Over substantial community opposition, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission on Thursday, July 22 recommended that the county board of supervisors give approval to a truck terminal project proposed by developers David Wiener and Scott Beard to be located at 10746 Cedar Cedar Avenue in Bloomington.
The proposed development is located on a 9-acre parcel slightly north and across the street from a truck stop proposed by Nachhattar Chandi on the southeast corner of Cedar and Santa Ana avenues that was approved by the board of supervisors in April.
There were 14 Bloomington residents who spoke before the commission in opposition to the project and 126 letters of concern or opposition to the truck terminal project received by the county’s land use services department prior to the hearing.
Nevertheless, the planning commission entered a 3-to-1 decision to endorse the project, with Commissioner Kareem Gongora dissenting and Commissioner Raymond Allard recusing himself.
Bloomington is a 6.01-square mile unincorporated community with 25,482 residents, bounded by Rialto on its east and northeast sides, Fontana on its west and north west sides and the Riverside County line on its south side. Traditionally, Bloomington has been an agricultural community which has over the last 60 years transitioned into a heavily used transportation corridor because of four major east west arterials that traverse it – Valley Blvd, Slover Avenue, Jurupa Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, all of which lead to or toward Ontario International Airport, as well as the I-10 Freeway and the Santa Fe/Burlington Northern/Union Pacific rail line. The community is saturated with over one hundred illegal truck-related operations. Simultaneously, the county has been permitting trucking-related operations and warehouses to be built within the community, while Fontana and Rialto have given approval to trucking related concerns and warehouses at the periphery of Bloomington.
Thus, a significant segment of Bloomington residents find themselves in a struggle against local government and elements within the community itself pushing toward reinventing the unincorporated town into a transit center. Those residents are at a distinct disadvantage, given their individual and collective lack of wherewithal in taking on more the sophisticated and more economically enabled entities with an financial incentive in seeing that transition take place.
Available demographic and financial information simultaneously paints Bloomington residents, as a whole, as among the most impoverished and the least well-educated and sophisticated of San Bernardino County’s 2.2 million residents. Roughly 81 percent of Bloomington’s population is Hispanic or Latino, with 14.1 percent non-Hispanic Caucasian, 2.7 percent African American, 1.2 percent Native American, and 1.4 percent Asian. The median household income in Bloomington was $34,106 in 2018 and the median family income was $35,936. Single men living there had a median income of $30,680 versus $20,606 for single woman. About 19.8 percent of families and 25.3 percent of the population fall below the poverty line. Over 20 percent of the population is not fluent in English.
Those Bloomington residents resisting the move toward constructing more and more trucking-oriented developments in their midst are in need of a champion willing to carry that fight into the court system.
After the Chandi truck stop project was given approval by the board of supervisors in April, it so happened that the Colton Joint Unified School District did emerge to file suit against the county contesting the approval of that undertaking, putting it on hold until the litigation is resolved.
It is unclear at this point, however, whether the school district or another entity, such as the Sierra Club or the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, will carry the burden of engaging in litigation to contest the approval of the truck terminal project if the board of supervisors follows the recommendation made by the planning commission yesterday.
Previously, the county and Anthony DeLuca, a senior planner in the county department of land use services who is processing the project application, referred to the proposal as a truck terminal. At this point, the county is referring to it as a “trailer storage” yard. This effort to minimize the intensity of the operation appears to be an indication that the project will be given approval when it comes before the board of supervisors, most likely in August or September.
There have been hints but no explicit acknowledgement that the project is to be the eventual headquarters/regional office/operating yard for a trucking company. The facility would provide storage for trailers during delivery off-seasons and/or between deliveries, and would run seven days a week and 24 hours a day, with an average of more than 700 truck trips into or out of the terminal daily. The project is to include 275 parking spaces in total, 260 spaces of which will be 12 feet by 55 feet. The proposed project includes a 2,400 square-foot building for office use and storage, an approximate 250 square-foot guard shack, and a 4,800 square-foot maintenance shop with four repair bays.
The county is using a mitigated negative declaration to provide the project with its environmental certification, rather than a more comprehensive environmental impact report.
A full scale environmental impact report is the most intensive form of environmental certification, involving a study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, biological and cultural resources, as well as health impacts on individuals living or working in proximity to the project. An environmental impact report specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts.
A mitigated negative declaration is a far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project than an environmental impact report, involving the panel entrusted with a community’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, considering an initial study of the project completed by county staff and thereafter issuing a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
A potential issue that could be exploited in legal action taken against the county for approving the project is that it failed to carry out a more exacting form of environmental certification.
That Commissioner Kareem Gongora voted against recommending project approval might have some significance. Gongora is an appointee of Fifth District Supervisor Joe Baca Jr. Bloomington lies within the Fifth District. Whether or not Gongora’s vote reflects how Baca will come down on the issue remains to be seen. In many cases, with regard to development proposals, the supervisors defer to the judgment of the supervisor in whose district that particular project is located. Under normal circumstances, the entire board will follow the lead of a supervisor who either supports or opposes a project within his/her district. In this case, however, the remainder of the board might not be inclined to support Baca in his decision if he opposes the truck terminal, since both Wiener and Beard have been major donors to the political war chests of the remaining supervisors: Curt Hangman, Janice Rutherford, Dawn Rowe and Paul Cook.
Planning Commissioner Raymond Allard did not cast a vote on the recommendation because, he said, he had performed engineering work for Wiener and Beard on other projects they are engaged in.
-Mark Gutglueck

San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn has finalized his decision which upholds a crucial element of a challenge a citizens’ group made to the approval of a 201,096-square foot distribution facility for online retail sales behemoth Amazon near the western end of Upland just north of the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 corridor.
On June 14, 2021 Judge Cohn issued a tentative ruling granting a petition filed by Upland Community First for a writ of mandate against the City of Upland based on what that group contended were shortcomings in the environmental certification of the Amazon distribution center project, for which Bridge Development Partners was given go-ahead last year. This week, on Monday, July 19, Judge Cohn finalized that decision.
A writ of mandate is a court order to a government agency to follow the law by correcting its prior actions or ceasing illegal acts.
On April 1, 2020, the Upland City Council, over the protests of 22 residents who went on record as being opposed to the warehouse during a remotely held city council meeting to consider the project, gave 4-to-1 approval of Bridge’s request to construct a single 201,096-square foot facility involving 25 dock high loading bays for 18-wheeler trucks, another 32 bays for delivery vans and trucks, along with 1,438 parking spaces around the building. The facility was slated for a 50-acre site in Upland north of Foothill Boulevard slightly east of Central Avenue and south of Cable Airport.
From the outset, the project was steeped in controversy. It was originally previewed to the community by Bridge’s corporate representatives in June 2019 as three buildings comprising 977,000 square feet.
Over the next several months, as objections to the scope of the proposal manifested, the tentative site plan was modified several times until in October 2019, a revamped conception of the project was presented, one that was reduced to a single structure of 276,250 square feet. When the environmental review documentation for the project was posted on December 16, 2019, it came in the form of a negative mitigated declaration. In that documentation, the project was shown as a having been reduced once more to a 201,096-square-foot distribution center, with 1,438 parking spaces contained on the project grounds.
The city allowed the project to proceed toward approval without being subject to a comprehensive environmental impact report, which many Upland residents believed should have been carried out for a project of such size, intensity and complexity. Rather, the city elected to use a mitigated negative declaration to complete the environmental review process.
An environmental impact report is an involved study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. It specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. A mitigated negative declaration is a far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project, by which the panel entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the city council, issues a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
A cross section of the city’s residents disputed the city council’s declaration that all impacts from the project had been adequately mitigated, based both on the magnitude of the project and the consideration that the city council lacked land use and environmental expertise. There were questions as well as to whether the zoning at the project site would allow a distribution facility to be established there. Moreover, many people found it highly disturbing that Bridge Development Partners consistently refused to officially acknowledge that Amazon was to be the eventual tenant at the warehouse for the initial 50-year life of the completed project. Bridge/Amazon has an option to renew the lease on the property for another 50-year period, potentially making the project an issue in the city for the next century. Suspicion remained that the project would be subject to substantial expansion, without any further environmental analysis, perhaps to as large as the 977,000 square feet originally proposed, since 1,438 parking spaces is far in excess of what would normally be needed for a 201,096-square foot warehouse. Another major concern was that the project proposal offered no provision for offsetting the sales tax revenue loss that would come about as a consequence of Amazon’s on-line operational model, nor did it remunerate the city for infrastructure damage that would inevitably occur over a 50-year or potentially a 100-year period if the project were to proceed.
On February 12, 2020, the Upland Planning Commission voted 3-to-2 to recommend that the city council not approve project. Two weeks later, on February 26, 2020, the commission met again, and in a move unprecedented in Upland’s history, reversed itself, voting 4-to-2 to recommend that the city council approve the project, with two of the members who had voted against the project on February 12, Linden Brouse and Gary Schwary, changing their votes.
On April 1, 2020, the Upland City Council by a 4-to-1 vote approved the project, in doing so accepting a $17 million development agreement offered by Bridge Development Partners. That approval included the council’s mitigated negative declaration rather than an in-depth environmental impact report.
Thereafter, a contingent of Upland citizens banded together, taking on the name Upland Community First. The group’s members retained attorney Cory Briggs, who then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, seeking from the court an order that the city revisit the environmental review process for the project, make a determination that the mitigated negative declaration was inadequate and require that a full-blown environmental impact report for the project be carried out before the project is allowed to proceed.
As a consequence of the Upland Community First legal filing, any action toward the completion of the project, including site grading, was suspended.
In the meantime, Bridge Development Partners seemingly recruited Bill Velto, who voted in April 2020 as a member of the city council to approve the project and who in November 2020 was elected Upland mayor, to serve as its agent in approaching members of Upland Community First in an effort to get that group to end its challenge of the project approval. To that end, Velto indicated via text messages that Bridge Development Partners had expressed a willingness to more than double the $17 million in project impact offsets the company had agreed to pay in the development agreement for the project approved in April 2020 to $40 million. That offer was conditional upon Upland Community First dropping its demand for a comprehensive environmental impact report and accepting an environmental review that would allow the project to proceed, without any of the changes that would typically be required by an environmental impact report. Upland Community First spurned those offers, insisting that the matter be resolved though the writ of mandate proceeding.
While ultimately, Judge Cohn, who considered the petition for a writ of mandate, entered a finding that the mitigated negative declaration the city council made to clear the way for the project to proceed was inadequate, he did so on relatively narrow grounds. His order was that the mitigated negative declaration with regard to one aspect of the project had to be done over, but his order did not include a requirement that the environmental certification on that aspect of the project, relating to the emission of green house gasses, be carried out as part of a full environmental impact report. His findings let stand the other portions of the environmental certification that were contained in the original mitigated negative declaration.
Cohn sided with the city in rejecting Upland Community First’s contention that the mitigated negative declaration underestimated traffic counts anticipated from the distribution center, and he took issue with the citizen group’s assertion that the city should not have described the project as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse and rather should have classified it as a fulfillment center.
Cohn rejected Upland Community First’s contention that the project was in conflict with Upland’s general plan and zoning code, specifically that distribution centers are not allowed in an area zoned for commercial/industrial mixed-use, and are only allowed in industrial zones. “Allowable uses within this land use category include commercial and industrial” development,” Judge Cohn wrote.
He set aside Upland Community First’s assertion that the zoning issues relating to the project invalidated the project’s approval and entered “an express finding the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinances as a permissible use. [T]he California Environmental Quality Act does not provide that ‘any inconsistencies necessarily constitute significant environmental impacts.’ Noncompliance with an existing general plan or a zoning ordinance is not itself substantial evidence in support of a fair argument the project may have a significant impact on the environment. [T]hat the project is not a permitted use is not substantial evidence in support of a fair argument of environmental impacts.”
Judge Cohn ruled that any conclusions Upland Community First’s members may have drawn based on the number of parking spaces included in the project plans were speculative.
Judge Cohn ruled Upland Community First did not have adequate grounds or authority to dispute the terms of the development agreement the city entered into with Bridge Development Partners and he said the city council had the authority and discretion to enter into that arrangement.
Furthermore, Judge Cohn found, Upland Community First’s contention that the city had failed to adequately define the project was unsupportable, and he ruled that the project as truly defined by the city – a “warehouse/parcel delivery service building” – was an allowed use.
“The city’s conclusion that the project is allowed as warehousing is reasonable and entitled to deference,” Judge Cohn wrote.
Judge Cohn also found unpersuasive Upland Community First’s argument that the mitigated negative declaration should be rescinded because the April 1, 2020 city council meeting at which the project was given go-ahead was conducted in an electronic and remotely-held forum that did not give Upland residents adequate opportunity to provide input with regard to the project.
Nevertheless, Judge Cohn was driven to the conclusion that the city had wrongfully used a greenhouse gas threshold of ten thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in calculating emissions from the distribution facility on a yearly basis as a maximum allowable limit. Since the city had sought to use an inoperative maximum threshold for emissions, he said, the mitigated negative declaration was flawed, and had to be done over.
Greenhouse gasses are those such as carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons, which create a “greenhouse” effect, that is, causing the atmosphere to increase in temperature through the constant absorption of infrared radiation.
“The failure to provide substantial evidence to justify the single quantitative method used as the greenhouse gas threshold of significance constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion,” Judge Cohn ruled. “The public and decision-makers have not been provided sufficient information necessary to understand the threshold or the data used in the analysis establishing the threshold and reason for the significant change in baseline emissions in the subsequent greenhouse gas analysis. Accordingly, the city’s approval of the mitigated negative declaration is set aside.”
Upland Community First and the project’s opponents were able to notch a victory in that they proved the contention they had all along that the mitigated negative declaration was inadequate. They now have an assurance that the city will need to revisit the environmental certification of the project, as well.
Still, the terms of the victory achieved are relatively modest compared to what had been the stated intention of the legal action, which was to force the City of Upland to carry out a full-fledged environmental impact report for the entirety of the project.
Cohn wrote in his decision that “the petition for writ is granted based on the city’s failure to establish an appropriate threshold of significance to apply to the greenhouse gasses analysis for this warehouse project, where the primary sources of emissions is mobile. Once information necessary to set the appropriate threshold is provided, the city may determine whether a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report is appropriate.”
Though Cohn unequivocally established that the city’s finding of no significant effect on the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions was unsupportable, his ruling does not mean, necessarily, that an environmental impact report is required. The city has discretion to choose an appropriate “threshold of significance” and to determine under that standard whether an environmental impact report is required.
The council has undergone change since the April 2020 vote, with two of its members, then-Councilman Ricky Felix and then-Mayor Debbie Stone, having departed. The two council newcomers – First District Councilwoman Shannan Maust and Third District Councilman Carlos Garcia – appear to be more empathetic to the issues raised by Upland Community First than were Stone and Felix or the other two members of the council who joined with them in approving the project, then-Councilman and now-Mayor Bill Velto and Councilman Rudy Zuniga.
Though Upland Community First might have gotten some but not all of what it wanted by pursuing the writ of mandate, a byproduct of that effort was that the project was put on hold. That delay, which has been ongoing for a period of more than 14 months, may have convinced Bridge to simply give up on the Upland project. This spring, Bridge Development Partners approached the City of Rancho Cucamonga about constructing in that city two new contemporary warehouse buildings with a combined building area, including mezzanine space, of approximately 2,175,000 square feet consisting of 2,134,000 square feet of warehouse uses and 41,000 square feet of ancillary office space. There would be approximately 2,136,200 square feet of ground level floor space and approximately 38,800 square feet of mezzanine in the complex, which is to be built on 91.4 acres located at 12434 4th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, bounded by 4th Street to the south, which is also the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario, and 6th Street to the north, and generally located between Etiwanda Avenue to the east and Santa Anita Avenue to the west.
While Bridge has not identified the tenant that will locate into those structures, representing ten times the square-footage proposed in Upland, a logical assumption is the facility is intended for Amazon. Initially, when Bridge undertook its efforts in Upland, it did not identify Amazon as the building tenant.
Were Amazon to establish a fulfillment center in neighboring Rancho Cucamonga with very close freeway access, it is likely that Amazon’s need to operate a smaller facility in Upland would diminish.
-Mark Gutglueck

