By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the August 17 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 08-17-18

By Mark Gutglueck
A former San Bernardino National Forest biologist has taken issue with the decision by the management of the National Forest to allow the Swiss-owned Nestlé Corporation to continue its water extraction in conjunction with that company’s bottling operation in the San Bernardino Mountains.
In June, the U.S. Forest Service moved to conditionally renew for three years Nestlé’s expired permit to draft water from the San Bernardino Mountains.
The water Nestlé removes from Strawberry Canyon at the approximate 5,000 foot elevation level in the San Bernardino National Forest by means of a series of boreholes, horizontal wells and pipes is bottled and marketed under the Arrowhead Spring Water brand. Based on a tangle of water rights claims that in some cases are valid, in other cases disputed, and in yet others based on conflations or questionable interpretations of the public record and in still others demonstrably inapplicable, Nestlé and its litany of predecessors-in-interest have been capturing water at various elevations in the San Bernardino Mountains for over a century and utilizing it for commercial purposes. The word “Arrowhead” was time and again associated with many of those water pumping and bottling operations, including the names used by the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, the Arrowhead Cold Springs Company and Arrowhead Puritas.
The June decision to allow Nestlé to continue extracting water from Strawberry Creek came after a three decade delay. In 1978, Arrowhead Puritas renewed that permit for transporting the harvested water from Strawberry Canyon for ten years. While still holding that permit, for which it paid $524 per year, Arrowhead Puritas was bought out by Beatrice Foods and then morphed into the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company as a consequence of Beatrice’s bankruptcy. In 1987, Perrier purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, in so doing acquiring the still-active permit. Prior to the permit expiring the following year, Beatrice had applied to renew it. Such a renewal required a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement and its environmental/ecological impact, which at that point the U.S. Forest Service did not have the immediately available resources to carry out. In a gesture of compromise, Perrier was allowed, pending the eventual Forest Service review, to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon by simply continuing to pay the $524-per year fee to perpetuate the water extraction under the terms of the expired permit. In 1992, when Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier, it inherited the Strawberry Canyon operation and continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the permit, which at that time existed under the name of the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co.”
Environmentalists protested and to no avail pushed the U.S. Forest Service to undertake an intensive review of Nestlé’s water extraction in Strawberry Canyon. In 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity, the SOS Project, and the Courage Campaign filed a federal lawsuit, seeking to have the Forest Service halt Nestlé’s use of wells and piping in the forest. The plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s continued diversion of water after the permit had expired was illegal and that the continued water pumping was wreaking ecological harm to Strawberry Canyon. In September 2016, U.S. Judge Jesus Bernal ruled that Nestlé’s water use should not be interrupted because its predecessor, Beatrice, had initiated efforts to obtain a new permit from the Forest Service and had not gotten a response from the agency. In November 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity, the SOS Project, and the Courage Campaign appealed Bernal’s ruling. This year, those groups agreed to drop the appeal in return for an expedited determination of the continuation of the permit.
In a decision memo issued on June 27 and signed by San Bernardino National Forest District Ranger Joseph Rechsteiner, The U.S. Forest Service gave Nestlé clearance to renew its permit for three years with a potential two year extension. That continued water extraction is to be subject to a complex of conditions and restrictions. The decision was memorialized in what was termed a categorical exclusion and decision memo.
“I have decided to approve the continued occupancy and use of National Forest System lands for the extraction and transmission of water using existing improvements, subject to resource mitigation measures designed to ensure compliance with the Forest Service’s land management plan,” Rechsteiner wrote in the memo.
Rechsteiner said “The resource mitigation measures are designed to ensure that the impact to natural resources will be minimal [and] may improve resource conditions when compared to the existing condition. These resource mitigation measures protect and do not infringe upon water rights for developed spring water held by Nestlé under California state water law, as described by a recent report from the California Water Resources Control Board staff. The adaptive management plan provides the permittee with operational flexibility in how those resource measures will be addressed.”
Steve Loe, who is now retired after having served as the San Bernardino National Forest biologist for 30 years, in a letter to Reichsteiner and his two supervisors, USDA Forest Service Regional Forester Randy Moore and Jody Noiron, the forest supervisor for the San Bernardino National Forest, said he believes the renewing of Nestlé’s permit is continuing to damage the forest.
“In my last 10 years working for the Forest Service and as a Forest Service contractor, I served as the lead biologist on the Arrowhead Tunnel Project, the largest tunnel ever on a national forest. Strawberry Creek was within the project study area. During this project, we learned more than ever about surface/groundwater relationships on San Bernardino front country streams, springs, and seeps and their geology, hydrology and biology,” wrote Loe. “The use of a categorical exclusion and decision memo which greatly restricts public and scientist involvement and review, as well as the decision to continue removal of hundreds of millions of gallons of water during this terrible drought are illegal and unauthorized and very concerning to me and thousands of members of the public and scientific community.”
Loe said the renewal of the permit will allow Nestlé to “take hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the headwaters of one of the few perennial streams on the San Bernardino National Forest. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, we understand that you, under the administration’s orders are using a decision memo to limit further public involvement and preclude review and comment. However, from my understanding of the process and current direction and policy, this authorization should have been supported by at least an environmental assessment and decision notice with a high level of public involvement, review, collaboration and opportunity to appeal, not a decision memo.”
Loe said Reichsteiner had cherry picked data to support a pre-arranged conclusion to continue Nestlé’s water use instead of doing a straightforward scientific analysis.
“Rather than use direction and public input to determine what National Environmental Policy Act tool and process to use, the political decision was made and the National Environmental Policy Act documents were chosen and written to justify the decision,” Loe said. “None of the Forest Service experts I have worked with would ever use a categorical exclusion and decision memo for this significant of a permit that has been expired for 30 years with no environmental protection update and huge public and scientific concerns. This decision does not pass the red face test.”
