(March 8) More than four months after the Déjà Vu strip club in the unincorporated county area between Montclair and Chino closed, activity at nearby brothels has noticeably diminished, though those illicit businesses remain in operation.
In November, the party came to a close at the locale billed as “where the party never ends,” pursuant to the county planning commission’s vote last August to enforce a 2002 legal settlement between the club and the county over the club’s location and activities.
Established in the 1980s at the northwest corner of Mission Boulevard and Central Avenue within the city of Montclair’s sphere of influence as an adult venue with a liquor license and nude female dancing, the Déjà Vu early on became the focus of intensive efforts by both the county and Montclair to shutter it. After more than a decade of legal and procedural skirmishing, in 2002 the parties reached a legal settlement that provided the club’s owners the right to continue to operate as a strip club for another decade pursuant to some changes.
One of those changes was that the gaudy pink “Always Inn” motel adjacent to the strip club, which was owned and operated by the Déjà Vu’s management and charged its customers by the hour, was closed down and razed. The county also obtained the ownership’s agreement to paint over the pink and lime green exterior of the club itself with a much more sedate white. Eventually, the club would utilize a tinted light projector that at night constantly transformed the walls from red to violet to green to white.
Years ago, a constellation of satellite businesses – houses of ill repute – functioning under the cover of legitimate service providers such as massage parlors or health salons cropped up within easy walking distance of the Mission/Central intersection. An inadvertent result of the forced closure of the Always Inn was that those businesses flourished, with a significant portion of their clientele being drawn to the area by the Déjà Vu, the marquee for which, celebrated the club as one where a never ending party offered “Hundreds of Beautiful Girls & 3 ugly ones.”
The demise of the Déjà Vu has had an impact on the illicit enterprises surrounding it, or so it would appear, based on the cessation  of foot traffic from the strip club altogether. Fewer vehicles are observed in the remaining establishments’ parking lots than previously. Their lights remain lit well into the evening, on weeknights as well as on weekends. Only on Friday and Saturday nights does it appear that they are doing any business to speak of, but with nothing approaching the intensity they exhibited when the Déjà Vu was there to serve as a magnet.
Durand, Michigan-based Tollis, Inc., which specializes in the production of adult movies and live entertainment, owned and operated the Déjà Vu. Tollis last year resisted, through its attorney, Alicen Wong, the effectuation of the closure of the facility as a strip club, accepting only with reluctance a “compromise” that allowed it to continue to serve alcohol and remain open as a comedy club or sports bar.  After its closure in the fall, however, the venue has remained shuttered and there does not appear to be any movement to transitioning it into a stand-up/improvisational stage or a sports theme tavern.
While the brothels remain in place, there longevity at this point is questionable.
Both Montclair and county officials are looking forward to their eventual demise. There has been an ongoing effort to transform the area, which features  wrecking yards,  used car lots, marginal commercial uses, derelict motels, low class bordellos and light, medium and limited heavy industrial uses, into new residential units and commercial uses, and clean industrial operations functioning out of business parks and upgraded buildings.
From 1998 until 2011, Montclair spent $11 million to make public improvements within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Improvement Project area, which spans along Mission from the Los Angeles County line, a little over a mile-and-a-half west from the Déjà Vu, to Benson Avenue, a little less than a half mile east.
In a letter dated August 21, 2012 from Montclair’s community development director, Steve Lustro, to Chris Warrick, the planner at the county’s land use services division with oversight responsibility for that portion of the unincorporated county area in Montclair’s sphere of influence, Lustro stated that the sexually oriented operations in the area have hindered the type of development  officials are seeking to encourage. “The mere existence of the adult oriented business at the subject location has been an ongoing ‘red flag’ for at least two prospective developers interested in developing property within the city of Montclair’s corporate boundaries proximate to the property,” Lustro wrote.
The Sentinel has obtained an interoffice memo dated October 10, 2012 from San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Captain Steve Smith, who oversees the patrol division covering the county area bordering Montclair, to Warrick, pertaining to the Déjà Vu site and the proposal to convert it to a sports bar or comedy club.  That memo skirts the issue of illicit satellite uses around the 1.22 acre site, concentrating on the adult oriented business transitioning to a more traditional drinking establishment, with reference to the new facility’s liquor license and the conditions attached thereto, along with lighting, security, video monitoring, enforcement and remodeling,
With regard to the remodeling of the building, Smith wrote, “A remodel of the establishment should be made to ensure that the operation has converted from an adult only establishment with nude or topless entertainment. Remodeling the interior to better represent a sports bar environment would be highly recommended. The remodeling should include removal of private booths and brass poles. Having private booths invites behavior that leads to prostitution. The sheriff’s department lacks the manpower to conduct ‘sting’ operations for this type of activity. The planning and resources for a one day sting operation can involve several employees and is not a practical remedy for this problem. It is important to have a significant change to the interior so the environment and adult nature activities at the location do not revert back to undesirable conditions.”
With regard to video monitoring, Smith told Warrick, “The establishment must have working video surveillance. Video surveillance should be both inside and outside the location and should be digital and color quality.”
Warrick, for legal reasons, declined to discuss with the Sentinel whether the closure of the Déjà Vu was purposefully intended to damage the viability of the nearby sexually-oriented businesses.

The California Public Utilities Commission on February 28 directed Southern California Edison to proceed with its plans to bury its transmission lines for the Tehachapi Renewable Energy Project along a 3.5 mile portion of the five mile length the lines will run through Chino Hills.
The commission gave that direction, despite the consideration that a final decision on whether the electrical cables will be undergrounded will not come until July.
Chino Hills residents who have long been opposed to the already-approved but on-hold means of conveying that electricity through the city, namely via 197-foot high towers from which the transmission lines are to be strung, hailed the commission’s directive as a major victory in their effort to achieve an alternative to the towers.
The commission’s directive contained a provision for Southern California Edison to recover its costs in proceeding with the planning for undergrouning the cables in the event the commission this summer elects to remain with the already approved game plan of utilizing an above-ground conveyance of the electricity.
Over the city of Chino Hills’ protest, in 2009 the board of the California Public Utilities Commission granted Southern California Edison clearance to erect a series of 197-foot high power transmission towers through the heart of 44.7-square mile Chino Hills along a long-existing power corridor easement owned by the utility. That approval came as part of the commission’s endorsement of Southern California Edison’s Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, to consist of what will be the world’s largest windmill-driven electrical generating field near Tehachapi in Kern County together with the lines to convey that power to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The $2.1 billion project is part of Southern California Edison’s effort to meet state-mandated renewable energy goals.
