The board of supervisors this week delayed until February 25 upholding or overturning the county planning commission’s denial of Sunlight Partners, LLC’s application for a conditional use permit to establish a 7.5 megawatt photovoltaic solar power generating facility on 80.6 acres in Helendale.
On October 17, 2013, the county planning commission conducted a public hearing to consider Sunlight Partner’s application for the conditional use permit pertaining to the project. The planning commission heard testimony from the general manager of the Helendale Community Services District, who expressed concern that the project would impact the adjacent property owned by the district, which is currently used as a park. The district stated impacts to scenic vistas from the park related to dust and blow sand originating from the project site. While the matter was continued until the November 7, 2013 county planning commission meeting, the commission, by a vote of 3-2, directed staff  to prepare findings for denial of the conditional use permit based on the project being inconsistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, which require land use compatibility. County Land Use Services Department staff indeed prepared and presented findings for the denial of the project to the planning commission.
At its November 7, 2013, meeting, only four of the planning commission’s five members were present. In addition to staff’s findings for the denial of the project, the commissioners who were present were provided with the applicant’s revised site plan that incorporated an increased setback from the park property to reduce impacts related to aesthetics and blow sand. The revised site plan showed an increase in setback from the park property to the fence line from 15 feet to 249 feet.
According to Tom Hudson, the director of the Land Use Services Department, “This design change solves an inconsistency in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration related to the minimum distance from the proposed facility to the existing off-site residences. The revised plan was presented to the planning commission for consideration.”
Additional testimony was provided by the Helendale Community Services District reiterating concerns regarding the potential impacts on the adjacent property, including blow sand and impacts to view qualities. The representative of the Helendale Community Services District also stated that she did not agree that the revised site plan presented at the hearing would reduce those impacts.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission voted 2-2 on the item with one commissioner not present. By rule, the project was denied for not having the required majority vote for approval.
On November 18, 2013, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the planning commission action to deny the project. The issues raised in the appeal application included making reference to the consideration that the planning commission dismissed staff’s original recommendation to approve the project based on findings that the project complies with the county’s general plan and development code that was supported by analysis contained in the planning commission staff report.
Moreover, according to the appeal, the findings for denial were not supported by evidence, and the denial of the project violated the California Solar Rights Act.
Three months later, in his report to the board of supervisors on Tuesday, Hudson said, “Notwithstanding the outcome at the planning commission, staff is recommending that the appeal be granted and that the project be approved. Staff believes that the revised site plan submitted by the applicant between the October 17, 2013, and November 7, 2013 planning commission meetings mitigated the concerns initially raised by the Helendale Community Services District and the planning commission. The significant increase in project setbacks assuages the concerns expressed as to aesthetics and blow sand. The increase in setbacks also resolves the issue of the minimum distance from the proposed facility to the existing off-site residences. Findings for approval have been provided based upon these revisions.”
In his presentation to the board of supervisors this week, Hudson recommended that the board overturn the planning commission’s denial of project approval in November, be he also made available the proposed findings for denial that were prepared at the direction of the planning commission and which were adopted by virtue of the 2-2 vote.
The board did not vote on the matter on February 11, postponing its decision until February 25.
The proposed project site is situated in an unincorporated county area in the desert. The primary facility access point is proposed on Smithson Road, which runs along the southern project boundary. A secondary access point is proposed on Wild Road along the northern project boundary.
The project is to entail photovoltaic panels mounted on single axis trackers, supported by steel piers driven into the ground to an appropriate depth, as determined by soil conditions. The height of the panels will not exceed nine feet. The trackers will form rows running north and south. The design proposes five concrete pads, approximately 20 feet by 40 feet that would support 500KV inverters and mechanical components. Electricity generated onsite will be delivered to the existing electrical transmission system at the connection point along Smithson Road. The site will be surrounded by an eight foot high chain link fence with a security video monitoring system. The electricity produced by the panels will be sold to Southern California Edison under two long-term power purchase agreements. The first agreement was executed in January 2012 and required power generation by July 2013. An extension has been requested. A second agreement was executed in December 2012 and requires power generation by June 2014.

