By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the December 20 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 12-20-19

Two separate actions and developments in recent weeks hold the potential of impacting for generations to come a large expanse of land at the headwaters of the Santa Ana River.
The property in question, lying among the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains in Highland and within that city’s sphere of influence entirely within San Bernardino County, was acquired last century by Orange County as one of the many ongoing efforts by outsiders to commandeer San Bernardino County’s water resources. Given the still unfolding events, an opportunity is presenting itself by which control of the increasingly valuable regional water supply the Santa Ana River represents could pass back substantially into the hands of San Bernardino County-based interests.
On December 10, with little fanfare, the Orange County Board of Supervisors broached the concept of selling a significant portion of the property Orange County acquired to undertake the Seven Oaks Dam project.  The following day, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Endangered Habitats League announced their intent to sue the federal government and San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties for harming the imperiled Santa Ana sucker fish species with releases of water from the Seven Oaks Dam during the spawning season in the Santa Ana River.
From what is pegged as a 209-square mile watershed and drainage area extending all the way to 6,752-foot elevation Baldwin Lake high in the San Bernardino Mountains, the headwaters of the Santa Ana form at the narrowing of upper Santa Ana Canyon above Highland. From there the Santa Ana River wends its way through San Bernardino, Riverside and then Orange counties before reaching the Pacific Ocean. The area along the river’s banks serves as a major water source. Orange County has historically taken an interest in preserving and securing the Santa Ana’s downriver flow. Generations ago, Orange County acted to tie up much of the property around the river’s headwaters.
After more than a decade of planning and preparation involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of California, and the counties of San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange, a contract for building the Seven Oaks Dam was awarded in 1994, with the federal government picking up 70.47 percent of the cost, Orange County defraying 27.09 percent of the price of the undertaking, San Bernardino County chipping in 1.71 percent, and Riverside County laying out 0.73 percent. Cost overruns on the project raised its final price tag to $450 million.
Construction work began in May 1994 and continued until just before its dedication in January 2000.  To create the dam’s embankment, earth was excavated from Santa Ana Canyon immediately below the dam, the alluvial fan of the river north of Mentone, and a cut in a ridge just southeast of the dam that now serves as the dam’s spillway.
Some time after the completion of the Seven Oaks Dam, Orange County gave indication that it considered 1,657 acres the Orange County Flood Control District had acquired to accommodate the project, acreage lying in a rustic area straddling the extreme extension of Highland into Mentone along the foothills at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains near the headwaters, as surplus. Orange County officials said they would entertain proposals for the property’s development.
The Lewis Operating Company, the successor to Lewis Homes, responded, putting together a development plan that entailed building 3,662 single family homes that would confine themselves to 658 acres within the total project area, a neighborhood commercial center contained on another six acres, and an additional 16 acres set aside for neighborhood commercial uses and community public facilities including the construction of a single elementary school and a fire station on a 1.5-acre site. Other infrastructure to accommodate the development was to consist of water reservoirs, a water treatment facility, a sewage treatment plant, and a pump station dotting various portions of the 1,657 acres. Lewis dubbed the project Harmony, and with the consent of Orange County and the Orange County Flood Control District, submitted the proposal to the City of Highland, which had already annexed some of the property and claimed the remainder of the land at the confluence of Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River directly adjacent to the boundary with the San Bernardino National Forest to be within its sphere of influence.
A group of local residents in the unincorporated outskirts of Highland including portions of the Mentone, Redlands, and Mill Creek Canyon communities in an area historically known as “Greenspot” banded together under the aegis of what they called the Greenspot Residents Association to oppose the project as proposed.
Despite that opposition, Lewis proceeded with the project proposal, circulating a draft environmental impact report for the project among property owners between March 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014, and after 50 comments from the public were received, amended and recirculated the report with changes to air quality, biological resources and traffic issues. A final environmental impact report was completed and made available to the public on March 17, 2016.
In 2016, Highland city staff, led by City Manager Joseph Hughes, Public Works Director Ernest Wong, Community Development Director Lawrence Mainez and Assistant Community Development Director Kim Stater, generated a report, essentially justifying staff’s collective recommendation to the council to approve the project. The staff report conceded that “In some instances, mitigation measures for the project could not reduce the level of impact to less than significant [in the areas of] air quality, transportation and traffic.” The city council, according to the report, nevertheless had the legal authority “to determine whether the benefits of the project outweigh significant environmental effects” and that the council was entitled through its authority to “adopt a statement of overriding considerations stating the reasons supporting the approval notwithstanding the significant environmental effects.”