Fearing a host of problems from the imposition of the towers, including significant negative impacts on property values in the city, the Chino Hills City Council authorized the expenditure of over $2.3 million to employ attorneys and make other efforts to contest the Public Utility Commission’s action, including a suit against Southern California Edison alleging the company had “overburdened” the power line easements. That legal effort failed when West Valley Superior Court Judge Keith D. Davis ruled the California Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction regarding the route used by Edison, and the suit was thrown out. Chino Hills appealed Davis’s ruling to the 4th District Court of Appeal, asserting the city had the right to have the case heard by a jury, but in September 2011 the appeals court affirmed Davis’ decision.
Beginning last year, Edison, which has long had a 150-foot wide right-of-way for its power lines that runs for 5.8 miles from Tonner Canyon to the Riverside County line,  erected 12 of the towers within the city limits and another 5 in Carbon Canyon before a city appeal to the California Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Public Utility Commission Chairman Michael Peevey in particular succeeded in a temporary halt to the towers’ construction being granted in November 2011 while a potential undergrounding alternative is explored.
With its order last week, the California Public Utilities Commission gave Edison assurance it can accelerate the pre-construction activity it is undertaking aimed at actually burying the transmission lines through roughly 70 percent of Chino Hills without financial risk. The commission signaled that Edison can begin engineering efforts in earnest and make land purchases to facilitate the completion of the project by a December 2015 project completion target date.
In the document co-authored by Peevey approved by the full commission on February 28, it is stated, “SCE [Southern California Edison] should be directed to submit a proposal that clearly defines the ‘reasonable assurance’ it requires that the commission will support rate recovery of the costs incurred for undergrounding the Tehachapi Project through Chino Hills should the commission later decide to reject the undergrounding modification. The rate recovery proposal that SCE has filed expressly recognizes that jurisdictional authority to set the Tehachapi Project’s transmission rates lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  SCE states that it ‘expects that all costs associated with the project will be recovered at [FERC] … through existing rate recovery mechanisms on file’ there. However, while FERC holds the authority to determine the prudency of costs expended by a utility, SCE argues that under the unique circumstances of a situation like this one, a state commission’s assessment is particularly likely to inform FERC’s determination.  Accordingly, though SCE is not an undergrounding proponent, SCE’s rate recovery proposal seeks a finding from this commission that it would be in the public interest for SCE to undertake certain activities now – essentially to accelerate them – in advance of our decision on the merits of undergrounding Segment 8A.” Segment 8A refers to that section of the line through Chino Hills.
The commission complied with Edison’s request to be able to charge its ratepayers up to $33 million to recover its costs if the commission decides in July against burying the cables through Chino Hills.
A subdivision of the California Utilities Commission, its Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Peevey said, “disagrees that accelerating pre-construction activities is reasonable or necessary, and therefore contends that doing so cannot be in the public interest.  In the Division of Ratepayer Advocates’ view, ratepayers should bear no additional cost responsibility prior to a commission determination on whether or not to underground Segment 8A.  Moreover, the Division of Ratepayers Advocates argues that any costs SCE has incurred in responding to the Chino Hills’ petition for modification must be recovered under the cost cap for the project.”
Ultimately, Peevey and his colleagues on the commission overruled the Division of Ratepayer Advocates’ objections.
“The Division of Ratepayer Advocates, like SCE and other parties, is correct that authorization of accelerated pre-construction activities requires a public interest finding.  We recognize, as the parties do, that direction to a utility to engage in pre-construction activities is unusual – we would much prefer to wait until we are in the position to issue a decision on whether or not to underground Segment 8A following full development of the record.  But in this unique situation, if we wait, we certainly will delay commercial operation of the Tehachapi Project.  That clearly is not in the public interest,” Peevey wrote.
Bob Goodwin, president of Hope For The Hills, an organization militating against the above-ground power lines in Chino Hills, told the Sentinel, “The Public Utility Commission’s vote is the first step in the process, but it is a big step since it sets us on the path to our ultimate goal of saving our families, homes and community. We are beyond ecstatic over this vote.”
It is clear from SCE’s filings that the undergrounding will only run below a 3.5 mile portion of Chino Hills and that Southern California Edison intends to utilize the towers to extend the line through the 1.5 mile span of the city known as Oak Tree Downs.
Goodwin said that Hope For The Hills had not entirely resigned itself to the inevitability of the towers remaining along that mile-and-a-half-long corridor. Still, he said, the likelihood is that the towers will become a permanent part of that landscape.
“While the recent information regarding The Oak Tree Downs section of the project is not positive, we want to emphasize this information has been known to all concerned since early 2012,” Goodwin said. “Hope For The Hills learned, at that time, that SCE had always maintained undergrounding would not be feasible in that area. We continue to support Oak Tree Downs and options are being researched.”
On February 28, Leslie Starck, Southern California Edison’s senior vice president for regulatory affairs, notified the commission that the utility  had revised the cost of undergrounding the transmission line through Chino Hills upward. At the very least, Starck indicated the undergrounding project along the 3.5 mile stretch would cost $700 million and it could range as high as $893 million.
Goodwin was somewhat skeptical of that estimate.
“As for the higher costs – never be surprised that costs go up when SCE is building something,” Goodwin said. “First, they have done a lot of things to get the costs higher – one being adding the 35% contingency fee to the numbers that the bidders provided them. Bidders already build a contingency into their numbers. So these numbers reflect a contingency on a contingency.”

(March 8) SAN BERNARDINO –Despite the consideration that the city of San Bernardino is in bankruptcy, on Monday the city council conferred a net of nearly $1 million in salary increases on police officers and firefighters.
The council was constrained under the terms of the city charter to provide the raises. The San Bernardino Municipal Charter, which can be altered only through a vote of the city’s residents, dictates, under its Section 186, that police and fire department pay is to be determined by averaging the pay provided to similar positions in ten California cities with  populations between 100,000 and 250,000. Those ten cities are selected by a process in which all California cities in that population range are considered and the union eliminates from the list the lowest paying municipalities and a city management representative eliminates the highest paying cities until the ten from which the average is taken are determined.
Several residents in attendance at the Monday, March 3 meeting were critical of the raises, asserting the city’s dire financial condition that has led to its bankruptcy makes those raises unseemly and typifies the council’s poor stewardship of the municipal treasury.
Council members, however, were reminded by city attorney James Penman that their hands were tied by the city charter and they voted 5-2 to approve the increases for rank-and-file police and firefighters, with council members Fred Shorett and Virginia Marquez lodging the dissenting protest votes.
Accordingly, 162 police officers will see a 2.06 percent or $146 per month increase and will now be paid between $5,118.80 per month and $7,252.50 per month, depending on seniority. Forty-four detectives and corporals will receive a 1.11 percent or $90.20 per month increase and will now be paid between $6,465.40 per month and $8,198.20 per month, depending on seniority. The department’s 39 sergeants will receive a 1.99 percent or $182.60 per month increase and will now be paid between $7,399 per month and $9,372.60 per month.  The pay increases for police officers, detectives, corporals and sergeants will cost the city $34,823.20 per month.