(February 11)  The county board of supervisors this week gave the coroner’s office’s lead forensic pathologist a $6,000 raise to ensure that her pay grade is not exceeded by her lesser-experienced colleagues.
Dr. Chanikarn Changsri has been with the coroner’s division since March 2006. The coroner’s division investigates deaths within its jurisdiction to determine the manner and means of death. In certain instances, forensic pathologists conduct autopsies to provide expert diagnosis as to the cause of death.
One year ago, on February 12, 2013, the board of supervisors updated benefit language and contribution levels for the top tier of employees within the coroner’s division to ensure consistency with all employment groups in the county and included a salary increase to maintain parity with other counties.
On August 6, 2013, the board of supervisors approved Agreement No. 13-671 with Dr. Brian Hutchins to provide services as a forensic pathologist. Dr. Hutchins’ contract included an updated salary schedule starting at $72.12 per hour with 2.5% step advancement to a maximum hourly rate of  $101.90 per hour. Sheriff John McMahon, who also serves as the county’s titular coroner, requested that the board approve “an amendment to Dr. Changsri’s contract to align her salary at the top step of this new pay scale given her nearly eight years of service to the county.”
According to McMahon, “This increase will also enhance the department’s ability to retain this critical position.”
The board approved upping Dr. Changsri’s pay from $98.55 per hour to $101.90 per hour.

MONTCLAIR (February 12) —Heavily debt-laden CWCapital has sold Montclair Plaza to Los Angeles-based CIM Group, it was announced on Wednesday.
Since 1969, Montclair Plaza has been one of the largest commercial venues in San Bernardino County, and the sales tax revenue generated there has given Montclair a level of financial clout beyond its relative size. With its 36,664 residents, Montclair is the 16th most populous of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities.
In recent years, the once grand plaza has seen its stature diminish as other large-scale shopping operations such as The Mills in Ontario, Victorian Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, The Shoppes in Chino Hills and the Tanger Outlets in Lenwood near Barstow have lured shoppers away.
Nevertheless, Montclair Plaza remains viable and its sale to CIM Group is an indicator that the plaza will reach its half-century mark as an ongoing and energetic mercantile concern.
In selling the Plaza, CWCapital, with a reported $2.57 billion in debt, simultaneously sold six other properties.
CIM Group has a reputation for committing to upscale commercial and hospitality properties in urban areas such as the Two California Plaza, a 52-story building in downtown Los Angeles and the Redbury Hotel in Hollywood.

(February 11)  San Bernardino County remains free of the peril represented by the Light Brown Apple Moth, according to county agricultural commissioner John G. Gardner.
The Light Brown Apple Moth, a serious pest impacting grapes, citrus, pome fruits and stone fruits, is a threat to California agriculture and to the economy of California, causing barriers to the export market. Damaging to a broad range of plant species, the Light Brown Apple Moth will take as a host many trees and ornamental species, giving it the potential to cause serious damage to natural areas and urban settings as well as to agricultural crops.
According to Gardner, “The Light Brown Apple Moth was first discovered in the San Francisco Bay Area in the fall of 2006; since then it has been detected in 24 California counties. To date, San Bernardino County has not detected the Light Brown Apple Moth. A Federal Domestic Quarantine Order was established on May 2, 2007 that required, in addition to other actions, additional Light Brown Apple Moth trapping to ensure continued interstate movement of regulated plants and plant products. San Bernardino County has performed Light Brown Apple Moth detection and trapping services on behalf  of the state through annual agreements since July 1, 2007.”
Those traps have been placed on trees and near crops at various locations throughout the county.
Gardner indicated the county would continue to monitor the situation.
“Traps will be placed alongside existing detection trap sites, so no additional personnel or resources will be required to fulfill this agreement,” Gardner said.
The state has agreed to compensate the county in an amount not to exceed $52,491 to reimburse the county department of agriculture for its staffing costs from last October through September of this year, based on the number of trap placements and time spent inspecting/servicing the traps.
By participating in the program, Gardner said, the county is benefiting itself through taking steps to see that “economic value is maintained by ensuring continued interstate movement of regulated plants and plant products. Performing these detection activities to prevent the Light Brown Apple Moth from taking hold in the county and causing damage is far less expensive than remediation costs if a significant presence occurs as a result of delayed detection activities.”

