The variable checkerspot, also known as the chalcedon checkerspot, is a butterfly in the mymphalidae family with the scientific name euphydryas chalcedona.
The variable checkerspot is usually brown-black with extensive yellow, red and white spots on the dorsal wing. The butterfly’s underside usually contains yellow and orange bands. However, as its name suggests, this insect is highly variable in appearance. Dorsal color can range from a brick-red background with brown and yellow markings in Sierra populations to yellow and black in northern Californian populations. Adult wingspan is 1.3 inches-to-2.2 inches.
The variable checkerspot is found in western North America, where its range stretches from Alaska in the north to Baja California in the south and extends east through the Rocky Mountains into Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming.
Adult butterflies feed on nectar from flowers while larvae feed on a variety of plants including snowberry, symphoricarpos; purple owl’s clover, castilleja exserta; paintbrush, castilleja; chaparral honeysuckle, lonicera subspicata; buddleja; diplacus aurantiacus and scrophularia californica.
The butterfly’s habitat encompasses a large variety of environments, including sagebrush flats, desert hills, prairies, open forests and alpine tundra
During the breeding period, males congregate around larval host plants to encounter females. Males both perch near food plants and fly around them in order to look for females. Male butterflies do not stay in one encounter site for long and do not typically defend the territory of their encounter site. Males depend on visual rather than chemical cues to locate females.
Males court virgin female butterflies via physical displays. Females can play hard to get by flying away. Once a female moves to the ground or to vegetation, the male will persist in following her, succeeding only when the female remains motionless long enough for the male to effectuate coupling. The physical union between a male and female variable checkerspot typically lasts an hour but may continue for as long as six hours. The male provides unto the female during this encounter a nutrient-rich spermatophore as well as a mating plug that hinders the ability of females to mate with other males. This spermatophore left within the female’s bursa copulatrix, on average represents 7 percent of the male’s body weight.
Pregnant females look for host plants like diplacus aurantiacus that are close to nectar sources when they lay their eggs in clusters. The larvae that emerge from the eggs feed and live on these host plants, some of which have developed strategies to deter larvae from eating their leaves.
Pre-diapause larvae often move to fresher parts of the plant in which they are laid to secure a better food source. Before they enter diapause, the larvae leave the food plant to seek better dormancy sites such as under the bark of dead branches, in the hollow stems of dried weeds and in rock crevices. During diapause, some larvae are able to wake up and feed before re-entering dormancy
After diapause, the larvae emerge between January and March with pupation usually beginning in April. However, in high elevations, larvae can hibernate for several years. After pupation, the adult flight season begins between mid-April and May and continues into June. The adult variable checkerspot has a life span of around 15 days.
The variable checkerspot’s main predators are birds. In their evolution, the variable checkerspot has adopted a larval diet rich in iridoid compounds. Iridoids are chemicals produced by plants that bond to the plants glucose or sugar. Iridoids are bitter. Thus, scientists studying the variable checkerspot have observed birds quite often exhibiting head-shaking and beak-wiping behavior after killing a variable checkerspot, characteristic of tasting unpalatable prey.
In contrast to the herbivorous diet of the larva, the adult variable checkerspot’s main food source is the nectar it obtains from flowers.

From Wikipedia

The blue portal below will convey you to a PDF of the July 10 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 07-10-20

By Mark Gutglueck
The Yucaipa City Council this week gave Woodside Homes go-ahead to construct 144 homes on property currently lying within a flood zone, while simultaneously signaling there will be an eventual completion of a flood control basin which is intended to alleviate the drainage issues plaguing the property.
Whereas the previous zoning on the property had excluded residential use, the intention toward the ultimate disposition of the property has evolved over the last eight years, and the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan, which was layered into place in 2018, reconfigured land use designations on 115.6 acres in northern-central Yucaipa to allow residential development to take place on a portion of the land there.
In previous public hearings in Yucaipa relating to the proposed future development of the property and its conversion at least in part to residential use, there was far greater resistance and/or protest on the part of the public than was registered on Wednesday.
Earlier in the late Wednesday afternoon meeting this week, the city council approved a contract for the grading of a parcel near the Woodside Homes project site to be converted to a city equipment yard near or within the Wilson III Basin project expanse. That basin, upon its final completion, is intended to reduce flooding in the immediate area, such that the 38.6 acres where the 144 homes are to be built will no longer lie within the flood zone, but be placed at least one foot above the 100-year flood plain.
A 100-year flood is the amount of water measured through historic records to be statistically likely to occur during a deluge. Locating the foundations for structures one foot above that level of water is a nationally imposed standard used for determining eligibility for federally-guaranteed flood insurance.
According to Benjamin J. Matlock, Yucaipa’s planning manager/city planner, the Wilson III Basin project is identified in the city’s original drainage master plan adopted in 1993 and updated in 2012 as a “proposed regional flood control facility” and a “critical component of the city’s overall effort to reduce peak flow rates in Wilson Creek downstream of the proposed project, resulting in a reduction of the Wilson Creek floodplain within the city.”
City officials use the identifiers Wilson Creek and Oak Glen Creek interchangeably.
Previously, land within northern-central Yucaipa which now contains the 115.6 acre Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan Area bounded by Oak Glen Road to the north, Bryant Street to the east, generally 2nd Street and existing single-family residences to the west, and a natural slope to the south that abuts single-family residences was deemed to be best utilized for institutional, high tech, light industrial, educational and office related uses, and was zoned accordingly.
