By Dawn Elizabeth Rose
With the acceleration of the problems in modern cities, population growth, encroachment of green nature areas and frustration over heavy vehicle traffic, etc., it used to be that one could still take time for a break, take a moment to drive up to the mountains to experience the great beauty of the trees and know that the wooded forests exist there to protect the diversity of our wildlife, birds and most especially Earth’s endangered and threatened species. Nonetheless, over recent years we have witnessed a radical shift – and as a forewarning, there are changes afoot and not for the good. So, what has happened? We have witnessed thousands, indeed countless numbers, of formerly majestic and timeless mature trees in mountain communities placed on a continuous death spiral destined for cutting down by our electrical utilities.
For a while, we wondered: “Who could have done this?” But then we discovered the utility companies with funding from the State of California and their paid vendors have gone on a rampage determined to cause destruction to our mountain trees. By taking a short drive in the mountains, you can readily see that trees too numerous to count have been topped or had all of the branches taken off their sides. Tree upon tree upon tree has been sliced in half, top off, leaving it to look like a sad bush. And then, there are hundreds of many-years-old growth trees that have been carelessly mangled or cut down altogether. This destruction has occurred even at the picturesque historic trailheads such as at Rock Creek Trail and Strawberry Peak.
As caretakers of our nature and environment, we should be particularly concerned to hold accountable the persons, organizations and institutions responsible for this wanton disregard of our forest. Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
In a stunning shake-up virtually no one saw coming, the chairwoman of the San Bernardino County Democratic Party failed in her run for election to the central committee on Tuesday.
Kristin Washington has been chairwoman of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee since 2020. Her drubbing in Tuesday’s election in any other context would be a mind-bending development, but in some quarters, it is being taken in stride as simply another indicator of ineffectual electioneering efforts within the local Democratic Party. Despite that perception on the part of some, there are indications that under Washington’s leadership, the party was beginning to undo at least some of the moves that rival Republicans had made to hold the more numerous Democrats in San Bernardino County in check.
What is unknown for a certainty at this point is whether Washington will be able to remain as a) a member of the Democratic Central Committee as an appointee of someone with standing within the party and b) as chairwoman. Another unknown is whether Washington’s possible departure will trigger a comeback by former San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee Chairman Chris Robles.
Washington’s rise into the position of chairwoman nearly four years ago was the outgrowth of several factors, including, it appears, her own ambition as a politician. It played against the backdrop of what has been for the party decades of missed opportunities during which Democratic politicians have been unable to keep a firm grip on San Bernardino County’s political scepter.
For a solid two-and-a-half decades during the mid-Twentieth Century, San Bernardino was a Democratic stronghold. Continue reading →

This week’s municipal election in the county seat did not resolve who, exactly, will accede to two of the four positions on the city council being contested this year, but nonetheless presages the departure of three incumbents.
As San Bernardino County’s largest city population-wise at 218,500, San Bernardino has the most populous city council as well, with seven elected council members representing seven wards, each answerable to one-seventh of the city’s residents, and a mayor elected at-large.
In California’s gubernatorial election years, the mayor and three members of the council are up for election. In presidential election years such as 2024, four members of the council or those who aspire to it – in Ward 3, Ward 5, Ward 6 and Ward 7 – face the judgment of the city’s voters.
In Ward 3, incumbent Juan Figueroa, who was first elected in a special election to fill in during the final years of John Valdivia’s unfinished term after the latter was elected mayor in 2018 and was reelected to his current term in 2020, successfully stood for reelection against challenger Christian Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy assailed Figueroa throughout the campaign as a vestige of the Valdivia regime. Valdivia lasted only four years as mayor, felled by repetitive reports of misdeeds, malfeasance and graft, which included taking substantial amounts of money in the form of both political donations and retainers for his services as a consultant. In 2022, in a race that featured seven candidates, Valdivia was shut out in the June primary, finishing third, such that he was not in the November 2022 runoff between the ultimate second place finisher, former City Attorney Jim Penman and the winner, Helen Tran, who at one point was the city’s human resources director while Valdivia was mayor. Continue reading →

Adelanto’s voters on Tuesday gave resounding indication that they considered that city’s political leadership to be seeking an “unaffordable, unnecessary, and unfair” tax escalation with Measure U.
With all 25 of the city’s precincts having reported and a significant number of the mail-in ballots having been counted as of 4 p.m. Friday, March 8, 1,021 of the total 1,606 votes cast, or 65.24 percent, were lodged against the measure, which called for a parcel tax to be imposed on vacant land. Slightly more than one-third of the city’s voters who cast ballots in the election, 544 or 34,76 percent, voted in favor of the initiative.
The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters website as of Friday night reflected a discrepancy in that it showed 1,606 votes being cast in Adelanto, with only 1,565 of those voters participating in the vote relating to Measure U. By the time the Sentinel recognized the discrepancy, the office was closed and it could not be determined by press time whether this was a misrecording of the number of votes relating to Measure U or whether 41 of the residents in Adelanto who voted simply did not vote one way or the other on Measure U.
To pass, Measure U needed a two-thirds assonance of those participating in the election.
Turnout in the election was poor. Of the city’s 39,477 residents, 15,665 are registered to vote. The 1,606 votes counted so far represent 10.25 percent of the city’s registered voters. It is anticipated that by the time of the next tally of votes throughout the county by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office tomorrow at 2 p.m. perhaps another few dozen ballots will arrive by post. It does not appear that voter turnout will be much greater than 12 percent, meaning roughly one out of every eight voters in the city participated in Tuesday’s California March 5 Primary Election. Continue reading →

