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

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

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

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

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

San Bernardino County will loan an additional $275,000 toward an effort to renovate existing residential stock in Rialto to create affordable housing in that largely blue collar city of 99,191.
Upon the recommendation of Dena Fuentes, the director of the San Bernardino County Department of Community Development and Housing, the board of supervisors this week increased funding for the Park Place Apartment Community Project from $1,000,000 to $1,275,000 for additional repairs to the property.
On November 6, 2012 the board of supervisors entered into an agreement with Rialto Family Housing Partners II, L.P, a company chosen by the city of Rialto to participate in its city improvement efforts, to provide a loan in the amount of $1,000,000 in Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding for the rehabilitation of an affordable family 8-unit development within an existing target area currently under renovation by the city of Rialto. “Over the past five years the city of Rialto has acquired and completed major rehabilitation of twelve buildings within this target neighborhood, converting these severely dilapidated units into quality affordable housing,” Fuentes told the board of supervisors. “The city of Rialto completed the acquisition of the remaining two foreclosed buildings in December of 2012 and commenced rehabilitation with city of Rialto and county of San Bernardino Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding. Given the age and location of this development, project management  staff recommends additional contingency funds for concrete and fencing work to ensure the development has adequate funds to provide security for the residents. It is recommended the board approve this amendment to increase the loan from $1 million to $1,275,000 for the additional rehabilitation and security costs. The county will reconvey the original deed of trust for $1,000,000 and record a new deed of trust against the property for $1,275,000 to provide security for its investment.”
In return for the assistance provided it by the county and the city of Rialto, Rialto Family Housing Partners II has agreed to charge low and moderate rents to those tenants who qualify for the rental rate assistance.

(March 1) BARSTOW—The Barstow Unified School District will shut down Hinkley School and Thomson Elementary at the end of the current school year.
In the face of budget shortfalls and declining enrollment, the district opted to make the closures, which will entail eliminating the principal positions at both schools and the layoffs of 20 teachers and 35 support personnel.
District superintendent Jeff Malan said the austerity moves were an unavoidable element of a district reorganization that is both unfortunate and necessary.
The district, like nearly every other one in California, has seen its funding cut by the state. In Barstow Unified, that circumstance is exacerbated by the departure of large numbers of residents from Hinkley, one of the more remote areas within the district.
The exodus from Hinkley has been brought on by spreading hexavalent chromium contamination in the water table.
Pacific Gas & Electric, which used hexavalent chromium as an anti-corrosive in the cooling towers for its pressurization systems for a natural gas line spanning that area, disposed of the very toxic substance into unlined ponds near Hinkley in the 1950s and 1960s. The advancing state of contamination has resulted in the transformation of Hinkley into what is anticipated to be a ghost town by the end of the current decade. Pacific Gas & Electric, which had earlier sought to use water decontamination strategies in the area, now seems intent on simply purchasing the entire township and encouraging remaining residents to leave. The closure of Hinkley School will quite likely hasten those departures. Students from Hinkley will need to commute to other schools in the district with the onset of the 2013-14 school year.
Tuesday night’s meeting was heavily attended by more than three dozen of the parents of school children yet remaining in Hinkley.  Their entreaties that the school be preserved ultimately proved futile.
Malan told those in attendance at the February 26 school board meeting that he had made repeated requests of Pacific Gas & Electric corporate officers for their assistance in formulating a plan to stem the mass departures of residents or provide direct funding to keep Hinkley School open, but that the company’s officials were unwilling to help.
The vote to close Thomson was unanimous. The vote to close Hinkley School passed 4-1, with board member Barbara Rose dissenting.