In March 2011, the city council approved the preparation of a specific plan and an environmental impact report for the development of the Wilson Creek Business Park and Flood Control Basin Project. In September 2011, the city council directed staff to pursue a feasibility analysis for a broader array of development opportunities for the Wilson Creek Business Park site. In 2012, the city council reconsidered the options for that proposed development and authorized additional feasibility studies and analyses of traffic, biological resources, and the environmental impacts the different options would entail as well as an economic analysis of each development concept. In January 2013, the city council directed staff to amend the land use mix for the specific plan to eliminate high tech and light industrial uses, while the likely proposals remained focused on institutional, educational and office related uses. In May 2013, the city council approved the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the city for the project, including an agreement that flood control district-owned property not required for the project deemed “surplus” property was to be transferred to the city. On July 11, 2016, the city council made a pronounced alteration of the intent with regard to the eventual development of the property, designating the “preferred” land use alternative for the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan as primarily residential with some parcels retained for the innovation center. The council renamed the Wilson Creek Innovation Center Specific Plan the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan. The city made further notice of its intention of using some of the land for a relocated city maintenance yard. What was designated as the “innovation center” was to be located on the north and east side of the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan area, and the Wilson III basin was to be located within the southern portion of the site. The remaining area was designated as residential, permitting what was enumerated at that time as up to a total of 200 homes within the specific plan area. In November 2016, the city council authorized a memorandum of understanding with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District for the use of one of the innovation center parcels, pursuant to the elevation of the property being raised above the flood plain with excess material generated from the drainage project being compacted as a foundation, such that a 5,000-square foot office and education center, outdoor amphitheater, and associated infrastructure could be constructed.
On April 24, 2017, the city council approved entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement with KB Homes, giving KB Homes the right to negotiate the terms of a disposition and development agreement for the single family homes subdivision.
The proposal to develop the property residentially provoked a reaction from a cross section of Yucaipa’s citizenry.
“I know you need 20 million dollars to run this city, but filling in any open space there is with homes on small lots will create overcrowding of our streets and schools,” stated Bill Napier at the time. “The very thing that is Yucaipa – open space – is being threatened.”
Napier questioned whether the flood control facility to be built would adequately deal with the sheet flow once more property in the area is developed, preventing the natural absorption and percolation of water into the water table. “Adding more streets and paved areas will cause more more run-off. The primary area should be used for flood control, then it should be kept ‘open space’ for that reason and kept in its ‘natural’ state, which means leaving all of the animals in their natural habitat. If all the people in Yucaipa knew about this project and all of the approved projects, they would have objections. My suggestion would be to develop it as a natural area for a large upper Yucaipa dog park and keep them out of the community parks and away from walkers, picnickers, etc. With all the families with children, Oak Glen would be a perfect spot for a skate park and BMX area.“
Elaine Lane told city officials, “I am opposed to removing existing trees and brush. A wildlife tunnel goes under Bryant Street. Do not disturb the wildlife sanctuary. Of concern are lights, noise, water, traffic.” Lane said the city should “limit lighting and cut down on existing lighting in this area to bring back the night sky, instead of obstructing it entirely for the residents.”
Delbert Fandrich, who is also a general contractor, told the city that in considering Wilson Creek, “That’s exactly what it is – ‘a creek.’ Water has run down from the mountains and the Oak Glen area for years. Is the flood from Dunlap Acres already ‘washed’ from your memories? If you think catch basins are going to control the water, look what happened to the basins just below Riley’s Orchard. They were all destroyed a couple of years ago.”
Somewhat perceptively, Fandrich predicted, “The people involved in this project will not let it die just because a few homeowners object.”
John Lane was somewhat critical of city officials, saying they were driven by a developmental imperative that leveled all reasonable objections that stood in their path.
“Increasing the population of this city has been the dream of the city manager and city council for years,” Lane wrote. “The city does not care to consider negative consequences of additional traffic, noise or light pollution.”
Lane alluded to the city’s significant reorientation of its zoning, codes, development plans and standards in suggesting that top city officials were untrustworthy. He related that he and his wife, Elaine, “were told, by the city clerk’s office before we purchased our house that the basin is a natural wildlife corridor. The lady took out maps and a general plan to show us the area would not be developed. So much for the integrity of the city.”
In particular, he indicated that City Manager Ray Casey had been duplicitous in his dealing with city residents, providing them with assurances and promises that were not adhered to.
“It would seem that City Manager Ray Casey is not to be believed when he speaks with local residents,” Lane stated in a written comment dated September 8, 2017. “Due to Casey’s deception, we, the citizens, who met with him, are aghast by the latest development plans. The ‘current’ development plan is nothing like the plans discussed in the meeting with Mr. Casey on August 4, 2016. At that meeting, he indicated the new homes would be built on existing land without encroaching on the floor of the existing basin. The biggest concern with development on the north side of the basin, as stated during our meeting with Mr. Casey, is noise and additional lighting which will negatively affect those of us living along the south side of the basin.”
Lane clarified that “To have the noise and lighting of the city yard where it currently stands is hardship enough for the homeowners adjacent to the basin project. To have the yard moved to the rear of the [Wildwood] church will create even more light at night close to our homes. As it is, with the lights of Stater Bros. Market, Rite Aid, and the ever shining lights at the community park, the night sky is almost nonexistent in this part of the city. The city yard should be kept separate and away from the residential area. Taking into consideration the proximity of a school where youngsters play outside, a facility such as a city yard would be considered a possible hazard for the students.”
According to Lane, “Mr. Casey also talked about leaving the east end of the basin as it is today so as to build an “innovation center’ similar to the environmental nature center in Newport Beach where children can come and learn about local flora. This new plan appears to remove most of the area intended for children to become educated in native plants and animals.”
Dr. Paul Thomas made a written request to the city, stating, “Please do not not relocate the city yard to the area behind Wildwood Calvary Chapel.”
Satashi Sakaino, who lives on Deerfield Drive, told city officials, “I do not want to have more houses on the next street because we will get more traffic jams, the school level will go down, there will be too much dust, there will be damage to my house from construction vibration and I do not want weird people around my neighborhood.”
Billie Randolph told the city council that previous development in the area that had disturbed the former tranquility of the environs and its livability had been accepted “as improvements to our city and necessary for the population. We have always thought of the wash behind our home as a flood plain. It was with surprise that we watched an entire neighborhood of tract homes spring up almost overnight on Oak Glen Road and seemingly in the flood plain. We now understand that flood control has been accomplished and that further development is to come. Our wish is that the planners will do due diligence in planning for this area as if they were going to be living above this area as are the many homes overlooking the wash. While realizing that nothing can remain the same, I urge the committee/planners to give this the same thought and care that they might have given in the past to the betterment and beautification of our town.”