Loe said, “Taking hundreds of millions of gallons from the stream, springs and seeps (especially during the severe drought) is a significant adverse impact. With this severe drought, no scientist would say there is excess water. Any new permit must protect the stream during drought. The decision indicates there will be no adjustment to the amount allowed for removal until Nestlé proves with their studies and monitoring that they are taking too much. There is a high level of uncertainty regarding the taking of water and effects on the stream, spring, and seeps and the plants and animals that depend on them. We know summer low flows are adversely affected. We know that this drought is resulting in flows at historically low levels. A categorical exemption and decision memo are to be used when everything is going well, there aren’t significant unknowns, and the new permit doesn’t make significant changes. This permit and its approval are not that case and a categorical exemption and decision memo should never have been used. To do so is an obvious breach of public trust in the agency to take care of our public lands. There are numerous threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that are all dependent on healthy, well watered sites and soil moisture that are affected by this permitted removal of water. During breeding season, surface expression in the streams, springs and seeps is severely limited and adversely affected by unnatural diversion. The adaptive management plan approved in this decision has not even been developed yet. Numerous scientists made comments on and wanted to be involved in any adaptive management plan. With the plan not developed yet for review and comment, there are huge unknowns. Using a decision memo to avoid public and scientific involvement, potential alternatives, and review is a flagrant violation of the letter and intent of National Environmental Policy Act.”
Loe continued, “We are in the midst of a terrible drought. Flows in Strawberry Creek are at historically low levels. Fish and other aquatic species rescues are being conducted throughout Southern California for fear that the streams could go dry. Taking any water right now from Strawberry Creek is significant. The Forest Service has the authority to stop water removal during the drought and this should have been part of the decision, not to wait for studies. Potential impacts to the Southern Rubber Boa have been totally eliminated from the analysis and decision. I hope this was by accident and not deliberate. The Strawberry Peak area was so important to the rubber boa that it factored heavily in the Forest Service decision to retain the area in federal ownership. Removing any spring or stream water anytime, and especially during this severe drought, will be a significant impact to boas in the headwaters. The southern rubber boa is a California State listed threatened species as well as the southwestern willow flycatcher and the least Bell’s vireo and will require a California endangered species permit from California Fish and Wildlife. We know that removal of surface and groundwater affects these species. “
Loe wrote, “Avoiding responding directly to specific public comments and picking and choosing what comments and questions you will respond to is also a subversion of the National Environmental Policy Act’s intent. There are thousands of members of the public who asked thousands of questions that are unanswered. Mountain residents and valley residents directly affected by Nestlé’s water removal have not had their questions answered. These public landowners are having to ration their water use, public lakes potentially affected like Lake Gregory are dryer than ever, and water rates for those affected are rising because of the need to import water. Nestlé takes pride in not curtailing their take. The fact that the Forest Service was told to use a decision memo for this project by the administration through the Washington Office does not make it right, or in compliance with laws, plans, regulations and policy.”
Loe stated, “There may never be a drought as severe as this for decades or centuries. If water removal is not curtailed at this time, then this permit is just a scam to give away the public resources. The decision must contain a requirement to stop removal until the drought subsides and the studies and adaptive management plan are implemented. If this drought is not enough to trigger taking less water, then the public can have no confidence that the stream will ever be protected under the new permit. This is a foreign company influencing our public land management and if we are going to permit this, it must be based on science and follow legal procedures. A permit without a halt to water removal during this historical drought is a significant impact. The decision memo as written and directed is just a justification to continue this significant use with known and unknown effects as-is until Nestlé proves it is taking too much water from the National Forest. This is backwards and not the intent of the laws, regulations, policy and plans. It is the duty of the proponent to show that there is excess water to the National Forest needs. This cannot be done without years of study, and years of study are not needed to immediately stop removal due to this historical drought. In the absence of long-term studies, best scientific opinion must be used. All Southern California scientists would agree that removal should be stopped until the area recovers from the drought. Then, only water that is shown to be in excess of National Forest needs should be permitted for removal.”
Near the conclusion of his missive, Loe wrote, “I request that you rescind your ranger’s decision to authorize the continued removal of state and public water by Nestlé from the National Forest in the Strawberry Creek Watershed.”
Attempts to reach Reichsteiner by press time were unsuccessful.

This week the races in the 23 of the county’s 24 municipalities that will conduct electoral contests for city/town councils in November shaped up as the final filing deadlines for those offices was eclipsed.
In eight of those cities, races for mayor will also be held.
In Chino Hills, which is holding its first election under the newly created ward system, incumbent councilman Ray Marquez is facing no opposition in District 1. Neither is incumbent councilman Peter Rogers being challenged in District 2. In the city’s District 4, where Brian Johsz is the incumbent after having been appointed to the council following the voluntary resignation of Ed Graham last year, two candidates are vying to unseat Johsz in his effort to obtain voter validation, those being former councilwoman Rossana Mitchell-Arrieta and Ronald Eaton. It is incidental that the city’s district map which was adopted last year was drawn up by Johsz.
In Chino, appointed councilman Paul Rodriguez, who lives in the city’s newly formed District 1, is seeking election in opposition to Tyra Weis, a teacher. In District 2, no incumbent is running. In that field, former State Senator/former Assemblywoman/former Congresswoman Gloria Negrete-McLeod is vying against Dorothy Pineda, a small business owner, Chino Valley Unified School District Board Member Sylvia Orozco and Mark Hargrove, a retired policeman. In District 3, appointed Councilman Gary George wants to achieve election in his own right, but must overcome the competing candidacy of Sheriff’s Lieutenant Marc Lucio.
In Montclair, five candidates are vying for mayor. Incumbent council members John Dutrey and Carolyn Raft are seeking to replace Virginia Eaton, who was appointed to the mayor’s post earlier this summer to replace her husband, the late Paul Eaton. Joining them in the mayoral race are Sousan Elias, Kelly Smith and Alfonso Sanchez. Incumbent Montclair Councilman Bill Ruh and incumbent Councilwoman Trisha Martinez are seeking reelection. Competing with them are Juliet Orozco, Remoushell Henry, Benjamin Lopez and Omar Zamarripa.
In Ontario, incumbent councilmen Alan Wapner and Jim Bowman are seeking reelection. They are being opposed by Richard Galvez, Josef Nikyar and former Mayor Gus Skropos.
Mayor Paul Leon is being challenged by former city councilmen Rudy Favila and Sam Crowe.
