Bill Landecena, a pillar of the Upland Community for more than sixty years, died on March 25, 2023. He was 98.
Born William Vincent Landecena on March 2, 1925 in Chicago to James Vincent Landecena and Caterina Fazio Landecena, he moved as a child with his family to Ontario in 1929, where he was raised in a household at 1002 San Antonio Avenue that included his father, stepmother Margaret E. Tomeo Landecena, older brother Harry, younger sister Bridget, older stepsister Lucile Repola, older stepbrother Ernest Repola, and younger stepsister Adeline Repola.
While he was yet in junior high school, he started working part-time at Cal-Vine Market in Ontario. He worked in the meat department and eventually became a journeyman butcher.
He enlisted in the Navy on his 18th birthday in March 1943, dropping out of high school to take part in the war effort. He served four years in the United States Navy, and, while stationed in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Theater, was given a service assignment as a butcher/cook because of his meat cutting experience. He was transferred back to the United States before the end of World War II, and served upon the then-newly-commissioned U.S.S. Fall River.
After his honorable discharge from the Navy, he returned to Ontario and ultimately Upland, where he worked as a meat cutter and butcher with several meat markets. Continue reading →

The Yucca Valley Town Council has unanimously gone on record as opposing state legislation aimed at preventing the destruction and removal of Joshua Trees.
The Western Joshua Tree Protection Act was was formulated and presented to the California Legislature earlier this year by Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration after the California Fish and Game Commission in June 2022 deadlocked 2-to-2 on whether to confer endangered species status on western Joshua trees, known by their scientific name, Yucca brevifolia.
The petition for the Yucca brevifolia’s endangered listing and the protections that would come with it was made by the Center for Biodiversity in 2019. In September 2020 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended that Joshua trees be temporarily protected while Dr. Cameron Barrows of the University of California Riverside, Dr. Erica Fleishman of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, Dr. Timothy Krantz with the University of Redlands, Dr. Lynn Sweet with the University of California, Riverside and Dr. Jeremy B. Yoder from California State University Northridge undertook the completion of a peer-reviewed report and recommendation relating to the western Joshua tree.
According to that report, released in April 2022, the outlook for the plant, while less than encouraging, is not absolutely critical.
“The population size and area occupied by [the] western Joshua tree have declined since European settlement largely due to habitat modification and destruction, a trend that has continued to the present,” Barrows, Fleishman, Krantz, Sweet and Yoder collectively stated. “Primary threats to the species are climate change, development and other human activities, and wildfire. Available species distribution models suggest that areas predicted to be suitable for [the] western Joshua tree based on 20th Century climate data will decline substantially through the end of the 21st Century as a result of climate change, especially in the southern and lower elevational portions of its range.”
Nevertheless, the scientists said, “the department [the California Department of Fish and Wildlife] does not currently have information demonstrating that loss of areas with 20th Century suitable climate conditions will result in impacts on existing populations that are severe enough to threaten to eliminate the species from a significant portion of its range by the end of the 21st Century. The effects of development and other human activities will cause western Joshua tree habitat and populations to be lost, particularly in the southern part of the species’ range, but many populations within the range of the species are protected from development, suggesting that a significant portion of the species’ range will not be lost by development alone. Wildfire can also kill over half of western Joshua trees in areas that burn, and wildfire impacted approximately 2.5% of the species’ range in each of the last two decades, but wildfire does not appear to result in loss of range, only lowering of abundance within the species’ range.”
Barrows, Fleishman, Krantz, Sweet and Yoder stated that “the evidence presented in favor of the petitioned action, the scientific evidence that is currently possessed by the department does not demonstrate that populations of the species are negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. The department recommends that the commission find that the recommended action to list [the] western Joshua tree as a threatened species is not warranted.”
There was some dissent from that conclusion. Dr. Krantz indicated in June that he was not in consonance with the recommendation that had been put out under his name and the collective aegis of his colleagues.
“The western Joshua tree is already very much a threatened species,” Krantz told the Sentinel.
The June 2022 vote was not definitive in that the California Fish and Game Commission is a five-member panel. Staff with the commission indicated that the matter would be reheard upon the appointment of a fifth commissioner. In the meantime, commission staff sought input from California’s Native American tribes. In October, following the appointment of a fifth commissioner, the commission again voted to delay a decision on the listing to see if legislation related to the tree would move through the legislature.
On February 7, the Newsom Administration laid out its proposal for the Western Joshua Tree Protection Act, which it introduced without any authorship assistance or sponsorship from state senators or Assembly members. If passed into law, the act would authorize removal of western Joshua trees only if specific conditions are met, including the avoidance and minimization of impacts to include transplanting of the trees rather than removal and destruction where possible and the inclusion of an option for payment of fees calculated to mitigate specific impacts by specific projects, the depositing of fees in the Western Joshua Tree Mitigation Fund and the requirement that the Department of Fish and Wildlife deploy the fund, in collaboration with Indian tribes and others, to address threats to the western Joshua tree, including, but not limited to, acquiring, and conserving western Joshua tree habitat.
The act would further require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop and implement a western Joshua tree conservation plan in collaboration with the California Fish and Game Commission, governmental agencies, California Native America Tribes, and the public. Under the act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would be required to incorporate of traditional ecological knowledge into the conservation plan and co-manage the strategy for ensuring the species’ survival through consultation with California Indian tribes and facilitate the relocation of western Joshua trees to tribal lands upon a request from a tribe. The act would authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife to delegate to a county or city the ability to approve the removal or trimming of dead or dying trees, subject to conditions, and an option to pay fees, pursuant to Department of Fish and Wildlife oversight, with express California Department of Fish and Wildlife authority to revoke any delegation. The act as drafted includes annual reporting to the Fish and Game Commission about the effectiveness, performance, and success of the program, with specific deadlines for accountability and flexibility to increase fees as necessary in accordance with open public processes.
On March 8, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it will not list Joshua trees under the federal Endangered Species Act. The federal government’s opting out of the process for the protection of the species, environmentalists said, intensified the importance of the state taking action.
In that timeframe, the Western Joshua Tree Protection Act was being considered by both houses of the state legislature. It was referred to the Appropriations Committee on April 24. A Western Joshua Tree trailer bill accompanying it would set aside funding for the implementation of the act.
Yucca Valley Town officials have expressed the view that the act would prove overly restrictive in seeking to protect the western Joshua Tree and potentially act as a precedent in creating unworkable restrictions with regard to other species. The mitigation and permitting costs for both public or private property owners could prove prohibitive and indiscriminately prevent future development, town officials maintain.
On April 18, the Yucca Valley Town Council received an update regarding the proposed Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act from Town Manager Curtis Yakimow, and considered whether it should share with the state legislature “the Town’s concerns and position with the appropriate parties as there may be an opportunity for some modification of the legislative language through the budget hearing process,” according to that evening’s meeting agenda. As a consequence of that discussion, the town council voted unanimously to oppose the Western Joshua Tree Protection Act, action which Yakimow recommended. According to Yakimow, the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act will impose requirements and fees on private individuals, property owners, corporations and governmental entities that are not backed with science. He said that the passage of the act absent prior efforts to coordinate conservation efforts and fines with local governmental agencies “is neither good public policy nor good governance.”
In a press release, the Town of Yucca Valley stated, “local regulations continue to be an effective regulatory tool that would assist in preserving the western Joshua Tree through public review and transparency of related native plant permit requests.”
-Mark Gutglueck