In the case of the police officers, corporals, detectives and sergeants, the salaries were based upon the average paid to comparable positions in the police departments in the cities of Concord,  Norwalk, Fontana, Oceanside,  Fullerton, Oxnard, Irvine, Palmdale, Lancaster and Santa Clarita.
The salary paid to law enforcement trainees will remain at $4,095.04 per month ($23.63 per hour), which is 80 percent of the lowest grade of pay for a police officer.
Adding annual fringe benefits and other salary-driven costs which rise with salary increases such as the state public employee retirement system contributions, unemployment and Medicare, the total increased general fund cost for salaries and benefits for the police officers, corporals, detectives and sergeants for fiscal year 2012/13 is $561,821; overtime costs are estimated to be $101,238, for a projected fiscal year 2012/13 increase of $663,059.
In determining the raises to be provided to the rank and file firemen, the city relied upon the average salaries provided to firefighters in  Daly City, Orange, Elk Grove, Pasadena, Garden Grove, Roseville, Huntington Beach, Salinas, Irvine, and Vallejo, the last of which has also declared bankruptcy.
The city’s three basic firefighters who do not have paramedic certification will get a one percent or $70.50 per month raise to $5,635.40 per month to $7,133.50 per month, depending on seniority. The department’s 39 paramedics will get a .91 percent or $72 raise to $6,386.90 per month to $8,003 per month, depending on seniority. The department’s 42 engineers will see a .54 percent or  $42.90 raise to $6,403.90 to $7,929.90 per month, depending on seniority. The department’s 42 investigators and captains, who are paid at a flat rate regardless of seniority, will receive a .83 percent or $74.60 raise to 9,111.60 per month across the board.
These raises will run the city $7,954.50 more per month.
The firefighter trainee salary will be set at $4,508.32 per month ($26.01 per hour), which is 80 percent of the pay for a beginning firefighter.
Adding fringe benefits and other salary driven costs, the total increased general fund cost for salaries and benefits for the fire safety unit for fiscal year 2012/13 is $135,029; overtime costs are estimated to be $166,615, for a projected fiscal year 2012/13 increase of $301,644.
Mayor Patrick Morris, a former Superior Court judge who in his role on the council does not have the power to vote except to break a tie or to form a quorum, is the city’s most outspoken opponent of Charter Section 186.  Calling salaries for the city’s safety employees “our most expensive single item,” Morris said it is contrary to common sense to be increasing the pay of already well remunerated municipal employees, “particularly in times of bankruptcy and insolvency.”
While Morris, Marquez and Shorett opposed the raises, council members Robert Jenkins and John Valdivia, both of whom were elected with strong fire and police union support, strongly supported the pay upgrades, endorsing Penman’s statements that the city needs to remain competitive in its salaries to attract quality employees, despite the city’s bankruptcy.
The council held off on scheduled votes with regard to salary adjustments for the police and fire departments’ management employees. The same formula as is involved in setting police officer and firefighter pay is used in those cases. For the higher ranking police management and all of fire management, however, those employees are due for pay decreases under the formula.
In determining the rate of remuneration to be paid to the police department’s lieutenants, captains, assistant chief and chief, an average of the pay provided to similar positions with the cities of Costa Mesa, Pomona, Fullerton, Roseville, Hayward, Ventura, Huntington Beach, Sunnyvale, Murrieta and Thousand Oaks was used.
By the terms of the formula, the department’s nine lieutenants are due to get a yet-to-be-granted   10.18 percent or $1,120.49  per month pay increase from $11,011.00 to  $12,131.49. The department’s four captains are in line to receive a 2.48 percent or $328 per month raise from $13,229.00 to  $13,557.00 per month.
Both assistant chief  Ernest Lemos and police chief Robert Handy are being called upon to accept pay cuts. Lemos will see his $16,096 per month salary dwindle by 2.74 percent or 441.32 per month to $15,654.68. Handy will take an even more substantial 10.66 percent or $2,107.40 per month hit, seeing his monthly remuneration drop from $19,775.00 to $17,667.60.
Overall the police management unit salaries will increase by $8,847.69 per month.
Adding annual fringe benefits and other salary-driven costs, the projected increased general fund cost for salaries and benefits for the police management unit for fiscal year 2012/13 is $137,997.
The salary adjustments made to the fire management group were based upon salaries to similar occupations in Burbank , Orange, Costa Mesa, Pasadena, Daly City, Rialto, Garden Grove, Ventura, Ontario, and Torrance.
Throughout the fire management ranks, salaries are scheduled to be decreased.
In the case of the department’s six battalion chiefs, they are supposed to be reduced in pay by .33 percent or $40.70 per month from $12,158 to $12,117.30 per month.  The deputy fire chief’s position would be subject to a 2.15 percent or $315.50 decrease monthly from $14,662 to  $14,346.50.  The pay for fire chief, a currently unfilled position being manned by the deputy fire chief, will diminish 2.26 percent or $380.10 monthly from $16,784 to $16,403.90, if the council determines to live up to Section 186 of the city charter.

(March 8) The city of Twentynine Palms is initiating litigation against the state to preserve bond proceeds issued by the former redevelopment agency in March 2011.
In a closed session February 26, the city council voted 5-0 to sue the California Department of Finance for the return of bond proceeds issued for Project Phoenix, which is to include a community center, a 250-seat theater, classrooms, a civic plaza, a park, a paseo, residential units, a wastewater treatment plant, and improvements to the downtown fire station.
Twentynine Palms, a city of  the 25,048 in San Bernardino County’s Mojave Desert Outback, is at the forefront of efforts challenging the redevelopment agency-shuttering Assembly Bills XI 26 and XI 27, which were passed by the state legislature in 2011 at Governor Jerry Brown’s behest and then upheld by the state Supreme Court last year following a legal challenge by a confederation of cities.
More than three months before the legislature passed AB X1 26 and AB X1 27, the city finalized the Project Phoenix initiative and the city council, which doubled as the city’s redevelopment agency board, issued two tax allocation bonds for a total of $31 million for the Project Phoenix downtown revitalization. Those bonds were issued before the laws went into effect.
Twentynine Palms officials maintain that AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 are trumped by federal securities regulations, meaning the money the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency bonded for in 2011 must be utilized only for the purpose that bondholders were told the money would be applied toward.