Carolyn Smith and John Manlowe told the city, “We do not want an ugly basin as was built above Bryant Street. We want a wildlife corridor that is not a cemented wash. We want trails for walkers and horses, not for bikers. We are concerned about night sky pollution. We want to be able to continue to stargaze and teach the stars to our 4-month-old granddaughter as she grows up. We want to continue to hear and see coyotes, roadrunners, and wildlife that burrows as well as flies in the air.”
Susanne Marco said she wanted city officials to note that “Once a change is made, it cannot be reversed. The property has always been designated and used as a wildlife corridor, connecting the Crafton Hills to the Oak Glen area. Twice each year, the north banks of the wash area are used by the coyotes as whelping dens. It is one of the few remaining parcels of ‘raw’ land within the city limits that has the original ‘rural’ atmosphere, which has attracted so many of our residents.”
Marco asked, “Why does the city have such a need to develop one of the few natural pieces of property remaining within the city proper? Would not a ‘natural’ setting be more consistent with Yucaipa’s ‘hometown’ reputation? Would not the captured groundwater be able to percolate back into the underground water table with a green or natural base? Does not the city have a piece of property that would be more conducive to the placement of the city yard than behind the church and school, shown as an innovation center?”
Marco said, “Since the major stated reasons for the entire project is to provide additional flood control and water storage, it is hard for me to understand how scraping the ground bare, as it is in the holding ponds east of Bryant Street now, would help the water percolate faster than with the limited natural vegetation that is there now.”
If the city is intent on allowing the housing component of the project to proceed, Marco said, it should consider reducing the number of homes by 40, specifically those planned south of the extension of a line from the homes at Amberleaf Way all the way to the drainage channel, so that “it would allow a much wider catch basin, require less shifting of earth, and not affect the wildlife as the current plan would.”
The Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan was reviewed and recommended for adoption at the November 15, 2017 planning commission meeting. On February 26, 2018, the city council adopted Resolution No. 2017-47 approving the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan. It also certified the environmental impact report for the project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, accepting the mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact report, despite citizen objections. The city council directed staff to file a notice of determination to complete and fulfill the required environmental review.
At that point, much of the fight went out of those registering opposition to the project.
The city remained committed to KB Homes, which over time sought and obtained four amendments or extensions to the exclusive negotiating agreement with city. Those amendments prolonged the negotiating arrangement with KB Homes until November 24, 2018. City staff and KB Homes representatives ultimately were unable to come to a final agreement on the terms of the development agreement and a disposition and development agreement for the project. KB Homes relinquished its interest in the project and discontinued its negotiations with the city.
Casting about for some other entity to fill the void left by KB’s withdrawal, the city ultimately made contact with Riverside-based Woodside O5S, LP, which has been in existence since 2008 and has another corporation, Paracorp Incorporated, as its registered agent and chief corporate officer. Paracorp Incorporated has as its registered agent Matthew Marzucco of Sacramento.
With virtually no alteration of the parameters of the project as proposed by KB Homes, the city proceeded in closing a deal with Woodside. On September 23, 2019, the city council approved and authorized an exclusive negotiating agreement with Woodside O5S relating to the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan, including the Wilson III Basin Project. The negotiating agreement was extended at the regular May 11, 2020 city council meeting to allow for additional time to finalize the development agreement and the disposition and development agreement pertaining to the land Woodside O5S intended to purchase from the city to undertake the project. A portion of the property that the developer has to acquire from the city includes the San Bernardino County Flood Control District surplus property which is to come into the possession of the city with the completion of the basin project. On May 20, 2020, Woodside Homes submitted a letter of intent to the city, which was approved by the city council on June 8. The letter of intent essentially serves as the outline of the development agreement. At its June 22, 2020 meeting, the city council approved an amended letter of intent for Woodside to purchase the proposed 144 lots within Tentative Tract Map 20130.
Thus, the action taken this week, on Wednesday, was essentially a formality, as the commitment between the city and Woodside Homes was for all intents and purposes a done deal when the terms laid out in the letter of letter of intent were approved on June 22.
The project had come before the Yucaipa Planning Commission on June 17, 2020, essentially to be rubberstamped by that body.
The inevitability of that outcome was telegraphed when a resident in the area proximate to the project, David Noble, asked about characterizations of the basin to be built as a “lake.” Planning Commission Chairman J.R. Allgower nimbly deflected the question by stating that the basin would be constantly filled with water.
With little further ado, the commission, with Commissioner Aron Wolfe absent, adopted by a vote of 6-to-0 the development agreement with Woodside Homes and determined that the subdivision and development agreement are within the scope of the environmental impact report for the project as it was approved when KB Homes was the applicant.
On Wednesday, Matlock told the public and the city council that Tentative Tract Map No. 20130 and the development agreement between the City of Yucaipa and Woodside Homes, if approved, would clear the way for the subdivision of a portion of the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan area into 144 single-family residential lots with a 7,200-square foot minimum lot size, which is slightly smaller than one-sixth of an acre. Matlock said the project will also set aside a single lot for the designated innovation center, and lettered lots for future flood control improvements and landscape areas, and will include a public park, the acreage for which he did not identify.
Under the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan reviewed and recommended by the planning commission on November 15, 2017 and adopted by city council on February 26, 2018, Matlock said there were to be three specific components, which included a residential district of up to 200 single family lots of 7,200 square feet, an open space district to include the Wilson III Basin, native open space, recreational amenities and a so-called innovation district of up to 5,000 square feet of non-residential structures, not including accessory structures.