The musicians of the Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band and Al and Jennifer Boling are proud to present “Music of the 70s” on Monday May 15, 2023 at 7:30 p.m.
The concert will be held at the band shell in Ontario Town Square located at N. Euclid Ave. and “C” Street in Ontario. Since, the performance is outdoors, you are encouraged to bring your lawn chairs and picnic baskets. The performance is free to the public.
Popular music in the 1970’s saw the rise and development of many subgenres that included Disco, Funk, Soul, R & B, Smooth Jazz, Hard Rock, New Wave, Punk Rock, Progressive Rock, Blues Rock, Soft Rock and Pop, and Heavy Metal. The first half of the 1970’s witnessed the emergence of British heavy metal groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. In the second half of the decade, many acts primarily from the U.S.A. along with groups from the British Isles and Australia, became very popular. They included Alice Copper, Aerosmith, Van Halen, Ted Nugent, Elton John, Simon and Garfunkel, Barry Manilow, Frank Zappa, Billy Joel, Olivia Newton-John, The Carpenters, Carlos Santana, The Bee Gees, The Jackson Five, Neil Diamond, Helen Reddy, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gayes, and many others. Continue reading →

An Irvine-based company is examining the City of Chino’s existing municipal facilities and public improvements to ascertain their compliance or lack thereof with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
While employees with Veritas Technical Assessments are doing the actual inspection of the streets, curbs, curbcuts, sidewalks, crosswalks, buildings, parks, amenities and other municipal assets, the city in its parlance is referring to examination as “a self-evaluation survey of accessibility barriers for people with disabilities.”
Veritas Technical Assessments began the effort on April 17. Continue reading →

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel and trailer at lien sale at said address below on: 02/17/2023 9:00 am
VESSEL
68B202X 06 ELIM ELBD0268B202 CA
TRAILER
5DBUP32382R000014 06 EXTR 155354X
DATE OF SALE- 05/12/2023
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
To be sold by JV MOTORSPORTS 1744 S WILLOW AVE RIALTO CA 92376
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 28, 2023.