On August 11, 2016 the Highland City Council held a meeting that was entirely devoted to considering the Harmony project at which it issued a statement of overriding considerations, adopted the environmental impact report, amendments to the general plan relating to the project, approved the zone change, adopted the specific plan, approved the development agreement, and approved the subdivision of the property.
The Greenspot Residents Association, networking with the Center for Biological Diversity and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and collectively represented by the law firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, filed suit over the project.
In the same timeframe, the Sierra Club, the Crafton Hills Open Space Conservancy, the Tri-County Conservation League and the Friends of Riverside Hills also filed suit.
The suits maintained that the environmental review for the project completely ignored that a bridge over Mill Creek – which would be required to access the development – would permanently alter that free-flowing creek, and that the project would also harm rare and protected species, including critical habitat for endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rats and the federally-protected Santa Ana sucker fish as well as habitat for endangered southwestern willow flycatchers.
The matters were considered by Judge Donald Alvarez. On June 26, 2018, Judge Alvarez finalized and signed his rulings, finding merit in some, though not all, of what the plaintiffs in both suits alleged. In particular, Alvarez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Center for Biological Diversity/Greenspot Residents Association/Audubon Society suit by determining the city and developer improperly defined the project, and that the environmental impact report was flawed in that it failed to properly analyze or mitigate downstream flooding impacts as well as the potentially deleterious impacts to regional water resources and wildlife habitat.
Alvarez found that the environmental impact report was flawed by virtue of having left out of the equation the volume of fill required to elevate that portion of the project in a flood zone to a level high enough that the foundations of the structures to be built would be at least one foot above the level of maximum flooding statistically likely to occur every 100 years, together with having failed to reckon the impacts downstream of the grading at the south end of the project. Alvarez indicated this phase of the planning suffered because it had been carried out prematurely, that is, prior to the Federal Emergency Management Agency having done a hydrological analysis of the project area.
In the aftermath of the ruling, the Lewis Operating Company indicated it was not giving up on the project and that it would attempt to revamp its proposal to redress those issues raised by the plaintiffs in the suit, and eventually resubmit the plan for consideration.
At its December 10, 2019 meeting, during a closed executive session that took place out of the earshot of the public, the Orange County Board of Supervisors discussed the sale of 1,658 acres, including the 1,657 acres involved in the Harmony development proposal. Involved in the discussion with the board of supervisors were potential purchasers, among which were “Lewis Brothers Development” and the “City of Highland,” according to the board agenda.
Also involved were “Future Purchasers” and “The Redlands Parks Conservancy.”
There was no reportable action that took place during the negotiating session.
That “Lewis Brothers Development,” which is another corporate entity involving Richard Lewis, Randall Lewis, Roger Lewis and Robert Lewis, four of the principals in Lewis Operating Company, is considering an outright purchase of the property signals the proposal to develop the land as a residential and commercial subdivision is yet in play.
The participation of the Redlands Parks Conservancy, which has as its president and board chairman Jack Dangermond, the founder and owner of Redlands-based Esri, an international supplier of geographic information system software, is an indication that the property might be tied up or purchased outright by the conservancy, rendering it, perhaps into perpetuity, as open space. With his wife, Laura, Jack Dangermond in 2017 provided $165 million to the Nature Conservancy to purchase more than 24,000 acres of undeveloped coastal habitat in Santa Barbara to protect it from development.
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, John Buse, the general counsel and legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, and Ross Middlemiss, a staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, sent intent-to-sue letters on behalf of their organization and the Endangered Habitats League to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Orange County Department of Public Works, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Buse and Middlemiss told those parties the environmental groups were going to take legal action against them in an effort to head off further harm to the imperiled Santa Ana sucker fish.
The legal action is intended to stop what Buse and Middlemiss called “a poorly timed water release from the Seven Oaks Dam during spawning season.”
The water release, which started around May 11 and lasted several days, caused high levels of sediment in the Santa Ana River to cover spawning and foraging habitat downstream of the dam, according to the two environmentalist groups. “Mud smothered the sucker’s eggs and food, impairing the fish’s reproduction at a crucial time, and damaging some of its best remaining habitat,” a December 11 release from the combined offices of the two environmentalist groups states.