While the project was yet being pursued by KB Homes, Matlock said, the planning commission on November 15, 2017, reviewed and recommended a development proposal deemed to be consistent with the specific plan which called for constructing 144 single family lots, a lot for the city yard, a lettered lot to connect to the basin and lettered lots for landscaping. Lettered is a term peculiar to planning professionals that designates a lot upon which no structures are to be established, distinguishable from numbered lots, where structures are to be built.
Obliquely, Matlock stated that no environmental impact report for the project as put forth by Woodside Homes was carried out but that rather the city was proposing that the environmental impact report adopted by the city council for the specific plan be substituted for that purpose. That previously completed environmental impact report, Matlock said, had determined that all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated and that no statement of overriding considerations was required. He said the environmental impact report included a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and that the California Code of Regulations Section 15168 allowed the use of the prior environmental impact report to be applied to the current approval of the project, such that no additional California Environmental Quality Act document was required for the tentative tract map or development agreement.
Matlock said the planning commission had recommended that the city council approve the tentative tract map, subject to the conditions of approval as contained in the staff report for the project, and that it approve the development agreement between the city and Woodside Homes and make a finding that the subdivision and development agreement are within the scope of the environmental impact report.
This week, only two people registered an objection to the project being approved. One, Leola Green, said the project posed an existential risk to wildlife in the area. She said the city had issues with the provision of both water and electrical power to sections of the city, including that in the area of Oak Glen Creek. There were problems with water quality as well as silt and rocks clogging water filters, she said. The area had been hit by electrical blackouts, as well, Leola Green said. Sinkholes had plagued the area she maintained, suggesting the property where the homes were to be built was not stable and might give way under the weight of homes that would be constructed there.
“We are losing our open space,” Leola Green said. “We already have enough housing as it its. Are we really ready to add to [our neighborhood]? I think not.”
Leola Green also questioned why the city was taking up the issue of approving the project while the state and its residents are yet under restrictions and mandates to refrain from participation in public forums.
Norma Green told the council that Yucaipa was already experiencing “power outages” which she quantified as “at least seven a year.” Putting more homes and utility uses into the area would involve further “power shutdowns,” she said.
She likewise cited a problem with water quality in the area, in particular, she said, water that was malodorous. Referencing 177 homes in the project, she said they were too closely packed together “like crackerboxes. Those are half lots.”
The city council was clearly favorably disposed to the project. Councilman Greg Bogh seized upon Norma Green’s misreading of 144 homes as 177, adroitly using that as a rhetorical point and pretext to persuade his council colleagues to disregard and reject her reasoning. After Bogh had Matlock establish that the project consisted of 144 homes, Councilman Bobby Duncan moved that the council adopt the staff and planning commission recommendations and approve the development agreement, the tentative tract map and the project. “I think this is a fantastic project,” Duncan stated. All five members of the council voted in favor of approving the project.
Prior to that, the city council had followed a staff recommendation relating to the awarding of a contract for the grading of a new city yard site within the footprint of the Wilson II Basin. The low bid that had been submitted on the project by James McMinn of Riverside was deemed unresponsive, and a $156,804 contract with Three Peaks Corporation of Yuciapa was approved to have that company do site preparation for the new city yard, including mobilization, clearing and grubbing, over excavation, and rough and final grading for the street building and drainage improvements.

Four months after San Bernardino County, like the rest of California, was subjected to intensive precautions in the face of the incipient coronavirus crisis then gripping the nation and the world and now more than a month after those precautions have been suspended, the virus appears to be raging out of control throughout the 20,105 square mile jurisdiction.
Complicating the matter is that the primary tools for dealing with the circumstance, the testing materials needed to determine if individuals are afflicted with the condition, have fallen into short supply. This is hampering the medical community from accurately charting the spread of the potentially fatal disease.
A week ago, as of July 3 at 5 p.m., the number of confirmed cases of the coronavirus diagnosed in the county from the outset of the pandemic stood at 13,676. Today, as of 5 p.m., that number had had reached 18,275. The 4,599 new cases represents the largest one-week leap in confirmed cases in San Bernardino County yet. That included the largest one-day increase of 1,024 tallied on July 4. The following day, Sunday, there were 222 more reported cases. The one silver lining at that point was that on neither Saturday, July 4th, nor Sunday July 5th, were there any deaths attributed to the malady. The number of deaths in which COVID-19 was shown as a cause or the major contributory factor since March 13 as of July 3 was 269. That number did not rise over the next two days, but this week, things worsened in the mortality field.
On Tuesday, county public health officials reported that there were 750 new cases over Monday and four deaths. San Bernardino County the next day, Wednesday. July 8, reported 654 new coronavirus cases and 21 additional deaths.
Accompanying that dreary news was the equally bleak report that San Bernardino County heath officials, including its Department of Public Health and the county hospital in Colton, known as Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, were reneging on the hundreds of COVID-19 test bookings they had made for county residents this week. Those cancellations came about, it was disclosed, because the local medical community is suffering from a shortage of testing supplies, as stores of the items that had been purchased and were on back order and were supposed to be delivered this week have not arrived because of supply bottlenecks.
County officials said the needed items and materials, including a reagent used in the processing of sputum samples, might be available next week.
In the meantime, the number of reported new cases may drop over the next few days, but that will reflect only that testing has decreased, not a reduction in the number of new cases.
As there is a lag of up to four to five days between the time samples are taken and the test results become available, the numbers based upon tests processed for Thursday and today, Friday, still showed an alarming escalation of the condition throughout the county.
On Thursday, there were 828 new coronavirus cases and 11 additional deaths reported in San Bernardino County over the previous day. Today, the department of public health reported another 851 new cases. There were, however, no deaths in the previous 24 hours.
The total number of county residents afflicted with the disease since the first recognized outbreak of COVID-19 in San Bernardino County in March is 18,275, with 304 fatalities. Public health officials project that among the population which has in that timeframe tested positive, 9,466 people have recovered.