Twentynine Palms City Attorney A. Patrick Munoz, of the law firm Rutan & Tucker, is set to assert to the court that the non-taxable bonds issued last year created specific obligations between the city, as the issuer, and the bond purchasers, and as such are enforceable obligations. If the city allows the state  to use the money for a purpose other than what the city had specified in marketing the bonds to the bond buyers, that would constitute fraud, according to Munoz.
The city has already followed Munoz’s recommendation to have  the city’s successor agency lay claim to the redevelopment money and declare its intent to proceed with Project Phoenix.  AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 provided for the creation of locally based oversight boards to see to the discharging of remaining redevelopment money.  Last May, Munoz drafted a contract between the successor agency and the city by which the  successor agency is to  turn over the bond spending authority to the city with a directive that it go toward Project Phoenix. On a 4-1 vote on May 22, the city council voted unanimously to transfer  the seven-member oversight board’s duties and obligations to administer the bond proceeds to “the city in its capacity as a municipal corporation.”
City manager Richard Warne this week told the Sentinel, “Twentynine Palms is only one of 53 redevelopment agencies that issued bonds between January 1 and June 30, 2011. The total amount of the bonded obligation for all of those cities is $1.5 billion, so the use of these bond proceeds is a significant statewide issue yet to be resolved. Under AB 484 the California Department of Finance can grant cities litigation costs related to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. In the city of Twentynine Palms’ schedule for our dissolution costs between January 1 and June 30, 2013, we put down $200,000 for litigation costs and the Department of Finance granted that. The Department of Finance understands this is a significant issue that needs to be resolved one of two ways, legislatively or by litigation. What the department did was give us $200,000 to sue them. The $200,000 will be used for the litigation cost.”
The council’s action on February 26, Warne said, “authorized the city attorney to file litigation against the Department of Finance so that the city can move forward with the expenditure of  bond proceeds. It is the city’s position that the bond documents are contracts and the state cannot interfere with those. In addition to that the city would be violating IRS and SEC regulations as well as put the tax exempt status of the bonds in jeopardy if it does not spend the money for the purpose for which the bonds were issued.”
According to Warne, “AB X1 26 prohibits the cities and their redevelopment agencies from  entering into new arrangements to issue bonds for redevelopment purposes. The law was silent on the use of bond proceeds issued prior to the adoption of the legislation. In our case, the bonds were sold before the legislation was in place and they were issued in accordance with the law. The bond documents clearly state they were for Project Phoenix. The city will not violate SEC regulations nor will it violate the bonds’ tax exempt status. The city has to take certain actions within a three year period of the bonds’ issuance with regard to starting to expend the money and we must complete construction within a five year period for the bonds to maintain their tax exempt status.”
AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 carry provisions requiring that any litigation challenging them be undertaken in Sacramento Superior Court. Warne said that despite the hoops the city must jump through,  “We are confident this will be resolved legislatively or in court within the time frame outlined in the bond documents.”
Assemblyman Richard Blum has introduced legislation, AB 981, which would authorize any cities with redevelopment agencies that issued bonds before AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 passed to spend that bond money for the redevelopment purposes outlined in the issuing documents. That legislation, if it passes and is not vetoed by the governor, will render any litigation the city is filing moot.
Munoz believes the city will prevail in court and the state will have to go along with the city’s discharge plan because the bonds are enforceable obligations and the proceeds are secure.
Warne said the state cannot prevail in the litigation since, “There are constitutional restrictions against the impairment of contracts.”
Warne said that “It is cheaper to litigate this item and resolve it than continue the current process. Everyone is spending money going up to Sacrament to the Department of Finance and making arguments. Every time you employ attorneys and consultants, it costs money. We will be continuing to do that for years. It is cheaper to resolve this legislatively or in the courts and get finality on this than just being in limbo.”

(March 8) With controversy over the San Bernardino Diocese’s move to place a cell tower near Sacred Heart Parochial School in Rancho Cucamonga yet raging, the principal at St. Margaret Mary School in Chino has informed parents that the Diocese has entered into an arrangement to have a cell tower erected near the church school there.
In January 2012, after discussions that had been ongoing between Verizon and the Diocese for several months, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission gave approval to the placement of a cellular phone tower next to the Sacred Heart Parochial School playground. In late November, several parents of students at the school learned of the plans for the yet-to-be-completed tower on the church grounds near the northeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and the I-15 Freeway.
An outpouring of parental concern that the tower’s electrical field could negatively impact the health of their children prompted the church, pastored by Father Benedict Nwachukwu-Udaku, and the Diocese, led by Bishop Gerald Barnes, to relent and agree to instead place the tower at the northern end of the church parking lot, a spot more removed from the playground.
That change, however, did not mollify most of the outraged parents, who have stepped up their efforts, insisting that the church renounce hosting the cellular tower altogether.
The church, the Diocese, Verizon and the city of Rancho Cucamonga insist that the original placement of the tower represented no threat to the students at the school, maintaining the emissions from the tower would be about ten times below the radiation safety threshold set by the Federal Communications Commission. The Diocese maintains it agreed to moving the tower as part of an effort to be responsive to the parents who had vocalized their concerns.
About seventeen miles southwest of Sacred Heart, the Diocese has now apparently committed to erecting another cellular antenna in the bell tower at St. Margaret Mary Church, located at 12664 Central Avenue in Chino.
In an email to parents  dated February 21,  St. Margaret Mary Principal Joan Blank wrote, “I want to inform you that a cell tower is going to be installed in the church steeple.  It will be covered with lattice and not be visible to the school.  The equipment will be installed in the space between the church and the shopping center to the north.”
The church is in close proximity to the school, with the higher grade classrooms, sixth, fifth and fourth, and the library closest to the bell tower. The third, second and first grade classrooms are more removed from the church, as is the school cafeteria and playground.

Results of three special municipal elections in San Bernardino County held on March 5 were speedily posted this week.
In Chino Hills, Ray Marquez outpolled Rossana Mitchell, Debra Hernandez and Jesse Singh in the race to succeed former councilman Wilburn “Bill” Kruger, who resigned in September. In Yucca Valley, former mayor and councilman Bob Leone handily outdistanced Jennifer Collins, and Michael Hildebrand to replace councilman Isaac Hagerman, who resigned last summer.
In Rialto, Measure W, a utility tax measure, was passed with well over 60 percent of the vote.
With 30 of 30 precincts reporting in Chino Hills, the semi-final results had Marquez with 3,360 votes or 45.36 percent, Rosanna Mitchell with 2,413 votes or 32.57 percent, Debra Hernandez with 851 votes or 11.49 percent and Jesse Singh with 784 votes or 10.58 percent.