The combined release said the legal notice from Buse and Middlemiss “warns the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County Public Works, San Bernardino County Public Works, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District of violations of the Endangered Species Act connected to the water release, which illegally harmed the federally threatened fish.”
“This irresponsible action pushed these iconic Southern California fish closer to extinction,” said Ileene Anderson, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These agencies must be held accountable for violating the law and ignoring warnings from federal wildlife officials. It’s sad and frustrating to see this happen when so much time and effort have been spent trying to save this wonderful species.”
“If implemented correctly, management of the Santa Ana River system can successfully combine flood control with preserving wildlife values and the citizens’ natural heritage,” said Dan Silver, executive director of Endangered Habitats League. “However, releases should not be done during the Santa Ana sucker fish’s spawning season.”
According to the two environmentalist organizations, responsible operation and management of the Seven Oaks Dam would enhance rather than harm wildlife and ensure water quality and quantity for the people who depend on the river to provide domestic water. “Today’s notice notes that the original commitment to provide controlled flood releases to benefit downstream habitat for wildlife went terribly wrong this last spawning season and must not continue,” the release states.
The Sentinel’s effort to reach Brendon Biggs, the interim director of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works for his department’s reaction to the letter was unsuccessful.
-Mark Gutglueck

Ontario International Airport, the ownership and complete control of which was returned primarily to the City of Ontario in 2016, this year continued to make strides toward recapturing the passenger numbers and performance milestones it reached under the surer guidance of the City of Los Angeles and the corporate arm the megalopolis uses to operate its airports.
According to a December 12 press release from the Ontario International Airport Authority “Ontario International Airport is the fastest-growing airport in the United States for the second consecutive year.”  That claim, the release said, “was based on a survey of frequent travelers by Global Traveler, a leading industry publication geared to business and luxury fliers who travel extensively in the U.S. and abroad.”
The second year of substantial growth, according to the authority “comes as Ontario International Airport Authority has seen its year-over-year passenger volumes jump another 8.3 percent through the first 10 months of 2019, driven by a 39.5 percent increase in international travel. Ontario welcomed more than 5.1 million passengers in 2018 and, at the current pace, as many as 5.5 million are expected this year, the highest figure since 2008 when 6.2 million moved through the airport.”
Key to further anticipated improvement in passenger numbers has been Frontier Airlines’ intensification of its flights into and out of the airport.
Frontier, which markets itself as a low-fare airline, has had berths at Ontario International Airport since 2017. Currently, the Denver-based airline has flights out of Ontario International Airport to its hub city Denver as well as Orlando and Austin.
In August, Frontier and Ontario International Airport’s Administration announced that no later than April and perhaps as early as March 2020, Frontier Airlines will begin a direct flight from Ontario International Airport to Newark Liberty International Airport. Frontier will thus become the second carrier providing direct flights into what is essentially New York City from Ontario International Airport. JetBlue Airways currently provides a red-eye flight to New York’s Kennedy Airport from Ontario. Frontier will also offer daily nonstop flights to and from Miami and Denver beginning on April 23.
Frontier utilizes Airbus A320 aircraft, which have 180 seats.
Frontier will offer four flights a week to El Salvador International Airport starting May 7 and three flights to Guatemala City as of June 18.
The expansion of its repertoire to two major Latin America cities firms up the airport’s somewhat tenuous claim to being an international airport. While it had such status in the past, its international flights at present are limited, with only sporadic exceptions, to AeroMexico and Volaris flights to Mexico City, Cancun, Tijuana, Vera Cruz, Puerto Vallarta, Acapulco and Cabo San Lucas, and China Airlines flights to Taiwan.
“This significant expansion of air service adds to Ontario’s momentum and reaffirms our status as the nation’s fasting growing airport,” said Ontario City Councilman Alan Wapner, the president of the Ontario International Airport Authority Board of Commissioners. “At a time when few airports in Southern California are consistently attracting more air travelers, Ontario is bucking the trend with double-digit passenger growth, which is good news for the Inland Empire economy. We are thrilled that low-fare Frontier Airlines has chosen Ontario to open its nonstop, cross-country service from Southern California to Newark Liberty International Airport.
“This will mark the first time in the airport’s 90-year history that it has offered nonstop flights to Newark, and the first time that our airport has enjoyed options to the Garden State and the Big Apple.” Wapner added.