(February 10) YUCCA VALLEY— A double fatality collision on Yucca Trail on February 6 underscored the extremely dangerous traffic conditions on that road.
The deadly mishap occurred at the corner of Yucca Trail and Warren Vista Avenue at approximately 1:09 p.m., when a red 1984 Ford Bronco driven by 64-year-old Jesse Torres, 64 of Yucca Valley, was broadsided by a westbound black 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by 23-year-old Brooke Nemeth, of Yucca Valley.
Torres and the passenger in his vehicle, Melissa Torres, 36, also of Yucca Valley, were northbound on Warren Vista and attempting to cross Yucca Trail. Both were killed in the collision and were pronounced dead at the scene.
Nemeth was treated and released at the scene.
According to a witness, the Bronco approached the stop sign at the intersection and was moving slowly into the intersection when it was struck. The accident report contained a statement from Nemeth that she was traveling at the posted speed limit of 50 mph and did not see the Bronco in the intersection.
The Jeep impacted the passenger side of the Bronco with tremendous force, resulting in both vehicles careening northwest through the intersection until they ended their deadly progress in the right shoulder of the westbound lane on Yucca Trail.
San Bernardino County firefighters extricated Jesse Torres from the vehicle but were unable to revive him. Melissa Torres had recently relocated to Yucca Valley from Junction City, KS.
The Major Accident Investigation Team from the Morongo Basin Sheriff’s Station is investigating the collision. Driver impairment from both alcohol and drugs has been ruled out as a factor in the crash.
The accident has renewed public calls a four-way stop sign at the intersection and a reduction of the speed limit along that span of Yucca Trail, where several other serious traffic accidents have occurred.

By clicking on the following portal, you can download a copy of the February 7  SBC Sentinel

Sentinel 02-07-14

(February 6)  Four months after the Upland City Council balked at locking in Burrtec Waste Industries’ trash hauling franchise contract for 15 more years, the concept has been resurrected for the city council’s reconsideration, as early as next week.
In October, the city council deadlocked 2-2 on granting the franchise extension, which would have lengthened Burrtec’s trash hauling franchise with the city of Upland from its current seven-year rollover term to 15 years.
Currently, under the so-called evergreen clause instilled into the contract by former Upland Mayor John Pomierski, the city is committed to keep Burrtec as its trash hauler at least until 2020. If it does not give notice to Burrtec that it wishes to rebid the contract by March of each successive year, the franchise is renewed again, i.e., kept green, for at least seven more years.
In May, in a letter to Upland Public Works Director Rosemary Horning, Burrtec proposed the city and Burrtec make adjustments to the  franchise contract. Those changes would have included rate increases to be borne by the city’s residents and businesses, allowing the city to lay claim to a larger portion of the trash hauling revenue, Burrtec paying the city a $200,000-per-year street impact fee to offset the damage the company’s trucks do to the city’s roads and alleyways, incorporating household hazardous waste and medical waste disposal as services rendered to customers, and extending the evergreen clause by another eight years, such that the earliest Upland could have gotten out of the contract with Burrtec would have been 2028.
Councilman Brendan Brandt abstained from voting on the matter because the law firm in which he is a partner has done work for another trash hauling firm that would potentially be in competition with Burrtec for the contract if bidding on the franchise were to take place.
While council members Gino Filippi and Debra Stone supported the extension of the Burrtec franchise contract, councilman Glen Bozar proclaimed opposition to the extension without an accompanying bidding process. He pointed out that Burrtec has held the city trash hauling franchise since 2001, subsequent to the last open bidding on the franchise in 2000. He reasoned that the city should give notice to Burrtec at once so that bidding on the franchise contract can be conducted at the earliest possible date, i.e., in 2020. His adamant opposition to extending Burrtec’s hold on the franchise until 2028, which would be more than a quarter of a century after the last bid competition, persuaded Mayor Ray Musser to reject the extension as proposed by Burrtec.