Marquez will need to step down as a board member with the Chino Valley Independent Fire District as well as from his positions as a member of the California Special Districts Association’s legislative and finance committees. Those posts are held to be incompatible offices with that of city council member under the California Government Code. His positions as a county airport commissioner, and a member of the California Institution for Women advisory board and the Carbon Canyon Fire Safe Council are being examined for incompatibility issues also, prior to his scheduled swearing in next Tuesday.
Marquez told the Sentinel, “I’m happy to have been elected. It’s nice to get a breather after I have been campaigning for almost nine months now, for this election and the one in November. I want to do some good things. I am looking forward to the challenges, such as the encroachment issue involving homeowners and city open space. We have also had for years now the equestrian overlay pending. I want to restart the dialogue on that and come up with a resolution.”
In Yucca Valley, Leone pulled down 1,235 votes, or 46.89 percent, to best Jennifer Collins, with 776 votes, or 29.46 percent, and Michael Hildebrand, with 531 votes or 20.16 percent. Claude Short, who qualified his candidacy but then dropped out, received 92 votes or 3.49 percent.
Leone said, “I am only one of five people elected to represent their community and I am looking forward to working with the rest of the council in carrying out the first phase of our wastewater treatment project. The wastewater system connection fees will be harsh for many of our residents. I do not want to put additional taxes on the people who live in town, but I will get behind establishing a half cent sales tax or putting something in place for whatever number of years to complete the first phase.  There are people in town who feel they are not represented on the council and I want to represent them and everyone else. I am aware that in this economy people are hurting and we have to meter our growth in town. We need to support our merchants and make our town more wide open and friendly to people starting businesses.”
In Rialto, Measure W was passed with 2.627 votes in favor, or 62.97 percent, and 1,545 opposed, or 37.03 percent.
Measure W imposes for five years an 8 percent tax on electric, gas and other utilities.
In promoting its passage, city officials maintain the utility tax would fund 24 percent of the city’s operating budget  and would prevent the withdrawal of $5.3 million from the police department and $2.9 million from the fire department, thus preserving 20 police officers who would have otherwise been laid off and keeping a fire station slated for closing from being shuttered.

(March 8) The California State Controller’s Office put the kibosh on a ploy by the bankrupt city of San Bernardino to convey $108.3 million from its state-abolished redevelopment agency to a newly created municipal adjunct to thwart the state’s seizure of that money.
In a 53-page document released on Wednesday, California Controller John Chang said transferring money to a nonprofit the city charted, the Economic Development Corporation, was an illegitimate  attempt to have the city maintain control of redevelopment money that is supposed to be transferred to the state.
In June 2011, the state legislature at Governor Jerry Brown’s behest passed AB X1 26, which prohibited redevelopment agencies (RDAs) from engaging in new business after June 28, 2011, established mechanisms and timelines for dissolution of municipal and county RDAs, and created RDA successor agencies to oversee dissolution of the RDAs and the redistribution of RDA assets.
In anticipation of the passage of AB X1 26, the San Bernardino City Council on March 17, 2011 approved the transfer of real property assets to the San Bernardino Economic Development Corporation (SBEDC). “This transfer was unallowable,” Chang’s report, which was actually authored by CPA Jeffrey V. Brownfield, the controller’s office’s chief auditor, states. “All of the asset transfers to the SBEDC occurred during the period of January 1, 2011 through January 31, 2012, and the assets were not contractually committed to a third party prior to June 28, 2011.”
Furthermore, according to Brownfield, “The board of directors for the SBEDC is made up of city of San Bernardino council members, who previously acted as the board of the RDA. The city of San Bernardino and the SBEDC share common governing boards and have coterminous boundaries. The city of San Bernardino provides administrative and related business support for the SBEDC.”
Chang ordered that the city of San Bernardino “direct the SBEDC  to reverse the transfers of assets in the amount of $108,372,060.20 and turn over the assets with any outstanding related liabilities to the successor agency. The successor agency is directed to properly dispose of these assets in accordance with [AB X1 26].”
In making his findings and order, Chang rejected the city’s assertion, provided last November, that “The  city does not control SBEDC” and “The city and SBEDC had no relationship at the time SBEDC was formed.”
Chang also identified and ordered properly disposed  $420,512,906.15 in San Bernardino RDA assets that have not  been transferred to any agency.
City officials have not yet determined whether they will contest Chang’s order.

(March 1) At the prompting of the city’s code enforcement division, property owners of vacant property along Route 66 between Benson and Central avenues last month began bulldozing and clearing an expanse of undeveloped property in Upland that has been a haven for scores of homeless over the last several years.
The property in question is located just north of the 1700 to 1900 block of Foothill, an approximately 40 acre patch of dense chaparral owned by Bongiovanni Construction, west of Lowe’s Hardware.  Partially obscured from the view of motorists driving along Foothill Boulevard by the In-N-Out Burger, a car wash, and the Hubcap Annie specialized auto parts store, the area is host to squatters, who have been staying there for varying durations. One denizen of the area said he has been there, living in a tent, for six years. Others are mere transients, staying only a few days and nights before moving on.
City officials have long been cognizant of the crude encampments there, just south of Cable Airport. For years the bedraggled shelters have been begrudgingly tolerated by city officials. Within the last year the city did a survey and it estimates there are between 50 and 100 residents within the encampment at the present time.  The Bongiovanni Corporation, with diverse holdings and a construction company empire that is focused elsewhere, had for years made no effort to evict the uninvited settlers.
Last month the city’s code enforcement division issued Bongiovanni Construction a weed abatement notice. An employee of Dineen Trucking, a Bongiovanni tenant on the northwest end of the property, responded by employing one of that company’s bulldozers to begin scraping substantial portions of the chaparral, including some parts inhabited by the squatters.
On February 26, more than two dozen people remained encamped on the property, though some said they were resigned to having to leave.
“We have to move,” said one of the area’s occupants, who gave his name as “Bobby.”
“They said they were going to plow the field so we are going to have to get out of here,” he said.  Bobby said he had previously lived in Upland when he was formerly employed as a “contractor” but that since falling on hard times he had been living there for about three years. “Code enforcement told us we have to move. They came in here and started bulldozing on the 21st.”
A woman, Rita, originally from Los Angeles, said she has lived there for about five years. “Code enforcement is not involved,” she said. “I do believe it is the people who run the operation grinding up the sand [i.e., Dineen Trucking]. They were knocking down the trees and taking out all of the growth.  She [the operator of the bulldozer] said from the time we plow around your tent you have  two weeks to get out of here.”
Rita said the arrival of the bulldozer had turned her life and those of her compatriots living in the chaparral upside down. Previously, she said, elements of the community had sought to accommodate the homeless there.
“People from some of the local churches were here several times,” she said. “They passed out sleeping bags and stoves and they still bring us propane for the stoves. They took me to [the] Goodwill [thrift store] and bought me clothes and a pot to cook in. The police have been here but they have let us stay here as long as we keep it clean and under control.”