Less than a month after reports surfaced that Former Fontana City Manager Ken Hunt had shaken her former colleague Acquanetta Warren down for some $1.1 Million, Second District San Bernardino County Supervisor Janice Rutherford has offered him work for the next seventeen months as her chief of staff.
Hunt, who began with the City of Fontana as a municipal employee in 1990 and was making a gradual rise up the chain of responsibility in that city, had the role of guiding the city thrust on him in the aftermath of Greg Devereaux’s 1997 departure to become the city manager in Ontario. In 1999 Hunt became the full-fledged city manager in Fontana.
Fontana was beset with a series of financial challenges in the 1980s and early 1990s, ones which had been redressed by several revenue enhancing arrangements that Devereaux made while he was both Fontana’s housing and redevelopment director and city manager in the early and mid-1990s.
Hunt’s management of the city in large measure followed the program Devereaux had designed, and the city experienced tremendous growth. In the years since, Fontana’s population has reached 217,237, making it San Bernardino County’s second largest city, less than 1,000 behind the county seat, San Bernardino.
Hunt was hailed as a competent city administrator, indeed one who was considered indispensable to the efficient operation of City Hall, without whom effective and good governance in Fontana could not be attained. Among the elected community leaders in Fontana during his tenure there was Janice Rutherford, who was elected to the city council in 2000, and reelected in 2004 and 2008. In 2010, Rutherford successfully vied for county supervisor in the Second District, and was subsequently reelected to that post in 2014 and 2018. Another elected official was Acquanetta Warren, who was appointed to the city council in 2002 and then elected to the council in 2004 and reelected in 2008, whereafter, in 2010, she successfully ran for mayor, and was reelected mayor twice, in 2014 and 2018.
Rutherford and Warren developed a strong and positive working relationship with Hunt. By 2011, Hunt was the highest paid city manager in San Bernardino County. In 2016 he was the third highest paid city manager in California. In 2018, he was the second highest paid city manager in California.
When Hunt’s rate of pay was cited or questioned, Fontana’s city council members and Mayor Warren forthrightly asserted that Hunt’s level of pay was more than justified, and that he was key to the continued financial health and managerial efficiency of the city. Paying him at that rate was not only a fair remuneration for the job he was doing, but insurance that he would remain in the post for the foreseeable future, at least until his current contract was to expire in 2021, and hopefully, they said, for another five years beyond that.
In May 2019, however, Hunt confronted Warren about disturbing information he had come across indicating she was on the take, stemming from knowledge he had that city contracts she had voted to approve and which she had induced three of her council colleagues to approve had not gone to the lowest bidder. Instantaneously, Hunt was on the outs with Warren. To prevent him from going public, however, she arranged to have a separation agreement with him drafted, signed by Hunt on July 12, 2019, which arranged to have him leave at once but kept him on the city payroll until the end of January 2020, so that he would reach his 30-year milestone as a public employee. The pay he received during that six month period totaled $194,755. In addition, as part of the severance package, Hunt was provided with another year’s salary and benefits running through until January 2021 of $464,584.53 along with a settlement stipend of $468,038.47, which totaled another $932,623. Thus, Hunt was paid $1,127,378 by Fontana after he quit working for the city.
Neither Warren nor the city made a disclosure of the arrangements made with Hunt. Warren’s account of what had transpired was amended several times. The settlement, she at one point said, was made by the city to accommodate his desire to leave, which implied his departure was a voluntary one of his own choosing. The contract Hunt was working under before his departure, which ran through 2021, however, made clear that he would be provided no severance if he left of his own volition. When questioned why the city had then given Hunt what totaled to more than a $1.1 million severance when the city had no contractual obligation to make such a payout, Warren evaded the question.
The separation agreement contains a clause prohibiting Hunt from saying anything about the reason for his departure other than that it was an “amicable” one.
Next Tuesday, July 27, the board of supervisors is set to consider an item brought before it by Supervisor Rutherford which calls for the board to “Approve [a] new employment contract with Kenneth Hunt to provide support services to the Second District Supervisor as chief of staff, effective July 31, 2021, for an estimated annual cost of $252,465 (salary – $156,125, benefits – $96,340).”
The report for the item states “Staff services to members of the board of supervisors are provided through contractual arrangement, as required by the county charter. The recommended employment contract would engage Kenneth Hunt to provide support services to the Second District supervisor as chief of staff, effective July 31, 2021. Either party may terminate the contract at any time without cause with a 14-day prior written notice to the other party. The contract may be terminated for just cause immediately by the county.”
Hunt is being brought in to replace her most recent chief of staff, Phil Paule, who left her employ yesterday to move into a position as the chief of staff for Riverside County Supervisor Karen Spiegel.
Hunt will be Rutherford’s fourth, and likely last, chief of staff. She will be termed out of office in December 2022. Previous to Paule, her chief of staff was Andrew Takata, who succeeded Chad Mayes.
-Mark Gutglueck

A suspicious fire at Liberty Sculpture Park that apparently took place earlier today or late yesterday destroyed Weiming Chen’s latest artwork and political statement, CCP Virus.
In existence since 2017, Liberty Sculpture Park in Yermo, some 11 miles east of Barstow and visible from the northeast bound lanes south of the I-15 Freeway, is home to artwork by Chen, who characterizes himself as equal parts sculptor and freedom activist. The works Chen has established in the 36-acre compound in the Mojave Desert are intended to celebrate the human spirit in its longing for freedom in the face of the oppression of tyranny, which in the modern world, according to Chen, is represented by communism.
Chen was born in Hangzhou, China in 1970 and now resides in both New Zealand and the United States. On June 4 he unveiled CCP Virus [i.e., Chinese Communist Party Virus] and his other latest work, titled Victims of Communism. They joined other Chen pieces, including a bust of Chief Crazy Horse, the inside of the headdress for which bears the phrase, “Give me liberty or give me death”; a statue of Chinese activist Li Wangyang; Tank Man, which shows the still-unidentified man with two shopping bags who stood down a tank on June 5, 1989 during protests that took place in Tiniananmen Square that year; 64, which commemorates the Tiniananmen Square protests, which, according to unverified reports contradicted by the Chinese Communist Government, ended in the massacre of somewhere between 200 and 2,000 protesters; and the work Liberate Hong Kong.
Until it was destroyed, CCP Virus was a three dimensional depiction of a coronavirus cell melded into the head of a man’s head/skeleton. The intended statement was that COVID-19 is the product of a military/governmental lab in Wuhan, China. Such suggestions, even in the United States, were formerly dismissed as anti-Chinese propaganda, but the scientific community more recently has partially credited that account, suggesting the COVID-19 virus involved genetic manipulations of a naturally occurring virus. Experts are divided on the purpose of the alterations with most saying they were done to advance legitimate research on how to combat the disease, while a minority believe there may have been a darker, more sinister intent at play.
The Sentinel was notified of what had occurred just prior to press time, and has been unable to determine if the destruction of Weiming Chen’s political statement was a misguided effort at a countervailing political statement.
The other sculptures at the park remain intact.