Subsequently, the city formed a ten-member committee to look at ways the city could redress its deteriorating financial condition. At city manager Stephen Dunn’s suggestion, the committee considered as a revenue enhancement strategy having the city council once again consider an adjustment of Burrtec’s trash hauling franchise. Among the options the committee recommended was that the city council take that matter up as part of a multi-pronged approach in generating new revenue and reducing operational expenses.
Accordingly, the council directed city staff to prepare an item relating to the Burrtec franchise contract adjustment/extension. On January 27 Dunn indicated the item would be ready for council consideration and a vote by the February 10 council meeting. At press time, the agenda for the February 10 meeting was not publicly available, however. Indications were that the newest franchise extension proposal will be substantially the same as that considered in October, with some unspecified revisions.
Unchanged in the proposal is that Burrtec would not need to subject itself to a competitive bid process to obtain the extension.
Burrtec fared rather poorly in one of the last major bid competitions it had engaged in.  Since 2001, Burrtec had held a $17 million-per-year contract for operating the county of San Bernardino’s landfill system. Last April, following a bidding competition, Burrtec lost that contract to Los Angeles County-based Athens Services.
The loss of that contract chastened Burrtec, which currently holds trash hauling franchises with 16 of San Bernardino County’s 24 incorporated cities and 34 of its unincorporated communities.  With Athens and other trash haulers nipping at its heels, Burrtec is militating to maintain its position at the top of the trash hauling heap in the county by solidifying its hold on those 58 trash hauling franchises.  In this way, the effort Burrtec initiated in Upland in May, which proposed adding street sweeping and household hazardous waste and medical waste disposal to the services it already offered the city as an inducement to the council for its consent  to lengthen the “evergreen” clause, has been seen as a test case.
Meanwhile, other refuse handlers appear ready to compete for the Upland franchise contract, if given a chance.  A spokesman with Waste Management, Inc. which held the Upland franchise prior to Burrtec, said his company would participate in the bid process if Upland makes a request for proposals. Similarly, Athens Services, which has a heavy presence in neighboring Los Angeles County and recently established a toehold in San Bernardino County when it outbid Burrtec and Waste Management for the county landfill system operation contract, would be a potential applicant for the franchise.
Free market advocates assert that the city and its ratepayers will benefit by a bidding competition, which would force Burrtec and its rivals to submit proposals that would offer lower consumer rates, enhanced services and more generous give-back arrangements with the city than are likely to be derived from the continuation of the terms in the existing contract.

(February 5)  In April, the much ballyhooed and equally maligned sbX line will debut, giving its champions and critics alike the opportunity to determine if the $191.7 million gamble to establish a rapid-transit bus line through San Bernardino is the economic and transportational boon that has been promised or the squandering of local and federal money that could have been better used otherwise.
Running 15.7 miles from near the Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda to just north of Cal State San Bernardino, the sbX line will feature 60-foot long articulated buses that use clean-burning compressed natural gas as fuel. From three to six busses will cover the route each hour during daylight.
Like the unconventional capitalization and spelling used in its acronym – sbX stands for San Bernardino Express – the route will embody unusual features such as a dedicated lane for more than a third of the route that has been fashioned from what were once street medians. And each sbX bus driver will be given virtual command of the traffic lights encountered along the route so that the busses will never encounter a red light.
Indeed, from its inception, the sbX concept was sold on the speed of travel it would offer. Initially, planners said, the busses would make the entire trip from Loma Linda to San Bernardino State University or vice versa with five stops in between in just under 25 minutes, rivaling or actually bettering what a commuter utilizing a car might encounter over the same span utilizing the freeway during morning or evening rush hour.
In 2012, however, the city of San Bernardino  approved a transit overlay district entailing 13 stations/bus stops. And while Omnitrans officials represented to Federal Transit Administration officials that dedicated center lanes for the busses would run for nearly the entirety of the route, only about six miles of the stretch, along Hospitality Lane and in the downtown area, have been established. Those dedicated lanes were intended to speed the busses along the route by eliminating interaction and merging with traffic.
Planners concede that a terminus-to-terminus trip will now last 39 minutes. That still compares favorably with the 65 minutes it currently takes to cover the same 15.7 mile stretch using available public transportation. Nevertheless, questions remain as to whether the system will be used at anywhere near the levels that would justify its expense and imposition on the community.