Wapner has much at stake in the airport making a comeback under Ontario’s guidance.
In 1967, when Ontario Airport yet had a sand-flea-infested gravel parking lot and fewer than 200,000 passengers passing through its gates annually, the Ontario City Council ratified a joint operating agreement with the City of Los Angeles to permit the larger city to use its stronger negotiating position with the airlines serving Southern California to induce them to utilize the Ontario facility. Using its leverage, Los Angeles persuaded a whole host of airlines to begin flying into and out of Ontario.
By 1969, flights out of Ontario dramatically increased. In short order, Continental Airlines, PSA, United, American Airlines, Hughes Air West, and Delta established routes from Ontario. In the early 1970s, Ontario was in competition with John Wayne Airport in Orange County, which at that time was expanding dramatically. Though a benchmark of 10 million passengers at the airport by 1975 was not achieved, Los Angeles World Airports, the corporate entity running the Los Angeles Municipal Department of Airports, still assiduously promoted Ontario International.
In 1981, a modern, second east-to-west runway was built, necessitating the removal of the old northeast-to-southwest runway.
By the early 1980s Los Angeles had met all the criteria laid out in the 1967 joint powers agreement. The City of Ontario was at that time led by Mayor Robert Ellingwood, who was resistant to the concept of Ontario complying with the terms of the joint powers authority agreement and turning ownership of the airport over to Los Angeles. In 1985, during Ellingwood’s brief absence from the city, four members of the Ontario City Council as it was then composed voted to deed Ontario Airport to the City of Los Angeles for no consideration. That transaction was considered a public benefit transfer.  With a few notable exceptions, such as Ellingwood, most Ontario officials at that time believed granting Los Angeles possession of the airport to be beneficial.
Indeed, over the four decades from 1967 until 2007, the relationship between Ontario and Los Angeles vis-a-vis the airport could not have been more positive or cordial.
In the fall of 2007, however, there was a massive financial lull when not just Ontario and Los Angeles but all of Southern California, California and the entire nation was first gripped by what would turn out to be a six-year-running economic downturn and lingering recession. Airlines, in an effort to shield themselves from the continuing economic decline, began cutting back on flights, particularly to locations outside heavy population centers. Beginning in 2008 and until early 2014, passenger traffic at Ontario International declined steadily. This led to a deterioration in the working relationship between Los Angeles and Ontario. In 2010, Ontario officials, led by Councilman Alan Wapner, initiated a campaign aimed at wresting control and ownership of Ontario International Airport back from Los Angeles. Los Angeles officials, including most prominently Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey, at first ignored and then began to resist that effort, which grew increasingly strident and uncivil.
Cooler heads, meanwhile, were seeking to restrain Wapner, asserting that he was needlessly antagonizing Los Angeles officials, who in any event did not have the antipathy toward Ontario he was alleging, reminding him that Los Angeles was in a much better position to negotiate with airlines domestically and worldwide than was Ontario. Moreover, it was pointed out, Ontario Mayor Paul Leon and then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had grown up in the same neighborhood and were childhood friends. Leon’s connection to Villaraigosa could be used with far greater effect to negotiate an outcome favorable to Ontario, it was suggested, than Wapner’s more antagonistic approach. Wapner, however, was having none of that. With Wapner in the lead, Ontario stepped up its rhetoric, openly charging that Lindsey had evinced hostility toward the City of Ontario and its airport, and was deliberately mismanaging Ontario International operations to raise costs and minimize both revenues and ridership there as part of a plot to increase revenue and gate numbers at Los Angeles International Airport. Lindsey and her staff denied those accusations, pointing out that the airlines were being pushed by their own economic imperatives.
In 2013, in the waning days of Anthony Villaraigosa’s tenure as Los Angeles mayor, the City of Ontario, through the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, sued Los Angeles in the neutral forum of Riverside Superior Court, charging Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports with willful mismanagement of Ontario Airport, and seeking the return of the aerodrome to the city in which it is located.
Having already raised the campaign of attack against Los Angeles to a fever pitch, Wapner personalized it even further after the lawsuit was underway. The Wapner-directed attacks occurred against a backdrop of jockeying between the two cities over the “value” of the airport, i.e., the amount of money that was to change hands if the airport title were to be handed back to Ontario. Wapner insisted that the airport was a “public benefit asset” and had no “value” as such. He called for Los Angeles to simply deed the airport back at no consideration. Los Angeles, on the other hand, pointed out that over $500 million dollars had been expended on improvements at the facility and that major portions of the funds for those improvements originated from revenue generated at Los Angeles International Airport or at Ontario International Airport while it was in the possession of Los Angeles, as well as from federal grants Los Angeles secured or from bonds issued under the authority of Los Angeles as a public agency.