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel and trailer at lien sale at said address below on: 02/17/2023 9:00 am
VESSEL
CF43179 21 YAMAHA YAMA0183H021 CA
DATE OF SALE- 05/12/2023
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
To be sold by JV MOTORSPORTS 1744 S WILLOW AVE RIALTO CA 92376
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 28, 2023.

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2101620
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
ESTATE OF HARRY S. COONEN, the Testate and Intestate Successors of HARRY S. COONEN, Deceased, and ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SUCH DECEDENT; ESTATE OF MAX COONEN, the Testate and Intestate Successors of MAX COONEN, Deceased, and ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SUCH DECEDENT; Additional Parties Attachment form is attached; ESTATE OF SIDNEY WEINBERG, the Testate and Intestate Successors of SIDNEY WEINBERG, Deceased, and ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SUCH DECEDENT; ESTATE OF SONDRA HERRERA, the Testate and Intestate Successors of SONDRA HERRERA, Deceased, and ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SUCH DECEDENT; RICARDO HERRERA, an individual; MIMI HERRERA-PEASE, an individual; DEANNA HERRERA, an individual; BENJAMIN COONEN, an individual; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
247 WEST THIRD STREET,
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0210
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
MALCOLM CISNEROS
2112 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE,
IRVINE, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9400
DATE (Fecha): February 1, 2021
Clerk (Secretario), by Anai Cortez-Ramirez
Published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL on: April 7, 14, 21 & 28, 2023.

Continue reading →

More than a year after intensive in-depth hearings into the drafting of water from Strawberry Canyon at the roughly 4,200-foot-to-5,400-foot elevation in the San Bernardino National Forest, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency have issued a tentative ruling that Blue Triton Brands has no water rights and must discontinue its removal of water at the upper reaches of the canyon.
For the time being, it appears, Blue Triton will be allowed to withdraw water from the lower reaches of the canyon and provide it to the San Manuel Indian Tribe and use it for its Arrowhead Spring Water bottling operation. The State Water Resources Control Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency nevertheless said that the water board’s enforcement division could at this point seek a cease and desist order against BlueTriton to prevent it from drafting water from the springs located mid-canyon and that they could not rule out that a ruling barring that diversion would be granted.
The issued ruling is not final and the public and all parties who provided input during the hearing last year will have an opportunity to offer comment until early next month. Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department higher-ups and some informed governmental officials throughout the county are tense with anxiety and uncertainty over the degree to which the most closely guarded files the department keeps have been compromised.
There is no doubt that an entity or entities unknown hacked the department’s computer system. Unclear is whether the hackers were able to download the entirety of the data bases they linked to. Moreover, some mystery attends if, given the degree of sophistication those black hats needed to have been able to compromise the security systems which were defeated in the course of their break-in, they have reverse engineered, based on the data in their possession, the access protocol which is known by only a handful of department personnel and is needed to open the data fields hidden in parallel files which contain compromising information on hundreds of the San Bernardino County community’s most prominent citizens.
The department has authorized entering into a quarter million contract with a New York-based cybersecurity and data privacy firm to ascertain not only what information has been compromised but whether the hackers left behind any tell-tale electronic fingerprints that might allow the department or outside forensic investigators to determine who they are.
Nevertheless, the information in the possession of the hackers is so sensitive and so explosive that if they have already succeeded in unlocking it or can do so in the future, they will be in a position to ruin the public reputations of a cross section of county officialdom, blackmail the sheriff and his command staff as well as other high ranking county officials, including members of the board of supervisors and administrators, rendering themselves, if not invulnerable to, immune from prosecution or reprisal of any sort. Continue reading →

On July 6 and the days or even weeks that are to follow, American society will perhaps come to terms with the mass of contradictions and paradoxes that are Alan Hostetter, just as Allen Hostetter may at last come to terms with the mass of contradictions that are American society.
On that day, the case of the People of the United States vs. Alan Hostetter is scheduled to go to trial.
With the exception of Jacob Chansley, the Q-Anon Shaman wearing American flag facepaint and a horned Native headdress who carried a menacing-appearing spear when he boldly stormed past Capitol Police officers after breaking into the Capitol building before seating himself at the presiding officer’s chair where he penned a jeering note to then-Vice President Mike Pence,” Hostetter is perhaps the most notable – famous or infamous – of the more than 1,000 defendants charged by the U.S. Government with insurrection in, at and around U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Hostetter certainly can make a claim to being the most fascinating of those criminally charged in the matter, which grows out of the conflicting, indeed what come across as strikingly schizophrenic – diametrically opposite and radically changeable – elements of his personality. Continue reading →