor and a alfalfa storage loft above, with a conveyance ramp to the feeders below.
The original home was converted to a caretaker’s bungalow.
Over the years, Lucky Baldwin’s nephew was a frequent visitor. He brought his belongings to the home in luggage that had once belonged to his great-uncle. Decades later, that luggage was yet at the home.
More than 16 of the acres remained, essentially, as a citrus grove. The original concrete pipes that brought the water to the property were upgraded by the San Antonio Water Company to ensure that there was no interruption in the water system and the groves remained irrigated.
The property would eventually pass into the hands of the Berry Family, the patriarch of which was heavily involved in construction locally, including being the contractor on Upland City Hall. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the matriarch of the family, concerned that if access to the 210 Freeway were to be provided on Euclid, the construction of the entrance/exit lanes would mean the removal of the caretaker bungalow, effectively lobbied Caltrans and the county transportation agency to place the entrances and exits at Mountain Avenue and Campus Avenue.
Of the original 20 acres, 16.5 were subsequently sold and developed, but the mansion remains on 3.5 acres, along with the caretaker bungalow, barn and some agricultural uses.
On June 1, 2023, the property sold for $3.2 million. The water shares remain with the property.
On November 28, 2023, the 97,539 square foot [approximately 2.3 acre] property located at 200 East 13th Street, consisting of a six bedroom, four bath 5,000 square foot home built in the 1890s in the midst of a citrus grove went on the market. The asking price is $1.9 million dollars. Like the Cracker Jack Mansion, it carries with it water rights that provide it with a water supply directly provided by the San Antonio Water Company.
The property was once owned by Eugene Goodspeed Nisbet.
Nisbet was born on October 23, 1896 in Virginia, Illinois. He graduated from the University of Southern California and served in the U.S. Army during World War I.
Nisbet was first elected to the Upland City Council in 1938. He ran unsuccessfully for California Assembly District 72 in 1942, but was elected mayor of Upland the same year. In 1954, after serving as mayor for a dozen years, he ran successfully for Assemblyman, again in District 72. He was reelected in 1956, 1958 and 1960. He unsuccessfully sought elevation to California’s upper legislative house in 1957 in a special election to fill a vacancy. In 1962, he again ran for a position in the Golden State’s upper legislative house, this time successfully, and was elected to represent California Senatorial District 36. In 1966, at which point the state Senate district lines had been redrawn, he ran in the newly formed Senate District 20, and was defeated. Nisbet was also a delegate to Democratic National Convention from California, 1956, 1960, 1964
The property yet remains in the Nisbet Family, which is now trying to sell it.
Word again is that the city, now under the direction of Mayor Bill Velto, wants to acquire the water rights that go with the property and separate them from the home ownership.
The Sentinel this week sought from Velto information about the effort to secure the water shares/rights that go along with the Crackerjack Mansion on Euclid and the Eugene Nisbet residence on 13th Street, as well as the original water conveyance system, separate from the city system, that descends from San Antonio Heights to serve those houses specifically. It is said that the system, with a few flaws that have been repaired, remains intact.
The Sentinel asked Velto if the report that the city attempted with the Crackerjack Mansion to separate the water shares from the property, such that the mansion would no longer have access to the water coming directly from San Antonio Heights and bypassing the city’s water system, was true.
The Sentinel asked if the intention had been to put the mansion and its property onto the city water system.
The Sentinel further asked Velto if the city indeed wants to end the special arrangement the San Antonio Water Company has with the Nisbet Property, so that the new owner will not have the water rights historically associated with the property and will need to go onto the city water system.
Velto was asked about an unverified report that either he or the city was involved in seeking to have the San Antonio Water Company’s historical/traditional special arrangements with the Crackerjack Mansion/Nisbet properties terminated.
If that was the case, the Sentinel inquired, what is to become of the water shares and whether the city intends to take on the ownership of the shares. The Sentinel attempted to ascertain how many shares are involved in the case of the Cracker Jack Mansion and how many in the case of the Nisbet property. The Sentinel asked what the city was willing to pay for those shares and whether the city was perhaps willing to enter into a deal where the future owners of those properties would be given free water into perpetuity in exchange for those shares.
At present, depending upon the state of drought and/or water availability, a quarter share of San Antonio Water stock is valued between $12,500 and $18,500.
–Mark Gutglueck

In a move that will likely delay the community from switching from a septic system to a modern sewer system for another generation, the Twentynine Palms City Council this week voted to return $50 million to the State of California that was intended to cover a substantial portion of constructing a wastewater treatment plant and effluent collection system.
That vote, cast unanimously among all five members, came on December 12.
Undercutting the proposed project were strong disagreements about where the plant was to be located, after the city made a previous tentative commitment to construct it site northwest of the intersection of Twentynine Palms Highway and Utah Trail.
For those with homes and businesses near that location, that was an unacceptable alternative.
According to resident Joseph Carder, constructing the plant in its currently-planned for location would potentially render nearby businesses unviable and subject the city’s downtown district to the west, the Oasis of Mara and 29 Palms Inn to the south, Campbell House to the east and Twentynine Palms Elementary School to the north to devaluation. Continue reading →

