Over the last 50 months since it was first introduced publicly there has been little movement with regard to the proposal to have Loma Linda de-annex over 200 acres lying within its city limits so the City of Colton can subsume them to allow a subdivision of homes to be built at the farthest western extension of the vast undeveloped wilderness sometimes referred to as the South Hills.
In general, political entities and governments which oversee nations, states, counties, cities, towns or villages seek to expand and take on more territory, more authority and more power. It goes against the grain and the flow of nature for a government to surrender power or authority or give up land. Nevertheless, that is what the City of Loma Linda is being called upon to do near its border with the City of Colton in Reche Canyon. And while all of the requirements for that to occur have not been lined up, it appears that once everything is in place, a majority of Loma Linda officials will be willing for the de-annexation to take place.
University Realty LLC is proposing to construct 350 houses on 209 acres that currently fall within the City of Loma Linda’s jurisdiction at that city’s farthest extension westward.
The property at issue lies proximate to Reche Canyon in Colton, a once rustic area that has become more urbanized as a consequence of incremental development that has been ongoing for three-quarters of a century. Simultaneously, there has been an intensification of the use of Reche Canyon Road, once a little-used back passage linking San Bernardino and Riverside counties which became a far more popular thoroughfare in the decades since the 1984 incorporation of Moreno Valley.
University Realty LLC, also known as Arizona State University Enterprise Partners, is an arm of Arizona State University which is engaged in raising money for that institution of higher learning by acquiring donations of property which can be developed commercially, residentially, and industrially to create a revenue stream, ultimately passed along to the university, or to otherwise make investments in real estate that can subsequently be sold at a profit, and to engage in development projects including what University Realty founder and chief executive officer M. Randy Levin terms “full service, ground-up development including acquisitions and entitlements of land, master-planning and building design, construction, and financing of office, industrial and multi-family projects.”
Loma Linda is contemplating de-annexation of the 209 acres because, lying at the extreme west end of Loma Linda, the property is separated by nearly a mile from the closest available municipal infrastructure and utilities further eastward in Loma Linda, on the other side of the roughly 3,000-acre undeveloped South Hills wilderness. Thus, Loma Linda cannot economically provide the road access, water systems, wastewater treatment services or other infrastructure needed to support the subdivision University Realty is proposing. Colton, however, has long established municipal infrastructure proximate to the 209-acre site. Once the property is absorbed by Colton, those services could be provided. In this way, it appears that what University Realty is trying to do is move the land use decision authority with regard to the property it is intent on developing from Loma Linda to Colton.
Levin/University Realty and Loma Linda city officials/City Hall share a devotion to educational institutions. In Loma Linda’s case that is Loma Linda University. By assuring Loma Linda University Medical Center administrators that the project planned for the property to be annexed to Colton, dubbed Rancho del Prado, will provide housing suitable for doctors and other medical professionals working at the medical center, Levin has created a commonality of interest with Loma Linda city officials relating to having the project proceed. In this way, a majority of Loma Linda officials have shown themselves amenable to going along with the de-annexation proposal.
The Loma Linda governmental structure, nonetheless, has not proven to be a monolith in supporting University Realty’s development agenda. Some officials expressed reservations about the city surrendering its land use authority with regard to the property. Under Loma Linda’s standards, no more than one home could be constructed on each ten acres of the property under discussion. What University Realty is seeking is 1.674 units per acre, or 16.74 homes per ten acres. Planning commissioners Doree Morgan and Larry Karpenko, in particular, expressed reservations about the wisdom of going along with University Realty’s proposal. Likewise, Mayor Phill Dupper is skeptical about the wisdom of the proposal.
Despite that reluctance on the part of a handful of Loma Linda officials, the Loma Linda City Council in October 2017 voted to send a letter to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees governmental jurisdictional issues, in support of letting Colton annex the property, after Arizona State University Enterprise Partners/University Realty, represented by Levin and Christine Aghassi, suggested the property should be moved into Colton’s sphere of influence. The letter stated that the property now in the possession of University Realty “cannot be served by Loma Linda with fire, police, water and other public services, either now or in the future. The City of Colton is the logical provider of these services.” The letter is widely interpreted as a clear signal that the majority of Loma Linda’s decision-makers were in favor of the project.
Levin and Aghassi have in the meantime hosted several community meetings in Colton, specifically in Reche Canyon, where they have sought to persuade local residents that the project will be a beneficial one.
Some Reche Canyon residents have not been easily sold on the idea. In the years since its 1984 incorporation, Moreno Valley has grown to become Riverside County’s second largest city, with a population of 221,387, making it larger, population-wise, than the City of San Bernardino. Reche Canyon Road extends in a winding south-southeasterly fashion into Riverside County, bifurcating at one point into the continuation of Reche Canyon Road and Reche Vista Drive. Reche Canyon Road continues southeast until it reaches Locust Avenue in the Cloverdale district of Moreno Valley. Reche Vista Drive moves generally south, whereupon it bifurcates into Reche Vista Drive and Perris Boulevard, both of which take motorists into the heart of Moreno Valley. In this way, Reche Canyon Road represents a major backroad conduit between Riverside County and San Bernardino County.
As a consequence, on a typical weekday more than fifteen thousand vehicles travel through the canyon, using the road as a shortcut to bypass the 60 Freeway and the I-215 Freeway to reach San Bernardino, the I-10 Freeway, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands and elsewhere in San Bernardino County.
Reche Canyon residents, many of whom originally moved there because they considered it an idyllic rural island in the midst of the rapidly urbanizing Inland Empire, are resentful of the University Realty proposal and the hundreds of more cars it will inject into the already overburdened traffic stream on Reche Canyon Road.
In the early summer of 2020, the City of Colton was closely examining University Realty’s project proposal, and what would be needed to make it a reality. The project has not progressed any further than that, however.
This week, Councilman Rhodes Rigsby told the Sentinel there is no clear indication what will happen to the Loma Linda de-annexation/Colton annexation proposal.
“There are so many variables, it is hard to predict what will happen,” he said. “There is still so much that needs to be worked out for it to go through the planning process.”
A consistency of intent and willingness needs to be maintained on all sides, Rigsby said.
“The developer could lose interest,” he said. “The nearby residents might oppose it. The city [Loma Linda] might not be willing. Colton might not want to go along with the annexation.”
From a logical jurisdictional standpoint relating to the proximity and availability of infrastructure, the land under focus would best be located within the city limits of Colton rather than Loma Linda, Rigsby said.
“Those boundaries were set a half century ago,” Rigsby said, referencing Loma Linda’s September 1970 incorporation. “If you talk to the officials at LAFCO [the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission], which has responsibility over the borders and jurisdictions, they will tell you that the way the city borders were drawn was the product of a lazy surveying process, and for decades they have talked about fixing that. If you look at that particular property, the acreage owned by University Realty, it is completely disassociated from Loma Linda. It should have been part of Colton to begin with. The critical infrastructure that is near the property is Colton’s. Loma Linda has absolutely no ability to provide services to that land. If the officials with LAFCO were setting the boundaries today, it would not be a part of Loma Linda.”
Nevertheless, Rigsby said, jurisdiction of the property is not going to be automatically turned over to Colton. If Colton’s annexation of the property entails de-annexing a dozen or more properties or homes from Loma Linda, he said, the landowners will have a say in which city they remain in or are drafted into. “If there are 12 or more existing homes or properties involved, a request must be made of them,” Rigsby said. “They have to consent to being annexed, or it won’t take place.”
Such consent would be rendered by a simple majority vote of the landowners impacted by the de-annexation/annexation assenting to Colton’s takeover. If a majority of the voters opposed, the property would remain defined as lying within the confines of Loma Linda.
-Mark Gutglueck