Ontario privately tendered a $250 million offer to Los Angeles World Airports for transfer of the airport’s title and operational control. That offer included Ontario assuming $75 million of the outstanding bond debt obligations for past improvements to the airport, $125 million in future passenger facility charges to be realized at the airport and $50 million cash.
Los Angeles officials scoffed at that offer, giving indication they would accept no less than $450 million for the airport and the property on which it sits, which in any case they considered to be a generously charitable counterproposal reflecting a roughly $100 million discount of the cost of the improvements made to the airport during Los Angeles’s 47-year managerial run there.
In August 2015, just as the matter was headed to trial before Riverside Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask, Ontario and Los Angeles forged a tentative settlement, announcing that ownership and management of Ontario International Airport would be returned to the city whose name the aerodrome bears. Mayors Eric Garcetti and Paul Leon disclosed that Ontario was to lay out $150 million for the airport and provide another $60 million to purchase assets technically belonging to Los Angeles World Airports that were in place at Ontario Airport and which were crucial or indispensable to its operations. In addition, Ontario had agreed to assume the debt service on roughly $60 million in bonded indebtedness Los Angeles had taken on over the years to make improvements at the facility.
In December 2015, Los Angeles and Ontario signed an agreement finalizing the transfer as of November 1, 2016, with Ontario paying Los Angeles $60 million out of its various operating funds and another $30 million taken out of its reserves, and committing to make payments of $50 million over five years and $70 million in the final five years of the ten-year ownership transition. In addition, Ontario absorbed $60 million of the airport’s bond debt.
There was considerable hoopla, self-congratulating and general backslapping among Ontario officials over Ontario’s reclaiming of the airport. Only vaguely acknowledged was that in the previous two years, even as Ontario was badmouthing Los Angeles and suing it, ridership at the airport, which at one point had dwindled to less than 4 million annually, was again beginning to inch up under Los Angeles World Airports’ direction as the economy was making a turnaround. Nor did Ontario officials dwell on how, in the immediate aftermath of the deal giving the city ownership and control of the airport, the number of passengers going through the airfield’s turnstiles actually declined. In January 2016 Ontario saw 934 fewer people pass through the airport’s gates – 312,413 – than the 313,347 who had embarked in January 2015.
In the nearly four years since, as the airport is now operating more and more under the official administrative control of Ontario, the ridership numbers at the airport have made a steady climb. That, Wapner and many Ontario officials maintain, vindicates them in the city’s effort to recapture control over the airport.
Whether, in fact, Ontario’s control has been the boon and benefit those officials claim is subject to some contravention. A yardstick applied by others would suggest that the airport and its future as a major transportation hub has been harmed by the city takeover. As a comparison of the airport’s actual performance over the last three years under Ontario’s ownership and what would have occurred if it had remained within the portfolio of Los Angeles World Airports is not possible, interpretations and conclusions, which are conjecture in any event, vary. What can be gleaned from the statistics is that from 2007 until 2013, the number of passengers at Ontario International Airport made a steady decline. In 2007, the yet-standing record for travelers there, 7,207,150 passed through the airport’s gates; in 2008, 6,232,975; in 2009, 4,861,110; in 2010, 4,812,578; in 2011, 4,540,694; in 2012, 4,296,459; and in 2013, 3,971,136. All of those numbers track with the overall performance of the U.S., California and local economy. Thereafter, beginning with 2014 onward, the ridership numbers steadily increased, including the last three years during which the airport was under the control of Los Angeles. In 2014, 4,127,280 flew out of Ontario; in 2015, 4,209,311; in 2016, 4,251,903; in 2017, 4,552,22; in 2018, 5,115,894. It is anticipated 2019 will show an increase along the previous trajectory.  It does not appear that the increases are a function of the airport’s ownership and control, but rather that of the vastly improved general economy. Indeed, attributing the improvements to Ontario’s stewardship of the airport is problematic from the standpoint that the current management and operation of the airport is, in a manner of speaking, a continuation of Los Angeles World Airport’s control of the same. More than 92 percent of the current employees at the airport, numbering 224, from maintenance crew members, to baggage handlers, to flight line personnel, to inspectors, to technicians, to supervisors, to secretaries, to administrators, are former Los Angeles World Airports personnel. Initially, the Ontario International Airport Authority Board of Directors, which has Wapner as its chairman, had gone outside the airport, Ontario, Los Angeles World Airports and California to find a chief executive officer for the