By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the November 12 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 11-12-21

Though the members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors are keeping their options open in terms of how the county’s electoral map that includes the districts they represent will look for the next ten years beginning with the 2022 election season, it does not appear the county’s supervisorial districts will be substantially different than they are now.
Reapportionment is conducted across virtually all political jurisdictions in the United States following each decennial census, from the federal down to the local levels. That includes the states’ addition or subtraction of Congressional seats in the House of Representatives, the determination of the size of each state’s representation in the U.S. Electoral College, the geographical lines of Congressional districts and state legislative districts, districts within counties for the offices of county supervisor and council wards within cities which utilize by-district voting in choosing city council members.
At its inception in 1853, San Bernardino County had three members on its board of supervisors. Later in the 19th Century, the county transitioned to five supervisors and has maintained that governmental geographical representation standard ever since. In San Bernardino County there is a redrafting of the five district boundaries upon the eclipsing of the third year of every decade, based upon the latest census data.
On November 2, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors looked over three supervisorial district maps drawn up by the county’s redistricting committee. The board is to consider those maps and any others proposed by members of the public on Tuesday, November 16. Based upon the rules governing the reapportionment process, the county has until December 15 to finalize the district map that will be operative throughout the county from 2022 until 2032.
It now appears that the board of supervisors will seriously consider two of those maps next Tuesday – Commission Map 2 and Commission Map 3 – as its members had expressed a preference for those drafts on November 2 in that they leave the basic boundaries in the existing map relatively intact.
According to the U.S. 2020 Census, San Bernardino County had a population last year of 2,180,152. Ideally, each of the five districts would therefore be composed of 436,030.4 people. Efforts have thus been made to create districts with approximately that number of residents.
Map 2 would redraw District 1 so that it roughly approximates geographically what District 1 covered in the map in place since 2012, consisting of 430,041 residents, some 1.4 percent fewer residents than the target of 436,030.4 residents. District two under Map 2 would entail 441,285 residents, 1.2 percent more than the ideal. District 3 would number 430,650 residents, roughly 1.2 percent fewer residents than one-fifth of the county’s entire population. District 4 would consist of 440,920 residents, 1.1 percent more residents than one-fifth of the county population and District 5 would have 437,266 residents, 0.3 percent more than the target of 436,030.4 residents.
Map 3 would redraw District 1 so that it roughly approximates what District 1 covered in the map in place since 2012, consisting of 445,485 residents, some 2.2 percent more residents than the target of 436,030.4 residents. District 2 under Map 3 would entail 428,010 residents, 1.9 percent fewer than the ideal. District 3 would number 440,921 residents, roughly 1.1 percent more residents than one-fifth of the total county population. District 4 would consist of 430,528 residents, 1.3 percent fewer residents than one-fifth of the county population and District 5 would have 435,208 residents, 0.2 percent fewer than the target of 436,030.4 residents.
The county made substantial changes to its electoral map ten years ago. Previously, District 1 had accounted for more than 90 percent of the county’s desert area and all of its desert municipalities: Hesperia, Apple Valley, Victorville, Barstow, Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley and Needles. With the substantial population growth in the county’s desert communities that had taken place over the previous three decades, the redistricting that took place in 2012 entailed the First District losing Barstow, Twentyinine Palms and Yucca Valley to the Third District. Prior to 2012, the Third District had consisted of the farthest eastern cities and portions of San Bernardino Valley, including east San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa, and the mountain communities of Big Bear, Lake Arrowhead Twin Peaks, Valley of Enchantment, Lake Gregory and Crestline. With the redrawing of the county’s electoral  map in 2012, the Third District gained the three desert cities of Barstow, Twentyinine Palms and Yucca Valley, but lost the unincorporated areas of Crestline, Twin Peaks, Lake Gregory, Valley of Enchantment and Lake Arrowhead to the Second District.
In the two maps most favored by the board of supervisors this time around, the changes being made fall generally around the periphery of the existing districts. There were only three significant changes being seriously considered as the board is set to meet on November 16, one of those being removing the Angeles National Forest District town/village of Wrightwood from the Second District to the First District. Another is Map 2’s removal of much of the east side of Fontana, which is currently split between the Fifth District and the Second District from the Fifth District into the Second District. Another would be Map 3’s shift to include at least of portion of Barstow in District 1.
Board members directed county staff to provide them with population data for the county’s unincorporated communities in the districts as proposed.
Following the special meeting called for November 16, the board is scheduled to hold another redistricting hearing on December 7 to vote to finalize the new map. The new districts will go into effect immediately, such that some of the county’s residents will be represented by members of the board of supervisors they did not have the opportunity in 2018 or 2020 to vote for. The first actual manifestation of the new boundaries will take place with the June 7, 2022 primary election. In that contest, the county’s voters will be selecting supervisors in the Second and Fourth districts.
The county has given the public the opportunity to submit maps that are drawn up independently of the influence of the county’s redistricting commission. Whether the supervisors will heed those citizen recommendations or consider them at all is a different question. The redistricting commission consists of Mark Creffield representing the First Supervisorial District; Robert Little, representing the Second Supervisorial District; Jessica Naquin, representing the Third Supervisorial District; Jean-Rene Basle, representing the Fourth Supervisorial District, William Jernigan, representing the Fifth Supervisorial District and Pamela Preston King, as an at-large member. The alternative commission members are Kenneth Anderson in the First Supervisorial District; Henry Shannon in the Second Supervisorial District; Donald Runels in the Third Supervisorial District; Peggi Hazlett in the Fourth Supervisorial District and Sonja Wilson in the Fifth Supervisorial District. Pamela King is a Superior Court Judge in San Bernardino County. Basle is former San Bernardino County Counsel, and as such was the county’s highest ranking in-house attorney with regard to civil law issues.