Rita said “I know there are at least 45 people living here and that doesn’t include all the people further back, the people hiding out there.”
She said the camptown in the midst of the chaparral is basically a peaceful place, although it has social problems like all communities. Rita said there is a division between those living on the east side of the chaparral and those on the west side. “Down here,” she said, indicating the west side, “we drink. “Over there,” she pointed to the east, “they use drugs. They are robbing each other, stealing from us, our bikes or whatever they can get their hands on, so they can buy their dope.”
One of the homeless interviewed by the Sentinel on February 26, Heyward Lamar Waldron, said he had lived there for about a year-and-a-half. Waldron described the person wielding the bulldozer as a woman “who is pretty skilled with it. She went around where people are camped and tore up everything around them. She’s a good operator. She broke all the trees up, but saved my bike and tent. She didn’t disturb my possessions.”
Waldron said the bulldozer had only begun the task of uprooting the chaparral and scrapping the earth bare. “They did the outskirts and down toward Lowe’s. They knocked the foliage down around the front.  People have moved their camps further back [into the chaparral].”
On February 23, Upland Mayor Ray Musser along with members of United Methodist Church toured the homeless encampment and spoke with some of those subsisting there.
According to Rita, “Since the mayor came through, the bulldozing has stopped.”
Phil Velto, the proprietor of Hubcap Annie at  1917 West Foothill Blvd., told the Sentinel the homeless encampment has been in place for at least seven years and that he has been for the most part peaceably getting on with the inhabitants there on a daily basis.
“I’ve only had to call the cops twice,” Velto said, “once because of a fight and another time when there was a stabbing.  I would rather they weren’t there. I am forever picking up trash they leave around. But we coexist. The way I deal with it is we have an understanding.  I’ve told them ‘My back lot is your front yard.’ They know they are never to come up to my business and bother my customers. I will not put up with that and they know it. But at the same time, I treat them with the same respect they show me. I don’t go out of my way, but I do little things for them. I don’t tell them not to use my dumpster. They half fill up my dumpster and I don’t have a problem with that. I will leave bags of cans and bottles back there for them to recycle. I haven’t had a problem with them stealing things or breaking my windows. It depends on your approach. For some of the businesses here, like the Christian Book Store across the street, they have cost those owners a great deal of money by breaking windows and stealing stuff.”
Velto said many of those living in the chaparral have been there for a long time. “I recognize the same people who have been out there for three to four to five years,” he said. “There’s a hierarchy there. There is one guy who appears to be their leader. He has a generator and an air mattress.  He’ll have a hundred dollars worth of change, in quarters and dimes. He’s a middle-aged guy.”
Velto said, “One part me wants to see them gone and another part of me is sympathetic and would like to help them. When there is pouring down rain and it’s freezing cold, I feel bad for them. I’m sure they don’t want to be out in that.  There have been some church groups that have tried to help. There are no easy answers on how to deal with them. This is my city. Upland is a nice city. I know there are groups that want to help them. Others just want them out. Someone came in with a caterpillar and ripped the tree behind my place out and scraped the vegetation all around it. The idea between the city and the Bongiovannis is to level the property where they are so they’ll just go.”
“I don’t know what the answer is or where they need to go,” Velto said. “I know they are here because the fast food places and the liquor stores are close. I know some of them get disability checks and they cash them at the liquor store.  They’re also here because there’s no one stopping them. I’m told the police in Claremont and Pomona tell the homeless they have to leave and say to them ‘Go to the field north of Foothill, just east of Central. They won’t bother you there.’ I don’t think Upland has the means to help all of them. It sucks when you see people who truly need help and there isn’t much you can do. I don’t know how to tell if someone is mentally disabled. I have my sense of it, but I’m not a professional psychiatrist. We spent six million dollars on a dog pound… For that cost we could have built a few homeless suites. The county and state have more resources. Maybe if we could just limit our help to those people here who came from Upland we could do something. I think there’s ways of fixing this thing and the first thing is to find out which are residents from Upland. If the mayors from all the surrounding cities were to meet and everyone had the same approach, like with the tent city in Ontario where only Ontario residents were allowed to stay there and we figure out who belongs to Upland, maybe we could help them out if it was just limited to our own population.“
Someone who has taken up the cause of those being displaced by the code enforcement action and Bongiovanni Construction’s reaction to it is local attorney Stephen Wade.
“Upland has a problem with the homeless population, which must be constructively addressed by the community,” Wade said. “Whether you feel compassion or distain for these people, they exist, and they are not going to simply go away. The impact they have on the community is significant in terms of use of police and paramedic time, the detrimental impact on certain businesses, and city parks. I believe there are resources in the non-profit, faith based and governmental arenas, which can be brought to bear on the situation, if the will exists to address the issue head on. I don’t suggest that this is entirely the city’s problem to solve, however, I don’t think they are absolved from playing a role in the solution, and they can play a vital role in addressing it.”
The city exacerbated the problem with some of its recent action, Wade said.
“With regard to the current crisis, in December the city gave a notice to the residents to leave the property,” Wade said. “This was backed by the prospect of the Upland PD conducting a sweep of the property to remove residents and their belongings. After I contacted members of the city council, the city manager and the chief of police, the city agreed that removal of the residents was not their directive. They agreed that if removal was necessary to effectuate the weed abatement mandated by code enforcement, it was the owner’s responsibility to do that.
“No further action was taken until last Thursday, February 21, 2013 when a bulldozer began systematically destroying encampments on the property,” Wade went on. “It was not incidental to weed abatement, but obviously directed at sending a message to the residents that if they did not leave they would be destroyed. To my knowledge, no court order was obtained for this purpose. Legally, I believe that the residents are trespassing. That said, even trespassers are entitled to due process of law prior to their removal. Although I have no immediate intentions of commencing any legal proceedings in this regard, it is clearly a possibility, if no other suitable arrangements can be made.”
The city’s heavy-handed approach is counterproductive to the goal of achieving a lasting and meaningful solution, Wade said.
“My position is twofold,” he said. “First, I have no objection to the right of the property owner to conduct weed abatement. I agree that the condition of the property constitutes a fire hazard, particularly for the residents. I merely suggest that the manner in which it is being conducted, with encampments being bulldozed, along with all of the worldly possessions of the residents, is inhumane and illegal. The city, as the party responsible for instigation of the weed abatement through its code enforcement procedure, together with the land owner has a responsibility to do this in a humane and orderly process, providing an alternate place for the residents, at least on a temporary basis.”