airport. In March 2016, Kelly Fredericks, who had been both the president and CEO of T.F. Green Airport in Rhode Island, was tapped to oversee the airport and to guide the city in its transition to ownership and operation of Ontario International. But differences manifested which separated Fredericks from Wapner and other members of the board, in no small measure relating to Fredericks’ belief that the airport should hang onto its assets, including what the members of the board feel is “surplus” property surrounding the airport. Fredericks wanted the city to retain that property for further expansion and growth purposes, and he was skeptical of the motives of Wapner and other airport authority board members who appeared intent on selling that property to speculators and developers Fredericks suspected of having influence over those board members, either through the provision of hefty political contributions to them or other financial and business connections. After Fredericks was forced out in July 2017, the board turned to Mark Thorpe, who was a creature of Los Angeles World Airports, having been its director of air service development and marketing from 2003 until 2011 before he had departed to eventually take on the position of head of cargo and logistics development at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Thorpe returned to the Los Angeles World Airports fold in August 2016, whereupon he was immediately assigned to Ontario International Airport as the chief development officer there during the final phase of Los Angeles’s ownership and operation of Ontario International.
For several reasons, observers and airline industry professionals believe that Ontario’s, and in particular Wapner’s, campaign to regain control of the airport was one angled at the extension of personal control and political ambition and advancement than an improvement of the airport’s management and operations.
Evidence to support this supposition consists of the leverage that Wapner and the other Ontario officials surrendered with their city’s retaking of the airport. Paramount among the metrics in determining whether the fullest, highest and best use of the aerodrome is being achieved is ridership there. The formula that Los Angeles World Airports had for achieving ever higher passenger levels at Ontario International was to bring as many  carriers to Ontario as possible. More than 70 airlines fly into and out of Los Angeles International Airport. With its control over gate positions at Los International Airport, Los Angeles World Airports could offer inducements to airlines to convince them to schedule flights to Ontario. At one point during its heyday under the management of Los Angeles World Airports, Ontario Airport had twice the number of airlines using its runway as it does today. At its nadir earlier this decade, the number of airlines at Ontario International had dwindled to seven. At present, it boasts ten:  Alaska, Frontier, Southwest, American Airlines, China Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, Volaris, United and AeroMexico.
Without the clout of Los Angeles to back it, Ontario no longer has the drawing power to attract carriers. Limited to the ten airlines it now hosts, Ontario International may be approaching a passenger ceiling that will prevent it from matching or exceeding its 2007 numbers for another decade.
In the meantime, Ontario International Airport officials are upbeat in the face of the  gains in passenger participation at the airport in recent years, as well as the willingness of its existing airlines to increase flights and flight frequency.
“We have developed a strong, positive relationship with Frontier since it initiated service at Ontario in 2017 and we couldn’t be happier by the news of the additional Frontier routes,” said Thorpe, speaking in his capacity as the chief executive officer of the Ontario International Airport Authority. “Frontier prides itself on its low-fare flights and we at Ontario pride ourselves on being a low-cost airport with the facilities, services and amenities that appeal to our customers, not to mention our hassle-free experience.”
“Credit for our airport’s success is due to the consistent support of our community neighbors, who welcome our customers with open arms and enthusiastically support our plans to develop a major aviation hub in the Inland Empire,” said Wapner. “We pride ourselves in offering the facilities, services and amenities that appeal to our customers and, as a result, our airport continues to be an attractive destination for leisure and business travelers in Southern California and an economic driver for the region.”
Thorpe said, “It’s an honor to serve one of the fastest-growing population and economic centers in the country. Our mission has been and remains to build the best airport in America for travelers who value convenience, a great customer experience and a wide variety of destinations that meet their needs.”
Airport officials pointed out that “Ontario has an estimated capacity of 30 million annual passengers with the optimal infrastructure for growth in Southern California; an unconstrained airfield with no curfew or noise restrictions; runways long enough for any commercial airplane flying today; an operational federal inspection station to accommodate international flights; plenty of aircraft gates for long-term airline growth; and ground transportation options with easy curbside access to passenger terminals.”