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters this week finds itself with some unwanted scrutiny following its rejection of the candidacies of two experienced office seekers on unspecified technical grounds.
The status of the officeholder the two had sought to displace as an up-and-coming member of his party has raised questions as to whether the disqualifications were done legitimately or were elements of a calculated move to keep the congressman in question safely seated.
In 2022, John Mark Porter proved out to be the leading GOP standard bearer against incumbent Congressman Pete Aguilar, a Democrat. In the primary contest to see who would face off in the November 2022 race, Aguilar, who was formerly a Redlands councilman and mayor and was initially elected to Congress in 2014, polled 59.8 percent while Porter brought in 17.6 percent and two other Republicans, Rex Gutierrez and Ernest Richter, captured 15.4 and 7.1 percent, respectively. In the November 2022 head-tohead vote, Porter did quite well for a Republican running in a district in which the Democrats hold a commanding 45 percent to 25 percent voter registration advantage. In losing, he captured 42.3 percent to Aguilar’s 57.7 percent. Undaunted and perhaps even encouraged by his belief that he can hold onto the the Republican votes he captured and make even further inroads with the Democrat and independent votes he appealed to in the last go-round, he again jumped into this year’s race. This time, there was an indication that he might fare even better. Another Democrat, former San Bernardino City Councilman Benito Barrios, declared his candidacy in the 33rd Congressional District, as did another Republican, Tom Herman.
Amateur and professional political handicappers saw an opportunity for Porter and perhaps sensed even some of Aguilar’s blood in the water. Barrios, a former Marine, had a following among so-called Blue Dog, or conservative Democrats, a voting segment that Aguilar, as what some refer to as a liberal, has difficulty with. If the 2024 primary election were to dwell deeply on such political and philosophical differences, Aguilar would most likely survive the primary but see even more Democrat votes peel away from him than did in 2022. Presumably, those votes in the November 2024 general election could go to Porter, assuming he would survive into that round again, as he most likely would have.
The Democrats have of late put a lot of stock in Aguilar. In July 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appointed eight House members, including Aguilar, to the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the July 6th [2021] Attack on the United States Capital. Also on the Committee were two high-ranking and high-profile Democrats, Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin. Then-minority Leader Kevin McCarthy at first agreed to appoint five Republicans to the committee, but then withdrew them. Ultimately, Pelosi appointed two Republicans to the committee. On June 16, 2022, Aguilar and John Wood, an investigative counsel for the Select Committee, led the committee’s third televised hearing, focusing on Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence in to decertifying the election. The witnesses he heard were Greg Jacob, Pence’s lawyer and J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Appeals Court Judge. The televised hearings brough Aguilar into national prominence. He is considered, at least by some, to be an acolyte or protege of Schiff, who is now a leading contender to become a U.S. Senator from California. In this way, Aguilar is perceived among Democrats of a certain stripe to be one of California’s leading members of Congress, particularly in the aftermath of Kevin McCarthy’s recent deposure as Speaker of the Huse. He chairs the House Democratic Caucus and and is the highest-ranking Hispanic in Congress.
Nevertheless, his home turf yet remains something of a Republican basion, and with a growing number of Latino’s who are reacting against liberal and progressive causes, his continuing tenure in Congress is by no means assured.
Early this week, both Porter and Barrios were eagerly looking ahead to the upcoming primary race. Within hours of one another, the rug was pulled out from beneath their candidacies.
To qualify as a congressional candidate, one must pay a $1,700 filing fee and gather 40 signatures.
Porter earlier this year had paid the fee and turned in his candidacy nomination paper, which was endorsed with the signatures, or what he thought were the signatures, of 44 residents of the 33rd Congressional District. According to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, however, only five of those signatures were valid.
Barrios too had paid the fee and turned in his nomination paper, which was signed by 60 voters. The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters kicked the application back, claiming that only 24 of the signatures were valid.
Thus, the only candidates for Congress in the 33rd District in the March primary vote are Aguilar and a virtual political unknown, Tom Herman.
Suspicions were raided almost immediately. This is not the first political rodeo for Porter or Barrios. Barrios ran for city council in San Bernardino and qualified his candidacy then. More to the point, less than two years ago, Porter qualified his candidacy in the 33rd District.
Accusations are flying left and right. One suggestion is that the Registrar of Voters office, the employees of which are members of the pro-labor oriented and pro-Democrat Teamsters Union militated to cut Porter and Barios out of the race to ensure that Aguilar remains in Congress. Some people contended that the office had changed its protocol and standard for the verification of signatures on candidate nominating documents and was then applying those standards selectively to disqualify the candidacies of some candidates – as in the case of Porter and Barrios – while keeping the old rules intact to allow other candidates to remain on the ballot. Essentially, the charge is, the officer and its employees had revamped the standards on how a signature is verified and that this was done purposefully to lock certain people out, and that the new standard was not being applied consistently.
Accordingly, the Sentinel sought to hear from San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Stephenie Shea what the bases for the rejection of the Porter and Barrios candidacies were. The Sentinel submitted its questions through Registrar of Voters Office Communications Director Melissa Eickman.
The Sentinel asked the office how many would-be candidates had their candidacies rejected this year, how many in 2022, how many in 2020, how many in 2018, how many in 2016 and how many in 2014.
The Sentinel asked the registrar of voters office to identify the candidates being excluded from the ballot this year because of insufficient valid signatures.
The Sentinel asked if, by the office’s standards, there is a difference between an invalid signature and an unverified signature.
The Sentinel asked if the standards for verifying signatures were changed this year and, if so, how.
The Sentinel asked what the signature verification standard consists of.
The Sentinel asked if a voter makes a variation from past signatures – say perhaps by including a middle initial or middle name where previously no middle initial or middle name was included or vice versa – that nullified the signature permanently or whether the registrar of voters office would revisit the issue with the voter and check with him or her to make sure he or she did not in fact want to endorse the candidate in question.
By press time, the Sentinel had not received a response to the questions.
At issue is whether the signatures were discarded for not matching those on the registration documents or whether those signing were not actually registered voters or whether those who signed the documents did not live within the 33rd Congressional District.
With regard to the residency requirement, there is perhaps a superseding question. Members of Congress are not required to live within the districts they represent. Rather the residency requirement is for them to live within the border of the state delegation they represent. Thus, a candidate for Congress from California need only to demonstrate that he or she lives in California. That being the case, there seems to be no precedent on record wherein a would-be candidate whose candidacy was rejected contested the rejection by asserting that the signatures of those endorsing them were adequate as long as the signatories lived in California.
It is know that the Registrar of Voters also rejected the candidacy of incumbent San Bernardino Sixth Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin because of signature insufficiency. In Calvin’s case, she has acknowledged that she was responsible for that inadequacy and said she is determinded to run for reelection as a write-in candidate.
-Mark Gutglueck