Wade noted, “One interesting phenomenon associated with the residents is that most appear to have been longtime Upland residents. Many were born and raised here, attended Upland schools and lived normal productive lives here. Many have relatives in the area. At some point, however, they became homeless, and chose Upland as the place to live as homeless residents. My observation is that most suffer from some combination of drug/alcohol addiction, and/or mental illness. My limited knowledge of homelessness in general is that this situation is something of a chicken and egg conundrum. That is, are they homeless because of their addiction or mental illness, or are they addicted or mentally ill as a result of their homelessness? The answer, I am sure is a combination of both.
“In any event,” Wade continued, “they are clearly the ‘least among us’ and deserving of our compassion and assistance, particularly for those willing to embrace a second chance. It is for this reason that I formed a non-profit corporation called Operation Second Chance in 2012. Our goal is to create a transitional housing project for the hard core homeless in Upland. After a good deal of work and investigation, we began meeting with the city of Upland in January to enlist their support for the project. We have made it clear that we are not seeking the city’s direct financial support for either the construction or operation of the project, but rather, their full throated support for the concept and the ability to ‘partner’ with the city in overcoming obstacles to it going forward.”
Upland City Manager Stephen Dunn sought to distance the city from any responsibility for the homeless population’s displacement.
“Our code enforcement’s action was for weeds on the property,” Dunn said. “Our code enforcement division issued a notice to clean up the property. It was the property owners that took action on their own property, not the city. It is private property and theirs to with as they want.”
Dunn acknowledged city officials were aware that the area was a hosting ground for the homeless and that the issue was one that has been discussed.
“We have lots of concern because we get complaints about the homeless people from surrounding businesses,” Dunn said. He nevertheless maintained that the weed abatement order given to Bongiovanni Construction was not intended as a ploy to eradicate the homeless encampment.
Regardless of the city’s intent, Rita said the action against Bongiovanni Construction had set off a chain of events that would drive the homeless out.
“Now they are going to plow this all up and that is going to put a lot of people out on the streets with shopping carts,” she said.

Even as a group of parents of children attending Rancho Cucamonga’s Sacred Heart Catholic Church School are stepping up their efforts to keep a cellular tower from being constructed on parish grounds, several other schools and cities around the county host cell towers proximate to their campuses, playgrounds and parks.
In this way, thousands of children are being exposed to electrical fields, microwave frequencies and magnetic radiation of a density many believe put those children at risk.
In 2011, the Diocese of San Bernardino, Sacred Heart Church and Verizon began discussions about a cell phone tower to be erected on church grounds. Without any consultation with or notification of parents of children attending the parochial school, the church and diocese entered into an arrangement with Verizon. In January 2012, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission gave approval to the placement of a cellular phone tower next to the Sacred Heart Parochial School playground.
In late November, several parents of students at the school learned of the plans for the yet-to-be-completed tower on the church grounds near the northeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and the I-15 Freeway.
To lesser and greater degrees, some of those parents expressed concern that the tower’s electrical field could negatively impact the health of their children. The more vocal of those parents were scathing in their assessment of all of the parties involved in the approval of the cell tower and its placement.
Verizon was faulted for considering locating the tower so close to where children congregate. The city of Rancho Cucamonga and its planning commission were criticized for approving the erection of the tower next to a school. The Diocese of San Bernardino and its bishop, Gerald Barnes, fell under criticism for their action in the matter. And the pastor of the church, Father Benedict Nwachukwu-Udaku, and the  parochial vicar at Sacred Heart, Father Augustine Amadi, were lambasted for their insensitivity to the wellbeing of the students entrusted to their parish’s care.
While the church, diocese, city and Verizon all maintained that the cell tower represented no real threat to the children and that the emissions from the tower would be about ten times below the radiation safety threshold set by the Federal Communications Commission, parents were insistent in their importuning and demands that the tower be relocated. In January, the church relented and agreed to instead place the tower at the northern end of the church parking lot, a spot more removed from the playground.
That change, however, did not mollify most of the outraged parents, who doubled down, insisting that the church renounce hosting the cellular tower altogether. They are trying to enlist members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in their cause, having chastened those officials for the involvement of the city and the city’s planning division in having gone along with putting a cellular tower next to a schoolyard in the first place. At present, the city’s politicians have yet to fully commit to supporting the parents, even as indignity over the issue has spread beyond the parents at Sacred Heart to other elements of the Rancho Cucamonga population, some of whom have lent support to those parents’ demands, transforming the Verizon playground cell tower into a potential political tar baby that will besmirch and adhere itself to any politician who suggests the planning commission acted appropriately.
The issue is indeed a sticky and thorny one, as Verizon locked in its entitlement to erect the tower with the planning commission’s approval and the city does not have authority, under its codes, ordinances, policy, or state law to revoke the approval.
There is some justification for the parents’ concerns. Studies done in Scandinavia show a relation between the proximity of high intensity electrical fields and elevated levels of leukemia in children. Other studies completed at the University of Colorado at Boulder show that continuous exposure to electrical fields can have deleterious health consequences.
On the other hand, Verizon and city officials maintain the level of radiation put out by the tower will have no negative health impacts.
At well over a dozen other spots around San Bernardino County, cell towers have been erected in proximity to where school aged children are being taught or at recreational facilities many youth frequent. A less-than-exhaustive inquiry into the matter by the Sentinel turned up no less than 20 such examples.
In Fontana, that city has leases with both T-Mobile and Verizon for the placement of cellular towers at 14 of its municipal parks.
A Verizon cell tower is built into a flagpole at Rollins Park next to Terrace Hills Middle School.
In June 2009, the Loma Linda Planning Commission denied a request from T-Mobile for a 65-foot tower proposed at Leonard Bailey Park near Bryn Mawr Elementary School. Nevertheless, in May 2010 the city council overruled the commission, allowing T-Mobile to place the tower by the tennis courts instead of next to the soccer field.
In the High Desert, the Apple Valley Unified School District has entered into a deal with Metro PCS Communications allowing that company to maintain four cellular towers on its school campuses. One of those is at Sycamore Rocks elementary, which borders a city park. Another is located at the Academy of Academic Excellence, an elementary school. Another is on school district property next to Corwin Park. More recently, the district allowed Metro PCS to put in a cell tower that has the outward appearance of an old-West water tank. It is emblazoned with the school district’s logo and is well removed from the main part of the school, on the opposite side of Newt Bass Football Stadium.
The district is paid $2,000 per month for each of the hosting sites.
Conversely, at least one city in San Bernardino County has taken action to ensure that cellular towers are well removed from residents. In 2009, the Rialto City Council passed an ordinance requiring that cell towers be erected at least 500 feet away from residential areas and that they be camouflaged to match their surroundings.

In the past three months, five dairies in the Chino/Ontario area have disbanded their operations and sold their herds.