A question in all of this is the wisdom of both county officials and state officials having rescinded the precautionary mandates that were put in place in March, including ending public gatherings, closing bars, restaurants, tattoo parlors, barber shops, beauty salons, nail boutiques, massage parlors and any professional venues that brought people into proximity with one another or required actual physical contact, along with requirements that individuals don masks in public. With the rescission of those safeguards, the incidence of the coronavirus in the population has spiked.
Word is that Dr. Erin Gustafson, San Bernardino County’s health officer who was responsible for many of those orders having been issued in March and April, was opposed to their revocation.
Yet mounted on the department’s website is a post which states, “Effective 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 8, 2020, all previous COVID-19-related orders from the health officer, including the health officer order issues on April 23, 2020 titled Omnibus Health Officer Order, except for the orders issued on March 10, 2020 titled ‘Addition of COVID-19 to the Reportable Conditions and Disease List’ and May 8, 2020 titled ‘Requirements for All Individuals Entering Certain Licensed Facilities and Other Agencies Who Are Not A Patient, Resident or New Resident’ are rescinded.”
There is evidence to suggest that the cancellation of these orders was not something Gustafson was amenable to and that she is now being muzzled by her political masters, the board of supervisors, who are reportedly concerned about the economic devastation the closures had resulted in.
For two weeks running, county officials have blocked access to Gustafson, and have prevented her in that same timeframe from responding to pointed questions including whether in her view the restrictions were ended prematurely, whether she was free to impose any restrictions relating to public health that she deemed fit, whether she had to run her recommendations by the higher-ups in the county in order to convert them into an order, and whether, as the county health officer, she has been hamstrung by those further up the chain of command in the county from instituting the full range of measures that she would otherwise apply if she had a free hand.
-Mark Gutglueck

In a period of less than a month, San Bernardino County transportation officials took steps to clear the way for the private sector to take on a major future role in curing aspects of the county’s regional transportation dilemma.
At its July 1 meeting, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority entered into an agreement with a private company building a high-speed train from Victorville to Las Vegas to explore the efficacy of using the I-15 Freeway’s right-of-way to accommodate the track for the train to travel from Rancho Cucamonga to the top of the Cajon Pass.
On June 3, the authority gave direction for its staff to pursue a proposal from Elon Musk’s the Boring Co. for the construction of a tunnel linking Rancho Cucamonga with Ontario International Airport through which passengers would travel in electrical vehicles more rapidly than by surface rail.
The California Department of Transportation, known conversationally as Caltrans, on June 29 signaled that it would allow Nevada-based XpressWest to use the 15 Freeway median as right-of-way for its proposed high speed electric train linking Victorville to Las Vegas.
That breakthrough was followed on July 1 by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s board of directors approving a memorandum of understanding with XpressWest to explore the possibility of its privately funded high-speed rail line extending from Victorville to the Metrolink station in Rancho Cucamonga, which would likewise involve using the right of way through the Cajon Pass along the Interstate 15 Freeway. Both phases of the undertaking, except for using the public freeway right-of-way which was originally secured with the idea of expanding the number of lanes on the I-15, would be privately built and managed by XpressWest.
The memorandum of understanding called for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, formerly known as San Bernardino Associated Governments, and XpressWest cooperating and networking with other stakeholders, most notably Caltrans, to evaluate design and right-of-way issues.
According to the staff report presented with the agenda item for the memorandum of understanding, “Initial discussions between San Bernardino County Transportation Authority staff and XpressWest have taken place regarding extending the planned line in Southern California from Apple Valley to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station as Phase 2 of the larger project. This would provide a connection to the larger Southern California population centers via connections to the existing Metrolink system, and possibly the Ontario International Airport, should that separate connection progress. It is also proposed as a viable alternative to using single occupancy vehicles to commute between the High Desert and employment centers south of the Cajon Pass. The Cajon Pass is heavily traveled, regularly experiences heavy traffic congestion, and is vulnerable to traffic shutdowns during inclement weather. The proposed approach includes continuing to construct along the I-15 transportation corridor until reaching the northern point of the planned I-15 express lanes near Foothill Boulevard, then deviating west and potentially entering the Metrolink right-of-way to reach the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. Environmental and regulatory approval would be under the purview of the Federal Railroad Administration and, if approved, it will be constructed with private funds and without using local public funds, using a combination of direct private investment, the issuance of private activity bonds, and other federal financing programs. The memorandum of understanding includes that the parties recognize that the public, including specifically the residents of San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, will benefit from leveraging this private funding to help meet their transportation infrastructure goals. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority would have a role in coordinating with the California Department of Transportation, the various host cities, Metrolink, and approving the use of any right-of-way owned by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority.”
Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, an evaluation of the I-15 footprint is to take place with an eye toward how the XpressWest train will provide commuters the ability to travel through the Cajon Pass. XpressWest is to determine what remaining right of way, if any, would be available for future infrastructure improvements within the I-15 corridor.
XpressWest is also supposed to provide a ridership report related to its proposed phase 2. The report will include alternatives that evaluate ridership between Rancho Cucamonga and Victorville/Apple Valley, and Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas. The ridership report will also evaluate locations to site a station at the top of the Cajon Pass to address commuter trips.
XpressWest is also to provide conceptual plans for the station located at the top of the Cajon Pass and the Rancho Cucamonga Station, including but not limited to general boarding/alighting locations, station platforms, intermodal connectivity/transfers, parking needs, and needs for feeder services.
“The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority is eager to explore innovative transportation solutions that incorporate emerging technologies, reduce the carbon footprint and protect the public interest,” said Ray Wolfe, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s executive director. “The memorandum of understanding allows us to work with XpressWest in looking outside the box in considering the possibility of a privately built and managed rail system through the Cajon Pass between Apple Valley and Rancho Cucamonga.”
The memorandum of understanding was ratified a little less than a month after the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority board instructed staff to assess the feasibility of a proposal by the Boring Company to create a tunnel from the Rancho Cucamonga rail station to Ontario International Airport. On June 3, the authority board voted to actively explore the tunnel concept, which is represented as a less expensive and faster means of transportation to the airport than above-ground rail projects, including the extension into San Bernardino County of the light-rail Gold Line, which has already been established from Union Station in Los Angeles to Azusa and is now being extended to Pomona, which it is anticipated to reach by 2025.