FBN 20210006704
The following person is doing business as BELOVED LULU 3040 N. STODDARD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405: AILEEN ROBLES 3040 N. STODDARD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ AILEEN ROBLES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/24/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02/21, 07/09/21, 07/16/21, 07/23/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006021
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Sharkey Financial, 7828 Haven Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, College Planning Professionals, LLC, 7828 Haven Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Stephanie Harkey
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/07/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/02/21, 07/09/21, 07/16/21, 07/23/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006127
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Cano’s Pool Service, 5394 Yale St, Montclair, CA 91763, Alejandro Lucas, 5394 Yale St, Montclair, CA 91763
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Alejandro Lucas
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/10/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/31/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/02/21, 07/09/21, 07/16/21, 07/23/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006127
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Cano’s Pool Service, 5394 Yale St, Montclair, CA 91763, Alejandro Lucas, 5394 Yale St, Montclair, CA 91763
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Alejandro Lucas
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/10/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/31/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/02/21, 07/09/21, 07/16/21, 07/23/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006763
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: POP Roxy Girls, 18018 Deerberry Way, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Mailing Address: 18018 Deerberry Way, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Keisha M. Harris, 18018 Deerberry Way, San Bernardino, CA 92407
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Keisha M. Harris
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/02/21, 07/09/21, 07/16/21, 07/23/21
Notice of Sale of Real Property at Private Sale
Case No.: PROPS2000150
In re the Matter of: THE ESTATE OF ISABEL FRANCO STOKES, Decedent.
Pursuant to Probate Code §§ 10300, 10304,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, subject to confirmation by this court, on September 8, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., or thereafter within the time allowed by law, Jaime Salazar, as administrator of the estate of the above-named decedent, will sell at public auction to the highest and best net bidder on the terms and conditions stated below all right, title, and interest of the decedent at the time of death and all right, title, and interest that the estate has acquired in addition to that of the decedent at the time of death, in the real property located in San Bernardino County, California.
This property is commonly referred to as 1476 Turquoise Avenue, Mentone, CA 92359, assessor’s parcel number 0298-073-10-0-000, and is more fully described as follows: The following described real property located in the County of San Bernardino, State of California: Lot 16 of Tract Number 2868 Soffel addition# 2, as per Map recorded in Book 39, page{s) 66 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, San Bernardino County, State of California.
The property will be sold subject to current taxes, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way, and easements of record, with any encumbrances of record to be satisfied from the purchase price.
The property is to be sold on an “as is” basis, except for title.
The personal representative has given an exclusive listing to REACH Real Estate.
Bids or offers are invited for this property and must be in writing, and can be mailed or delivered at any time after first publication of this notice and before any sale is made, to the attorney for the administrator: R. Sam Price Price Law Firm APC 300 East State Street, Suite 620 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 328-7000
The property will be sold on the following terms: Cash, or part cash and part credit, the terms of such credit to be acceptable to the undersigned and to the court, 10 percent (10%) of the amount of the bid to accompany the offer by certified check, and the balance to be paid within thirty (30) days of confirmation of sale by the court.
Taxes, rents, operating and maintenance expenses, and premiums on insurance acceptable to the purchaser shall be prorated as of the date of recording of conveyance. Examination of title, recording of conveyance, transfer taxes, and any title insurance policy shall be at the expense of the purchaser or purchasers.
The right is reserved to reject any and all bids.
The amount of overbid should at least be $237,800.
A 10% deposit by the successful overbidder in the form of certified check is a requirement.
The time and place for anyone wishing or seeking to contest the auctioning of this property or the process by which it is to take place is to make such a protest is August 10, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department S36 before the Honorable Judge Hon. Michelle H. Gilleece.
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District – Probate Division.
For further information and bid forms, contact: R. Sam Price Price Law Firm APC 300 East State Street, Suite 620 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 328-7000 sam@pricelawfirm.com
Filed: June 2, 2021
Selyna Razo, Deputy Clerk San Bernardino County Superior Court
S/Jaime Salazar, Administrator of the Estate of Isabel Franco Stokes
S/ R. Sam Price, Esq. Attorney for Jaime Salazar
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 9, 16, 23 & 30, 2021
FBN 20210006319
The following entity is doing business as RESILIENT MARTIAL ARTS AND FITNESS 9524 19th STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737: EXCELLENT ENGLISH EXPERIENCE, INC. 8654 BAY LAUREL STREET CHINO, CAL 91708
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION C4296506
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ GUANGDI LIU This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JULY 10, 2019
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/9, 7/16, 7/23 & 7/30, 2021.
CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIVDS 2014752
SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR. and DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more infor-mation at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov) en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
Date: (Fecha) July 1, 2020
Clerk of Court (Secretario)
La Shonda Richardson, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Case No.: CIVDS2014752
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
Plaintiffs
vs.
JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants
To Defendant, JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Plaintiffs, ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN
OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 425.11, hereby state the nature and amount of damages being sought as follows:
1. ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,047.31
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,042.68
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
CRYSTAL GONZALEZ:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $15,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $1,496.29
(2). Future medical expenses (present value) $500.00
Dated: September 8, 2020
GABRIEL& ASSOCIATES
By SAMUEL E. GABRIEL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA
DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, CRYSTAL
GONZALEZ
JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813
Telephone:(562) 436-9292
Facsimile: (562) 436-3131
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: GIGI HERNANDEZ
CASE NO. PROSB2100197
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of GIGI HERNANDEZ has been filed by MARIA HERNANDEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARIA HERNANDEZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held AUGUST 24, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
AMY GAMEZ-REYES, Deputy
JUNE 24, 2021
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: June 24, 2021
Attorney for Maria Hernandez:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 16, July 23 & July 30, 2021.

Notice of Hearing Regarding Report of Sale and Petition for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property
Case No.: PROPS1800131
In re the Matter of: THE ESTATE OF ALLINE BAZILIUS, Decedent.
[Probate Code §§ 10300, 10304]
Date: August 16, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: S35 Judge: Hon. STANFORD E. REICHERT
. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, subject to confirmation by this court, on August 16,2021, at 9:00 a.m., or thereafter within the time allowed by law, Michael Paul Bazilius, as administrator of the estate of the above-named decedent, will sell at public auction to the highest and best net bidder on the terms and conditions stated below all right, title, and interest of the decedent at the time of death and all right, title, and interest that the estate has acquired in addition to that of the decedent at the time of death, in the real property located in San Bernardino County, California.
This property is commonly referred to as 4679 Chino Avenue, Chino, CA 91710, assessor’s parcel number 1019-451-08-0000, and is more fully described as follows: The following described real property located in the County of San Bernardino, State of California: That portion of the East 1/2 of Lot 35, Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 8 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to subdivision of RANCHO SAN ANA DEL CHINO, aa per plat recorded In Book 6 of Maps, page 15, records of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at a point in the center of Chino Avenue 114 feet West from the Northeast corner of said lot at the intersection of the center lines of said Chino Avenue and West Vernon Avenue, also known as Yorba Avenue; thence South 233 feet; thence West 90 feet; thence North 233 feet; thence East 90 feet to the point of beginning,
The property will be sold subject to current taxes, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way, and easements of record, with any encumbrances of record to be satisfied from the purchase price.
The property is to be sold on an “as is” basis, except for title.
The personal representative has given an exclusive listing to Prestige Realty Group Inc.
Bids or offers are invited for this property and must be in writing, and can be mailed or delivered at any time after first publication of this notice and before any sale is made, to the attorney for the administrator: R. Sam Price Price Law Firm APC 300 East State Street, Suite 620 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 328-7000
The property will be sold on the following terms: Cash, or part cash and part credit, the terms of such credit to be acceptable to the undersigned and to the court, 10 percent (10%) of the amount of the bid to accompany the offer by certified check, and the balance to be paid within thirty (30) days of confirmation of sale by the court.
Taxes, rents, operating and maintenance expenses, and premiums on insurance acceptable to the purchaser shall be prorated as of the date of recording of conveyance. Examination of title, recording of conveyance, transfer taxes, and any title insurance policy shall be at the expense of the purchaser or purchasers
The amount of overbid should at least be $576,950.
A 10% deposit by the successful overbidder in the form of certified check is a requirement.
For further information and bid forms, contact: R. Sam Price Price Law Firm APC 300 East State Street, Suite 620 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 328-7000
Date: 7/16/21
Michael Paul Bazilius, Administrator of the Estate of Alline Bazilius Price Law Firm, APC
Date 7/16/21
S/ R. Sam Price
By R. Sam Price, Esq. Attorney for Michael Paul Bazilius
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 7/16, 7/23 & 7/30, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Araceli Sanchez
Case NO. PROPS2100620
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Araceli Sanchez
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Briannna Rivera in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Briannna Rivera be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S36 at 9:00 a.m. on October 20, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, Branch Name: Probate Division.
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:
Kitty A. Baker, Esq.
43920 Margarita Road, Suite F
Temecula, CA 92592
Telephone No: 858-278-2800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel:
07/16/21, 07/23/21, 07/30/21
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVSB2118341
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Shannon Anjanette Griffin filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Shannon Anjanette Griffin to Shannon Anjanette Nichols
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: 09/08/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the 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: July 08, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/16/21, 07/23/21,  07/30/21, 08/06/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006452
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lux Rejuvenation Aesthetics, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373, Medical Legal Management, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Maria Sanchez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/18/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/16/21, 07/23/21, 07/30/21, 08/06/21

FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/16, 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 25, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 7, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RUTH ELLEN MOORE
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH ELLEN MOORE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON LEE LUNGER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON LEE LUNGER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 21, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Date: July 9, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA
CASE NO. PROSB2100213
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA, aka JUAN GONZALEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 2, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND
NO. PROSB2100293
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by BLANCA S. HAMMOND in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BLANCA S. HAMMOND be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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: JULY 8, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner:
Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Blanca S. Hammond
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2114732
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN IV filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES*** FLANNIGAN IV to Flannigan IV, James
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/15/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 13, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30, 8/06 & 8/13, 2021

FBN 20210006609
The following person is doing business as: TAYS PEST CONTROL LLC 6087 PORTSMOUTH STREET CHINO, CA 91710 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); TAYS PORTSMOUTH STREET CHINO, CA 91710
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/ OCTAVIUS DANIELS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202101

FBN 20210006547
The following person is doing business as: COR COOKING 7206 GABRIEL DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); MEGAN R POTTS 7206 GABRIEL DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336; SCOTT A IRWIN 7206 GABRIEL DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 24, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MEGAN R. POTTS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202102MT