In Upland the city will hold its first election using the newly minted electoral ward system. In District 2, the city’s northeastern quadrant which touches Rancho Cucamonga and San Antonio Heights, incumbent Councilwoman Janice Elliott is up against Planning Commissioner Yvette Walker. In District 3, the southwestern portion of the city bordering Ontario, Montclair and Claremont, incumbent Gino Filippi faces two challengers, Ricky Felix and Irmalinda Osuna. In District 4, which lies on Upland’s southeastern side bordering Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, incumbent Councilwoman Carol Timm faces Tammy Rapp and Rudy Zuniga.
Rancho Cucamonga’s two-term mayor and former fire chief Dennis Michael is being challenged by Mark Gibboney and Thomas Reed. This year, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, just as Chino Hills, Chino, Upland, Fontana, Hesperia, Redlands, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms, will initiate ward system voting. Thus two of the city’s incumbent council members – Bill Alexander and Diane Williams – will be leaving office later this year. In their places will be council members representing the city’s central north end and the city’s south side, districts 3 and 2, respectively. Vying in District 2 are Kevin Kenly, a parcel company supervisor; Elvira Harris, a consultant; and Kristine Scott, a public affairs manager. In District 3, Ryan Hutchison, a business man; John Gallegos-Cordero, a DA hearing officer; Ben Cutler, an information technology analyst; Marc Steinorth, the incumbent 40th District Assemblyman; and Edward Rodarte, a realtor, are competing against one another.
In Fontana, incumbent Mayor Acquanetta Warren is opposed by incumbent Councilman Jesse Sandoval along with Mylinda Carrillo, Lorena Corona, Hafsa Sharafat and Carlos Sandoval.
In the newly created District 1, Shannon O’Brien and Phillip Wayne Cothran Jr. are seeking election. In District 4, incumbent Councilman John Roberts is being challenged by Glenda Barillas and Patricia A. Gonzalez.
In Rialto incumbent city councilmen Ed Scott and Joe Baca Jr. are running against Karla Perez and Ana Gonzalez.
In Colton, both incumbent Councilman Frank Navarro and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Mark Garcia are vying to replace Mayor Richard DeLaRosa, who is not running for re-election. Colton has long had a ward system. In District 1, District 2 and District 4, incumbents David Toro, Ernest Cisneros and Luis González, respectively, face no opposition.
In Grand Terrace incumbent Mayor Darcy McNaboe is standing for reelection against incumbent Councilwoman Sylvia Robles. Three men, including Ken Henderson, who was appointed to the council in December 2017, along with Jeff Allen and Jeffrey McConnell, are vying for a two-year term. Greg Batla is running against incumbent Doug Wilson in the race for a four-year term on the panel.
In Adelanto, business owner Gabriel Reyes, customer service representative Ronald Beard and incumbent Councilman Ed Camargo are running for mayor against incumbent Rich Kerr. Two council posts are also up for election in Adelanto this year. One incumbent, Charley Glasper is not seeking reelection. The other incumbent, John Woodard, is. Running in the same race are David McConnell, a veteran; Shad Boyd, who is attempting to establish a marijuana marketing concern in the city; Edward Reyes, an author; Planning Commissioner Chris Waggener, Stevevonna Evans, a business executive; Gerardo Hernandez, an entrepreneur; Harold Hines, an insurance broker; and Brad Eckes, a security guard.
In Victorville, James Kennedy is not seeking reelection to the city council. Councilman Eric Negrete is. Daniel Ramos, Debra Jones, Lionel Dew, Valentine Godina, Lizet Angulo, Kevin Johnson, Leslie Irving, Manuel Musquiz, John Lira, Craig Garcia, Christine Blakeley, Rita Ramirez, Jerry Borja, Mary Jo Kirsch and Jerry Laws are running for council, making it the largest field in the county in this year’s election.
In Barstow, incumbent Councilman Tim Silva is seeking to remain in office by competing in the city’s first election featuring a ward system. He is asking voters to elect him as the city’s District 1 council representative. Opposing him is David Mendez, a retired civilian employee at the Marine Corps Logistics Base. In Barstow’s District 2, incumbent Merrill M. Gracey is opposed by Planning Commission James Noble, Brianna Martinez and Bennie Fedrick, a business owner.
In Hesperia, incumbent Councilman Bill Holland, who has been elevated to the appointed position of mayor, is seeking reelection under challenge by Lara Nava, Dan Ramirez, Robert Lucero and Gonzalo Gurrola. In District 3, Cameron Gregg is challenging incumbent Councilman Paul Russ. In District 4, Jeremiah Brosowske, the appointed incumbent, is challenged by Brigit Bennington.
In Apple Valley, 13 candidates are running in that town’s at large election in which three positions are at play. Two incumbents – Curt Emick and Scott Nassif – are seeking reelection. Another incumbent, Barb Stanton, is not running. The other candidates are Roger La Plante, Angela Valles, Kari Leon, Courtney Hernandez, Xavier Ariza, Michael Karen, Bryen Wright, Janate Valenzuela, Matthew Pautz, Richard Bunck and Ruth Cordova.
In San Bernardino, run-off elections are due after contests held in the city’s mayoral, First, Second and Fourth wards in June did not produce any majority vote-getters. Incumbent Mayor Carey Davis is up against incumbent Councilman John Valdivia. In Ward 1, Gil Botelo, the top finisher in June is running against Ted Sanchez, who finished in second. In Ward 2, Cecilia Miranda-Dolan and Sandra Ibarra are competing after both outdistanced incumbent Councilman Benito Barrios in June. In Ward 4, incumbent Councilman Fred Shorett must run for a second time against second place finisher Alex Beltran.
In Highland, which moved to ward elections two years ago, District 2 incumbent councilwoman Anaeli Solano faces no opposition. In District 4, incumbent Councilman John Timmer is opposed by Gilda Gularte.