The California Department of Water Resources on Wednesday announced that it will not be allocating any water from the State Water Project to any of the 29 water agencies that contract to receive that water at least through the first several months of 2022.
“Given the unprecedented drought conditions, the State Water Project’s initial allocation will focus on the health and safety needs for 2022 of the 29 water agencies that contract to receive State Water Project supplies,” a statement by the agency on December 1 reads. “The Department of Water Resources has advised these water agencies to expect an initial allocation that prioritizes health and safety water needs and that the State Water Project will not be planning water deliveries through its typical allocation process until the state has a clearer picture of the hydrologic and reservoir conditions going into the spring.”
The California State Water Project is a multi-purpose water storage and delivery system that extends more than 705 miles, running two-thirds the length of California. It consists of a collection of canals, pipelines, reservoirs, and hydroelectric power facilities which capture snowmelt in Northern California and delivers that clean water to 27 million Californians, 750,000 acres of farmland, and businesses throughout the state.
Wednesday’s announcement came as California faces a continuing and severe drought. The Department of Water Resources has engaged in periodic shuttering of the water system in the past, but this is the earliest date at which a zero percent water allocation announcement has ever been made.
Each year, the Department of Water Resources provides the initial State Water Project allocation by December 1 based on available water storage and projected water supply demands. Allocations are updated monthly as snowpack and runoff information is assessed, with a final allocation typically determined in May or June.
The lowest initial allocations to occur on December 1 in past years were 5 percent in 2010 and 2014. Last year, the initial State Water Project allocation was 10 percent, though because of increasing dry conditions, the final allocation was lowered to 5 percent.
“Despite a wet start to the water year, conditions have dried out since that first storm and we are still planning for a below-average water year. That means we need to prepare now for a dry winter and severe drought conditions to continue through 2022,” said Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth. “We will be working with our federal partners and State Water Project contractors to take a conservative planning approach to balance limited water supplies with the needs of residents, businesses, and the environment.”
According to the Department of Water Resources, it is now focusing on prioritizing the available water supply in four categories: water for health and safety needs and California Delta salinity control; water for endangered species; water to reserve in storage; and water for additional supply allocations if the hydrology allows.
While the Department of Water Resources is tasked with ensuring the delivery of adequate water throughout the state, there has been significant prioritization with regard to the ecology of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, also known as the California Delta, in recent years, as diversions of water from it and the drought have begun to threaten dozens of species within its footprint. The California Delta is an expansive inland river delta and estuary in Northern California, formed at the western edge of the Central Valley by the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and lies just east of where the rivers enter Suisun Bay, which flows into San Francisco Bay and then the Pacific Ocean via San Pablo Bay.
In addition to limiting the initial allocation to health and safety needs, the Department of Water Resources is making plans to adjust State Water Project operations this winter and spring. The Department of Water Resources is capturing and storing water when possible in Lake Oroville and south of the California Delta in San Luis Reservoir to increase available supplies for 2022 and will continue to do so throughout the winter. Health and safety demands for the Bay Area and Central and Southern California will be met with water available from the California Delta as well as water stored in San Luis Reservoir. Water in Lake Oroville will be reserved to maintain California Delta water quality, protect endangered species, and meet senior water right needs. Beyond minimal exports to meet South Bay health and safety needs, water stored in Lake Oroville will be used for south of California Delta deliveries only if hydrology conditions improve. The Department of Water Resources plans to conserve as much storage as possible in Oroville in anticipation of a third dry year, and potentially a dry 2023.
Also on December 1, the Department of Water Resources along with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, submitted a temporary urgency change petition to the State Water Resources Control Board. If approved, the petition would allow for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project to operate under modifications to the water quality and water right permit requirements in the California Delta from February through April 2022, should conditions warrant. These modifications may be needed to conserve water in Lake Oroville to ensure minimum health and safety water supplies are available later in the year if dry conditions persist. If significant precipitation materializes in the next few months, standards may be met through natural means and modifications to the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project operations may not be necessary.
The Department of Water Resources is also delaying the removal of an emergency drought salinity barrier in the California Delta. The rock barrier across West False River was scheduled to be removed by November 30. Drought conditions have persisted, however, and leaving the barrier in place will enable a more efficient drought response in spring 2022 if needed. The Department of Water Resources plans to create a notch in the barrier in January 2022 to allow for fish passage and boat traffic until April 2022.
“It is going to take a multi-pronged approach to successfully respond to these unprecedented drought conditions,” said Nemeth.
In thirsty Southern California, there is concern that dealing with the drought without the safety net of water importation from the north may prove overwhelming.
In one portion of San Bernardino County that concern is less acute.
According to Heather Dyer, the chief executive officer and general manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, through conservation and water management efforts, San Bernardino County should be able to come through the current water availability crisis. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District service area stretches from parts of Fontana in the west to Yucaipa in the east.
Despite the dismal projection of zero water availability through the State Water Project over the next four to six months, San Bernardino Valley Municipal officials said they are not panicking, and neither should the public.
“Our region has been actively preparing for droughts like this,” stated Bob Tincher, chief water resources officer for the district. “Our primary strategy is to store water during wet years, when it is plentiful, and then rely on that stored water during times of drought, like the one we find ourselves in this year.”
The region has several large underground aquifers where it stores water during wet years. Those aquifers are now 80 percent or more full. The amount of water in storage means that the region can make it through 2022 and even make it through additional years of drought, if needed, San Bernardino Valley Municipal officials said.
Storage is not the only tool available to reduce the local impacts of the current drought. The region has also been stretching its supplies in recent years by using water more efficiently. Although the region’s population has increased over the past decade, water use has nevertheless decreased.
“We would like to thank residents and businesses for their efficient water use and challenge everyone to take the next step toward even great conservation of our valuable water resources,” said Dyer. “Whatever opportunities you might have, no action is too small – fixing leaks, using a shut-off nozzle on your garden hose, turning off the faucet while brushing your teeth, shortening your irrigation schedule, reducing the number of irrigation days, shorter showers; it all helps.”
Although the region is well-positioned to overcome the current drought, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District is continuing to develop additional supplies for the future such as recycled water and stormwater capture as well as enhancements to the State Water Project known as the Delta Conveyance and Sites Reservoir. If the Sites Reservoir was in place today, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District would have received six times more water this year, district officials said.
“Previous generations invested in the State Water Project on behalf of the region. Now it is our generation’s turn to invest in improvements to the State Water Project that will help ensure a reliable water supply into the future,” said Paul Kielhold, president of the San Bernardino Valley Water District Board of Directors.
Although the initial allocation is zero, there is some prospect that the final allocation will be higher than zero. The allocation is continuously adjusted, throughout the rainy season, based upon actual rainfall.
“We plan for the worst, but hope for the best,” Tincher said.
–Mark Gutglueck

diciembre de 2021
AVISO PÚBLICO DEL DTSC
_________________________________________
Departamento de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas – Nuestra misión es proteger a las personas, las comunidades y el medio ambiente de California contra sustancias perjudiciales limpiando los sitios contaminados, haciendo cumplir las leyes sobre residuos peligrosos y apremiando la elaboración de productos más seguros.
____________________________________________________________________
CONVENIO PROPUESTO PARA EL USO DE SUELO
ANTERIORMENTE RANCHO C CLEANERS
8782 19TH STREET
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Periodo de Comentarios Público: Del 3 de diciembre al 14 de enero de 2022
QUÉ ES LO QUE SE PROPONE: El Departamento de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas (DTSC) de California lo invita a dar sus comentarios sobre el borrador del Convenio y Acuerdo de Uso del Suelo (Convenio) del anteriormente conocido Rancho C Cleaners (Sitio). El Sitio es un área de 18,700 pies cuadrados que se encuentra dentro del Complejo Comercial Alta Loma de 8.8 acres (Propiedad) ubicado en la esquina noroeste de Carnelian Street y 19th Street en Rancho Cucamonga, California. El Sitio alojaba al anteriormente conocido Rancho C Cleaners que operó en la Propiedad durante aproximadamente 42 años, hasta 2019. Para evaluar el riesgo potencial para la salud humana de los productos químicos asociados con la operación de la tintorería, se realizó una Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar (PEA) en 2019-2020 para investigar los compuestos orgánicos volátiles en el gas del suelo y el aire interior del Sitio. La PEA indicó niveles de tetracloroeteno (PCE) en suelos poco profundos debajo del Sitio por encima de las pautas reglamentarias para uso residencial (o no restringido) del suelo, pero aceptable para uso del suelo comercial / industrial. No se detectó PCE en el aire interior por encima de las pautas regulatorias comerciales / industriales durante múltiples eventos de muestreo estacionales.
El DTSC ha concluido que es razonablemente necesario restringir el uso del Sitio al uso comercial o industrial a fin de proteger la salud o la seguridad presentes o futuras de los seres humanos o del medio ambiente, y que esta estipulación se requiere como remedio del Sitio aprobado por el Departamento. El Departamento también ha concluido que el Sitio, si se usa en cumplimiento con las Restricciones Ambientales de este Convenio, no presenta un riesgo inaceptable para la salud o la seguridad presentes o futuras de los seres humanos o del medio ambiente.
PERIODO DE COMENTARIOS PÚBLICO – Del 3 de diciembre al 14 de enero de 2022: Favor de enviar sus comentarios a Aslam Shareef, Gerente de Proyecto del DTSC a 5796 Corporate Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630, correo electrónico: Aslam.Shareef@dtsc.ca.gov. Todos los comentarios deben ser matasellados por correo o ser enviados vía correo electrónico a más tardar el 14 de enero de 2022.
DÓNDE ENCONTRAR LOS DOCUMENTOS DEL PROYECTO: Oficina regional del DTSC en Cypress, 5796 Corporate Avenue, Cypress, California 90630. (714) 484-5337, favor de llamar para pedir una cita.
Base de datos EnviroStor del Proyecto del Departamento de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60002908
INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO: Si tiene cualquier duda o inquietud, comuníquese con:
Aslam Shareef
Criss Trinidad
Barbara Zumwalt
Gerente de Proyecto
Especialista en Participación Pública
Funcionario de Información Pública
(714) 484-5472
(657) 777-9829
(916) 445-2964
Aslam.Shareef@dtsc.ca.gov
Criss.Trinidad@dtsc.ca.gov
Barbara.Zumwalt@dtsc.ca.gov