FBN 20210006462
The following person is doing business as: SIRANDA’S HOME RENOVATION 563 FILLMORE PL APT E POMONA, CA 91768 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); FRANCISCO J SIRANDA 563 FILMORE PL APT E POMONA, CA 91768; MELISSA A SIRANDA 563 FILMORE PL APT E POMONA, CA 91768
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MELISSA A SIRANDA, WIFE
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/18/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202103CH

FBN 20210006323
The following person is doing business as: ACCURATE ORNAMENTALS 1891 DORJIL PLACE. APT F SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JOSE C GUTIERREZ JR 1891 DORJIL PLACE. APT F SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 28, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE C. GUTIERREZ JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/15/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202104IR

FBN 20210006324
The following person is doing business as: VENTURE VINDICATION; FASHION SEVEN 0 TOW 13146 WARM SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); MIRZA HASSAN 13146 WARM SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394
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/ MIRZA HASSAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/15/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202105IR

FBN 20210006321
The following person is doing business as: AMPELIO PADILLA’S BARBERSHOP 4639 RIVERSIDE DR CHINO, CA 91710 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS );[ MAILING ADDRESS 944 E. LEXINGTON AVE POMONA, CA 91766]; AMPELIO ENTERPRISES, INC 4639 RIVERSIDE DR CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ YOLANDO P. SALAS, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/15/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202106

FBN 20210006562
The following person is doing business as: EMPORIO SUSHI & MARISCOS 9765 SIERRA AVE. STE J-K FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS );[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 3471 ANAHEIM, CA 92803] EMPORIO SUSHI & MARISCOS 3 INC 9765 SIERRA AVE STE J-K FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HERNAN A. URIARTE, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202107IR

FBN 20210006550
The following person is doing business as: SQUID’S TATTOOS 12756 CAMPHOR CT. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); SYDNEY J BRIONES 12756 CAMPHOR CT. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
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/ SYDNEY J. BRIONES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202108IR

FBN 20210006546
The following person is doing business as: MAX’D OUT KICKS 2225 PUMALO STREET #276 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); ADORTHUS CHERRY 2225 PUMALO STREET #276 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APR 15, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ADORTHUS CHERRY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202109MT

FBN 20210006318
The following person is doing business as: EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION 14840 EBONY PL FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); NINEONINE TRANSPORTATION, INC. 14840 EBONY PL FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EMMANUEL LIZARRAGA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/15/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202110
FBN 20210006317
The following person is doing business as: THE TUTORING TEACHER 7619 SANDPIPER COURT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); ANNA O’BRIEN-KINSEY 7619 SANDPIPER COURT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ ANNA O’BRIEN-KINSEY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/15/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202111MT

FBN 20210006413
The following person is doing business as: VIP SHUTTERS 845 W VALLEY BLVD #29 COLTON, CA 92324 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JOSE M MORALES LEON 845 W VALLEY BLVD #29 COLTON, CA 92324
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/ JOSE M. MORALES LEON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202112MT

FBN 20210006470
The following person is doing business as: ALCARAZ TRANSPORT 357 S ASHFOD AVENUE RIALTO, CA 92376 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); CARLOS H ALCARAZ VERDUZCO 357 S ASHFORD AVENUE 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: APR 27, 2018
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/ CARLOS H. ALCARAZ VERDUZCO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/18/2021
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 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202113MT

FBN 20210006610
The following person is doing business as: CORSINI COACHING AND CONSULTING 2492 TROJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JIREH’
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/ JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202114

FBN 20210006611
The following person is doing business as: GARMENTS OF PRAISE 2492 TROJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JIREH’S ENTERPRISES LLC 2492 TROJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786
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/ JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/02/2021, 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021 CNBB26202115

FBN 20210006385
The following person is doing business as: RIVAS TRANSPORTATION 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92404
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/ JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202101MT

FBN 20210006561
The following person is doing business as: H&J LAWN AND GARDEN 11535 RECHE CANYON RD COLTON, CA 92324 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); HECTOR M SALAZAR 11535 RECHE CANYON RD COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 08/05/2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HECTOR M SALAZAR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202102IR

FBN 20210006609
The following person is doing business as: OBLIVION DESIGN 6387 REDHEAD WAY FONTANA, CA 92336 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); VALERY ADAMS 6387 REDHEAD WAY FONTANA, CA 92336; GLORIA BECERRA GARCIA 6387 REDHEAD WAY FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ VALERY ADAMS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202103MT

FBN 20210006837
The following person is doing business as: ZORAM LUNA REALTY GROUP; ZORAM REALTY GROUP; ZORAM REAL ESTATE GROUP; ZORAM LUNA REAL ESTATE GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); ZORAM LUNA 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: OWNER
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/ ZORAM LUNA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/01/2021
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
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202104MT

FBN 20210006905
The following person is doing business as: TOP DOG MOBILE GROOMING 7020 NOVARA PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); TAIYLOR V GWIN 7020 NOVARA PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ TAIYLOR V.GWIN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/02/2021
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 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202105MT

FBN 20210006907
The following person is doing business as: CREATIVE CUTZ & STYLES 1638 E. WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JEREMI J MASSEY 1638 E. WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 15, 2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JEREMI J. MASSEY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/02/2021
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 07/09/2021, 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021 CNBB27202106MT
AFFIDAVIT
Notice
of
NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT
Nation of American Hebrew Israelite Monarchy referred to hereafter as, “NAHIM”,
attests it was established January 1, 2013 in the San Bernardino County, the California State,
as an “Independent Sovereign Government”, authorized by ‘law to exist pursuant to,
“Luther v. Borden US !,12;.LED 581. 1st Amendment Article 1l, 10th Amendment, & 11th Amendment.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT is our “OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION.” We have created our passport for the purposes of traveling worldwide, by air, land or sea; afforded the protection of “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY” under the laws of the United States Constitution. We are centered on creating friendly relationships and communication with other countries worldwide for the ‘purpose of ministering salvation and the gospel of our heavenly father who is ‘OUR KING” Yhoah Ehyeh the creator of the heaven & earth in their countries.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM Govemment is “Not” affiliated with the U.S. Government, nor any of it’s law enforcement agencies, yet we share the same goals of “HONORING/OBEYING’ the U.S. Constitution. All of our passport holders. “ARE AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS”.
This Affidavit of Notice can.be refuted by “ANYONE” within 30 days in a court of law by affidavit using U.S. Constitutional laws “ONLY” signed under perjury and notarized in the presence of a notary public proving the NAHIM Government passport is by U.S. Constitutional law “UNLAWFUL.” Should NO ONE refute this affidavit within the given 30 days of receiving it in a court of law, it is then DECLARED”, THE NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT IS A LAWFUL “SOVEREIGN PASSPORT TO POSSESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WHICH AUTHORIZES ITS EXISTENCE
AND USE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.
Send your Affidavit of refute to:
E. Sog
NAHIM Government
General Delivery, San Bernardino, Ca 92402
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210005949
The following person is doing business as GARNISH PIZZA & GRILL 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730:
NATION FOOD SERVICE INC 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA C4264978
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ PARVINDER SINGH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/3/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: APRIL 10, 1990
County Clerk, Deputy I6764
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006061
The following person is doing business as OPTIMA REEFER SERVICE 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407: OPTIMA REEFER SERVIC, LLC 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA 202114810451
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JOSE F. VALENCIANO GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/08/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006059
The following person is doing business as OPEN DOOR REALTY & INVESTMENT 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
ROSA M ESTRADA 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 [and] RICARDO CASTRO 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ROSA M ESTRADA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/8/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: SAYULITA 369 1315 HARD STREET UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); CESAR A. SIGALA ORTIZ 1315 HARDT STREET UNIT B 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: 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/ CESAR A SIGALA ORTIZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202101SN

FBN 20210006838
The following person is doing business as: BEE CUTE FASHION 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; MINDY RODRIGUEZ 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; ELIZABETH M SALAZAR 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR. CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
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/ MINDY RODRIGUEZ, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/01/2021
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
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB282021002CV

FBN 20210006385
The following person is doing business as: RIVAS TRANSPORTATION 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92404
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/ JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202103MT

FBN 20210007041
The following person is doing business as: CHERRY REGISTRATION 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); GABRIELA J ALVARADO 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ GABRIELA J ALVARADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202104MT

FBN 20210007054
The following person is doing business as: CHALECO’S LOGISTICS 461 E. REDLANDS BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS );[ MAILING ADDRESS 700 E. WASHINGTON BLVD COLTON, CA 92324]; JOSE G VALDEZ GALINDO 700 E. WASHINGTON ST. SPC #21 COLTON, CA 92324
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/ JOSE G. VALDEZ GALINDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202105IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the July 16 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel

Sentinel 07-16-21

David Wiener & Scott Beard On Track To Construct A Truck Terminal In Bloomington

The Death Of Former Congressman Jerry Lewis

San Bernardino County Takes It On The Jaw In U.S. Federal Court

Departing LA Mayor Lobbies For Gold Line Extension To Montclair

State Budget Provides For Local Capital Improvements

Long Dormant Victorville Fire Station Now Occupied

By Mark Gutglueck
County officials are angling toward allowing two well-connected developers working in tandem to construct a large truck terminal in Bloomington without completing an environmental impact report.
The project is to come before the county planning commission for a recommendation next Thursday, July 22, after which it is to go before the county board of supervisors for approval, perhaps as early as next month. It is widely anticipated that in accordance with the evaluation of the project by the county’s land use services division, the county planning commission will recommend that the board of supervisors give the project go-ahead.
To do that, however, the board of supervisors will need to grant the two project proponents, David Wiener and Scott Beard, a zone change on the property, as the current land use designation there is inconsistent with the project they are proposing.
The board of supervisors appears poised to go along with granting the zone change and a conditional use permit that will need to accompany it.
The project proponents stand in good stead with the board of supervisors. Wiener ranks among the top ten most generous donors to politicians in San Bernardino County over the last 30 years and Beard falls within the top 20.
A firestorm of protest is brewing among local residents objecting to the project, a replication of the sentiment that manifested toward another trucking-related project in Bloomington approved by the board of supervisors in April which likewise was not subject to an environmental impact report. The similarities between the earlier approved project and the current one, taken together with the consideration that the proponents of both undertakings are deep-pocketed businessmen infamous for applying political grease – money in the form of hefty donations to the campaign accounts of the elected officials who have ultimate authority over the projects – has given most knowledgeable observers of the circumstances the impression that the truck terminal project is a done deal.
With the prospect that the voices of the largely impoverished residents of the Bloomington community who do not have the wherewithal to buy political influence will be drowned out by the monetary megaphones in the possession of Wiener and Beard, Bloomington residents find themselves in the position of looking to either the Colton Joint Unified School District or environmental groups for assistance in stopping the project. The school district filed a lawsuit against the county over its April approval of a truck stop to be built in Bloomington by Chandi Enterprises, challenging that undertaking on environmental grounds, and the Sierra Club or other environmentally-focused activists potentially could take legal action to prevent the project being previewed in front of the county planning commission next week from proceeding if the board of supervisors subsequently approves the project, the associated zone change and mitigated negative declaration accompanying it.
Wiener and Beard are proposing the development of a truck terminal facility in Bloomington on 8.94 acres at 10746 Cedar Avenue. Though the project is thought to be the eventual headquarters/regional office/operating yard for a trucking company, neither the project proponents nor the county land use services division has acknowledged that explicitly, and the trucking company has not been identified. The facility would provide storage for trailers during delivery off-seasons and/or between deliveries. The facility would run seven days a week and 24 hours a day, with an average of more than 700 truck trips into or out of the terminal daily.
According to a document filed with the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, “Storage typically ranges from a couple of days to months and these types of sites are typically at a maximum of 80 percent occupancy. The project site is an 8.94-acre existing vacant parcel described as Assessor’s Parcel No. 0257-031-12; it is located on the west side of Cedar Avenue, between Slover Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue. The proposed project requires the approval of a conditional use permit and zone change to change the existing zoning from general commercial (CG) to service commercial. Access into the site would be via a 50-foot wide driveway at a new signalized intersection on Cedar Avenue. Secure access to the facility would then be via rolling gates at the guard shack. The facility would include 275 parking spaces in total: 260 spaces each of 89 at 12’ by 55’, 14 standard car spaces, and 1 handicap accessible space. The proposed project includes a 2,400 square-foot building for office use and storage, an approximate 250 square-foot guard shack, and a 4,800 square-foot maintenance shop with four repair bays. The proposed project is planned to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and requires less than 10 office and maintenance employees and one full-time employee on-site at all times. The proposed project includes 330,035 square-feet of impervious surface and 59,327 square-feet of pervious surface. A stormwater retention basin would be constructed in the southernmost portion of the project site. Two 8-foot block walls are proposed, one along the northern boundary and the other along the southern boundary of the project site.”
The project site is undeveloped vacant land. North of the site, according to the county land use services division, the property there is zoned for general commercial and single-family residential uses but contains no commercial concerns at this time, with the sole developments there being single-family homes, some of which are located right up on the project site property line. South of the project site, according to the county, the property is zoned general commercial and multiple residential, and the land is currently occupied by commercial and institutional concerns. Across the street to the east, the county maintains, the property is zoned multiple residential, and it is occupied by a mobile home park. West of the property the zoning is multiple residential, the county says, and that land is vacant, and is encumbered by an undeveloped flood control easement. The Colton Joint Unified School District quibbles with the county’s characterization of the surrounding properties.
Except in relatively rare circumstances where a determination is made early on in the approval process that a project will have no environmental impact, in California development projects are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires that the impacts that a project upon completion will have on the property on which it is located and those surrounding it must be evaluated. The decision-making panel for the agency with land use authority where a project is to be constructed, under the California Environmental Quality Act and its provisions, must make an environmental certification of the project. There are several levels of environmental certification that can take place. Generally speaking, the more intensive the project, the greater the need for a more elaborate mode of certification.
A full scale environmental impact report is the most intensive form of environmental certification, involving a study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. An environmental impact report specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts.
A mitigated negative declaration is the least intensive form of environmental certification for a project. A far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project than an environmental impact report, a mitigated negative declaration consists of the panel entrusted with a community’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, considering an initial study of the project completed by county staff and thereafter issuing a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
In this case, according to Anthony DeLuca, a senior planner in the county department of land use services who is processing the project application, “Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there shall not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared,” DeLuca said, as the form of the project’s environmental certification.
Similarly, in April, the board of supervisors voted unanimously to give Chandi Enterprises go-ahead on its proposal to construct a truck stop to be located at 10951 Cedar Avenue, at the southeast corner of Cedar and Santa Ana Avenue, just under a quarter of a mile down the street from the Wiener/Beard project. That project site was previously zoned for low density residential use, with the minimum density to be no greater than a single unit per acre, with agricultural uses permitted on the property. The project approval entailed giving Chandi a zoning amendment altering the residential land use to commercial. That project is to entail a convenience store, two fast food outlets and a gas station, as well as forty big-rig truck spots, seven diesel bays, above-ground fuel tanks and truck scales. Though the project proposal originally called for a large restaurant as its centerpiece, that element of the project has been forsaken.
The proposed Chandi project was immediately adjacent to 28 acres owned by the Colton Joint Unified School District, which the district is looking at as a future school site. Additionally, the truck stop upon completion would be a quarter of a mile away from Crestmore Elementary School, a quarter of a mile away from Walter Zimmerman Elementary School and a half of a mile away from Slover Mountain High School.
At the April board of supervisors meeting at which the project was approved, droves of Bloomington residents turned out to enunciate their opposition to the project. Their protests were augmented by the input of Colton Joint Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Frank Miranda, who told the board members about his concern that the truck stop project was incompatible with the surrounding uses, in particular the nearby schools and the school yet to be built on the adjoining property.
Subsequent to the approval of the Chandi project, the Colton Joint Unified School District sued the county for granting permission for the truck stop to proceed to completion and operation. That suit cited numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, including the use of an inadequate mitigated negative declaration to provide environmental certification of the project.
As was the case with the Chandi truck stop, a substantial segment of the Bloomington populace is militating against the Wiener/Beard truck terminal. Again, however, those residents find themselves at a distinct disadvantage because of their economic standing vis-a-vis the project proponents.
According to the 2020 U.S. Census, there are 25,482 residents in Bloomington. Available demographic and financial information simultaneously paints Bloomington residents, as a whole, as among the most impoverished and the least well-educated and sophisticated of San Bernardino County’s 2.2 million residents. Roughly 81 percent of Bloomington’s population is Hispanic or Latino, with 14.1 percent non-Hispanic Caucasian, 2.7 percent African American, 1.2 percent Native American, and 1.4 percent Asian. The median household income in Bloomington was $34,106 in 2018 and the median family income was $35,936. Single men living there had a median income of $30,680 versus $20,606 for single woman. About 19.8 percent of families and 25.3 percent of the population fall below the poverty line. Over 20 percent of the population is not fluent in English.
Meanwhile, Wiener and Beard are well fixed financially. Like Nachhattar Singh Chandi, the principal behind Chandi Enterprises who made immense political contributions to four of the five members of the board of supervisors to obtain their cooperation in approving the Chandi truck stop proposal, Wiener and Beard have engaged in providing hefty contributions to the political war chests of the five current supervisors.
The Sentinel was able to track and fully document $112,350 provided by Wiener and Beard and their related enterprises and associates to supervisors Curt Hagman, Janice Rutherford, Dawn Rowe, Paul Cook and Joe Baca, Jr. going back for slightly over a decade. That figure is likely less than the actual amount, as there are gaps in the reporting of the amounts of money reposited into the supervisors’ various accounts, most notably Hagman’s.
Hagman has received $16,350 from Wiener, either directly or from his son Michael Wiener, the Wiener Family Revocable Trust or what is referred to as the Survivor’s Trust Under The Wiener Family Revocable Trust. Hagman has also received $1,000 from Scott Beard Enterprises, LLC and another $1,000 from the Gerald Beard Realty, which Scott Beard controls.
Since she has been supervisor, Rutherford has received $54,400 from Wiener, his son Michael Wiener, the Wiener Family Revocable Trust and the Survivor’s Trust Under The Wiener Family Revocable Trust. It is unknown how much money Rutherford received from Wiener and the individuals and entities associated with him while she was a member of the city council in Fontana prior to election to the board in 2010. For nearly four decades, Wiener has been a major contributor to elected officials in Fontana. Rutherford has also received $2,500 from Scott Beard.
Supervisor Dawn Rowe’s political fund has been endowed with $9,400 from David Wiener and $9,400 from Michael Wiener, for a total of $18,800. She has also received a $1,000 political contribution from Scott Beard.
David Wiener has provided Supervisor Cook’s electioneering fund with $2,500.
Supervisor Baca’s political war chest was the recipient of $4,700 from Bonnie Beard, Scott Beard’s wife, and another $4,700 from Scott Beard Enterprises, LLC, a total of $9,400.
Of note is that Baca, whose Fifth Supervisorial District includes Bloomington, did not receive any money from Wiener or his associated entities. Baca was elected to the supervisor’s post in the 2020 election. That race had been a match between Baca, then a Rialto city councilman, and Jesse Armendarez, then a Fontana city councilman. Wiener has been active as a developer in Fontana since 1980, when with Herb Lundin, he developed the Vineyard Valley Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard. He has proven over the last four decades to be, with Reggie King, the Ten Ninety Corporation and Phil Cothran, Sr., the major patron of Fontana’s politicians. When the 2020 race for Fifth District county supervisor evolved into a head-to-head battle between Baca and Armendarez, Wiener by default sided with Armendarez, as he personally provided Armendarez with $7,200 during the 2020 election season and his son, Michael, gave Armendarez $4,700.
In the aftermath of the race, as Armendarez had been struggling to retire a substantial debt he accumulated in that failed run, Wiener three months ago, in April, swooped in to give Armendarez another $4,700. Beard, the previous month, in March 2021, gave Armendarez $1,000 to erase a portion of the failed candidate’s 2020 electoral campaign arrearage.
In this way, it appears that Wiener and Beard are not really counting upon nor do they need Baca’s support in getting the truck terminal project approved.
Baca’s support or opposition to the project could be, and certainly in some other context would be, crucial. San Bernardino County is divided into five supervisorial districts, which have been described as fiefdoms ruled over by each district’s supervisor. Historically with little exception, with regard to development projects, the balance of the board of supervisors goes along the wishes of the supervisor in whose district a particular development project is proposed. Under this tradition, Baca’s vote on the project would be followed by his colleagues. Two questions attend this circumstance, however. The first is whether Baca is willing to stand up to the deep-pocketed Wiener and deep-pocketed Beard and oppose their project. The second relates to whether, even if Baca rises in opposition to the project, his colleagues will follow suit.
After the April vote, when he supported the approval of Chandi truck stop and was seen as being more loyal to a fabulously generous donor than he was to the people in the district he represents, Baca took a shellacking from both the residents of Bloomington and environmentalists. As a Latino Democrat, Baca is at one with the overriding demographics in the Fifth District. Of the Fifth District’s 203,174 registered voters, fully 102,919, or 50.7 percent, are Democrats. Republicans, who account for 38,106 of the district’s voters, or 18.8 percent, lag far behind. Indeed the Republicans in the district are outnumbered by the 47,738, or 23.5 percent of the voters who claim no party affiliation. Though the Republicans possess more political muscle in the Fifth Supervisorial District than the 7,143 voters or 3.5 percent affiliated with the American Independent Party, the 1,997 or roughly one percent in the Peace and Freedom Party, the 1,732 or 0.9 percent in the Libertarian Party, the 633 or 0.3 percent in the Green Party or the 2,906 or 1.4 percent of voters in a variety of even more obscure political parties, the Democrats appear to have a commanding lead in Baca’s supervisorial jurisdiction overall, which includes the eastern portion of Fontana, all of Rialto, all of Bloomington, all of Colton, Muscoy and the western half of San Bernardino. Roughly 59 percent of Baca’s constituents are Hispanic.