In Redlands, ward elections are beginning this year. There are no incumbents residing in District 1. Five individuals – Denise Davis, Andy Hoder, Priya Vedula, Eric Whedbee and Renea Wickman – are running there. In District 3, incumbent Councilman Paul Barich is being challenged by Enrique Estrada, Joe Richardson and Mike Saifie. In District 5, incumbent Councilman Paul Foster is opposed by Ryan Johnson. In a throwback to the at-large system that was formerly in place, a special election is being held to select someone to serve the last two years of the term to which former councilwoman Pat Gilbreath claimed in 2016. Gilbreath died in October 2017 and was replaced with appointee Toni Moberger. In November, Momberger must stand for election to a two-year term against Brian Seghers and Michael Eyck.
In Yucaipa, David Avila, an incumbent councilman, is being challenged for reelection in the newly created District 1 by Wyatt Padget. In District 2, incumbent council member Greg Bogh, who currently serves as the city’s appointed mayor, is unopposed.
In Big Bear Lake, three of the incumbent council members, Rick Herrick in newly formed District 2, Randy Putz in the just created District 3 and Dave Caretto in District 4, were the only individuals to qualify their candidacies. Accordingly, the city council on August 20 will hold a special meeting to adopt a resolution appointing the trio and thereby foregoing a municipal election this year.
In Yucca Valley Jim Schooler and Edmund Shadman will compete against one another for a berth on the town council in newly formed District 1. Incumbent Councilman Merl Abel, who resides in District 3, is being opposed by Jo Ann Bollen. In District 5, incumbent Mayor Rick Denison is running unopposed. Councilman Bob Leone is not seeking reelection.
In Twentynine Palms incumbents Dan Mintz, John Cole and McArthur Wright were placed into districts 3, 4 and 5 when the city’s electoral map was drawn up last year. All three are seeking reelection. Denise Cullum is seeking to displace Mintz in District 3. Former Councilwoman Cora Heiser is running against Wright in District 5. It appears that John Cole has no opposition in District 4.
In Needles, incumbent Mayor Ed Paget will not seek reelection to that post, but is vying for city council. Incumbent Councilman Jeff Williams will not seek reelection to his current post, but is running for mayor. As such, Williams is the only mayoral candidate and a lock to be elected. Joining Paget in the council race for two positions up for election this year are incumbent Councilwoman Louise Evans, Timothy Terral, a cable TV technician, Barbara Beard, an attorney, and Sachary Longacre, a retail sales manager.
The City of Loma LIinda completed its municipal election in June, with incumbents Phillip Dupper and Ron Dailey besting challengers David Sanner and Gabriel Uribe.
–Mark Gutglueck

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
The so-called Me Too movement has now publicly manifested in San Bernardino County, as a former Redlands municipal employee is now gunning for Redlands City Manager Nabar Martinez, accusing him of unwanted sexual advances. Martinez’s tenure with the city appears to be hanging in the balance as a result.
The Me Too movement for the last ten months has built up momentum, excoriating men accused of sexual harassment and assault. It mushroomed out of an accusation of sexual misconduct against movie producer Harvey Weinstein first lodged in October 2017 by actress Alyssa Milano, which was echoed by other actresses. The name of the movement parallels similar efforts to generate outrage toward the alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment along with sympathy and support for their female victims that were initiated by social activist Tamara Burke a decade previously.
The consequent stampede created by the accusations resulted in a virtual landslide of men in prominent positions being forced or hounded out of the positions they held and in other cases terminated by their employers.

Nabar Martinez

Martinez, who has both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in public administration from Texas Tech University, was a budget analyst and manager of administration with the City of Dallas, Texas from 1981 until 1986, the assistant city manager of Lubbock, Texas from 1986 until 1989, the deputy city manager of San Jose in California from 1989 until 1993, the city manager of Colton from 1994 to 1996, the city manager of Bell Gardens from 1996 until 1999, the city manager of Palm Beach Gardens in Florida from 1999 until 2000, the assistant city manager in Pasadena from 2001 to 2005, the city manager of Lynwood from 2005 until 2007 and the city manager of Redlands for the past 11 years.
Martinez hired Amy Hagan, who was then known as Amy Martin, as Redlands’ human resources director and risk manager. She left the city’s employ in February of this year. There is a back story to her departure, according to her attorney, Sagar Raich.
Raich, who is not licensed to practice law in California but is the head of a law firm in Las Vegas, says that it is his client’s contention that Martinez repeatedly sexually harassed her. Some order of an agreement was made between Hagan and Martinez, according to Raich, which essentially called for Hagan to be granted a somewhat unconventional departure handshake. Hagan’s interpretation of that agreement, which was put in writing but copies of which are not yet publicly available, memorialized Hagan’s agreement to not sue the city or seek any further redress beyond being provided with full health benefits until she eclipses the age of eligibility for retirement medical coverage, some 23 years from now in 2041. According to Raich, that written agreement to provide Hagan with what is referred to as “a medical bridge” is contractually binding.

Amy Hagan

At some indefinite point late this spring or early summer, the city apparently reneged on providing Raich with that coverage. At the July 3 council meeting, the entire city council, accompanied by Martinez, City Attorney Dan McHugh and Redlands Director of Management Services/Finance Director Danielle Garcia, recessed into a closed session during which, according to the July 3 meeting agenda, there was a discussion of “anticipated litigation… One Case: a. Facts and circumstances: Consideration of letter from Ms. Amy Hagan regarding retirement benefits and potential for litigation.”
In that discussion, the council and the three city staff members apparently did not reach a consensus on a response to Hagan and Raich that satisfied them. The substance of the discussion is considered confidential and there has been no public disclosure of what the upshot of the closed door conference was. The Sentinel has learned, nonetheless, that McHugh, in his role as city attorney, has concluded that the agreement reached between Hagan and Martinez in January prior to her February departure is not binding. The Sentinel was unable to obtain any indication in available city records showing that the city council ratified that agreement. In any event, McHugh believes Hagan’s interpretation of the agreement that the city is obliged to provide her with a 23-year duration “bridge medical” insurance benefit to be legally insupportable.
The council again discussed the matter in a closed session on July 18, at which McHugh was directed to communicate with Hagan through Raich. A letter went out to Raich informing him that his client would need to file a lawsuit within six months of her claim to preserve her right to sue.