Se puede encontrar información adicional sobre los sitios del DTSC a traves de nuestro EnviroStor.

Big Bear High School Senior Max Sannes captured first place and the California Interscholastic Federation Cross County Championship on Saturday, November 27.
Sannes covered the five kilometer/3.10685595 mile rolling hill course at Woodward Park in Fresno in 15 minutes 0.5 seconds, outdistancing his closest competitor, Bryce Gilmore, who runs for Carlsbad Sage Creek.
Sannes set the pace from the outset of the 5,000 meter/5,468.0665 yard race. At around the 2,700 yard/1.5 mile point, Gilmore caught up with Sannes, seeming for a few seconds as if he were going to pull ahead, but he remained content to merely pace Sannes, who did not break nor alter his 12-mile-per hour stride in the least. The two runners hung together until at roughly the 4,150 yard/2.35 mile mark, Sannes began to pull away.
Sannes’ defeat of Gilmore appears to confirm the theory that many have, which is that constant training at 6,759 feet, where the atmosphere is thinner, confers upon a runner an advantage over a runner training at sea level.
Sannes is the sixth Big Bear High School runner to win the individual California state first place trophy. That puts Big Bear High in first place all time among California’s 1,327 high schools of all divisions.
Bears who previously claimed first place in the championship race were Ryan Hall, who finished first in both 1999 and 2000; Chad Hall, who crossed the finish line first in 2005; and Caleb Webb, who outsped all others in 2013 and 2014

FBN 20210011056
The following person is doing business as: LAKE ARROWHEAD NEWS 27849 NORTH BAY ROAD LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352: SCOTT L RINDENOW [and] ROBERTA F RINDENOW NOW 27849 NORTH BAY ROAD LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352
Mailing Address: POST OFFICE BOX 1313 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 1, 1999
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/ SCOTT L RINDENOW
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/01/2021
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 I5199
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 11/12, 11/19, 11/26 & 12/03, 2021.

FBN 20210011240
The following person is doing business as: FIRST IMPRESSION BROWS 2526 S SAN DIEGO AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761: VALERIE M ROSALES 2526 S SAN DIEGO AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ VALERIE M ROSALES
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/05/2021
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 I5199
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 11/12, 11/19, 11/26 & 12/03, 2021.
T.S. No. 21-20339-SP-CA Title No. 210278435-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1089-201-16-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/21/2005. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Jamal Elyazal, a single man Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 12/06/2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0911247 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 01/06/2022 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: $685,004.36 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 6731 Florence Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-8612 A.P.N.: 1089-201-16-0-000 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 21-20339-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: 11/15/2021 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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021 CPP351710

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF RICHARD FESLER
Case No. PROSB2100905
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of RICHARD FESLER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Laura Rendon in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Laura Rendon 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 on Dec. 14, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S36 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a 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 petitioner:DAVID HUYNH ESQ
DAVID HUYNH ESQ
SBN272521
ESTELLE & KENNEDY APLC
367 N 2ND AVE
UPLAND CA 91786-6006
CN982450 FESLER Nov 19,26, Dec 3, 2021
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel November 19, November 26 & December 3, 2021.

T.S. No. 19-21058-SP-CA Title No. 191149382-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-891-66-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 12/19/2006. 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: Sergio Reyna, a married man as his sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 01/02/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0001112 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 01/10/2022 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: $549,341.62 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3034 Rocky Lane Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-891-66-0-000 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 19-21058-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: 11/22/2021 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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021 CPP351729
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: Gary Lemos
CASE NO. PROSB2100944
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Gary Lemos:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by Mary L. Cabral in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Mary L. Cabral 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 DECEMBER 21, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
November 12, 2021
Jennifer Saldana, Deputy
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: November 12, 2021
Attorney for Mary L. Cabral
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 3, 10 & 17, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: Angel Rosales
CASE NO. PROSB2100936
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Angel Rosales:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by Alma Moreno in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Alma Moreno 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 DECEMBER 20, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
November 12, 2021
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
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: November 12, 2021
Attorney for Alma Moreno
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 3, 10 & 17, 2021.
FBN 20210011818
The following entity is doing business as: FEEL BEAUTIFUL AESTHETICS 11513 FOOTHILL BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: MARGARET M. HERNANDEZ 10818 CLAREMONT BLVD BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
Mailing Address: P O BOX 651 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ MARGARET M. HERNANDEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/24/2021
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 I1327
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 12/03, 12/10, 12/17 & 12/24, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2129348
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Aida Guadalupe Angeles Cornejo filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Aida Guadalupe Angeles Cornejo to Aida Angeles
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: 12/30/2021
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-17
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
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: 11/18/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino City News on 12/03/2021, 12/10/2020, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021

SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JINGA LUCIOUS MAYO
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): CHINYERE CHRISTINE MAYO
CASE NUMBER FAMSB2101845
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgement is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] have been residents of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: Irreconcilable Differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to ward support to Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be confirmed by the court.
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
OTHER REQUESTS: Such other and further orders as the court deems just and proper.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO
351 N. ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
IN PRO PER
CHINYERE CHRISTINE MAYO
6774 KAISER AVENUE
FONTANA, CA 92336
DATE (Fecha): July 30, 2021
by Krystal Lerma (Asistente) for Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
This case is assigned to Agron Department S 50
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/03, 12/10, 12/17 & 12/24, 2021
FBN 20210011114
The following person is doing business as: FRANK’S AUTO TRANSMISSION. 10644 RAMONA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
FRANCISCO J ALVAREZ CALVILLO 10644 RAMONA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763.
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/ FRANCISCO J ALVAREZ CALVILLO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/02/2021
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 11/12/2021, 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021 CNBB44202104IR

FBN 20210011170
The following person is doing business as: LA CASITA AZUL. 56895 TWENTYNINE PALMS HIGHWAY YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ELIA E GARCIA 7830 ARROWHEAD DR YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284.
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/ ELIA E GARCIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/03/2021
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 11/12/2021, 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021 CNBB44202103IR

FBN 20210011168
The following person is doing business as: BLUE LION COMMUNICATIONS. 26952 COMMONS DR MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
OMAR E URIBE 26952 COMMONS DR MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555.
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/ OMAR E URIBE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/03/2021
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 11/12/2021, 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021 CNBB44202102IR

FBN 20210011224
The following person is doing business as: WILLIE B TAX. 24006 LAKE DR CRESTLINE, CA 923251010 TERRACE RD SPC 3 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92325
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
WILLI A BENAVIDES 1010 TERRACE RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410.
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/ WILLI A BENAVIDES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/04/2021
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 11/12/2021, 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021 CNBB44202101MT