All of those facilities were put in place under the City of Los Angeles’s management of the airport.
-Mark Gutglueck

With a collective dictum, the board of supervisors this week actuated San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Gary McBride’s recommendation to appoint San Bernardino County Fire Chief Dan Munsey as the county fire warden and County Fire Marshal Michael A. Horton to serve as deputy county fire warden.
The appointments were made under the aegis of Government Code § 24008, which provides Munsey and Horton with full powers of peace officers as provided for by California Penal Code § 830.37, subdivisions (b) and (c). Under the county’s charter and chain of command, that authority and power does not reside with either the fire chief or county fire marshal, though traditionally those that hold the fire chief and fire marshal posts in San Bernardino County take on the fire warden and deputy fire warden mantles.
According to McBride, “Pursuant to Government Code § 24008, the board of supervisors may appoint a county fire warden, deputy fire wardens and assistant fire wardens in order to include powers otherwise not included under the domain of the San Bernardino County Fire Prevention District fire chief, fire marshal and deputy chiefs. The fire warden’s responsibilities include overseeing countywide enforcement of laws relating to fire protection, prevention and fire suppression which is a primary duty of these peace officers, when acting in that capacity. Specifically, Government Code § 24008 states the following: ‘The county fire warden shall aid in enforcing all laws and ordinances and any rules or regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and by the State fire marshal relating to fires or to fire prevention and protection.’ Additionally, ‘the county fire warden and the county fire warden’s deputies and assistants shall perform those duties relating to fires or to fire protection and prevention required by the board of supervisors.’”
Munsey was appointed San Bernardino County fire chief on November 20, 2019 by McBride with the concurrence from the board of supervisors. McBride said, “Designating [Muncey and Horton] as the county fire warden and the deputy county fire warden will allow them to carry out responsibilities listed in Government Code § 24008 on behalf of the county.”
-M.G.

San Bernardino County this week at the recommendation of its public health director, Trudy Raymundo, and by a vote of the board of supervisors hired Linda Ward to serve as the director of the county’s public health laboratory.
The contract approved confers upon Ward a total annual compensation package of $201,147, consisting of a $134,098 salary, with benefits valued at $67,049 for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.
According to a report to the board of supervisors from Raymundo, the county department of public health is required by §64817 of the California Code of Regulations “to designate a laboratory director for each laboratory facility. By federal law, all hospital and public health laboratories have the same requirements for lab directors: a doctoral level degree, laboratory work experience, and board certification. Additionally, California is the only state that also requires laboratory directors to also be certified public health microbiologists. This limits the number of otherwise qualified applicants that may apply from out of state. Though the department has conducted continuous recruitments since February 2018, there have been no qualified applicants. Due to the critical nature of this position and the requirement for a designated laboratory director, the department of public health is recommending an employment contract with Linda Ward with a salary of $64.59 per hour. Ms. Ward is currently filling this position on a part-time basis as a returning retiree. She has agreed to suspend her retirement and return to this position on a full-time contract basis. Ms. Ward previously served as the program manager of the public health laboratory for 17 years. Her knowledge, expertise, and experience is critical in managing the public health laboratory. The recommended employment contract will be effective January 1, 2020 and remain in effect until December 31, 2020, but may be terminated earlier pending successful recruitment and transition to a new public health laboratory director.”
On January 20, 2018, the public health program manager laboratory position became vacant. The county’s department of human resources opened a recruitment for the public health program manager laboratory position on February 3, 2018, and has continued recruitment efforts, with no success. On June 26, 2019, the recruitment was revised to include the new classification of public health laboratory director with an increase in salary. Despite this, the recruitment failed to return any qualified applicants and on September 12, 2019, the recruitment was again revised and re-opened as a contract position with a higher salary, an increase in the medical premium subsidy and schedule flexibility.
According to Raymundo, “Recruitment will remain open continuously until a qualified candidate is hired.”
Ward was previously serving in the position at a remuneration well below what she is to receive in 2020. On January 23, 2018, the board of supervisors approved a contract with Ward to serve as program manager of the laboratory for a total annual cost of $60,257, for the contract period January 23, 2018 through January 5, 2019. On December 18, 2018, the board approved an amendment to the contract with Ward, for extension through December 31, 2019, with no change to the total annual cost of $60, 257.
-M.G.