Hagan and Raich then formulated a counter-response, which was contained in a letter Raich sent to the city on August 7. Raich spelled out the basis for the agreement arrived at between Hagan and Martinez in January. Hagan, according to Raich was “repeatedly sexually harassed by the city manager. These incidents of harassment included extremely offensive insults, being subjected to sexual conversations, being contacted at night and on the weekends to discuss personal and sexual matters, and being forced to help the city manager with his online dating profiles.”
Based upon what Hagan had been subjected to and her agreement to not pursue legal action against the city and release it and Martinez from liability, Raich maintains, the agreement was contractually binding and that Hagan was entitled to the extended healthcare coverage upon which the agreement pivoted. Failing to abide by the agreement by denying Hagan the promised healthcare coverage, Raich asserted, breaches that contract, giving Hagan clearance to “file a claim to address the sexual harassment and hostile work environment she experienced.” To head off a suit, Raich said the city should pay his client $469,200, an amount equal to what he said were Hagan’s legitimate “claims of healthcare coverage.” Raich gave the city 14 days to respond, threatening that if the matter were not resolved the circumstance will “result in litigation.”
City officials have not commented on the matter.
The council on Wednesday met again in closed session at 4 p.m., to, according to the meeting agenda, undertake “consideration of correspondence from Ms. Amy Hagan regarding her settlement demand and threatening litigation against the City.” McHugh indicated no reportable action was taken by the council during the meeting.

Former San Bernardino County Fire Marshal Peter Brierty, who retired after more than 30 years with the county in 2013, is again involved in county government.
On August 7, at the recommendation of San Bernardino County Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Robert Lovingood, Brierty was named to the to the county’s Fire Hazards and Hazardous Trees Appeals Board, whereupon he was made chairman of the committee.
In addition to being the county fire marshal, Brierty was the county fire department’s assistant chief and the head of its hazardous materials division. Brierty was part of the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce which cast about for managing the bark beetle infestation in the San Bernardino National Forest. He was one of those who formulated the County Fire Safety Overlay, which stipulated strict building standards for residential construction in high fire hazard zones.
Brierty also taught, in the role of an adjunct professor for a quarter century at  the University of California, Riverside Extension, lecturing on the topics of environmental law and regulation compliance.

In the wake of recent actions, there is considerable confusion with regard to the future viability of the Lewis Group of Companies’ Harmony housing project, which had been approved in 2016 but for which the Highland City Council last week withdrew the entitlement.
Yesterday, the developer of the project deferred to the property owner in response to a question as to whether the development effort would continue.
“We don’t own the property, so I would direct you to speak with Orange County,” Randall Lewis, the Lewis Group of Companies’ vice president in charge of marketing, told the Sentinel.
This morning, a spokesman for Orange County gave indication the project remains in play, insisting the project will proceed as previously presented, despite a Superior Court judge’s ruling that elements of the project’s environmental safeguards and assessment are inadequate.
The Lewis Group of Companies some five years ago floated the concept of the Harmony project being developed on 1,657 acres that Orange County purchased for, but did not utilize in, the construction of the Seven Oaks Dam, situated at the confluence of Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River, directly adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest lands. Harmony was to entail 3,632 houses and other improvements and amenities. The project area is host to numerous endangered species, rare habitats, wetlands and crucial wildlife connectivity corridors.
A draft environmental impact report was circulated among nearby property owners between March 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014. After 50 comments from the public were received, it was amended and recirculated once more with changes to the 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. That recommendation ran counter to the sentiments of a sizable contingent of Highland residents, whose objections were largely ignored by the project proponents and city officials. Among those concerns were harm to the area’s ecology and what they said were inadequacies in the project’s environmental impact report.
In its presentations, Lewis said the 3,662 homes would confine themselves to 658 acres within the total project area, and that a neighborhood commercial center would be contained on another six acres, and an additional 16 acres would be 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, which would come after 1,000 homes are built. Other infrastructure to accommodate the development would consist of water reservoirs, a water treatment facility, a sewage treatment plant, and a pump station.
Harmony was proposed to be developed in the rustic area straddling the extreme extension of Highland into Mentone along the foothills at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains near the headwaters of the Santa Ana River. The proposed development site is far removed from Highland’s city services and is vulnerable to episodic fire, catastrophic flooding, and the San Andreas Fault, project critics contend.
Though city staff’s report relating to the project proposal 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,” staff nevertheless emphasized that the city council 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. Ultimately, the council adopted the 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.
Though advocates for some environmental groups, the Greenspot Residents Association and a handful of disparate other residents were vocal in their opposition to the project proposal, it is unclear whether city officials fully appreciated the depth of the opposition to the project and whether they considered the potential that any of those entities would leap into the breach by filing legal action.
Indeed, two lawsuits ensued. One was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and the Greenspot Residents Association. It maintained that the environmental review for the project completely ignored that a bridge over Mill Creek – which would be required to access the development – will permanently alter that free-flowing creek. 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 plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, asserted in the lawsuit.
The Greenspot Residents Association is an unincorporated entity comprised of concerned citizens within the area historically known as “Greenspot” that covers much of the Mentone, Redlands, and Mill Creek Canyon communities. Dedicated to the historic, cultural, ecological and agricultural preservation of the area, the association was formed and is managed exclusively by local residents. Its members were so outraged by the city’s action with regard to the Harmony project that they undertook a signature gathering effort among city residents to endorse a petition to subject the project to citizen review. While that was ongoing, the association joined with Center for Biological Diversity and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society in filing suit over the project.
In the same timeframe, the Sierra Club, Crafton Hills Open Space Conservancy, Tri-County Conservation League and Friends of Riverside Hills also filed suit. Both lawsuits were heard by Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez.
Initially, the city council and city staff, assuming the procedural hoops the project opponents faced to be too daunting to overcome, aligned themselves with Lewis. But as the intensity of the effort against the project manifested and the numbers of city residents with misgivings over the development became evident, chastened city officials, in an effort to appease the project opponents, consented to putting the Harmony master planned community before voters in the November 2018 election. Those politicians, who were bankrolled in large measure by money put up by the Lewis Group of Companies and its employees, calculated that in two years the anti-Harmony fervor might attenuate, and they were hopeful that Lewis could mount a “public information” campaign of its own to persuade the city’s residents to support the project during that two-year period.