The bus route entails a departure from a station near the Veterans Hospital and other medical facilities just off Barton Road in Loma Linda, a turn north on Anderson/Tippecanoe Street, a turn left on Hospitality Lane and then a right turn  north on E Street before terminating at San Bernardino State College. The return route covers the same span in reverse. Critics point out that a similar bus route already exists.
In 2011, a group of business owners and other citizens concerned about the project banded together under the sobriquet Taxpayers Against Wasteful Government Spending. They were joined in their protest the following year by newly-elected city councilman John Valdivia, who said San Bernardino was not an intensive enough urban environment to support the sbX  rapid-transit system, which he said was a “boondoggle” diverting funds from other worthy civic undertakings.
Taxpayers Against Wasteful Government Spending was led by Jim Ott, a former Colton planning commissioner.
Ott said he drove the route the bus will take on the existing streets between the VA Hospital and San Bernardino State University, and timed the trip. “All the way up, it took 27 minutes and four seconds. I saw three busses on that same route. This is proposing to put three more busses on the same route.”
Ott said current or projected ridership of the bus system in no way justifies the $192 million outlay.  He said he counted the number of passengers in the busses operating on the current routes. “The first had four, the second had three and the last had two. Why do we want to put three more busses on that same route?” he asked. “We are throwing $192 million to this project. They talk about wasteful government spending. What is a more wasteful government spending than this project, which is supposed to connect with the California High Speed Rail and tram in Redlands when they are built? Then build it when they are built. $192 million dollars is a stack of one dollar bills thirteen miles high. That is a lot of money for a project that doesn’t have a need. Transportation funds are precious and should get spent cautiously. I don’t see a need for a bus project going down E Street.”
Another issue is the impact the dedicated route is having on businesses along the streets it traces. Merchants along the route have told the Sentinel they are concerned that the elimination of the center lane on the streets along the route for the creation of the dedicated lanes for the buses are preventing  drivers from being able to make left turns. Many motorists, these business owners fear, will not go to the bother of continuing further down the street to make a U-turn where that is possible and then retrack back to their businesses.
The owners of several businesses located along the route, including Ammons Diamond & Coin Gallery, Burger Mania, Pride Envelopes and Barber Shop 215, claim that their operations have already been negatively impacted by the street alterations though the busses have not started to run yet.
Property owners and business operators along the bus route in San Bernardino cited four issues in their opposition – impact on existing business, low demand for the service, expense, and the use of eminent domain as a property acquisition tool for portions of the route’s right of way.
There were 99 protests lodged against specific features of the project by land and business owners along the route. All were overridden in the SANBAG board’s vote on March 2, 2011 to approve the project. Part of the rationale given for approving the project was that the transportation agency had to make a commitment to move ahead with the project by July 1, 2011 or lose $75 million in federal funding.
While SANBAG – an acronym for San Bernardino Associated Governments – is the lead agency on the project, it is Omnitrans – the bus system for south-central San Bernardino County – that will operate the line.  SANBAG is the county transportation agency and the SANBAG board is composed of mayors or city council members from the county’s 24 cities and all five of the members of the county board of supervisors.
SANBAG used its authority of eminent domain to carry out condemnations of properties to move forward with the project. SANBAG needed to secure 151 properties, some of which SANBAG staff and board members referred to as “slivers,” to make way for the bus route. Of those 151 properties, four were entire parcels.
SANBAG and Omnitrans were encouraged to pursue the project by Loma Linda, San Bernardino and Colton municipal officials as well as Cal State San Bernardino and Loma Linda University Medical Center administrators. In 2011, SANBAG and Omnitrans said they wanted to seize the opportunity to proceed with the project while construction prices were down and many businesses along the route were closed, allowing the construction to proceed with less relative disruption to nearby entities. Those agencies insisted rapid transit bus systems, such as those in Los Angeles and Cleveland, improve rather than harm local business conditions.
The Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley was originally slated to cover 14 miles. By 2006, a year after it first began operation, the line was expanded to 18 miles and was being used by three times as many weekday passengers as had been projected for it. It now routinely transports 30,000 passengers daily.