With the Adelanto Detention Center Expansion Project having already exceeded its construction contingency allowance of $9,095,194, the board of supervisors this week ratified increasing the project’s total construction budget to $102,157,109, surpassing the original $90,951,937 construction budget by $11,205,172, in so doing upping the total project budget from $120 million to $126 million.
On December 14, 2010, the county board of supervisors awarded a construction contract to Lydig Construction of Bellevue, Washington for the construction of the Adelanto Detention Center at 9438 Commerce Way in Adelanto.
The original construction contract amount with Lydig was for $90,951,937. Previous to this week, there had been eight change orders and contract amendments that had increased the construction  contract to $99,316,987. On Tuesday, February 26, the board of supervisors signed off on a change order and contract amendment combination that boosted the total construction contract amount by $2,840,122 to $102,157,109.
Subsequent to the original $90,951,937 contract, on August 23, 2011, a first $448,516  amendment to the contract to install approximately 3,000 lineal feet of 5” conduit, pull boxes and electrical vaults as required by Southern California Edison was approved by the board of supervisors; On December 13, 2011 a second $303,773 amendment to the contract for the demolition and installation of concrete and asphalt associated with rerouting of utilities and the modification to 124 handicap combo units together with the rerouting of electrical duct banks was approved by the board of supervisors; On April 24, 2012, a third $834,076 amendment to lengthen holding cell benches and make state fire marshal-mandated design modifications to the construction was approved by the board; on September 11, 2012 a $557,668 amendment to the contract to provide handicap desks in the dayrooms, incorporate a stainless steel well casing for the new well and provide state fire marshal-required additional seismic upgrades to the fire protection lines was approved by the board of supervisors; on February 26, 2013 a fifth $2,472,388 amendment to make state fire marshal-mandated changes to the smoke control evacuation and automatic fire sprinkler systems, increase the number and size of heating and air conditioning structural roof supports as well as additional modifications mandated by the fire marshal and various other regulatory agencies was approved.
Additionally, on August 23, 2011, a first $2,101,536 change order to upgrade the security electronics in the existing facility and the expansion to provide touch screens, digital intercoms, an IP camera system and increased HD video storage capabilities, install frosted security glazing in lieu of the standard clear glazing specified in the sleeping rooms, and install an anti-MRSA and prime coat finish on the floors and walls at the support building was approved by the board of supervisors; on December 12, 2011, a second $2,392,443 change order entailing the installation of a card reader system in the housing units to be utilized by sheriff personnel, the purchase of scheduling licenses for video visitation kiosks and the upgrading of the roofing system to a single ply system was approved by the board of supervisors; on April 24, 2012 a third $824,237 change order to install anti-MRSA coating to the interior handrails in the dayrooms of the housing units and make various security electronics, electrical and plumbing modifications and enhancements was approved by the board; on September 11, 2012 a fourth $902,801 change order for the addition of detention ceilings at the 32-bed dorms, modifications to center core casework, guardrails and exhaust systems, credit the contractor for the modification of the roof system and make various utility modifications and enhancements; on February 26 a fifth $367,734 change order to provide electrical power and venting for dryers, and make various structural, utility and mechanical modifications to the new expansion and existing facility was approved.
In addition to the boosting of the contract with Lydig, the board also approved a recommendation from Carl Alban, the county’s director of architecture and engineering, to increase the existing contract with  C.H.J. Incorporated by $346,000, bringing the not-to-exceed total contract amount with that company from $1,559,293 to $1,905,293 for additional inspection and testing services required during the course of the expansion of the detention facility.
Given that a construction contingency allowance of $9,095,194 was built into the original contract, Alban said most of the more than $12 million in construction increases had already been defrayed. He asked the board to “approve a $6,000,000 increase in the project budget, increasing the total project budget from $120,000,000 to $126,000,000 for the Adelanto Detention Center Expansion Project.” The board did so.
Alban told the Sentinel “Initially the project overall was to cost $120 million. We are now asking to increase the budget to $126 million. Our increases in cost are largely related to construction. This gives us a little larger contingency.”
The change orders and contract amendments, Alban said, apply to costs that are “typically unforeseen at the time of the bid, where the bidder had no knowledge of them. Many of these are requirements imposed on the county by a third party such as the state fire agency or utility companies. These involve factors over which we had no control.”
Alban said that one such unforeseen circumstance was the need for the removal and replacement of an existing freezer found to have a significant amount of mold. “There were no obvious signs of mold that occurred in the freezer box until they partially dismantled it and discovered mold internally. It was not apparent on the external or internal surfaces.”
Alban said the project is rapidly moving forward. “We are looking to be substantially completed toward the end of the year.” He said the facility will be ready for occupancy “in a similar time frame. I cannot speak for the sheriff’s office and they may have internal issues between the time we finish it and the time they will be ready to occupy that facility.”
The expansion will add 1,392 new beds to the jail’s existing 706 inmate capacity.