FBN 20200009492
The following person is doing business as: EZ TIRES. 1467 E NOCTA ST A ONTARIO, CA 91764
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS NULL
ANDREW RAMIREZ JR 1467 E NOCTA ST A ONTARIO, CA 91764.
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/ ANDREW RAMIREZ JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/14/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 11/06/2020, 11/13/2020, 11/20/2020, 11/27/2020 CNBB44202001MT
FBN 20210010849
The following person is doing business as: CITRINE VENDING 945 W WABASH ST RIALTO, CA 92376 JANELLE S BROWN 945 W WABASH ST RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ JANELLE S BROWN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2021
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 I1327
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 11/19, 11/26, 12/03 & 12/10, 2021.
FBN 20210011371
The following person is doing business as: APRIL’S HOMES. 11510 FERNDALE RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92394; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AVO INVESTMENTS, LLC. 15510 FERNDALE RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92394
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/ MARIO A. GALLEGOS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/10/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202101MT

FBN 20210011446
The following person is doing business as: DAVE’S HAULIN 10004 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; AVO INVESTMENTS, LLC. 10004 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
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/ DAVID BENGINO ESPINOZA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202102CV

FBN 20210011481
The following person is doing business as: AAACMI 1227 COULSTON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); BERNIE AGONOY 1227 COULSTON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 08, 2014
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/ BERNIE AGONOY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/15/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202103IR

FBN 20210011440
The following person is doing business as: J.A. CONSTRUCTION 1473 DORAL CT ONTARI, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); J.A. CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1473 DORAL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ JACOB GLEN ALBAUGH, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202104SB

FBN 20210011447
The following person is doing business as: STAR 1 AUTO REPAIR 2147 W. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 1670 W. 27TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 ]; REYNALDO RAMOS ROMERO 2147 W. HIGHLAND 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/ REYNALDO RAMOS ROMERO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202105IR

FBN 20210011342
The following person is doing business as: G&P REGISTRATION SERVICE 17763 VALLEY BLVD. SUITE G BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 26340 CAMINO LARGO MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555 ]; GARARDO GUTIERREZ 26340 CAMINO LARGO MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555
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/ GERARDO GUTIERREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202107IR
FBN 20210011446
The following person is doing business as: IRON & MADWOODS 17111 MELON AVE FONTANA, CA 92336; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); IRON & MADWOODS, INC 17111 MELON AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ JOSE DE JESUS TORRES, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/08/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202108IR

FBN 20210011305
The following person is doing business as: 11 HILL’S MARKET 4545 MISSION BLVD UNIT A MONTCLAIR, CA 91763; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); NORMA VILLAFUERTE 4545 MISSION BLVD UNIT A MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
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/ NORMA VILLAFUERTE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/08/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202109MT

FBN 20210011339
The following person is doing business as: SANDYBEES 270 E BASELINE ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LATOYA O ANDREWS 270 E BASELINE ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
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/ LATOYA O. ANDREWS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202110MT
FBN 20210011798
The following person is doing business as: UNITY BBQ AND CATERING. 15821 SERRANO RD UNIT #2 APPLE VALLEY, CA 9230 ; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); IVORY D DAVIS JR 15821 SERRANO RD UNIT #2 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307.
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/ IVORY D DAVIS JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202108MT

FBN 20210011799
The following person is doing business as: WOODY WOOD PECKER TREE SERVICE. 7445 LOS FELIZ DR HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ERIC J SALSBERRY 7445 LOS FELIZ DR 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: 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/ ERIC J SALSBERRY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202107MT

FBN 20210011660
The following person is doing business as: FAMILY NAILS & SPA. 1270 W FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CUONG M NGUYEN 1270 W FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CUONG M NGUYEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/18/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202106MT

FBN 20210011309
The following person is doing business as: THREE BEES BOUTIQUE. 22400 BARTON ROAD SUITE 3 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LISA M PANKULICS-GREEN 269 CHICKADEE CIRCLE RIVERSIDE, CA 92507.
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/ LISA M PANKULICS-GREEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202105IR

FBN 20210011792
The following person is doing business as: DEERFIELD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. 11354 CAMPUS ST LOMA LINDA, CA 92354;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GRACE JOY D TABINGO 11354 CAMPUS ST LOMA LINDA, CA 92354.
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/ GRACE JOY D TABINGO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202104IR

FBN 20210011858
The following person is doing business as: HACIENDA GARDEN DECOR. 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ANGELINA CELIS 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; EDGAR H DELGADO 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JOSE CASTANON 2345 N MILOR AVE RIALTO, CA 92377
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/ ANGELINA CELIS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/24/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202103IR

FBN 20210011868
The following person is doing business as: GLEN ENTERPRISES. 23812 PROSPECT VALLEY DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); RICK’S POOL SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE INC. 23812 PROSPECT VALLEY DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
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/ RICHARD ROBERTS, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/29/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202102CH
FBN 20210011931
The following person is doing business as: LUSSTWEAR. 747 W. SUNKIST ST ONTARIO, CA 91762;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); DENISE MARJORIE SOLIS 747 W. SUNKIST ST. ONTARIO, CA 91762; ANTONIO DE JESUS ARELLANO 747 W. SUNKIST ST. ONTARIO, CA 91762.
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/ DENISE MARJORIE SOLIS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/30/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202101MC

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the November 26 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 11-26-21

By Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino City Council appears purposed to censure Mayor John Valdivia during a special meeting scheduled for December 1.
The official rebuke is based and drawn up along relatively narrow lines – allegations said to have been verified by an independent investigator that the mayor violated state mass mailing prohibitions and misused both staff time and city funds for personal and political purposes – and does not memorialize a finding or conclusions with regard to a host of other depredations that Valdivia has been accused of as a public official both during and prior to his mayoralty.
Still, if the council follows through with the censure as anticipated, Valdivia will by next week have suffered yet another blow that will not only tarnish but potentially undercut his once promising public career.
Valdivia’s reversal of political fortune has been a remarkable one.
In November 2018, he was elected San Bernardino mayor, more than eight years after he was initially entrusted with political office following his 2011 ouster of Third Ward San Bernardino City Councilman Tobin Brinker. At the time he was sworn in as mayor in December 2018, Valdivia appeared to have made a political leap to a vantage from which he was poised to vault yet higher up the political evolutionary ladder, first to Sacramento and ultimately, it seemed, to Washington, D.C. In the intervening time, however, a series of revelations have betrayed him as an intensely corrupt politician trading on his position of public trust to enrich himself while serving special interests with business dealings that are directly impacted by decisions made within the corridors of San Bernardino municipal government.
From the outset of his political run, Valdivia personified a remarkable political hybrid, as someone steeped in contradiction who has united in himself disparate and contradictory elements that overcome the paradox. A Hispanic Republican, this at once put him at seeming odds with the vast majority of Latinos not only in San Bernardino’s Third Ward but San Bernardino overall, San Bernardino County and within the State of California. In excess of 75 percent of Hispanic voters in California identity as Democrats or consistently vote for Democrats.
In his 2011 Third Ward council run, Valdivia played across type in another way, accepting hefty support from the city’s public employee’s union, the San Bernardino Firefighters Association foremost among them, followed by the unions representing the city’s police officers and its regular line employees. That support came Valdivia’s way as a consequence of the city’s perilous financial state, which some wanted to ignore. San Bernardino, after more than a decade of deficit spending, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. At that point, then-Mayor Patrick Morris and a bare city council majority had formed the resolve to cut to the heart of the city’s deficit spending by holding the line on city employee salaries and benefits, which represented upwards of 90 percent of the city’s expenditures. Tobin Brinker, the incumbent Third Ward councilman, was a crucial city council vote in support of Morris’s strategy to reduce spending by not giving in to city employee union demands for continuing raises and benefit enhancements. With the unions’ support, Valdivia in the November 2011 election trounced Brinker. Both before and after the election, Valdivia confidently declared that the city was flush with money, and that no municipal financial crisis existed. A week after his March 2012 swearing in, Valdivia offered assurances that the city was shipshape financially. Four months later it was disclosed that the city’s ship of state was listing economically, and in August 2012, the city declared bankruptcy with a Chapter 9 filing. That early faux pas in his political tenure has been one Valdivia never talks about.
In February 2014, just a little less than two years after he had assumed municipal office, Valdivia announced he would seek the Republican nomination for Congress in the 31st Congressional District. Within a short period of time, however, Valdivia and his advisors thought better of that, since such a campaign would unequivocally identify him as a Republican, and in the City of San Bernardino, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 48 percent to 22 percent, and in the Third Ward that margin was 49 percent to 18 percent.
In 2015, Valdivia retained his position as Ward Three councilman when no one surfaced to run against him.
Valdivia sought to cultivate a reputation as a fiscal conservative who was mindful of the cost of various city programs, and he would make a point of questioning at least some of the city’s expenditures when votes on spending came before the city council. For many of his constituents, this masked that his election in 2011 had been a key factor in preventing the city employee salary reforms that then-Mayor Patrick Morris had hoped to institute, a failure which led to the city’s 2012 bankruptcy. In 2015, the city council, in its efforts to guide the city, the oldest of the county’s cities and the county seat, out of bankruptcy, was forced to close out its 148-year-old fire department in favor of a contract with the county fire department, and to shutter the municipal sanitation department. Loss of its fire department was a severe blow to the city’s prestige, and Valdivia squirms and then scurries away every time the subject surfaces. Remarkably, Valdivia has been able to keep hidden from most of his Republican constituents that he had sided with the unions in continuing to grant city employees raises and higher benefits. Similarly, he has had remarkable success in preventing his Democratic constituents from realizing that he is a Republican.
While Valdivia was yet a member of the city council, the city as a whole moved to change certain elements of the way it was governed when a majority of its voters approved in 2016 a new charter which changed the the city’s treasurer, city attorney and city clerk positions from elected to appointed ones, changed its elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years, and reduced the power and administrative reach of the mayor from what it had been under the municipal charter put in placed in 1905, such that the mayor no longer had co-regency with the city manager and control over direct hiring and firing of city employees. Valdivia, who coveted strong mayoral authority for himself, had opposed the charter change. Despite the charter’s passage, in 2018, Valdivia challenged then-Mayor Carey Davis in that year’s election. In his electoral effort against Davis, who was also a Republican, Valdivia, advised by his political consultant Chris Jones, did not hesitate in informing all of the city’s Democratic voters that Davis was a Republican, at the same time omitting from the mailers sent to the city’s Democrats that he was himself a Republican. Conversely, in his mailers to the city’s Republicans, Valdivia played up that he was a Republican.
While he was hobnobbing with hundreds of wealthy, white and Republican campaign donors to obtain money to run his campaign, Valdivia simultaneously made use of his credentials as the city’s leading Hispanic politician in making his pitch to the city’s Hispanic voters, who represented 67 percent of those registered to vote in the city, stressing the importance of the city having substantial Latino representation in elected office.
In this way, by omission with regard to some information, Valdivia made a masterful show of dissembling, hiding what he was from some, showing what he was to others, and misrepresenting what he was to others still to win the 2018 mayoral election. As a result of his political tour de force, Valdivia won, with 19,155 votes or 52.51 percent to Davis’s 17,327 votes or 47.49 percent.
Though in the 2018 primary election Valdivia had supported then-incumbent Second Ward Councilman Benito Barrios for reelection, he ultimately supported civic activist Sandra Ibarra in the November general election when Barrios gained fewer votes than Ibarra and Cecilia Miranda-Dolan in the Second Ward primary balloting. Valdivia had further supported Ted Sanchez in the city’s First Ward, where longtime Councilwoman Virginia Marquez had opted out of seeking reelection. Ultimately, Ibarra and Sanchez were victorious, and upon the trio being sworn into office on December 18, 2018, it became immediately clear that Valdivia was gunning to replace City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller, whom he considered to be a vestige of the Davis Administration. Moreover, it was Valdivia’s hope that if he and his chief of staff, Bill Essayli, could orchestrate Travis-Miller’s termination, he could influence the council to replace her with a city manager of his choosing, with whom Valdivia could broker a deal that would give him the de facto authority to hire and fire city employees and department heads through the new city manager, and thus provide Valdivia with the power as mayor that had been attenuated with the 2016 charter change. As of December 2018, Valdivia essentially controlled four votes on the city council – those of Ibarra and Sanchez, as well as his pre-existing allies on the city council, Fifth District Councilman Henry Nickel and Sixth District Councilwoman Bessine Richard.
In April 2019, after a multitude of closed city council sessions in which Travis-Miller’s job performance had been discussed over the past three-and-a-half months, Ibarra, Sanchez and Richard voted to place Travis-Miller on paid administrative leave. That created a 3-to-3 tie, as Nickel and Valdivia’s two council rivals – Fourth District Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh District Councilman Jim Mulvihill – were not willing to pull the plug on Travis Miller. Under normal circumstances in San Bernardino, according to both the 1905 charter and the 2016 charter, the mayor does not have a vote on issues before the council other than the hiring of the city manager and city attorney. The mayor is empowered, however, to veto 4-to-3 votes and 3-to-2 votes of the city council and to break ties. Based on the 3-to-3 tie to suspend Travis-Miller, Valdivia entered the fray, and tipped the scales to place her on paid leave. In her place, the city council temporarily chose Travis-Miller’s assistant city manager, Teri Ledoux, to serve as interim city manager.
The following month, May 2019, the city held a special election in the Third Ward to choose Valdivia’s replacement as city councilman, since he had been obliged to resign as the representative of the Third Ward with two years remaining on his term in December 2018 so he could move up into the mayor’s post. In that election, his ally, Juan Figueroa, emerged victorious.
At that point, it appeared that Valdivia had an absolute political lockhold on San Bernardino. He could count on the five votes of Figueroa, Sanchez, Ibarra, Nickel and Richard, giving him a 5-to-2 majority on the council with regard to votes on regular items and policy decisions.
He lost no time in making a demonstration of his political primacy.
At the first meeting in June 2019, Valdivia effectuated the removal of Travis-Miller as city manager, conferring upon her a severance package in which she agreed to go away without any further ado. He then used his influence with the city council to have interim City Manager Teri Ledoux promoted from her assistant city manager’s post to that of actual city manager, in so doing establishing what he thought was an understanding with Ledoux by which she was given a professional boost she most likely otherwise would never have achieved in exchange for Valdivia’s agenda being facilitated at the staff level.
Valdivia was thereupon in the catbird seat in San Bernardino. He was not only mayor and thus the presiding officer over the city council who was able to set the agenda for what was to be discussed during council meetings and able to control the ebb and flow of discussion and debate when decisions on official city action took place, but exercised control over how five-sevenths of the city’s decision-makers, the city council – would vote in arriving at those decisions. Beyond that, he had put into place a city manager who was beholden to him for her progression to the top of the professional heap such that she was going to eventually be able to retire comfortably on a nearly $200,000 per year pension, and who was thus inclined to restore to Valdivia the administrative authority he did not officially possess but which was now his because of his established position of dominance in the city.
By the summer of 2019, Valdivia had reached the apex of his political power. Within a very short period of time, however, the control over the city he had so masterfully achieved slipped from his grasp.
Even before Valdivia was elected mayor, there were indications that he was involved in pay-to-play politics in which he was provided with donations to his political campaign fund in exchange for his vote as a council member supporting those donors’ applications for city franchises or project approval with the community development department or contracts to deliver services and/or goods to the city. After his election as mayor, there were further indications that Valdivia was heavily involved in trading his votes for campaign donations as well as evidence suggesting he was on the take, receiving bribes from entities doing business with the city or seeking project approvals, such as many of the applicants for permits and licenses to operate commercial marijuana/cannabis-related businesses in the city. Those revelations included accounts of Valdivia being provided with cash that was not reported as campaign donations and which he simply pocketed, or payments made to him through his consulting business, AAdvantage Comm LLC, which served as a laundering mechanism for the payoffs he received.
Over the last six months of 2019, Valdivia’s political fortunes took a decided turn for the worse. His chief of staff, Bilal Essayli, perhaps seeing the oncoming train wreck, resigned his position in July. Before the end of the summer, Valdivia alienated first Ibarra and Nickel. In October 2019, Valdivia was on the outs with Sanchez, such that by the end of 2019, he could no longer count on a majority of the council’s votes in supporting his initiatives. At that point, Valdivia had effectively lost control of the council. What was more, in his frustration, Valdivia began to lash out at city staff, ultimately alienating then-City Manager Ledoux and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, both of whom were once safely within his camp.