In Cleveland, which had traditionally operated a public transportation system,  a bus-based rapid-transit system was inaugurated in 2008, triggering what officials there say was  $5.8 billion in economic investment in the once-thriving industrial powerhouse that had been stagnating for decades.
According to the Rand Corporation, rapid transit can spur development because it provides a way for residents near stations to quickly travel to work, retail shops, restaurants and cultural amenities.
San Bernardino Mayor Pat Morris, who will leave office next month after eight years in office, was one of the prime movers in the effort to get sbX established. He said the project will serve as an incentive for people to bypass the use of their cars and bring more and more people into the heart of the city and its marketplaces. He said he does not expect the busses to be packed to capacity initially, but that he believes their use will grow with time and as other rapid transit projects intended to coordinate with it come on line, such as the extension of Metrolink service eastward in San Bernardino to an sbX station at Rialto Avenue and E Street and the eventual completion of a 9-mile rail line east from the new San Bernardino transit center to the University of Redlands.
Omnitrans projects an sbX ridership of 5,600 in the first year. Planners say the real test of the routes success will come in twenty to thirty years, at which time it will have grown into an intrinsic element of San Bernardino inner city life.
In an effort to attract ridership, wi-fi will be available on the busses.
The transit overlay approved by the San Bernardino City Council calls for residential and retail development along the route but prohibits car washes, auto sales, service stations and other uses that would encourage car use. Four of the 16 stations will have free park-and-ride spaces. Parking at Cal State San Bernardino is expensive, with annual parking passes for students costing $306. Students will be able to ride sbX for free.

(February 5)  A two-month respite in the legal wrangling between Ontario and Los Angeles over Ontario International Airport has concluded without any resolution of the issues which divide the two cities.
On June 3, 2013 Ontario filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles claiming the larger city, which has held title to the airport since 1985, has been purposefully mismanaging the facility. The lawsuit seeks the return of the airport to Ontario’s possession.
In August, Ontario overcame a motion by Los Angeles to have the suit dismissed, but had made little progress legally since that point.
With the prospect of years and perhaps decades of protracted and expensive litigation over the issue, with no guarantee that it will prevail, Ontario in November sought to work out a solution outside the legal forum.
On December 5, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask consented to allowing both parties to put further legal action on hold at least until January 31 while they looked into crafting an accommodation. Los Angeles, represented by attorney Steven S. Rosenthal, and Ontario, represented by the law firm Sheppard Mullen Richter and Hampton, indicated their legal teams would take a hiatus while officials from both cities attempted to hammer out a solution.
No progress has been reported, and with the January 31 deadline elapsed, it appears both sides will be headed into court once again. Beyond the assertions contained in the original complaint, however, the suit is amorphous. Ontario maintains Los Angeles has favored Los Angeles International Airport over Ontario International in its management practices, but has yet to establish that the smaller city has any proprietary right to the aerodrome, despite the consideration that it exists within its city limits.
Ontario and Los Angeles have not always been at loggerheads over the airport.
In 1967, when Ontario Airport had a gravel parking lot and was servicing fewer than 200,000 passengers per year, Ontario and Los Angeles entered into a joint powers agreement to allow Los Angeles to use its clout with airlines to increase flights into and out of Ontario. Under Los Angeles’ guidance, the airport grew, more airlines began flying out of the facility and improvements were made to its runways and terminals. In 1985, after all of the conditions set down in the 1967 joint powers agreement had been met, Ontario deeded the airport to Los Angeles for no consideration.
In 2007, the airport achieved its high mark in terms of passenger traffic, when 7.2 million passengers enplaned there. But since that time, passenger traffic through Ontario Airport has diminished to 3.9 million per year and Ontario officials maintain that Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the corporate entity that Los Angeles utilizes to run Los Angeles International, Van Nuys Airport and Ontario Airport, has stifled Ontario International in a deliberate effort to benefit Los Angeles International, where improvements have been made and passenger traffic has continued to rise for the past seven years. In their now-four-year-long campaign to have Los Angeles deed the airport back to Ontario, Ontario officials have publicly insisted that LA should relinquish the airport for no consideration because the airport is considered a public benefit property which has no sale value. Privately, however, Ontario offered Los Angeles $246 million for the airport. Simultaneously, Los Angeles has sought potential private and public buyers for the aerodrome at reported prices ranging from $225 million to $650 million. Last year Los Angeles revealed the existence of Ontario’s $246 million offer, embarrassing Ontario officials with an exposé of the discrepancy between their public and private statements. In 2012, Ontario, with the county of San Bernardino, formed the Ontario International Airport Authority, an entity intended to take over ownership and operation of the airport once Los Angeles relinquishes it.