Conventional wisdom holds that the Democrats are the party of social welfare and caring for the impoverished and working classes while the Republicans are the party of corporate welfare and promoting and protecting the entrepreneurial class. With Baca having sided with the multimillionaire Chandi over the heavily Hispanic population of Bloomington more than three months ago, a telling question is whether he is now prepared once more to support a project that will subject the residents of Bloomington to large numbers of semi-trucks, diesel exhaust, heavy-machine operations, the presence of materials and chemicals such as solvents, lubricants, asbestos and diesel fuel representing health hazards and potential water table contamination. While that operation will provide a substantial profit to its proponents, in this case two extremely wealthy white men who are seeking to exploit Baca’s constituents because of their lack of sophistication and financial wherewithal, Baca may not want to sustain the damage accommodating them will do to his reputation and standing among those who voted him into office.
Nevertheless, even if Baca is willing to take a stand against the project, the positive relationship that has developed among Wiener, Beard, Hagman, Rutherford, Rowe and Cook means there is practically no chance that the project, based upon the staff report/initial study and its likely endorsement by the planning commission next week, will be rejected by the board of supervisors when it comes up for consideration in August or September.
There is virtually no prospect that a Bloomington resident – or collection of residents – will throw together the money to hire a lawyer to legally challenge the county with regard to the project.
Some Bloomington residents are looking to the school district to mount such a challenge, or failing that, for an environmental group to carry that burden.
Some Bloomington residents have been heartened by a letter that was sent by the district.
That letter, dated June 17 and signed by District Superintendent Dr. Frank Miranda, asserts, “The project description does not adequately disclose the operations of the proposed project.”
The letter made an issue of the current zoning on the site where the project is to be built. Furthermore, according to the letter, the environmental certification the county is contemplating for the project is not based upon enough data or an adequate analysis of the data that should be considered. “The initial study is silent on the unique characteristics of the Bloomington community, including its population characteristics and the disproportionate, longstanding pollution burdens borne by residents,” the letter reads. “The air quality analysis needs to address cumulative air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Low-income communities and communities of color often bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and associated health risks when compared to their more affluent neighbors. The initial study does not adequately identify project-related toxic air contaminant emissions in context with the existing and planned sources in the Bloomington community. Residents proximate to the site already experience elevated levels of diesel particulate matter associated with proximity to the Colton Railroad Yard, the freeway and warehousing/industrial sources. The proposed project incrementally increases health risks associated with a net increase of 572 truck trips. However, the initial study fails to consider the potential impacts associated with an increase of toxic air contaminants. At a minimum, the air quality analysis needs to evaluate the potential toxic air contaminant emissions generated by the proposed project. The initial study is deficient in this regard as no such analysis has been done.”
The letter dwells on the project’s potential for increasing the generation of greenhouse gases, making the point that neither the initial study, nor the project proposal nor the conditions of approval impose any means of reducing such emissions. Greenhouse gasses are those such as carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons, which create a “greenhouse” effect, that is, causing the atmosphere to increase in temperature through the constant absorption of infrared radiation.
According to the letter, the documentation prepared by the county for the board of supervisors’ consideration of the project is inadequate in describing what means will be used to prevent the project from having a deleterious impact on local groundwater. “The project description needs to describe the maintenance activities that would occur onsite; how hazardous materials used in maintenance would be maintained; and steps taken to address leakage and spills from vehicles, including from parked vehicles and trailers. The project needs to explain the best management practices to ensure that polluted stormwater would not leave the site.”
Furthermore, according to the letter, “The proposed project would allow tractors and trailers to be stored for long periods of time. Runoff pollutants from this practice would include drips of oil, grease, antifreeze, hydraulic fluids and cleansing agents amongst others. Vehicles also contribute to polluted runoff by carrying solids from urban roadways, construction sites, farms and dirt roads. The proposed project would also include service bays where vehicles can be washed and/or vehicle maintenance can be performed.” That runoff will then be infiltrated into the site’s underlying aquifer, the letter states.
According to the letter, the project upon completion will further impact traffic safety, pedestrian safety and school children in the immediate vicinity. The letter notes that the “district operates schools on roadways that lead to the project site, such as Jurupa Avenue and Slover Avenue. The proposed project’s increase in 716 actual vehicle trips poses a safety risk to students, employees and Colton Joint Unified School District families, especially during pick up and drop off times. The district is concerned about the increase of truck traffic adjacent to district schools and its impact to the safety of pedestrians and students.”
The letter states that the accumulative impact of so many transportation and truck-related and semi-truck-involved businesses is having a deleterious impact on the safety, well-being and quality of life of Bloomington’s residents.
In its documentation for the project, the county is underestimating the amount of truck traffic that will be generated from the project and the accompanying polluting emissions from that truck traffic, according to the letter. Furthermore, the letter states, the emissions from having 572 trucks idling on the premises at various times during the day are not accounted for in the county’s documentation relating to the project.
Whether the county will heed the district’s expression of concerns or work toward addressing the issues raised in the letter before the planning commission makes its recommendation and before the board of supervisors takes up the question is a standing question at the moment.
A letter sent to Baca on June 16, from the Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee that was signed by that body’s chairwoman, Dianne Mendez-Cantu, made note that “The Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee voted unanimously on June 2nd, 2021, to oppose the proposed Cedar Avenue Truck Terminal and send this letter of opposition to your office. We are asking you to support the Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) and oppose this project. We are also asking that you use your authority to stop this project from moving forward, or at the very least require that County Land Use Services demand the developer prepare an environmental impact report. This project has now been unanimously rejected by the MAC on two separate occasions, the first-time being August 2020 after a presentation to the MAC by the developer. As previously mentioned at our MAC meetings, this proposed 261 diesel truck facility located on prime commercially-zoned property brings no revenue or jobs to our community, only negative impacts. The initial traffic study shows this project will generate at least as many, if not more, truck trips than warehouses which have been required to do environmental impact reports.”
The letter expressed a veiled pessimism as to the community’s ability to stop Wiener and Beard’s designs on the property.
“Even with the unanimous opposition of the MAC and others in our community, this project has continued to move forward,” the letter stated.
In a response dated July 14 to the Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee’s June 2 letter, Supervisor Joe Baca, Jr. interpreted the project as being less of a truck terminal and more or a passive storage facility. The tone of Baca’s letter gave the impression he was leaning in support of the Wiener/Beard project.
“The proposed project is designed for trailer storage,” Baca wrote. “With multiple logistics warehouses in the area, there is a need for off-site trailer storage. Additionally, independent truck drivers might find use of a storage lot for their empty trailers. The project is essentially a fenced and landscaped secure parking lot for trailer storage, with a shop for minor trailer repairs. This would be a legal place for trailer parking, located on Cedar Avenue, which is a truck route with direct access to the freeway. There will be more complete information and exhibits in the planning commission staff report, so the supervisors will have all the details before it is scheduled for review by the board.”
Baca continued, “At this point it would not be advisable for a board member to get involved prior to review by the planning commission. The process established allows for the public to be engaged at multiple steps and multiple entities, both the planning commission and the board of supervisors, to hear proposals, concerns and interests from various parties to make an educated and informed decision regarding whether the project and its uses make sense for the property in question.”
Both Wiener and Beard have demonstrated themselves in the past to be shrewd and ruthless operators in pursuing various types of projects, often involving governmental officials in questionable or illegal activity.
One case in point is Wiener’s involvement in the Trust 45 scheme in Fontana in 1986. At that time, Wiener’s former partner, Herb Lundin, had obtained from the Catellus Corporation, the real estate arm of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and the Southern Pacific Railroad a six-month option to purchase at 30 cents a square foot over 200 acres of property located immediately south of the 10 Freeway and east of Sierra Avenue. Lundin then approached the City of Fontana about developing an auto mall on the property.
In his initial discussion with then-Fontana City Manager Jack Ratelle, Lundin found encouragement. Ratelle asked Lundin to provide him with further detail about the proposal including his financing arrangements and other particulars. Ratelle indicated that if things checked out, the city would look forward to facilitating the project because of the potential revenue stream it would produce from sales tax on big ticket items such as cars, trucks and the first modern SUVs which were then coming into vogue.
Ratelle together with Wiener, then-Fontana Development/Redevelopment Director Neil Stone and financier Jerry Valencia went to the Mitsubishi Bank in Los Angeles where they formed Trust 45, the name for which was said to be the average of Ratelle’s Wiener’s, Stone’s and Valencia’s ages.
Over the next several months, Ratelle and Stone, as Fontana’s city manager and development director, strung Lundin along, keeping him tantalizingly close to being able to proceed toward the next stage of the effort which was to include putting together a formal application for the development of the auto mall, yet continuously asking for him to produce further evidence of his bona fides and wherewithal to perform. As Lundin’s option with Catellus was approaching its termination date, Trust 45 approached Catellus and obtained an option on the property at 35 cents a square foot for the next six months. With Lundin’s option on the property elapsed, he was knocked out of contention for undertaking the auto mall.
In 1987, the secret deal Ratelle, Wiener, Stone and Valencia had worked out to develop the auto mall themselves was exposed publicly, and the auto mall concept along the 10 Freeway in Fontana was dropped altogether.
Scott Beard is the scion of George Beard, a successful real estate agent who worked in Rialto, San Bernardino, Redlands and their environs in the 1960s and 1970s. As a young man, Scott Beard took over his father’s real estate empire and parlayed that into greater wealth. Young Beard created a number of corporate entities and LLCs he did lucrative deals through, many of which involved governmental entities.
One example of this was the huge profit turned by SHL Associates, Ltd., which combined the first initials of the first names – Scott, Harry and Lance – of its three principals, Scott Beard, Harry Mays and Lance Goodwin, in its company name. In 1998, both Mays and Hlawek were indicted by a federal grand jury. Mays and Hlawek had previously been San Bernardino County’s highest ranking staff member, each holding the title of county administrative officer, a position in which Hlawek succeeded his mentor Mays in 1994. Their indictments proceeded from bribery charges that related to their acceptance of cash in return for arranging lucrative county contracts for several entities. Ultimately, Hlawek began cooperating with the FBI, telling agents that Mays provided him with a briefcase stuffed with $60,000 in cash during a meeting he had with Mays, Eaves and Beard, as a payoff for securing a $26 million 15-year county lease for a recently vacated K-Mart building in Rialto owned by SHL. That building lease was approved in a controversial 3-2 vote on June 23, 1997, with then-supervisors Jerry Eaves, Jon Mikels and Kathy Davis prevailing. The building was converted for use by the county’s behavioral services department. The deal was promoted by Hlawek, who was then the county’s chief administrative officer. Mays had been instrumental in convincing the board of supervisors to promote Hlawek as his successor when he departed as the county’s top administrator. Eaves was the recipient of scores of thousands of dollars of political donations from Beard. Beard and Goodwin narrowly avoided being indicted by both county and federal prosecutors during the scandal, in some measure it was widely suspected, because of their cooperation with the FBI in fingering corrupt government officials. Eaves was less fortunate, and was charged or indicted on both state and federal counts. Ultimately he was convicted and forced to resign from office.
A Bloomington community leader, Greg Young, who represents Bloomington on the board of the West Valley District, which supplies water to the entirety of Bloomington and significant portions of Rialto and Fontana, told the the Sentinel, “Sadly it would appear that the community of Bloomington is once again being sold out by the people elected to protect us to another ravenous and unscrupulous developer who cares nothing about our disadvantaged community of color. Instead of working with the community to bring quality development that meets the needs of the residents, developers like Scott Beard and a multimillionaire from Beverly Hills, David Wiener, are pushing to change the zoning of one of the last commercial shopping center properties to allow for a trucking terminal in the middle of a residential community. Such a development would be considered an industrial project in any of the surrounding cities but not under the lax land use rules of the county. This project puts a 260-truck terminal right next to people’s homes on a road that is over capacity with truck traffic already. A project such as this would never be allowed to see the light of day in a white affluent community like San Antonio Heights, but in a predominately brown and poor community it is no problem at all. The community worked with the county several years back to establish the Bloomington Community Plan, which the board unanimously adopted. The plan clearly reaffirmed the community’s direction that this property retain commercial shopping center zoning. Why spend close to half a millions dollars of taxpayer funds to develop a community plan if you have no intention of actually enforcing it? Additionally, it would appear that our own supervisor is unwilling or inept at forcing this project back to the drawing board and to be more aligned to the community’s direction. Sadly, the project also includes preliminary plans to discharge runoff that would be considered toxic by Environmental Protection Agency standards in the ground under the project with no pre-treatment, thereby posing a risk to Bloomington’s groundwater, when there is already a history of the soil being unable to block chemical contamination in the area. The community deserves real leaders who have the courage to stand up to greedy wealthy developers who seek to destroy our once pleasant community.”
The Sentinel made numerous phone calls to DeLuca at both his office in the county land use services division and his cell phone and sent him an email, seeking from him a rationale for utilizing a mitigated negative declaration to provide the environmental certification for the project rather than an environmental impact report. He did not respond.
Instead, David Wert, the county’s official spokesman, told the Sentinel, “The staff recommendation on this project has not been completed yet, and it would be inappropriate for county staff to comment publicly on what their recommendation to a deliberative body might be prior to the publishing of the agenda and the public meeting. The staff recommendation will be spelled out in detail in the agenda packet, which will be available publicly at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. However, one thing you should know is that the proposed project is not a truck terminal. It would be trailer storage.”
In the initial study DeLuca prepared for the project, he referenced the project as a “truck terminal.”