Over that span, the lawsuits, which alleged that the Lewis Operating Company’s environmental impact report for the project was “inadequate” and had engaged in faulty analysis of both certain elements and the totality of the project, proceeded.
Less than two months ago, on June 26, 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.
Another finding favorable to the plaintiffs was 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, and that the environmental impact report further failed to reckon the impacts downstream of the grading at the south end of the project. Judge 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 that part of his ruling siding with the city and the developer, Judge Alvarez found unpersuasive the suits’ contentions that the environmental impact report’s assertion that the greenhouse gas emissions to be generated by the completed project were less than significant were inadequately supported by data. Judge Alvarez said the environmental impact report relied upon proper metrics and methods for deriving data to indicate the project was in compliance with state emission regulations.
Judge Alvarez ruled in the Sierra Club/Crafton Hills Open Space Conservancy/Tri-County Conservation League/Friends of Riverside Hills suit that the project’s environmental review violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not adequately analyzing water resources, wastewater and energy impacts from the development.
In essence, Judge Alvarez’s ruling invalidated the project approval and introduced a requirement that if Lewis is to resubmit an application for the project an adequate environmental impact report is to be carried out.
Two of the current Highland City Council members, Jesus “Jesse” Chavez and Anaeli Solano, were not members of the city council that approved the project. In 2016, after the project approval, Larry McCallon, who is now the mayor, was reelected to a four-year term in the city’s then-newly created District 5, without having to face a coordinated opposition. Also elected to a four-year term in District 1 was Chavez. Solano and incumbent Councilman John Timmer, in District 4, were elected and reelected to two-year terms. No one has come forward to oppose Solano in this year’s election. Timmer, on the other hand, is being opposed by Gilda Gularte, who was a leading foe of the Harmony project.
McCallon, Timmer and another long time member of the council, District 3 Councilwoman Penny Lilburn, find themselves in a political bind, with the juggernaut of opposition against the project, which they so nonchalantly dismissed two years ago, ominously threatening to end their ascendancy in Highland.
Nevertheless, Lilburn, Timmer and McCallon continue to breezily move past the controversy the project birthed, seeking to signal that business as usual is being conducted. One move they made, which some perceive as yet a further miscalculation, was to convene a special meeting on August 8 and vote to ask the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to cancel its November 6 referendum on the project and further cancel the council’s previous approval of the Harmony housing project.
While project opponents were in favor of the cancellation of the project approval, hundreds of the project’s opponents, who were confident that the referendum vote would have gone their way in November, were angered with the cancelling of the referendum on the project.
City officials, meanwhile, huddled with Orange County officials who are intent on recouping some of the money their county expended on creating the Seven Oaks Dam, which collects water for downstream use, primarily in Orange County as the Santa Ana River wends its way to the Pacific Ocean.
City officials asserted that the project was not dead and that both the landowner, Orange County, and developer, the Lewis Group of Companies, were regrouping and were preparing to proceed with the project once more.
Orange County Real Estate Services Director James Campbell wrote a letter supporting the Highland City Council’s decision to repeal the project approval and cancel the referendum. When that letter was learned of by the public, it confirmed for many project opponents that city officials are in cahoots with Orange County in support of the project and cannot serve as honest brokers representing the residents of Highland. Campbell’s letter stated, “The county [Orange County] remains committed to the Harmony project and has enjoyed a tremendous working relationship with the city, staff, council and the community of Highland. We look forward to continuing that effort, complying with the law and moving the Harmony project toward final approvals. Orange County will work with the city to amend the Harmony EIR [environmental impact report] and specific plan in compliance with the court opinion.”
A major issue facing the project is the single bridge across Mill Creek to Highway 38, which will provide and limit both ingress to and egress from the subdivision. This represents a significant hazard, one set of critics contend, in that a fire, to which the area is prone, could create a situation in which the bridge becomes a jammed and nearly impassable chokepoint not allowing residents to flee or firefighters in, or, in the event the fire sweeps onto the bridge itself, preventing all vehicular travel to or from the subdivision, leaving no alternate route of access. Conversely, multiple bridges will have a deleterious impact on the ecology of the creek beds and riparian habitats of the area, another set of project opponents believe. These considerations provide an argument for abandoning the project altogether, project opponents say.
In his ruling, Judge Alvarez granted a writ of mandate relating to a second bridge at Fish Hatchery Road or Newport Road, the addition of which he said was supported by statements from both the city’s public works director and the community development director, and which was envisioned as an enhancement to the city’s circulation plans as far back as 2006. This conflicted with the environmental impact report certified by the council incidental to the approval of the project, which stated that the bridge “is not required or proposed as part of the Harmony Specific Plan from any perspective.”
Thus, Campbell’s assertion that a second bridge across Mill Creek to Highway 38 was not a condition of approval for Harmony previously, not a required mitigation for the project, nor contemplated in any resubmission of the project to the city appears to run head on into one of Judge Alvarez’s rulings.
Indications out of the city are that the proponents need to merely resubmit the project proposal to the city and simply amend those elements of the previous environmental impact report which Judge Alvarez ruled were lacking. At least three city officials – Lilburn, McCallon and Timmer – are still hopeful of an infusion of campaign cash from the Lewis Group of Companies and its employees that will assist them in overcoming the negative publicity they have sustained as a consequence of their support of the project. They believe the ploy of cancelling the referendum will inspire even greater generosity from those donors than they were banking upon previously.
The Sentinel sought to obtain direct input with regard to this circumstance from Randall Lewis. “We are letting the landowner handle all public statements,” Lewis said on August 16. He referred the Sentinel to Molly Nichelson, the public information manager for Orange County.
“The Orange County Flood Control District (county) and Lewis remain committed to the Harmony project and to working cooperatively with the city to achieve a project that is good for the community and the environment,” said Nichelson. “Currently we are focused on complying with the court’s decision and working to make sure the project complies with all environmental and land use laws. Lewis and the county have a contract to work on the Harmony project and our collective goal is garnering final successful approvals for Harmony from the city. There is an existing planning application with the City of Highland and it is our intention to work with the city to modify the Harmony plan and environmental documentation to comply with the court’s ruling. This will be accomplished under the existing specific plan and the EIR [environmental impact report] that has been circulated. It is not a new project.”