In January 2020, Mirna Cisneros, Valdivia’s constituent service representative, and Karen Cervantes, his special assistant, went public with accounts of how Valdivia had pressured them to have sex with him. Cisneros related how Valdivia had solicited and received bribes. She also laid out how he used city money to travel nationally and internationally on business unrelated to the city, which included raising money for himself or his future political campaigns. Thereafter, Jackie Aboud, Valdivia’s field representative, came forward to say that Valdivia had squeezed her to have sexual relations with him, and that Valdivia had used his influence as mayor to provide favorable city treatment to his donors and supporters, while working to prevent city services from being rendered to his constituents who were not supporters, in particular those in the city’s Fourth and Seventh Wards, represented by his two rivals on the council, Fred Shorett and Jim Mulvihill. Alissa Payne, whom Valdivia had appointed to the city’s Arts and Historical Preservation Commission and the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, publicly surfaced with accounts that were in some fashion similar to those of Cisneros, Cervantes and Aboud with regard to sexual advances the mayor had made toward her. Don Smith, who had worked on Valdivia’s campaign for mayor and was subsequently hired by the city to serve as Valdivia’s part time field representative, offered specific accounts of bribetaking by the mayor, including one of a bribe that had originated from holders of the city’s tow truck franchises, consisting of a cash-stuffed envelope given to the mayor in his presence. Matt Brown, who was brought in to serve as Valdivia’s chief of staff in August 2019, roughly a month after Bilal Essayli resigned, stated that he was being retaliated against by Valdivia for having sought to protect Cisneros, Cervantes and Aboud in the face of Valdivia’s treatment of them, and he retained Tristan Pelayes, the lawyer who was representing Cervantes, Cisneros, Aboud, Payne, and Smith. Ultimately, Aboud, Brown, Cervantes, Cisneros and Smith sued the city over the ordeals they had with Valdivia.
In the March 2020 election, Valdivia’s political affiliate and council ally, Juan Figueroa, was reelected, and Valdivia’s political affiliate and council ally Bessine Richard was voted out of office, replaced by Kim Calvin. Both Henry Nickel, who had evolved into one of Valdivia’s political foes, and Jim Mulvihill, who had never been aligned with Valdivia, were obliged to engage in runoff elections in November 2020 when they did not get more than 50 percent of the vote in March. Ultimately, they were displaced, respectively, by Ben Reynoso and Damon Alexander. While it was initially thought that Alexander might emerge as Valdivia’s next ally on the council, that did not materialize. Calvin very early on clashed with Valdivia, and Reynoso has proven to be a more committed antagonist to the mayor than was Nickel. Thus, at present, the only vote of consistent support on the council that Valdivia can count on is that of Figueroa.
Earlier this year, Valdivia and Figueroa were dealt the blows of revelations pertaining to both receiving support and money, characterized as bribes, from entities with applications for commercial marijuana dealerships in the city as well as from SCG America, which was competing to obtain redevelopment rights at the Carousel Mall in downtown San Bernardino.
In April of this year, Councilman Fred Shorett floated a proposal to ask the voters to eliminate the mayor’s position altogether, such that the city council would exist as seven members among whom the mayoral duty would be shared through a rotating appointment decided by the council members themselves. Ultimately, Shorett’s proposal found support from Sanchez, Ibarra, Reynoso and Calvin, and city staff was directed to provide draft language for a ballot measure to be presented to the city’s voters in the June 2022 primary election to determine if they favor eliminating the mayor’s position effective upon the end of Valdivia’s term in December 2022. Dissenting on the vote were councilmen Figueroa and Alexander. It has been reported that Alexander is contemplating a run against Valdivia next year.
This summer, Valdivia courted further controversy by billing the city for $4,686 to cover the expenses – extending to the cost of gilded invitations, flowers, balloons, meals and drinks – for a so-called VIP reception to be held at the Hilltop Restaurant in San Bernardino in the immediate aftermath of the mayor’s state of the city address. That event, Valdivia insisted, was to accommodate his list of invitees, a group Valdivia characterized as San Bernardino’s “residents, stakeholders and movers and shakers.” It turned out, however, that attendance at the reception was to be limited to those who were invited, and the only council member invited was Figueroa, Valdivia’s lone remaining ally on the council. Nearly all of those invited were Valdivia’s campaign donors, whom he intended to hit up again for more electioneering funding.
Valdivia’s boldness in utilizing public funds for political purposes further estranged Valdivia from the members of the council, and they called upon City Manager Robert Field to have the matter investigated.
Field arranged to have the Costa Mesa-based law firm of Garcia Rainey Blank & Bowerbank delve into the particulars of what Valdivia had done. An attorney with Garcia Rainey Blank & Bowerbank, Kendra L. Carney Mehr, probed the matter and generated a report. That report, which has been reviewed by the city council, has become the basis of a proposal for the city council to officially censure Valdivia.
Mehr’s report, while thoroughly going into Valdivia’s action with regard to the misdirection of public money relating to the reception/fundraising event following the state of the city address earlier this year, did not confine itself to that alone. Rather, it cataloged a pattern of Valdivia’s use of his mayoral authority to effectuate questionable and/or illegal diversions of funds benefiting himself.
According to Mehr’s eight page report, “The Mayor’s office caused 2,075 postcards featuring Mayor Valdivia to be mailed at the city’s expense on or about June 4, 2021, in violation of Government Code section 89002. Elected officials are prohibited from sending mass mailings at public expense as described in Government Code sections 89001-89003.”
The postcards did not invite those to whom they were sent to the state of the city speech but rather served as invitations to the mayor’s reception/fundraiser held after the speech, Mehr noted and “did not notify the recipients of a public meeting or event, but instead promoted a private event and the mayor individually. The city spent more than $2,500 of public funds to design, produce, print, and mail post cards at the direction of the mayor. The design and printing costs were $2,134.08 and the bulk rate mailing cost was $546.33. The mayor violated the mass mailing prohibitions set forth in Government Code section 89002.”
Furthermore, according to Mehr’s report, “In June 2021, the mayor solicited a contribution of $5,000 from the Inland Empire Health Plan to be paid to the City of San Bernardino. Inland Empire Health Plan paid the contribution. The mayor did not report the behest payment as required by Government Code section 84224. An elected official who fundraises or otherwise solicits payments from one individual or organization to be given to another individual or organization is required to report the payment over $4,999. In an email dated June 7, 2021, city staff confirmed that a donation was made by Inland Empire Health Plan at the request of the mayor. The request for the donation was made for the purpose of off-setting the costs of a private VIP reception for the mayor. In a further email, Inland Empire Health Plan made a donation of $5,000 to the city and asked the mayor how many tickets to the VIP reception could be had for the donation. City staff responded by saying the mayor indicated six tickets were provided but could possibly provide more if needed. The mayor did not report the behest payment as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission rules. A copy of any such reports are maintained by the city clerk’s office. The city clerk’s office confirmed there is no such report on file.”
Mehr’s third finding was that “Valdivia used public funds to plan and pay for an exclusive VIP reception to promote Valdivia, which took place after the annual state of the city address on June 15, 2021. The event provided a giveaway item, a ‘hot drink travel set’ that promoted the mayor, not the city, demonstrating the focus of the event was to promote the mayor personally and not the city. In fact, the mayor requested that the city logo be removed from the travel set and replaced with a logo used by the mayor. Significant city staff time was spent coordinating the design and issuance of the post cards for the VIP reception. The reception was held in a private location, not open to the public. The private location was owned by a donor to Valdivia’s campaign. These factors deviated from reception locations in previous years, which were a public community college (planned for 2020), and a local public high school (2019). Invitations were restricted to a list of individuals selected by [the] mayor. Valdivia did not include most city staff or other city elected officials. City staff and other city elected officials were kept in the dark about the event and only learned about it after a constituent brought it to the attention of certain city staff. The catering for the VIP reception contemplated only 150 attendees. The mayor’s personal Christmas card address list was used for the invitees to the reception. The mayor directly invited some guests via email, and purposefully did not invite other city officials in the same manner. The invitations stated ‘non-transferable’ and therefore were not intended for the general public. The mayor misused city funds by applying for reimbursement of expenses for the VIP reception following the state of the city address for personal or campaign purposes.”
According to Mehr, Valdivia also sought reimbursements for travel and meals to which he was not entitled at various times during his tenure as mayor.
“Mayor Valdivia’s expense receipts show frequent trips within Southern California, and to Orange County specifically,” according to Mehr. “The connection to city business for these trips is vague, unexplained, or even overlaps with campaign disclosure forms demonstrating the trips coincided with large campaign donations. Mayor Valdivia’s 460 forms show a significant uptick in his campaign fundraising in the first half of 2021 that coincides with an increase in vaguely explained travel within Southern California.”
460 forms are campaign funding disclosure documents that elected officials in California are required to file every six months during nonelection years and more frequently during election years.
“Mayor Valdivia submitted requests for reimbursements for some meals and certain travel from 2019 through June 2021 but failed to identify a city purpose for the expense and/or improperly commingled reimbursements for meals and travel which combined city business and campaign events,” Mehr wrote in her report. “Mayor Valdivia submitted receipts for the following meals and/or hotel stays without disclosing the person/people he dined with and/or the reason for the travel:
• Hotel stay and meal in San Diego, September 20-22, 2019
• Overnight parking charges from June 29-30, 2020
• Hotel stay in Irvine, September 10-11, 2020
• Parking at Mission Inn, Riverside, October 27, 2020
• Parking at West Beverly Hills Hotel, January 17, 2021
• Hotel stay and meal in Irvine, March 8-9, 2021
• Hotel stay in Irvine, March 18-19, 2021
• Meals in Nevada on March 22-23, 2021
• Meal in Newport Beach on March 23, 2021
• Meal and hotel stay in Irvine on April 13-14, 2021.”
Mehr’s report continues, “Additionally, Mayor Valdivia’s reimbursement requests commingled campaign fundraising events with possible city business. For instance, on April 13, 2021, Mayor Valdivia submitted reimbursement for meals in Newport Beach and a hotel stay for a member of Valdivia’s campaign staff in Irvine. A review of Councilmember Juan Figueroa’s personal calendar identified that as the same date Councilmember Figueroa traveled to Orange County with Mayor Valdivia for a fundraiser. Councilmember Figueroa did not identify any related city business for that trip with Mayor Valdivia. Similarly, Mayor Valdivia’s trip to Irvine on March 18, 2021 appears to commingle campaign purposes with city business. Mayor Valdivia’s calendar entry shows a block of time for the evening of March 18, 2021 for ‘city business.’ However, Mayor Valdivia’s 460 form shows he traveled with someone in support of his campaign on the same date. When combined with the ambiguous block of time on his calendar, the 460 form demonstrates that his stay in Irvine was not primarily for city purposes.”
Mehr concluded, “The Mayor misused city funds by applying for reimbursement of expenses for meals and hotel stays for which he did not declare a purpose related to city business and which overlapped with campaign and fundraising events.”
The San Bernardino City Council meets on the first and third Wednesday of each month. This coming Wednesday, ahead of the December 1 city council meeting which is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m., the city council is scheduled to hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. The only item up for consideration at the 5 p.m. meeting is a consideration of whether Valdivia should be censured.
A censure is a declaration of disapproval, but it does not impact a city official’s continuing tenure in office.
Questions abound about Valdivia’s political future. Up in the air is whether the position of elected San Bernardino mayor will remain in the aftermath of the measure that the San Bernardino City Council is purposed to place on the June 2022 California Primary ballot, asking the city’s voters whether they want to eliminate the elected mayoral post. If that measure passes, Valdivia will find himself a casualty to political cancel culture, as the office he holds will have been out and out done away with.
During the same balloting however, an election for San Bernardino mayor will be held to determine who will fill the position from December 2022 until December 2026. Already a number of challengers are lining up to potentially compete with Valdivia.
Assuming the city’s voters decide against breaking with more than a century-long tradition and turn thumbs down on the measure to discontinue the mayor’s post as one elected directly by San Bernardino’s citizens, Valdivia appears to stand in good stead to remain as mayor, despite the enormous negative publicity he has sustained over the past two-and-a-half years, from the reports of his bribetaking, to his pressuring women working for the city for sex, to his use of public funds to travel on personal business and lodge himself in luxury hotels, to his use of taxpayer money to illegally solicit campaign donations, to the black eye of being, as will most likely happen next week, censured by the city council over which he presides. Despite all of those negatives, Valdivia has a tremendous advantage against any potential rivals in 2022, that being the sheer amount of money he has reposited into his political war chest. As of June 31, 2021, Valdivia had $394,622.54 in his campaign fund. With that money, he can afford to purchase mailers, ensure he is featured on slate mailers sent out by various entities who provide bulk electioneering services to candidates, buy television and radio ads, rent billboard space, purchase ads in newspapers, pay for phone banks, and continue to secure the services of his political consultant, Chris Jones. Moreover, he is yet at liberty to continue to collect donations from both new donors as well as ones who have contributed to his campaigns in the past. The funding Valdivia is accumulating makes it possible for him to conduct a campaign promoting himself in such a way that he can likely overcome the derogatories that have been heaped upon him, and, assuming he can run in either first or second place in the June primary election, conduct an attack campaign targeting the candidate against whom he will be in a run-off in the November 2022 general election.