The Boring Co.’s proposal, which was unsolicited and reviewed by a transportation authority subcommittee in May, called for excavating a 2.8-mile long, 35-foot deep, 14-foot diameter tunnel, which upon completion would utilize modified Tesla Model X electric vehicles to convey passengers at speeds of more than 120 miles per hour to and from the airport. More recently, it has been indicated that the Boring Company, which like Tesla is largely owned by Elon Musk, is looking into developing electric vans with a 12-passenger seating capacity for the project.
That proposal was lauded by San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman, who said of it, “This represents a new way of thinking about a very important transportation issue. This can be done relatively quickly and inexpensively.”
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority officials said the project, tentatively dubbed the Ontario Airport Loop, would cost no more than $60 million to complete perhaps as early as 2023 and would be far less expensive than the completion of the Gold Line or other contemplated rail alternatives, which would cost at least $1 billion and more likely in excess of $1.5 billion.
An attractive feature of both the XpressWest and Boring Co. approaches is that they would involve little in the way of public financing beyond feasibility studies and would be paid for with private capital.
The cost of the XpressWest line to Vegas is estimated at $5 billion. Some $4.2 billion of that is to come in the form of private financing bonds purchased by investors.
Were both the XpressWest and Boring Co. projects to proceed, it would put two of the most visible captains of the private sector in America into the San Bernardino County transportation mix.
Elon Musk, a founder of PayPal and Tesla Motors, is arguably the most widely recognized entrepreneur in America at present. XpressWest is owned by DesertXpress Enterprises LLC, a Nevada company. DesertXpress Enterprises LLC is owned by Fortress Investment Group and Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains USA. Virgin Trains USA, which until a little later in 2020 is to remain known as Brightline, is the operator of a privately-run passenger train line known as the Florida East Coast Railway, which travels between Miami and West Palm Beach, with an intermediate stop at Fort Lauderdale.
Wolfe expressed gratitude that companies such as XpressWest and the Boring Co. “see our county as a promising and nurturing environment for emerging technologies and new solutions to our transportation challenges,” and he said the transportation authority looks forward to exploring such innovative concepts. “Investments like these not only answer a need, but can introduce billions of dollars of jobs and development to our region,” Wolfe said, indicating the authority is “eager to see” how those innovations “fit in to our county’s increasingly vital role in connecting people and places throughout Southern California and beyond.”

As things stand at present, it appears that the 2020-21 school year in most of San Bernardino County’s 33 school districts will begin under a format that is closer to the traditional learning model of students being educated in classrooms than what was the case when the 2019-20 school year drew to a close. Still the same, the return to normalcy will not be complete.
Because of state and local public health orders and mandates, classroom instruction ended in all of the county’s public schools toward the end of March or no later than the beginning of April. The schools remained closed for the remainder of the school year, with a different intensity of remote instruction taking place among faculty and students from district to district, from school to school and from teacher to teacher.
The vast majority of the districts in the county are now firming up their strategies for instruction that will very likely see most students return to their classrooms for two to three days a week when the 2020-21 year begins in August.
Normal school function with students in place at their schools on all five weekdays is being contemplated in only a handful of the districts contacted by the Sentinel.
Rather, what is being called a “hybrid model,” which will keep students at home two to three days a week where they are to be engaged in a structured and formalistic distant or remote learning process, one which is intended to represent a refinement of the program that was in effect during the last three months of the 2019-2020 school year, will be followed in most districts.
Some districts have made commitments on the hybrid concept while others have previewed it to their school boards, which have yet to sign off on it.
Within the last month there has been a pronounced upsurge in confirmed coronavirus cases throughout San Bernardino County. If that trend continues, there is yet the very real possibility that several, a majority, or all of the districts will move to a complete remote learning model once again.
The school districts in San Bernardino County, like their counterparts throughout California, are negotiating the straits between the demands of educating their charges and maintaining the health and safety of students and staff members in the face of the potentially deadly COVID-19 virus.
In a dated mandate, the state called upon districts to provide their students with at least some level of in-person instruction. It is not clear whether that mandate is yet operative, given the flare-up of recent COVID-19 outbreaks.
There are variances in how the hybrid plan will be put into practice.
Tentatively in the Fontana Unified School District, for example, half of a given school’s students are to attend classes at the school on Mondays and Tuesdays, while the other half will be engaged at home in distance learning. All students would remain at home on Wednesdays, when classrooms would be thoroughly cleaned. The students who were engaged in remote learning on Monday and Tuesday would then attend classes at the school sites on Thursdays and Fridays and the remaining students would undergo at-home distance learning. Arrangements are to be made for any students who wish to meet with teachers on days they are not in the classroom. The district is to also allow parents to access on-line learning materials so they can serve as supplemental instructors to their children.
The Fontana district has not fully committed to the plan, but it appears purposed to do so. Word is that district officials will put it tentatively in place to see how it works out.
The Sentinel was provided with a hybrid instructional plan for another unspecified school district in the county. In that district, the Sentinel was informed, students with their last names beginning A-to-M will attend school on Monday and Wednesdays and every other Friday. Students with last names beginning N-to-Z will attend school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and every other Friday. The reason for that arrangement is to keep families together. Single student families and multiple student families may be moved to opposite days at the district’s discretion, as the district attempts to balance numbers district-wide. Distance learning is to take place on the days students are not on campus. Attendance is to be taken daily for all students, on campus or not, and assignments are to be graded. The methods for remote instruction are to include but not be limited to Google Classroom and Zoom. Students will be required to wear masks and will have their temperatures checked daily. They will not be permitted to use playground or gym equipment.
In the Fontana Unified School District, parents were recently surveyed with regard to their concerns over exposing their children to the coronavirus in a school setting. Roughly 20 percent of the responding parents, the district reported, indicated they would rather their children not go to a school site at any time until the danger of contracting the condition has passed.