Los Angeles officials attribute the decline in passenger traffic through Ontario to the recession that has persisted since 2008 as well as widespread changes in the airline industry in which air carriers have reduced flights to outlying airports or non-centralized hubs. They say the airlines have proven resistant to LAWA’s earnest efforts to lure the airlines back to Ontario.  The terms of the 1967 agreement remain in place and Los Angeles maintains it has consistently lived up to that agreement.
In January 2013, Los Angeles offered to sell the airport to Ontario for $475 million. Three months later, Ontario rejected that offer.
Los Angeles World Airports last week released a report indicating that passenger traffic in 2013 dipped to the level near or below that the airport had when Los Angeles assumed ownership. 1985 had been the last time the airport had experienced ridership of less than 4 million annual passengers. According to LAWA, in 2013 a total of 3.9 million passengers landed or departed from Ontario, a drop of  8 percent from 2012.
Ontario officials will be able to use that figure to bolster their contention that Los Angeles is either irresponsibly neglecting operations in Ontario or maliciously acting to hurt Ontario’s operations to boost passenger traffic into and out of Los Angeles International. Indeed, Los Angeles World Airports imposes on the airlines flying out of Ontario Airport one of the highest per enplaned-passenger charges in the nation –  $12.68. This has driven down the profitability of the airlines and upped the cost passengers must pay for tickets in Ontario, driving them to utilize other venues, such as John Wayne Airport in Orange County or Los Angeles International.
In the nearly eight months that have elapsed since the filing of the lawsuit, Ontario has made no progress in turning a corner on the problem. Ontario officials took a calculated risk in filing the suit, believing that incoming Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti would be far more amenable than previous Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa to having Los Angeles let the airport go back to Ontario. They were chastened to learn that Garcetti was made even more upset by the filing of the lawsuit than his predecessor.

(February 4) ONTARIO–The continuing decline of the region’s agricultural base is being given emphasis this month with the shuttering of what was once a thriving pig farm on the southeast side of Ontario.
The farm, which began operation in 1938, and boasted 14,000 animals in its heyday, since 1988 has been operated as a joint farm/food waste and resource recovery station under the name Standard Feeding Company.
Owner Arie De Jong combined the business in which he had previously functioned – refuse disposal and waste recycling – into a business model that involved accepting uneaten food from restaurants and other establishments and combining that with the hog farming operation at 13751 S. Haven Ave. De Jong’s Standard Feeding Company, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health “provides collection services of grain-based products, including bread, tortillas, pasta, noodles, and other foods such as potatoes, onions etc.”  DeJong had developed a method of collecting those products, storing them in containers and bins that would retard their spoilage, and transporting them to the hog farm which he had purchased from its owner upon his retirement in the late 1980s.
The farm dealt mostly in piglets, allowing them to roam freely in a non-cage environment where they were nourished after they had been weaned. They would eventually be sold to other farmers or go directly to the slaughterhouse. With the breakup of the Chino Agricultural Preserve and the annexation of the property on which the farm is located by the city of Ontario, the operation was essentially zoned out of compliance with the newly extant land use standards.
In 2005 the property was included as part of the Rich Haven Specific Plan. In 2007, the specific plan was given full approval by the Ontario City Council, slating the land on which the farm sits to become part of a development that would entail 4,000 residential units, a junior high school and 886,000 square feet of commercial buildings.
When the original project proponent went bankrupt following the financial crash of 2007, the project was postponed. Now, however, Brookfield Homes is moving ahead full speed on the project and Standard Feeding Company and its pigs are to be gone by February 28.