With only a handful of exceptions, the incumbents in the political positions to be voted upon in San Bernardino County are seeking reelection.
There were some mild suprises, with at least one officeholder who was not expected to file for reelection doing so and one officeholder failing to qualify her candidacy.
In the 23rd Congressional District, which covers Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Hesperia, Twentynine Palms, Victorville, Yucca Valley and Yucaipa and parts of Colton, Highland Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino, the Republican incumbent, Jay Obernolte is being challenged by Democrat Derek Marshall.
In the 25th Congressional District, which extends over Banning, Beaumont, Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Needles, San Jacinto and part of Hemet, Democrat incumbent Raul Ruiz is facing independent Ryan Dean Burkett, Republicans Miguel Chapa, Cecilia Truman and Ian M. Weeks, as well as Democrat Oscar Ortiz. Continue reading →

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2327147
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Samantha Nicole Moore filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Samantha Nicole Moore to Samantha Nicole Favaloro 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: 01/03/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S26
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 11/08/2023
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Ontario on 11/24/2023, 12/01/2023, 12/08/2023, 12/15/2023

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2327991
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner YING CHIEH KAO filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
YING CHIEH KAO to JACOB KAO
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: 1/08/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S32
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
To appear remotely, check in advance of the hearing for information about how to do so on the court’s website. To find your court’s website, go to www.courts.ca.gov/find-my-court.htm
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: November 17, 2023
Aradelsi Rizo, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Gilbert Ochoa, Judge of the Superior Court
YING CHIEH KAO
8741 CELEBRATION ST
CHINO, CA 91708
Telephone No: (650) 333-3622
Jacobkao0508@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on November 24 and December 1, 8 & 15, 2023.

FBN 20230010887
The following entities are doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
CALIFORNIA PLAN OF CHURCH FINANCE [and] CHURCH FIRST FINANCIAL [and] CHURCH FIRST [and] CALIFORNIA BAPTIST FOUNDATION 3210 EAST GUASTI ROAD, SUITE 640 ONTARIO, CA 91761: THE BAPTIST FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA 3210 EAST GUASTI ROAD, SUITE 640 ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number C0275110.
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/ ERNEST P K ONG, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/26/2023
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 J2522
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 on November 24 & December 1, 8 & 15, 2023.

Continue reading →