The once-vaunted Chino Agricultural Preserve was formerly the most intensive milk-producing area in the world. Within its 17,000 acre confines were just under 400 dairies and 400,000 cows. With $800 million in annual dairy production in 1976, the relatively compact Chino Valley region alone was within the entire state of California a close third in milk output behind the much more expansive Tulare and Merced counties.
In the late 1950s, the Chino Valley had become a haven to dairy farmers, many of them of Dutch or Portuguese descent, who were displaced by the urbanization of southeast Los Angeles County. The preserve was formed in 1968 under the auspices of California’s Williamson Act — a 1965 law that was intended to preserve California farmland and to serve as a hedge against urban sprawl. The law granted substantial tax breaks to property owners agreeing to restrict their land to agricultural uses for at least 10 years. By 1970, the Chino Valley was the source for most of Southern California’s milk as well as a major supplier of the cheese for a much larger geographical area.
By the mid-1980s, growing numbers of dairy farmers in the preserve wanted out, as the local industry was itself being subjected to the same pressures that had been brought to bear on dairyman who had been forced to pull up the stakes of their Los Angeles County operations two decades before. Land speculators and developers eyeing the property and envisioning it as residential subdivisions supported politicians at the municipal and county levels to create a dairy-busting agenda that in time spelled the end of the preserve as a lasting entity.
In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, as the county’s land use professionals were seeking to examine the desirability of maintaining the preserve’s dairies as a hedge against the burgeoning urbanization and to determine if the dairy industry had a reasonable prospect of sustaining itself in the changing environment, the county’s elected leadership was heavily influenced by developmental interests, the major providers of political contributions. With a few exceptions, the supervisors leaned in favor of breaking up the preserve.
In 1986, the county took the first step toward deconstructing the Williamson Act’s applicability in the Chino Valley. By 1997, half of the dairies that had been operating in the preserve at its peak had left. The jousting between Ontario and Chino over annexation of the preserve had begun.
In 1999, while there were still 140 dairies operating in Chino Valley, the city of Ontario annexed nearly 8,200 acres of the 15,200 remaining acres in the preserve. Chino laid claim to the other 7,000. The county, for the most part, alternately passively and actively accepted the inevitability of the pending urbanization. Ontario drew up master plans for development of 31,000 homes, 5 million square feet of retail space and 5 million square feet of industrial space.
Chino designated over 400 acres for industrial development and earmarked 2,000 acres for new residences, with complementary plans for commercial development.
But that anticipated development came only in fits and starts. By 2005, the number of dairies had dwindled to 70. The eventual transformation of the land away from its agricultural heyday was under way in earnest. Nevertheless, the development community’s reach exceeded its grasp and the expected building boom within the preserve in the early 2000s failed to materialize. With the economic downturn of 2007, building in the area slowed to a crawl. The county, which had acquired some property in the area under the auspices of sustaining agricultural operations as well as under the assumption the land could be sold in relatively short order at a profit, became a landlord to several dairy operations the county’s political leadership and its political supporters wanted to see shelved.
Ironically, recent events have transpired to put the county in the position of continuing to prop up some of the dairy farms its political leadership a few years ago was angling to extinguish.
A case in point is that of dairyman Geoffrey Vanden Heuvel and his wife Darlene. For the last several years, the Vanden Heuvels have been leasing the 74.57 acres located at 8315 Merrill Avenue in Chino to operate their dairy. For the last 16 months, the Vanden Heuvels have been on the brink of bailing out of the dairy business, but the county has taken to cutting them a $33,000 annual break to simply keep them from departing altogether and having the property lie fallow.
In 1991, the county board of supervisors approved the Agricultural Open Space Land Acquisition and Post Acquisition Preservation program within the Chino Agricultural Preserve, using funds available to the county under the California Wildlife, Coastal and Parkland Conservation Act of 1988 and the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Nine major acquisitions totaling 371 acres were made utilizing Proposition 70 funds. The county also acquired fee title to the 74.57-acre dairy  at 8315 Merrill Avenue in the Ag Preserve, which is not part of the program properties. On May 21, 1996, the board of supervisors approved a purchase/leaseback agreement with Harry C. and Ruth Wiersema for the 8315 Merrill Avenue property. Escrow closed on February 7, 1997 and a ten-year lease with the Wiersemas commenced. Prior to the end of the ten-year term, the Wiersemas indicated they did not intend to request a renewal, and the property was advertised for lease to a new tenant.
The Wiersemas had sub-leased the dairy to Charles W. and Lynette E. Van Der Kooi, who continued dairy operations until a new tenant could be found.
On October 31, 2006 the board approved a nine-year, six-month, twenty-two day lease agreement with the Vanden Heuvels for the 74.57 acre county-owned dairy at 8315 Merrill Avenue  with a commencement date of February 7, 2007. In the first five years of that lease, the board approved one amendment to the deal, a sub-lease agreement between Vanden Heuvel and Van Der Kooi with a termination date of February 6, 2008, after which Vanden Heuvel became the tenant/dairy operator  The dairy includes  a 2,440 square foot single family residence.
With the onset of the current economic downturn, the dairy industry began experiencing rising feed prices and significant decreases in the price paid for milk. Many of the remaining dairy operations in the Chino Valley went out of business. Of the five dairies that disbanded their operations and sold their herds since November, two of those were county-owned dairies acquired with Proposition 70 funds.
In December 2011, Vanden Heuvel requested that the county consider a reduction in the monthly rent because of a severe decrease in the income from his dairy operations. The county balked at that request. Then, according to  David Slaughter, the director of the county’s real estate services department, “Beginning in February 2012, Vanden Heuvel began making monthly lease payments of only $8,500 instead of $11,250 as called for in the lease. While Vanden Heuvel was technically in default, staff of the county’s real estate services department determined it was not in the best interest of the county to initiate eviction because a new tenant was unlikely to be found. More importantly, vacant dairies are difficult to secure from theft and vandalism, which, in some instances, have rendered dairies inoperable, too expensive to repair, and, consequently, unrentable. The real estate services department instead conducted a market survey of comparable properties and determined that the market rent for a dairy of this size from the beginning of 2012 and continuing to the present is substantially below the rate set forth in the lease agreement. As a result of discussions with the Vanden Heuvels and with county counsel, the term of the lease will be reduced by three years from August 31, 2016 to August 31, 2013 in order to decrease the monthly rent from $11,250 to $8,500 effective, and retroactive to, February 2012.”
The $8,500 per month rent, Slaughter said, “reflects current market conditions in the Chino area for comparable dairy properties during this period of time. The county will benefit from reducing the term and changing the termination date to August 31, 2013, by being able to consider other, perhaps more favorable, options for leasing or disposing of the dairy three years earlier than the original termination date of August 31, 2016.”