Nichelson said cancelling the city voter referendum on the project was justified.
“Regarding the referendum, the county is attempting to comply with the judge’s ruling, which requires recession of the current approvals,” Nichelson said. “This makes the components of the referendum a moot point. Referendums cost the taxpayers money and a referendum was no longer necessary. The wildlife corridor was proposed by the county and Lewis in the Harmony plan and was not part of the court ruling. The court also did not make any ruling regarding ingress and egress.”
–Mark Gutglueck

In response to the prompting of a local youth group known as Smokebusters, the Fontana City Council on August 14 unanimously approved an ordinance prohibiting smoking in all City of Fontana parks.
Under the ordinance, which amends elements of Article III of Chapter 13 of the Fontana Municipal Code, any type of smoking, including that of tobacco, marijuana, cannabis in rolled, cigarette, cigar or pipe form and the use of electronic cigarettes, is banned in all city-owned parks and facilities.
The city will undertake to announce the ban through signage.
Smokebusters was assisted in its effort by the American Lung Association. According to the American Lung Association, more than 480,000 people die from tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke annually. Smoking-related deaths are entirely preventable, according to the association.
Statistically, roughly 17,000 teenagers in California pick up the smoking habit annually. One third of them will die prematurely because of the use of tobacco.
The ban goes into effect in October. Public smoking will thereafter be considered an infraction in Fontana. Citations for smoking will be issued for violations, which will be punishable by fines.
The American Lung Association issued a statement of appreciation to the Fontana City Council for adopting the smoke-free parks policy and the city’s effort to protect children from the ravages of smoking.
According to available data, 15.8 percent of Fontana residents smoke, a significantly higher use of tobacco than the 12.8 percent rate among California residents generally Between 2005 and 2016, smoking among adults in the U.S. declined from 20.9 percent to 15.5 percent. .

Intimidated by the family dog at a home to which he had been summoned by what may have been a spurious call, a San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy discharged his gun at the pet, nicking it and in process slightly injuring a child who was hit by flying fragments of concrete and mortar caused by the ricocheting bullet.
The matter was yet under investigation at press time as members of the department are looking into the series of events that led to the shooting Tuesday evening August 14, after which both the young boy and the dog appear safe.
On Tuesday evening, the department’s dispatch center received a call reporting a “disturbance” at a home in the 15000 block of Tournament Drive in Helendale.
Upon arriving at the home at 8:56 p.m., the deputy approached the front door and knocked. An 11-year-old boy answered. A male German shepherd, the family pet, was with him.
The dog advanced on the unidentified deputy, who unholstered his service weapon and fired a single shot. The discharged bullet grazed the dog in the paw and the side of its torso, and then careened about, chipping the cement on the porch and stucco from the house. The flying debris hit the lad, abrading the anterior side of his left leg.
In short order, an emergency medical response team that is part of the county’s Fire Protection District-5 were summoned. Upon arriving at the Tournament Drive residence, paramedics determined the boy’s wounds were superficial and non-life threatening. He was not transported to a hospital or medical facility, but was rendered first aid at the location.
One of the boy’s parents took the dog to a veterinarian, who provided the animal with treatment. The dog’s injuries were insubstantial and it is expected to fully recover.
All officer-involved shootings are subject to department review, and an inquiry was initiated. It has been determined that the individual who summoned the department with the report of a “disturbance” was an extended family member who did not reside at the Tournament Drive residence and who had departed from the location prior to the deputy’s arrival.
A review of the call and the representations that were made in the course of the exchange with dispatch personnel is being undertaken.
Given the events that ensued from the call, if it is determined that any misrepresentation took place during the brief phone contact, things may not go well for the reporting party, who could be charged with filing a false police report or swatting, i.e., deceiving an emergency service into making an emergency response under false pretenses.

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
Where were you a half hour past midnight early Sunday morning, August 12? I know exactly where I was: In the theater at my palatial Lake Arrowhead estate. Normally, I am fast asleep by 9 p.m. most nights, even on the weekends. My days of tripping the light fantastic are decades past. But I and the rest of the von Olsen household had good reason to be in the theater Sunday morning, just as we had been early Saturday morning, which turned out to be something of a disappointment. We had assembled, all of us, at that dark hour to watch the launch of the Parker Solar Probe…
As regular readers of this column have already learned, the Parker Solar Probe had long been scheduled for launch on July 31, 2017. However, a series of snafus had delayed the take-off. We were told that the all clear was set for August 11 at 3:33 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time iat Cape Canaveral. That is 0733 Greenwich Mean Time, or 12:33 a.m. for all of us locals here in Southern California. So, I stayed up more than three hours after my bedtime Friday night, preparing to watch the launch. The planned launch time was pushed out another hour and as launch time approached just before the 1:38 a.m. Pacific Time close of the launch window was approaching, they had to scrub it until the next morning because of a problem with the heliums system. So I was up late again Saturday night into Sunday morning to watch the blast off as the Delta IV Heavy rocket took the Parker Solar Probe up, up and away into space, a magnificent spectacle on the theater’s oversize screen…
The Parker Solar Probe is an unmanned mission that is supposed to travel to within four million miles of our sun’s surface, and actually reach a point inside its Corona, or outer layer. Incredibly, the Parker Solar Probe is purposed to get seven times closer to the sun than the 1976 Helios 2 mission, which is the closest any earth-launched spacecraft has ever gotten to our sun, at something like 27 million miles…
The Parker Solar Probe, incidentally, was designed by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and is named after Eugene Newman Parker, an American solar astrophysicist who in the mid-1950s Parker developed theories and predictions with regard to supersonic solar wind and the spiral shape of the solar magnetic field in the outer solar system, all of which were initially doubted or question but subsequently proved out by satellite observations in the 1960s. Eugene Parker is almost one of my contemporaries, though he is a bit my junior. Without him, we would not have our current understandings of the solar corona, solar winds or the magnetic fields of both the Earth and the Sun, and the complexied electromagnetic interactions these involve.