Former Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis, who came to represent the Inland Empire at the federal level two years prior to Ronald Reagan’s election as president and solidified the GOP’s hold on San Bernardino County by mastering pork-barrel politics as well or better than any politician, Democrat or Republican, of his era, has died.
Lewis, who remained in Congress for more than three decades, had a political career which spanned 49 years. He was continually in office with only a few hours or days between his resignation from an elected position lower on the political evolutionary chain to take on a more prestigious one from his 1964 election to the San Bernardino Unified School District Board, then during his more than 19 years in the California Assembly from 1969 until 1978 and his final 34 years as a politician in the House of Representatives from January 1979 until January 2013, at which point he was, remarkably, the longest-serving House Republican in California history, up to that time.
Lewis was a master of politics who served his party, his constituents, the governments within the districts where he was congressman, himself, his family and his supporters very well. Competing in 25 elections, he lost but a single contest, a specially-held one for state senator in 1974.
While in Congress, he never received less than 61 percent of the vote in any of his elective contests.
Athletic as a youth and possessed of the startingly photogenic features of a matinee idol in his early and middle manhood, as he aged to become somewhere on the scale between the 25th and 20th most powerful man on the planet in his mature years, Lewis took on the aspect of a respected corporate administrator.
He did not let his party affiliation dissuade or prevent him from joining in with the more liberal members of his party and the Democrats to embrace what he considered to be positively transformative or progressive governmental programs, such as efforts when he was in the Assembly aimed at reducing air pollution in smog-prone Southern California.
Just as he stepped up from being an insurance salesman to a local official with the school board and then leapt to the California Legislature and less than a decade later bounded from there into the House of Representatives, once he was in Washington, D.C., Lewis adjusted quickly and went from being a freshman Congressman focused primarily on his constituents in California to a politician engaged in national and international issues. His immersion in politics and the intense power and selfishness political endeavor entails took its toll, and four of the last six years he was in office saw him and his legal team engaged in an intense and bruising grudge match in which he spent more that $2.7 million donated to him by his political supporters to ensure his reelection to instead pay one of the country’s more prestigious law firms to keep him out of prison. That legal battle involved one of the most serious legal/political scandals in U.S. history, when the law firm representing him essentially bribed the U.S. Attorney pursuing Lewis with a $1.5 million signing bonus to leave government service and join its ranks as one of its partners.
Born in Seattle, Washington on October 21, 1934, Charles Jeremy Lewis came to California while he was yet a child, and his family settled in San Bernardino. At San Bernardino High School, where he graduated in 1952, he was captain of the swim team and the top scorer on the basketball team. He matriculated at UCLA, graduating from there with a degree in government in 1956. He was thereafter, from 1956 to 1957, a fellow at the San Francisco campus of the Coro Foundation, an intensive leadership program for those interested in public affairs.
If Lewis had any inclination or ambition toward politics, he put that on hold for nearly seven years, as he immersed himself, with some success, in the insurance business. In 1964 he ran successfully for the San Bernardino City Unified School Board. Two years later, he intensified his political involvement, going to work on the staff of Congressman Jerry Pettis.
In 1968, Lewis was elected to the California Assembly, and he served on that body from 1969 until 1978.
One of Lewis’s strengths as a politician, his recognition of the importance of money in the electoral process and that without being elected one could not hold office nor accomplish anything politically, would grow, decades later, to become his Achilles’ heel. Though Lewis did not eschew, exactly, collecting small donations from everyday citizens, he learned early on that those who had a dog in the political hunt were likely to be more generous than his average constituents, and that indeed one major donor would endow his campaign coffers with ten, fifty, a hundred, even a thousand times as much money as a de minimis donor. Moreover, Lewis understood that once a politician cleared the threshold of being elected to office – and as long as he remained in office – there existed untold numbers of influence sellers and influence buyers who would line up at once, indeed were literally begging, to give him substantial amounts of money, the understanding being that when the time came and they had business to transact with the government, he was to make sure they got a fair shake. On Lewis’s desk he had two rolodexes – one with the phone numbers of lobbyists and donors and the other with the phone numbers of everyone else.
In the course of his time in the Assembly, despite the resistance of some Republicans, Lewis authored or coauthored bills that, first, created the South Coast Air Quality Management District and, second, under the administration of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, created incentives for industries using smokestacks to adopt other manufacturing processes that eliminated the burning of fossil fuel or hydrocarbon emissions; outfitted those smokestacks with so-called “scrubbers,” which reduced the pollutants being belched into the air; and then “capped” the number of smokestacks in the district to those that yet existed after this process of reduction or elimination. Those remaining smokestacks were “grandfathered in,” meaning they were allowed to continue to operate, but the companies that owned them had the option of shutting them down and obtaining so-called “air pollution credits,” measured by the ton of particulate matter the smokestacks emitted, for doing so. Those air pollution credits obtained by shutting down a smokestack could then be used by that company to allow it to begin the operation of another smokestack that, by law, had to be less polluting than the one that had been closed down. In the alternative, those air pollution credits could be traded, that is sold, to another company that needed to have a smokestack as part of its operations. Thus the “cap and trade” program was created, the goal of which was to stabilize and ultimately reduce the emission of pollution into Southern California’s atmosphere.
While Lewis, as a Republican, was heavily involved in legislation aimed at enabling the state’s businesses, he swerved from time to time into the province of advancing social welfare, as with a bill he authored setting up California’s child care system. He also ingratiated himself with a group it did not hurt for him to befriend, journalists, with the creation of the California Shield Law, which prevents a court that is involved in or is adjudicating a civil action from ordering a reporter or reporters to reveal the source of information that has been published, and further requiring that before a court involved in or adjudicating a criminal matter orders a reporter to reveal the source of information that has been published, all other means of determining the source of that information must be exhausted before the reporter is or the reporters are jailed for refusing to make that revelation.
In January 1974, Lewis competed against Democratic San Bernardino Fourth District Supervisor Ruben Ayala, who like him had been an insurance salesman before going into politics, in a special election to represent the vacant 32nd District in the California State Senate. Ayala prevailed, as the 32nd then was a Democratic stronghold, and Ayala never squandered an opportunity while on the stump to remind the crowds that the $130,000 Lewis had raised for the campaign dwarfed the $60,000 in his own campaign fund raised in $5 and $10 increments from over 900 donors, and that Lewis’s backers consisted of 22 Sacramento lobbyists and another 21 deep-pocketed local business interests.
Jerry Pettis, who was the congressman in California’s 37th Congressional District, died in an airplane accident 1975, and his widow, Shirley Neil Pettis was elected to succeed him. She was then reelected in 1976. She opted not to seek reelection in 1978, at which point Lewis ran and won election in the Republican-leaning district.
Congressional district boundaries are redrawn in time for the election following each U.S. Census. Thus, Lewis held the congressional seat representing California’s 37th Congressional District from 1979 to 1983, the 35th District from 1983 to 1993, the 40th District from 1993 until 2003 and the 41st District from 2003 until 2013.
There was no member of Congress who more typified the basic Republican ideology than Lewis. Though technically Lewis’s initial election to federal office came in 1978 when he was elected to take a place in the lower house as a member of the 96th Congress, in the early years of his tenure in federal office, he exalted in being a part of the “Reagan Revolution” that after his party’s Watergate Scandal nadir took back the presidency and the Senate in 1980. Despite his Republican bona fides, Lewis managed, somehow, to escape being seen as a stridently partisan political figure. Indeed, in 1984, 2000 and 2004 when no Democrat emerged to run against him in those years’ primaries, Lewis appealed to Democrats as a member of their own party.
Lewis possessed a keen practical political sense, recognizing which ideological battles Republicans were overmatched by the Democrats on, and he refused to squander the political capital he did possess on fighting a battle over principle he knew he and his party could not win. As such, he came to an accommodation with the Democrats readily on a number of issues, such as cap and trade when he was yet in the California Legislature. Though he did not embrace, he would nevertheless support certain social welfare programs that were anathema to his more “conservative” Republican colleagues. He voted with the majority of his Republican colleagues roughly 93 percent of the time.
Having already served in the California Assembly, upon coming to Congress in 1979, Lewis was already a master of parliamentary procedure and the mechanics of crafting legislation, inherently understanding the process of attaching riders to bills that would make them more palatable to congressional members who were in opposition to certain other elements of the same bill, thereby sometimes achieving a compromise and a consensus to obtain those bills’ passage. At once upon arrival in Washington, D.C., Lewis introduced legislation aimed at providing federal subsidization for small businesses engaged in research and development, and he finagled it so the money would be vectored to several cutting edge businesses in San Bernardino County. Nearly three years later, with Ronald Reagan ruling the roost in the nation’s capital, that bill became law. By the end of his first decade in Congress, he elevated the art of using earmarks to steer federal spending to his district to a science.
Lewis simultaneously engaged in the most outrageous form of nepotistic political patronage, marrying his congressional chief of staff, Arlene Willis, and keeping her in his office’s highest-paying position after they were man and wife.
Elected to Congress in the 1980 Reagan landslide was another Republican, Bill Lowery, representing a Republican-leaning district in San Diego County. Lowery was 13 years Lewis’s junior, but they hit it off.
Beginning in 1985, both Lowery and Lewis served together on the House Appropriations Committee.
From January 1987 until January 1989, Lewis served as the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
From January 1989 until January 1993, Lewis was the chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Following the 1990 Census, redistricting put Congressman Lowery into a district with another Republican Congressman, Duke Cunningham, the U.S. Navy’s only pilot ace of the Vietnam War, based upon his five aerial victories against North Vietnamese MiG-21 and MiG-17 aircraft. Lowery opted not to seek reelection against a war hero, instead forming a lobbying firm. Ultimately, Lowery’s firm hired two of Lewis’s congressional staffers, Jeff Shockey and Letitia White, as front line lobbyists. Just prior to leaving Lewis’s direct employ, White had temporarily risen to the position of Lewis’s chief of staff during a time when Arlene Lewis was on an extended absence.
In January 1995, Lewis became chairman of the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations subcommittees. He acceded to the chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1999, retaining that post until 2005.
Even before he achieved the crowning achievement of his political career as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Lewis was able to use the tremendous leverage he was accruing to benefit deserving and undeserving elements of the private sector that were involved in quasi-public-private ventures or were government contractors. Virtually all of those beneficiaries of his action in this regard were or became major contributors to Lewis’s political war chest.
Among the projects that Lewis’s earmarks outright enabled, otherwise made possible or boosted were the cancer research center at Loma Linda University Medical Center and its proton beam amplifier; huge federal contracts for the nascent mapping, direction finding, spatial analytics technology and software programs then being designed and later perfected by Redlands-based Environmental Systems Research Institute, owned by Jack Dangermond, Lewis’s close friend and political supporter; the Seven Oaks Dam at the headwaters of the Santa Ana River in the San Bernardino Mountain Foothills above Highland, along with dozens of other undertakings public and private that benefited from multi-million dollar infusions of cash. Virtually all of those private sector beneficiaries of that money originating with U.S. taxpayers had provided Lewis with financial support for his political campaigns.