Educational professionals have opined that given the limitations and lack of refinement and standardization with remote learning, the traditional five-day in-class school week model offers the best educational opportunity for the vast majority of students. Despite recent research that indicates school-age children make poor carriers of COVID-19 and are therefore not likely to be contagious, the sheer numbers of students attending school on most campuses raises the specter of schools spreading the contagion to one degree or another. For that reason, distant learning is considered a viable methodology for maintaining the learning process in the current environment.
Complicating the matter is that on Wednesday, President Donald Trump used the Twitter communication mode to threaten to withhold federal funds from any of the nation’s schools that don’t reopen in the upcoming school year, even if the rationale for maintaining closure is the coronavirus pandemic.
“The Dems think it would be bad for them politically if U.S. schools open before the November election, but is important for the children & families. [I] May cut off funding if not open!” the president tweeted.
It is unclear whether the president’s executive authority enables him to withhold funds already appropriated by Congress for use by the nation’s schools. Federal funding comprises less than ten percent of the money utilized by public schools in California.
There are a number of educators, including ones who affiliate with the Democratic Party, who share the president’s belief that the earliest return to a traditional classroom setting is important, and that allowing school-age children to adapt to a lifestyle that does not involve the structure of a formal educational setting will result in undesirable results for those students both as they mature and in their future academic pursuits.
One district where it appears students will attend school five days a week is the Colton Joint Unified School District. On that district’s website, Dr. Frank Miranda, who was appointed superintendent to succeed Jerry Armendarez after the latter’s abrupt leave-taking to accept the position of superintendent with the Santa Ana Unified School District in November 2019, states that he intends to make “regular visits to school sites, including attending special school events and visiting classrooms with union leaders, executive cabinet, directors and/or board members” and to conduct “Thursdays with Dr. Miranda” events, “where I will ask individual schools to provide me with a space on campus where I will spend a couple of hours.”
Christine McGrew, the official spokeswoman for San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre, yesterday told the Sentinel that how each of the county’s 33 school districts will structure their curricula and education modes “is basically a decision each of the districts have to make. The majority have included in their reopening plan different options to include the traditional learning environment, a distant learning option and a hybrid option that includes both distant learning and some limited classroom time for all students, with each student attending class on a reduced basis. That is basically what a majority of the school districts are doing.”
Deadlines for the districts to determine exactly how their schools will operate are approaching, McGrew said, and district officials are cataloging the options to be laid out to the various districts’ boards.
“Recently the San Bernardino Unified School District made a determination they would begin the school year with a distant learning approach,” McGrew said. “In terms of a deadline for making those decisions, the school districts have their school years set to begin from August 3 to August 26. Once each district’s plans are completed, they are being presented to the individual boards for approval.”
The plans could change if the circumstance so dictate, she said.
“If there is a second wave of the pandemic, safety is a priority,” McGrew said. “Based on what the state and local public health departments’ directions are, the decisions on whether to close the schools will be made, but we’re not there yet.”
The president’s recent threat to withhold funding if the schools are not reopened has not changed the dialog on how classes will be conducted, McGrew said.
“I don’t think the president’s statements are impacting the decisions,” she said. “The decision-making process for the districts has already advanced. As you know, California finalized its funding agreements with schools at the end of June, so the districts are planning based on that agreement. They are moving forward out of the best interests of their students’ and staffs’ safety and health. Those are the top priorities, and then, of course, the learning program. I don’t think the president’s comments are impacting the districts’ decisions.”
-Mark Gutglueck

“Significant” differences have manifested among the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, top county officials, the county’s stable of in-house attorneys known as the office of county counsel and an outside law firm brought in to salvage the county’s position after early going in what many considered to be the relatively minor case of false arrest and civil rights violations brought against it by Jimmie Williams III has exposed the county to potential liability in the millions of dollars.
At the root of the problem is the sheriff’s department’s unwillingness to acknowledge it made a series of errors when its officers arrested Williams four times in repeated cases of mistaken identity, which was compounded by its refusal to make a simple notation in its computer system that would have obviated such errors in the future.
At the core of the issue is that Jimmie Williams III, 36, bears a name very similar to Jimmie Antonio Williams Jr. as well as sharing with him the same birth date. Williams Jr has an extensive criminal record. Williams III’s only criminal history consists of his having been repeatedly misidentified as Williams Jr. by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
On four occasions, in 2006, 2009, in June 2018 and most recently in July 2018, Williams III of Victorville, who has no criminal convictions whatsoever, has been arrested by the sheriff’s department when it failed to distinguish between him and Williams Jr., with whom Williams III has no familial relation.
The July 2018 arrest came about as the consequence of what the county’s attorneys have now been forced to acknowledge was the sheriff’s department’s pretextual encounter with Williams III in order to make his arrest after the deputies involved failed to verify that Williams III was actually Williams Jr., for whom they had a valid arrest warrant.
The sheriff’s department’s, the county’s and the individual officers’ legal position has been compromised by the officers having somehow failed to keep their stories straight as to why the last encounter with Williams III came about. According to the sheriff’s department, deputies came to Williams III’s residence in June 2018 in response to a silent alarm. When they confronted Williams III, he complied with a request that he show them identification, and they arrested him on a warrant for Williams Jr., despite Williams III explaining to them the confusion over his and Williams Jr.’s identities. Williams III was released shortly thereafter, upon the department having been provided with clear documentation that Williams III was not Williams Jr.
Less than a month later, another deputy, apparently functioning on the belief that Williams III was Williams Jr. and not having taken proper stock of the mistake his colleagues had made the previous month, went to Williams III’s home, claiming he was there to speak to Williams with regard to a child protective services matter relating to his son. At some point in his interaction with Williams III, the deputy informed Williams III he was actually there to arrest him on a felony warrant.