FONTANA—The Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees on February 27 voted 5-0 in favor of the district school police force having assault rifles at its disposal.
Without prior authorization, school district police chief Billy Green ordered and purchased 14 semi-automatic Colt AR 6940 rifles with magazines capable of firing armor piercing bullets. When that $19,286 acquisition, which included targeting lights for the guns, armor piercing ammunition, cases, and a vault to secure them, was revealed, board members Leticia Garcia and Sophia Green (no relation to Billy Green) sought a public hearing on the matter.
Billy Green on Wednesday night answered critics of the purchase who had complained that the guns represented more firepower and destructive capability than is in the possession of several local municipal police departments.
He cited 32 shootings in schools nationally, resulting in 60 deaths and 38 injuries since 2010 in justifying the purchase. Green said the rifles, which are to remain under lock and key until needed, would give school officers an advantage over someone intent on mayhem who is wielding a handgun.
A parent, Oskar Zambrano, said providing the officers with such overwhelming firepower would “send a message” to students that was inappropriate. “Violence begets more violence,” he said. “That is what you have with these rifles.”
Garcia, who had previously criticized the purchase, said that she did “not want to deny our officers the tools to do the job but I do have concerns about the militarizing of our campuses.”
Gus Hawthorn, the board president, called upon his board colleagues to support Billy Green and  to “protect students, parents and employees.” The full board, including Garcia and Sophia Green, voted to keep the rifles.

The county has entered into a $3 million contract with Norco-based D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc. to provide mechanical services throughout the county at its governmental facilities for the one year period running from March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014.  According to Carl Alban, the county’s director of architecture and engineering, the company will carry out the work on the basis of job orders provided to it by the county. Alban recommended that the county board of supervisors “award a $3,000,000 job order contract to D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc., to perform mechanical systems related services throughout the county.” The contract, Alban said, “will include a $25,000 guaranteed minimum value of work to be ordered. The county will provide the contractor with a scope of work to perform specific tasks, and the contractor will provide a lump sum cost for the work based upon the unit prices bid by the contractor.”
Only two companies bid on the contract, Alban said. “On November 27, 2012, the board authorized the architecture and engineering department to advertise for competitive bids. Architecture & engineering advertised for bids in a local newspaper on November 30, 2012, and on the county website. On December 13, 2012, thirteen contractors attended a mandatory pre-bid meeting; of the thirteen attendees, only one contractor had the appropriate mechanical license specified in the bid documents. In an attempt to solicit a broader range of qualified bidders, addendum no. 1 was issued on December 26, 2012, extending the bid date and providing for a second mandatory pre-bid meeting for prospective mechanical contractors who had not attended the December 13, 2012 pre-bid meeting. On December 28, 2012, a second advertisement was published in a local newspaper and on the county website, as well as sent via fax to five companies currently licensed by the state contractors board with the appropriate license. On January 10, 2013, two additional contractors attended the second pre-bid meeting.”
Alban said two bids were submitted to the county by the January 17, 2013 deadline, one from D. Burke Mechanical and another from La Verne-based Los Angeles Air Conditioning, Inc. Alban said D. Burke had a bid factor of 0.7585 and Los Angeles Air Conditioning had a bid factor of 0.7997 and that “staff recommends that the board award this mechanical job order contract to D. Burke Mechanical Corporation, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $3,000,000.”