A board member with the Etiwanda School District and a board member with the Fontana Unified School District will face one another in a run-off election to determine who will succeed Eloise Gomez Reyes in representing State Assembly District 50 in California’s lower legislative house.
An unknown number of mail ballots yet remain to be counted, but the difference between Perez, in second, and the third place finisher renders the Garcia-Perez match-up an inevitability.
As of 4 p.m. on Friday March 8, with all 6,905 votes from the 50th District’s 358 precincts counted and 30,798 mail-in ballots which had come in so far and were counted, Garcia had 11,709 total votes, equal to 42.35 percent of the total, compared to Perez’s 8,309 votes or 30.06 percent. A third candidate, DeJonaé Shaw, had collected 7,386 votes or 26.72 percent.
Garcia, of Rancho Cucamonga, outperformed Perez, of Fontana, both at the polls and with mail-in ballots, with 1,681 votes at the district’s polling places and 10,028 votes cast by mail, to Perez’s 1,439 votes and 6,870 votes, respectively. Continue reading →

The Chino Valley Unified School District Board this week made what legal and constitutional experts said is calculated to be an adjustment of a parental notification policy that has been under political attack before it was passed in July and under legal challenge since the California Attorney General’s Office took the district to court in August which will allow it to stand.
The policy originally passed by the school board on a 4-to-1 vote in July was more or less specific to efforts at or toward gender alteration or showings thereof. The action taken on Thursday, March 7 makes the notification requirement more general but yet inclusive of the circumstances covered by the policy initiated last summer. Unknown at present is whether the change made this week will annul the existing legal challenge or if it will trigger further litigation to prevent the district from engaging in the type of interaction with parents that four-fifths of the school board considers prudent.
A year ago, Assemblyman Bilal Essayli introduced a bill, AB 1314, which called for imposing statewide a requirement that school officials not keep information pertaining to gender reidentification that students insist upon within a school setting, that being a deviation from the male or female identification which appears on the student-in-question’s birth certificate, from the parents of those children. The Republican Essayli’s bill died a quiet legislative procedural death when Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, declined to set a hearing date for the bill before his committee, such that the bill was not given a chance to be considered by the entire Assembly. A handful of school districts throughout the state thereafter contemplated or indeed used their own authority within the confines of their individual jurisdictions to impose a similar notification requirement. Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
Less than four years after offering his then-would-be constituents an assurance he would not use the position of representing the Third District as a stepping stone to higher office, Upland Councilman Carlos Garcia on Tuesday succeeded in qualifying himself as a candidate the California State Senate.
Early last year, Eloise Gómez Reyes, who was first elected to the California Assembly in 2016, representing the 50th Assembly District, announced she would not seek reelection to the State of California’s lower legislative house but seek election in the newly-drawn 29th Senate District.
Gómez Reyes, an attorney and longtime Democratic Party activist and fundraiser thought of as a leader within the progressive wing of her party, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in the 31st District in 2014, ultimately losing out to then-Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar. In 2016, she defeated a sister Democrat, incumbent Cheryl Brown, in the California State Assembly District 47 general election, using a campaign in which she stated that Brown was not progressive enough. In that race, Gómez-Reyes showed a knack for fundraising, bringing in $766,901 in donations.
In the years since, Gómez Reyes has demonstrated herself as a nearly irresistible political force as she garnered both credibility and both legislative and further fundraising leverage, acceding two years ago to the position of majority leader in the Assembly, which lit in some people’s minds the idea that she might, before term limits force her to leave the state legislature at the end of 2028, become speaker of the Assembly. Continue reading →

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Sharon Goodman Case NO. PROVA2400066
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Sharon Goodman A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Jennifer Moore in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that 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., Jennifer Moore 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. F3 at 09:00 AM on 04/22/2024 at Superior Court of California, County of Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District-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.
Jennifer Moore:
1441 Morton Circle Apt C Claremont CA 91711
Telephone No: 9092841943
Published in the SBCS Ontario on: 03/14/2024, 03/21/2024, 03/28/2024

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Sharon Goodman Case NO. PROVA2400066
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Sharon Goodman A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Jennifer Moore in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that 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., Jennifer Moore 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. F3 at 09:00 AM on 04/22/2024 at Superior Court of California, County of Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, , San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District-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.
Jennifer Moore:
1441 Morton Circle Apt C Claremont CA 91711
Telephone No: 9092841943
Published in the SBCS Ontario on: 03/14/2024, 03/21/2024, 03/28/2024

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Miguel Gaucin Saucedo Case NO. PROVA2400207
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Miguel Gaucin Saucedo A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Rita Marie Saucedo-Almanza in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that 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., Rita Marie Saucedo-Almanza 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. F1 at 09:00 AM on 04/17/2024 at Superior Court of California, County of Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, , San Bernardino, 17780 Arrow Blvd. Fontana, CA 92335, Fontana District-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.
Pro Per:
8115 Tapia Via Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
Telephone No: 909-957-2532
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on:
03/14/2024, 03/21/2024, 03/28/2024

FBN 20240001154
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SION CONSTRUCTION 1245 W 28th Street SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405: KASHE CONCRETE CORP 1245 W 28th Street SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
Business Mailing Address: 1245 W 28th Street SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of Califfornia under the number 4180274.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: May 20, 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/ EVERADO FRAUSTO-GUTIERREZ, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/06/2024
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 J6733
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 15, 22, 29 & April 5, 2024.

FBN 20240002531
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
R12 AUTOMOTIVE 1502 WEST D STREET ONTARIO, CA 91762: NEVELLE E PIERSON
Business Mailing Address: 1502 WEST D STREET ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ NEVELLE E PIERSON
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/14/2024
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 K1583
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 15, 22, 29 & April 5, 2024.