The entirety of that encounter was video-recorded by Williams’ doorbell camera, which shows that despite Williams again seeking to inform yet another member of the sheriff’s department of the mistake the department was making for the fourth time, the deputy escalated the matter to a physical confrontation, wrestling Williams III to the ground and then arresting him on felony obstruction and resisting arrest charges.
The county board of supervisors, after learning of the claim and lawsuit brought against it by Williams III and his attorney, Jonathan Ray Russell, previously resisted entering into a settlement, setting the matter on a course for trial.
Ultimately, the office of San Bernardino County Counsel, led by County Counsel Michelle Blakemore, opted to bring in the law firm of Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, which specializes in defending public entities and police departments in wrongful death, wrongful prosecution, malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest lawsuits.
Over the last year, however, there have been a number of developments in the case that have resulted in the matter devolving to the point where the relationship between the county and Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi has been poisoned, information the sheriff’s department never wanted revealed is about to be disclosed, and Williams III is about to walk away with a multi-million payday.
At the heart of the case is what has been described as an “almost perversely obstinate” refusal on the part of the sheriff’s department to utilize its long-extant and vaunted informational system to flag either or both the entries it has with regard to Williams III and Williams Jr. in such a way as to prevent any confusion between the two.
Officially titled the “Central Name Index,” the sheriff’s department’s database includes entries on all individuals with whom the department has had any previous contact, either physically in person or by extension through its investigative or enforcement work. Quite often wrongfully referenced by a significant number of deputies with the department as the “Criminal Name Index,” it contains the names, addresses, available contact information, arrests, convictions, information gleaned from arrest or investigative reports, field encounter cards, interview and interrogations notes and San Bernardino County Superior Court records, along with arrest and conviction data extrapolated from the State of California’s Criminal Identification and Information Services Bureau’s data base, the JDIC [the County of Los Angeles Justice Data Interface Controller] data system, and the NCIC [the National Crime Information Center] data base. The Central Name Index can be accessed from computers at all of the department’s stations and from the mobile unit computers contained within patrol cars. For reasons that are not clear, the department failed to put into its Central Name Index information to distinguish Williams III from Williams Jr., despite the system being designed to accommodate any and all information relating to a subject available deemed to be of use to a law enforcement officer who accesses the data base for any type of operational activity.
After each of Williams III’s arrests, when it was established or reestablished that Williams III was not the individual the arresting deputies assumed him to be, department officials insisted that the arresting deputies had done nothing wrong and had acted appropriately and without malice.
If, indeed, San Bernardino County can succeed in propounding that construction of events in defending the case with regard to the first three of Williams III’s arrests, it will have a far more difficult go of it when the matter goes to trial with regard to the July 2018 arrest. On that occasion, the arresting officer was apparently acting on information that came to the department as a consequence of the encounter the department had when it arrested Williams III the previous month, after which William III’s actual identity was made clear to at least some members of the department. The arresting deputy also utilized an elaborate fabrication relating to a child protective services issue to lure Williams III into position for what is now recognized by the county’s lawyers at all levels – both in-house and outside legal representatives – as a false arrest. Despite that recognition among competent legal authorities, the department is persisting in maintaining that the arrest was justified. The issue of the department’s and it’s officers claims in this regard is beset with complication for the county. Two of the Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi attorneys representing the county in the Williams III matter, Natalie Price and Aamir Raza, have reached the conclusion that at least one of the deputies has made and continues to make demonstrably false assertions with regard to the facts of the case, which in turn resulted in Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, relying upon those prevarications, having made false representations to the court. This has created a crisis by which Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi wants to bail on the case, a circumstance that is not likely to be overcome unless the county is willing to devote a considerably greater amount of money – well in excess of $500,000 – in legal fees to be paid to the firm in excess of what it would otherwise pay to keep it in place.
Moreover, the case, if it goes to trial, will very likely result in intense illumination being shed on the sheriff’s department’s Central Name Index, in particular an aspect of that data base which allows the department to maintain two sets of data with regard to the subjects contained within it, one that is under normal circumstances considered confidential but will be released upon a court order or in accordance with agency-to-agency privilege and a second set of entries made with regard to the index’s subjects that are considered off limits to anyone outside of the department, including the courts,  which is double secured by password protection and a secret access protocol. It is feared that if Williams III’s lawyer explores the sheriff’s department’s rationale for refusing to enter identifying distinctions between Williams III and Williams Jr. into the Central Name Index, that line of inquiry will lead to the disclosure of the department’s secret files, which the defense is seeking to head off by in limine motions to exclude those files as evidence in the case. Whatever the court’s ruling with regard to the in limine motions, however, the existence of the department’s sub rosa files will be established when the means by which the distinguishing identifying information pertaining to Williams III and Williams Jr. could have been entered into the department files is presented during the course of the trial.
Relatively early in the litigation between Williams III and the county, the county had the opportunity to bring the matter to a close by agreeing to take steps to ensure that the sheriff’s department would no longer blur the distinction between Williams III and Williams Jr. and confer a settlement of $75,000 on Williams III. At present, the county is into Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi for well over a half of a million dollars with the prospect of that amount doubling as an effort toward a settlement is made. If no settlement is reached, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi’s legal fees will zoom to somewhere approaching $2 million, to cover the cost of the matter going to trial. It appears that Williams III and his lawyer, Jonathan Russell, can now expect a settlement in the low seven figures for agreeing to keep the case from going to trial in Central District U.S. Federal Court before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. If the effort at reaching a settlement fails, the county will be in the position of rolling the dice when the matter is heard by a jury before Judge Wilson.
Next week, County Counsel Michelle Blakemore is scheduled to brief the board of supervisors on the matter during a closed session from which the public is to be excluded. Blakemore’s presentation is to include a proposal that the supervisors consider signing off on a settlement prior to trial. The Sentinel was told that the lone hitch in making that settlement at this point is the board of supervisors’ collective reluctance to take action that will embarrass Sheriff John McMahon, who has continued to support his deputies and is unwilling to issue a public apology to Williams III, or in any way acknowledge that Williams III was wrongfully arrested.
-Mark Gutglueck