Lewis demonstrated a remarkable ability to “bring home the bacon,” i.e., obtain federal funding for governmental entities and institutions within his district, including San Bernardino County, Riverside County, the cities of Loma Linda, Redlands, Highland and Twentynine Palms, the Town of Yucca Valley, Loma Linda University Medical Center and California State University San Bernardino .
With the 2004 election, the Republicans captured control of the House of Representatives aswell as the Senate, and in January 2005 Lewis was made chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, making him arguably, the ninth to the 11th most powerful personage in the U.S. Government.
Indeed, it was at that point, holding powerful congressional committee assignments and assuming a greater leadership role in the Republican Party which was at the moment in ascendancy while he was surrounded by allies in key positions, when Lewis hit his lengthiest stride as a politician. As the chairman from 2005 until 2007 and the ranking minority member thereafter of the House Appropriations Committee – the lower federal legislative house’s spending committee which controls the U.S. Government’s purse strings – Lewis was able to funnel federal money virtually at will to projects of his choosing using earmarks, that is spending mandates placed into the legislation his committee sends to the remainder of the House of Representatives and which is routinely passed.
Ironically, even as he was at the apex of his political trajectory, Lewis was on the brink of falling deep into the abyss. In March of 2006, at first quietly and subtly and then with greater deliberateness and directness that became unmistakable, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, headed by U.S. Attorney Deborah Wong Yang, initiated an investigation into Congressman Lewis’s relationship with the Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White lobbying firm.
In short order, the FBI was able to trace out, either on its own or with assistance from press and media accounts and other documentation, that the Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White lobbying firm’s clients had fared extremely well in terms of being provided with federal money or federal contracts as a consequence of congressional action orchestrated by Lewis.
FBI agents, in accordance with Yang’s direction, documented a number of instances where advocacy by Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White and action by Lewis resulted in what certainly appeared to be improprieties or outright illegalities, quid pro quos in which government action and authority was for sale.
Lewis overrode the objections of generals in forcing the Pentagon to spend over $400 million on General Atomics Predator UAV after General Atomics hired Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White and then donated over $90,000 to Lewis’s campaign fund.
Lewis used earmarks to have the Pentagon and the Small Business Innovation Research Program purchase $33.22 million worth of equipment from Virginia-based Trident, a vendor of military-oriented hardware and software systems, between 2002 and 2006, in a time paralleling Trident’s owner, Nicholas Karangelen, hiring Letitia White as Trident’s lobbyist. Over a 19-month period from 2004 to 2006, Karangelen and his wife donated $72,000 to Lewis’s election fund. In June 2006, Trident, which previously had no facilities in California, opened a development center in Redlands.
Orincon, a defense contractor founded by Daniel Alspach, was struggling, with its income barely surpassing its expenses until shortly after it hired Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White in 1998. Immediately thereafter, Lewis worked earmarking magic to have the company’s gross annual sales to the U.S. Military jump from less than $10 million per year in 1998 to $52 million in 2003, at which point Lockheed Martin bought Orincon from Alspach for a reported $75 million. In addition to Orincon paying Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White $720,000 for its lobbying services between 1998 and 2003, Alspach and his employees provided one of Lewis’ political action committees with $102,000 between 1998 and 2003, and Lewis’s reelection fund with $47,000 between 2001 and 2003.
In return for the City of Redlands paying Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White $30,000 for lobbying services in 2000, Lewis earmarked more than $6 million in federal funds for the city, including paying for a regional crime mapping and analysis project, local business subsidization, improvements to the Redlands Community Center, improvements to San Timoteo Creek and funds provided for the operation of the Redlands Trolley.
In exchange for Loma Linda University Medical Center hiring Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White as its lobbyist and providing it with $440,000 in fees from 1998 to 2004, the medical center was provided with $160 million in federal funds earmarked by Lewis.
California State University San Bernardino has paid Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White at least $702,500 since 1999 to serve as its official lobbyist. In the same time, the university received $70 million in earmarked funding. Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White’s ability to ensure that the university would be the recipient of those earmarks dropped off precipitously after Lewis departed from Congress, as earmarks he directly had a hand in before 2013 account for $60 million of the $70 million in federal funding the institution of higher learning has received in the last 22 years.
The Town of Yucca Valley made a lucrative trade-off in hiring Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White as its lobbyist in 2003, paying the company at first $3,000 per month and then agreeing to up that fee to $3,500 a month in 2005. Lowery and his colleagues persuaded Lewis to earmark $4.4 million in federal funds for the town to undertake road improvements, redress flood control issues and augment town facilities with solar panels.
In 2000, Jack Dangermond hired Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White to serve as a lobbyist for his company, Environmental Systems Research Institute. In March 2001, Dangermond and his wife, Laura, bought 41 acres of land that included parts of a scenic canyon that is immediately proximate to the upscale home Jerry and Arlene Lewis owned in Redlands. The Dangermonds in September 2001 donated the canyon property to the City of Redlands with a proviso that the land remain undeveloped into perpetuity, either as open space or parkland. This arrangement benefited Lewis and his wife, as it boosted the value of their property by ensuring it would never be surrounded by dense and lower-cost development, with the prospect that because of its exclusivity and desirable location, their property will continue to escalate in value. In 2002, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Lewis, earmarked $15 million to Environmental Systems Research Institute for the provision of software to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
In addition to Lewis’s questionable relationship with the Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White lobbying firm, in other contexts he engaged in what appeared to be acts of nepotism or some other form of violations of the public trust.
Lewis earmarked $2.75 million for the “Barracks Row” area of Capital Hill in Washington, D.C., where Lewis and his wife, who was also his chief of staff, owned a three-bedroom home valued at $943,000.
Julia Willis-Leon, the daughter of Arlene Willis and product of her first marriage, was, before her mother parlayed her position on Lewis’s staff into being his wife, a wedding planner. After her mother’s remarriage and while Lewis was a member of Congress, Willis-Leon was the director of the Small Biz Tech Political Action Committee as well as what was referred to as a “strategic partner” of the lobbying firm of Potomac Partners DC LLC, which upon Willis-Leon’s association with it picked up six clients who had contracts approved by the House Appropriations Committee.
The FBI obtained and executed search warrants for documents in the possession of dozens of Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White’s clients, including the Town of Apple Valley, the cities of Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands, the County of San Bernardino, the County of Riverside, California State University San Bernardino, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Trident, Orincon, General Atomics and Lockheed Martin, as well as the various of offices of Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White.
With Yang and the FBI hot on their trails, Lewis and the members of Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White lawyered up. Lewis retained the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which employed former Solicitor General Ted Olson. Lewis did not use his own money to pay for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s legal services, the cost of which over time exceeded $2.7 million, but rather used money from his campaign war chest and the various political action committees he controlled to ensure he was legally represented in the face of the federal investigation.
In a masterstroke, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, aware that Yang had recently divorced and had children nearing college age, had Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Nicola T. Hanna, who knew Yang on a personal basis, approach her about becoming a partner with his law firm. When Yang was offered a $1.5 million signing bonus and the position of co-chair of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s crisis management practice and white collar defense and investigations practice divisions, she accepted, leaving as U.S. Attorney in the Los Angeles office on November 17, 2006, ten days after the November 7, 2006 election.
What had occurred was unprecedented in the confluence of American politics and jurisprudence: The legal representatives of a powerful federal elected official, with all eyes on the situation that was playing out in front of man, God and everyone else, essentially bribed the prosecutor to end her investigation hurtling toward a prosecution of their client.
In the aftermath of the shellacking Republican took in the November 2006 election, which saw the GOP lose control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate and resulted in Lewis having to surrender in January 2007 chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee, Lewis, then 72 and weary of the negative publicity the U.S. Justice Department’s investigation into him and Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White was generating, began to seriously contemplate retirement.
In his home base of Redlands, Lewis was associated with a number of politicians, political activists and political operatives, virtually all of whom were dedicated Republicans. A consensus formed that Lewis would serve out the remainder of the term he was elected to in 2006, and step down in time for his anointed successor, Mike Ramos, who had been elected San Bernardino County district attorney in 2002 and was reelected without opposition in 2006, to put together a campaign team that would conduct an electoral effort which would allow Ramos to succeed him as Congressman in California’s 40th Congressional District.
Nevertheless, the U.S, Attorney’s Office, even after the departure of Yang, appeared intent on continuing with the investigation. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher once more sought to deflate that effort, this time, in April 2007, hiring Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Fuchs, who had been one of the more energetic lawyers at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles assisting Yang before she left and who was still gunning for Lewis.
In early 2008, with the investigation still going full-bore against him, Lewis decided surrendering the leverage and advantage being a member of Congress and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee represented would be unwise, and he did not leave Congress and endorse Ramos as was earlier planned. As the investigation continued for another three years thereafter, Lewis ran for reelection in 2008 and again in 2010. The $2.7 million in legal representation Lewis purchased with money from his campaign war chest and political action committees succeeded in battling the U.S. Attorney’s Office to a standstill, and he was never charged or indicted. In 2010, after Lewis had committed to seeking reelection once more, the Justice Department announced it was closing out the investigation against him. Lewis remained defiant, continuing his prolific use of earmarks, steering $100 million in federal funds to recipients, most of them in San Bernardino County, in 2010.
In 2012, having been in the clear legally for nearly a year-and-a-half after an exhausting four-year ordeal, he at last opted out of running for reelection.
For a time, Lewis remained active in Republican political circles.
In recent years, Lewis appeared to be in failing health, and he remained confined for the most part to his Redlands home. There were rumors that he had end-stage cancer.
On November 15, 2020, Redlands police were summoned to his home on a domestic disturbance/violence call. Responding officers believed Lewis’s action toward his wife was serious enough to merit arrest. The 86-year-old former congressman was handcuffed and transported to the sheriff’s department’s Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, where he was booked. Someone immediately posted bail for him, and he was released. A little more than two months ago, in May, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office chose not to file spousal abuse charges against him. Unofficially, prosecutors indicated his health and age were major considerations in that decision.
–Mark Gutglueck