NASA has designed it so that after the Parker Solar Probe gets inside the Corona, sensory equipment aboard it will begin making a survey of the environs there, make all order of electronic measurements, and take visual metrics using telescopes. Some of the most critical observations will pertain to solar winds which reach speeds that dwarf our paltry 236 miles per hour top speed winds here on earth. It will make a study of solar storms and solar flares, the phenomena which cause problems with our power supply on earth and sometimes cause electronic circuits on the satellites circling earth to malfunction. It is to gather all kinds of physics data we do not yet have and which our most knowledgeable scientist can only speculate about. All of this data will be beamed back to us on earth…
For those of us fascinated by the march of technology and the toys that science has created, this machine is really something. The spacecraft will maneuver to reach its destination by utilizing the gravitational pull of Venus to slow to a mere 400,000 miles per hour for its flights into the sun or the velocity it is designed to achieve as it passes around the Sun, something like 120 miles per second, making it three times faster than the fastest man-made object to date…
That, of course, is how NASA says all of this will go. I am wishful that all of this will come off. But as the faithful readers of this column now, I am doubtful. I know those NASA eggheads are way smarter than I am. They just are. But still, I am worried about all that heat…
Consider this: On earth, we are 92,955,807 miles from the sun, just 44,193 miles less than 93 million miles distant from that cosmic inferno. The Parker Solar Probe will reach a point roughly 3.8571 million miles from the sun. That’s something like 24 times closer than we are. My guess is it is going to be pretty damn hot where this spacecraft is going. Hotter than Hades, to coin a phrase. The Poindexters with NASA have pinpointed this at something about 3 million degrees Fahrenheit. Still, according to NASA’s, the Parker Solar Probe’s outer surface is not likely to heat to over 2,500 degrees. That is because, they say, the corona will consist of plasma, which while superhot, is not very dense, meaning, again according to the scientists, that the probe’s heat shield will come into contact with relatively few particles. The heat will diffuse over the entire outer surface – this space age heat shield enclosing the entire probe. And this is no ordinary heat shield. This 4.5 inch barrier is the most advance insulation ever conceived or rendered into actuality. In this way, according to NASA, the inner workings of the Parker Space Probe – its instruments and antennae and all of its navigational and propulsiton equipment – will get no warmer than 85 degrees Fahrenheit…
Well, gentle readers, I’m not buying it. My sense of things is that that four-and-a-half inches of material designed to prevent the conduction of heat will not live up to its billing and fail. When the spacecraft gets somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million or nine million or eight million miles distant from the sun, I predict, the heat will get to it. That is my impression, unsteeped in any sort of scientific knowledge or expertise, other than my conception of the physical reality I know…
I hope I am wrong. But I have put my money where my mouth is, even as I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. I laid out $1,000 bets with my household staff at 1,000-to-1 odds. All of them, liking the odds, took me up on it: my butler, Hudson; my chauffer Anthony; my cook, Mrs. Culbertson; my groundskeeper Manuel; by proctor/bodyguard/taster Hans. They have each assured me that they will dutifully pay me in-kind services valued at $1,000 upon NASA reporting that the Parker Solar Probe has evaporated into space. I, on the other hand, have agreed to fork over to them the sum of $1 million if the probe merely survives long enough to broadcast data to earth some six years and four months from now when it makes its first close approach to the sun…
The Parker Space Probe is tentatively scheduled to make its first flyby of Venus on September 27, 2018; a second on December 21, 2019; a third on July 5, 2020; a forth on February 15, 2021; a fifth on October 10, 2021; a sixth on August 15, 2023; and a sixth sojourn near Venus on October 31, 2024. It is scheduled to make its first close approach to the sun on December 19, 2024 and then return to have another near encounter with Venus on November 2, 2024…

In late 1941, the United States Army Air Corps, the forerunner of the U.S. Air Force, had sent nine Martin B-25 aircraft, twin-engine medium bombers to the West Coast after they had been delivered by their builder, the Glenn L. Martin Company of Middle River, Maryland, which is just east of Baltimore. The plane had been introduced earlier that year. The Air Corps was in a rush to reinforce American armed forces in Hawaii in the wake of the Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor. The immediate intention was to dispatch the planes for stationing at Hickam Field, proximate to Pearl Harbor. This represented something of a challenge, since the planes had a 2,850-mile ferrying range, which was but some 300 miles more than the 2,558 miles between Los Angeles and Honolulu. The planes would need to be fitted with auxiliary fuel tanks and the pilots trained with regard to minimizing fuel consumption in steady flight in the event they encountered atmospheric conditions or wind resistance on the flight from the continent to the island, lest they fall short of their destination and have to ditch in the sea. The planes were flown first to Muroc Army Air Corps Base, since renamed Edwards Air Force Base, in the west Mojave Desert.
On December 30, 1941 the pilot and crew of one of the planes, B-26 #40-1475 were given orders to take the plane to March Field in Riverside, from where it was to shortly thereafter make the long haul to Hawaii.
The plane and its crew, which included Second Lieutenant Frank A. Kobal, Second Lieutenant Joseph B. Maloney, Technical Sergeant Waldo C. Jensen, Sergeant Roger F. Organ, Private First Class Wilham R. Chinn, Private First Class Vernon H. Engelbrecht, Private First Class George C. May, Private First Class Robert M. Enyeart and Private Jack C. Shirley, did not make it to March Field. The plane was flying at an altitude of what was presumed to be 9,000 feet in order to clear the western expanse of the San Bernardino Mountains, but apparently dropped to a lower elevation for an unknown reason. The plane crashed into the cloud-blanketed north slope of 7,881-foot Keller Peak, killing the entire crew of nine.
The remaining eight B-26s made it to Hawaii, where a little over five months later, in the first week of June, some of them participated in the Battle of Midway, the major turning point in the Pacific War.
Some remnants of the wreckage of the plane still remains near the crash in mute testimony to the sacrifice of the crew. A salvager cannibalized the fuselage in the late 1950s, exchanging the aluminum for cash. The then state-of-the-art and powerful R-2800 engines still remain with the landing gear and other airframe parts.
In 1994 a memorial plaque was placed above the crash site by William K. Blake, David K. Blake and David G. Schmidt.
-Mark Gutglueck