The legal challenge filed by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a bevy of environmental concern advocates to the two-thirds of a million square foot merchandise processing facility at San Bernardino International Airport approved by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2019 met a significant roadblock on November 18.
A 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a consolidated petition for review filed by Becerra, the Sierra Club, Earth Justice and other ecological/environmental advocacy groups that maintained the environmental impact study commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration for the project was woefully inadequate. The petition sought a ruling by the court that would set aside the operating permit for the Eastgate Air Cargo Facility, which despite the legal challenge, is already up and operating. At that sorting facility, located west of Victoria Avenue and south of Third Street on the far eastern side of San Bernardino, Amazon employees load and unload aircraft and sort packages for delivery.
San Bernardino International Airport, built on the grounds of the former Norton Air Force Base, caters to cargo-carrying aircraft in large measure, and features no commercial passenger flights, though it does have some minor passenger activity involving corporate jets and a few charter flights.
U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay joined with U.S. District Judge Eugene Siler, who wrote in his prevailing opinion that the petitioners did not make a convincing showing that the Federal Aviation Administration failed to meet its obligation to give adequate consideration to the environmental impacts of the freight-handling and distribution operation through what was alleged to have been inadequate weighing of the overall and cumulative effect of emissions from vehicles and machinery located near residences, schools and other places where individuals sensitive to that pollution live or frequent.
Ultimately, the operations at the facility will be ongoing on a 24-hour-per-day, seven-days-a-week basis.
According to Siler, the Federal Aviation Administration in examining the facets of the project made an adequate evaluation of air quality impacts on the facility’s environs and mapped out in detail the method by which it carried out the evaluation, and accounted for the amount, degree and physical characteristics of the emissions that would come from the operation and their effect on nearby properties.
Siler said the plaintiffs did not prove that the Federal Aviation Administration had skipped out on its duty as required by the National Environmental Policy Act when it made a finding by means of an environmental impact analysis that the facility would have “no significant impacts.”
Judge Bumatay concurred.
The third member of the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, however, strongly dissented, writing that the Federal Aviation Administration had trod all over the competing interests of impoverished minorities living proximate to the facility who are being put upon to bear the brunt of the health-threatening impacts of the pollution-generating operations at the facility. The Federal Aviation Administration giving short shrift to those living in the shadow of the facility who will be subject to the air pollution generated there “reeks of environmental racism,” Rawlinson stated in her dissent, and she stridently asked, making reference to Jeff Bezos, if the project would have been given approval if it had been “sited anywhere near the wealthy enclave where the multibillionaire owner of Amazon, resides? Certainly not. The same standard should apply to the residents of San Bernardino Valley, who have already borne for many years the heavy cost of pollution resulting in a quantifiable detriment to their health.”
Rawlinson took issue with the stated conclusion in the environmental impact report carried out by the Federal Aviation Administration asserting no damage to the health of nearby residents will result from the project. Rawlinson said the finding that the facility “will have no significant environmental impact on the already overly polluted San Bernardino Valley does not pass muster,” given the standards of the yardstick being applied, that being the National Environmental Policy Act.
Weighing in with his concurrence with Judge Siler’s conclusion, Judge Bumatay said that Judge Rawlinson had read into the situation a “racial animus” that did not exist, as racial or ethnic discrimination was not an element of the challenge to the project.
Judge Bumatay said that Judge Rawlinson’s interjection or imputation of a racist motivation into the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval of the project was “unfair to the employees of the Federal Aviation Administration.” Judge Bumatay said Judge Rawlinson had “accused [Federal Aviation Administration officials] of condoning racist actions without [giving them] a chance to defend themselves.”
Amazon began operation at its regional air hub near San Bernardino International Airport in April.
Becerra spearheaded the legal challenge in early 2020, while he was still California attorney general, prior to his selection to serve as secretary of health and human services in the Joseph Biden Administration earlier this year.
Becerra together with local environmental activists and justice advocates and both California-based and national environmental groups filed the lawsuit in federal court last year, roughly a month after the Federal Aviation Administration signed on to allowing Amazon to have an operating license for the logistics center at the airport. Collectively, the plaintiffs put forth arguments that in considering the project and giving it approval, the Federal Aviation Administration, together with the San Bernardino International Airport Authority and the master developer they were working with, Hillwood Enterprises, ignored or paid insufficient attention to the health risks the movement of massive amounts of cargo into and out of the facility would impose on the San Bernardino community.
According to the consolidated lawsuits, the Federal Aviation Administration should have more thoroughly and comprehensively considered the air quality impacts the facility would generate from constant plane flights and truck trips, which would “add to the burden” of pollutants flowing into nearby neighborhoods in which residents “already breathe some of the most polluted air in the nation.”
The San Bernardino International Airport Authority is a joint powers authority consisting of the County of San Bernardino and the cities of San Bernardino, Highland, Colton and Loma Linda committed to operating San Bernardino International Airport. Hillwood Enterprises is a Texas-based, global real estate development company of which Ross Perot, Jr. is chairman.
The lawsuit sought from the court an injunction against the operation of the facility until such time as a comprehensive environmental review of the project was undertaken, and for the approval of the $200 million project to be set aside, as the vote to approve it involved “an abuse of discretion,” and was “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.”
-Mark Gutglueck

With the Redlands City Council’s decision on Diversified Pacific’s proposal to develop most of the grove portion of the historic T.Y. England Estate into a new residential neighborhood, 352 current city residents have gone on record as signatories to a letter charging the development company with willfully allowing the trees in the grove to perish.
Jeff Burum, one of Diversified Pacific’s principals, rebuffed the accusation, and pointed out that the company is adhering to the preservationists’ insistence that the entire assets of the estate be maintained intact so the city’s options with the property are not limited. He said city water department records would verify that the grove is being irrigated.
Diversified Pacific, which is headed by Burum and Matt Jordan, in June 2019 acquired the entirety of the 8.8-acre England Grove Estate.
Thomas Y. England began cultivation of naval oranges on a lot at the corner of Palm and Alvarado avenues in Redlands in 1891, constructing on the property a Victorian Style home facing Palm Avenue, behind which he erected a barn, or carriage house, as well as a Queen Anne cottage facing Alvarado Street. The property was acquired by Guy Hunter, who converted the house on Palm Avenue into a prairie style home. The entire estate was sold to James and Annie Atwood in 1922. The Attwoods in turn passed it along to their daughter, Mary Attwood Heeney, and her husband Thomas J. Heeney, who continued to operate it as a citrus-producing grove. It was the Heeneys’ grandson and his wife who sold the estate to Diversified Pacific after they rejected, at various times over the past twenty years, offers by preservationists such as the Redlands Conservancy to purchase the property who had expressed the intent of restoring the estate’s structures and preserving the grove and its original gravity-fed irrigation system, one of the last three remaining such water conveyances in the state.
Burum, Jordan and Diversified Pacific have applied with the city to convert six of the England Grove Estate’s 8.8 acres into 28 2,000-to 2,600 square foot homes on what are mostly 6,200-square-foot lots.
The Redlands Planning Commission after considering the project at its May 11, 2021 and June 8, 2021 meetings, on June 22, 2021, voted 5-to-2, with Dr. Angela Keller and Matt Endsley dissenting, to recommend that the city council provide the project with a mitigated negative declaration allowing it to proceed, with a proviso that roughly 56 of the trees would be retained and a kiosk erected that recites the history of the England Estate and its significance to Redlands.
The project was scheduled to come before the Redlands City Council for consideration and approval at its July 20, 2021, September 7, 2021 and November 16, 2021 meetings. The property slated for development lies within one of the city’s ten sometimes overlapping historic zones, designated as the West Highland Avenue Historic and Scenic District. The council held hearings relating to the project at its July 20 and September 7 meetings, during which it heard from elements within the city who are opposed to the project’s destruction of the grove, which produced navel oranges marketed for decades under the Pure Gold label. At the conclusion of those meetings, the council held off on making a decision. The council canceled and postponed the hearing slated for November 16.
On November 15, the mayor and city council were provided with a letter signed by 352 Redlands residents which stated that the orange trees on the England Estate were suffering “death by neglect,” defined in the letter as “a refusal to adequately water the trees.” The letter stated that “neighbors bordering the grove have recorded that the last time the entire grove was watered by the owner was August 2020. Over the past months, the trees have begun to show distress at the lack of water provided. More trees than ever are losing leaves after drying up, more branches are falling, and the leaves are curling.”
The letter maintained, “We have been told by code enforcement [ i.e., a city employee or employees in the city’s code enforcement division] and a representative from Diversified Pacific that the irrigation system is broken and thus they are unable to water the grove. However, that is preposterous given the extraordinary monetary ability the developer has to fix the alleged break. This is death by neglect, and it breaks the agreement the developer made with neighbors that they ‘would make sure to keep the grove in the condition it was in when purchased.’ Further, it is code enforcement’s job to make sure that properties are adequately taken care of, especially if there is any potential risk or danger to properties not being maintained.”
According to the letter, “As it stands, after an extraordinarily hot and dry summer with temperatures often soaring past 100 degrees and almost no water afforded the trees, the grove is sitting tinder in our dry ‘Santa Anas’ climate. This poses a risk to all surrounding neighbors and their homes. It is the responsibility of code enforcement to actually respond to the requests for action received from residents. We have repeatedly been given excuses and ignored in what appears to be an appeasement to the developer.”
The letter goes on to intone, “The city is already named in a lawsuit about the loss of citrus, and if the suit is decided in the petitioner’s favor, it could impact the future liability of the city to ensure the developer maintains the groves until a final determination has been made about the future of the England property. It is therefore vital that the property owners be required to give the grove the best care possible. That includes watering, fertilizing, and keeping the weeds down in the furrows so that the water can reach all of the trees.”
Jeff Burum said the accusation that Diversified Pacific was not watering the trees was not true.
“If you check with the city, you will know that is not accurate,” he said. “We are using the existing antiquated and broken irrigation system to water the trees. The existing historical watering system is made up of concrete flumes which gravity flows water to the trees. We use it, but it is broken, inefficient and extremely wasteful in a drought challenged state. We use city water from our water shares. Our [water] usage can be verified by the city. People will say things that they know nothing about, especially if it leads to a selfish benefit, and that’s just sad.”
Burum said, “That grove has been dying for some time. It makes no sense to save an ancient water system that is no longer functioning and never functioned efficiently, especially in light of the drought and challenge to our state’s water availability.”
He, his partner and his company were being maligned, Burum said, by elements of the Redlands community which want the historical England Grove Estate fully restored at no cost to them or anyone who is advocating that outcome, which he said is financially unfeasible.
Burum remarked on the irony he perceived in that Diversified Pacific alone has stepped up with a strategy to keep those traces of Thomas Y. England’s legacy to Redlands intact.
In actuality, Burum said, prior to his company’s acquisition of the property there had been a protracted period while the Heeney Family, the owners of the land, had sought to make a sale of the estate to an entity or entities committed to its preservation, but could not come to terms with anyone.
“I would be willing to take no profit and sell the property at my cost to anyone willing to buy the property who wants to maintain it as an historical property and is capable of doing that,” Burum said. “The reality is that no one can do that. The only way for anyone to save the historical nature of the estate is to buy the property and use the surplus land to build something that can be marketed and sold so you can use the money to save the historical structures, the two houses and the barn. There is no one in the community that can do that.”
Burum said he and Diversified Pacific had “done the best that can be done with that property.” He expressed dismay at the vitriol he and his company are being subjected to by some in Redlands for having made that attempt. “We have spent millions of dollars because we believed in Redlands and making something worthwhile for the community,” he said, “We are not being treated nicely.”
–Mark Gutglueck