The most concerted public effort to alter the existing map this year came from residents of the San Bernardino Mountain communities, which had sought to reunite the entirety of the mountain district – Crestline, Lake Gregory, Blue Jay, Twin Peaks, Cedar Glen, Lake Arrowhead, Running Springs, Valley of Enchantment, Arrow Bear, Angeles Oaks, Forest Falls, Big Bear and Holcomb Valley into one district. In most of those proposals, the district thought best to encompass them was the Third District. One proposal called for them to be contained within the Second District.
–Mark Gutglueck

Citing yet unresolved issues that beset neighborhoods in which short-term rental units proliferate, the town council in Yucca Valley last week imposed a 45-day moratorium on issuing permits for properties that are rented out by owners for use by vacationers.
Generally speaking, problems with short-term rentals have manifested in the mountain and desert communities of San Bernardino County as opposed to its more urbanized areas.
In most though not all cases, short-term rental units are ones owned by so-called absentee landlords, that is, ones that are not occupied by the owners and are not proximate or co-located to the domicile of the owners. In a minority of cases, the properties in question involve accessory dwelling units, those being ones that are located on a property on which the owner resides or on which another long term residential unit exists.
In recent years, increasing numbers of homeowners, particularly in areas such as Yucca Valley which attract tourists, have exploited the opportunity their possession of properties in what some consider to be exotic locales affords them. Some have simply garnished their living room floors with an air mattress to transform their residence into a temporary bed and breakfast inn, in keeping with the concept of an “Air BNB.” that is, an air mattress bed and breakfast. Others have moved out of their desert or mountain homes entirely, making way for the properties to be rented for a night, a weekend, a week, two weeks or even a month, to vacationers ready to pay the equivalent of a monthly rent or more to have access to a house and all of its amenities – a kitchen, dining room, living room, separate bedrooms, a yard and garage. These arrangements generally last for less than a week or a relatively short time. Short-term rentals are most likely to succeed if the abode is advantageously located.
While renting their properties out for a short span has proven advantageous and lucrative for some homeowners or investors, the influx of temporary residents into the mountain and desert districts created nuisances for those living near such leased properties. In many cases, homes or cabins were simply converted into temporary accommodations without regard to local ordinances or regulations, and there was no government oversight or control of the operations.
Nearby residents were put at the disadvantage of having, for a short time, neighbors they did not know and who in some cases had no regard for others they would not be likely to ever see again.
On occasion, those guests would prove to be poor neighbors, creating disturbances, inviting dozens, scores or even hundreds of others to parties on the leased or rented premises, involving parking and traffic problems. On occasion, such parties proved to be raves, with highly intoxicated participants. Excessive noise was an issue in some cases. Bonfires were a staple of such gatherings. In some isolated cases, those lodging at the rental properties or their guests grew aggressive or confrontational with nearby residents.
Owners of the short term rental properties skipped out on paying lodging taxes, referred to as transitory occupancy or bed taxes.
In 2015, the county first sought to regulate short-term rentals that exist in unincorporated county areas in the form of an ordinance. That ordinance was updated in 2019. The ordinance created a permitting process by which property owners must register the property as being utilized for rentals on a less than continuous basis, meaning, practically, for thirty days or less. Those short-term rental permits are to be renewed every two years. The ordinance requires that acknowledgment of the rental status must be signed by the renter and kept on file during the term of the permit. The ordinance further mandates that owners of the units maintain records to document compliance with the applicable elements of the county code. The ordinance provides the county with the authority to revoke, based upon violations, a short-term rental permit. Tenant violation can trigger the suspension of the short-term residence permit for the unit in which that tenant is staying.
Generally, in the case of desert properties, the ordinance created regulations that previously did not exist. One element of the regulations called for the owner of properties on which two dwelling units existed to occupy one of the units if the other unit was to be rented, such that an absentee landlord could not be involved in multiple short-term rentals. Subsequently, the board of supervisors altered the ordinance to allow both accessory dwelling units and the primary residence on a property to serve as short-term rental units as long as the property is two acres or larger.
The regulation called for the units rented to have placards, signs or notices that provide the renters with county standards for the rentals in writing, including the phone number for the county’s 24/7 short-term rental complaint line.
The ordinance requires that the owners of short-term rental properties arrange to have trash service for each of the rental units.
The county ordinance provides variegated maximum occupancy standards, such that there are seven categories of short-term rental units, with 20 persons being the maximum allowed to occupy a property at any given time. Parking standards are in place to provide clarification that vehicles of renters shall be parked on the property of the short-term residential rental unit. These latter elements of the code revision appear to be angled toward preventing the units from serving as a hosting ground for parties or extremely large social gatherings with scores of people or even hundreds in attendance. A somewhat controversial element of the ordinance is that it provides the county with the power to issue and serve an administrative subpoena to obtain specific information regarding short-term rentals.
The Town of Yucca Valley, which is proximate to Joshua Tree National Park, has not been immune to the problems created by short-term rentals, despite its status as an incorporated municipality.
Last week, the Yucca Valley Town Council, at the recommendation of Town Manager Curtis Yakimow, took action to counter, at least temporarily until permanent measures can be devised, impacts that short-term vacation rentals have impinging on the quality of life of Yucca Valley residents.
Yakimow indicated the moratorium, which could be extended, will allow the town to “stop the bleeding” from what many consider to be a gaping wound – that wound being the proliferation of short-term rentals.
Yakimow indicated the town did not want to shoot itself in the foot by discouraging tourism, which represents revenue to local merchants and the town itself in the form of sales tax on goods sold. Still, he indicated, unbridled short-term rentals were having a deleterious impact on the city.
The town has scheduled a hearing for November 23 at Town Hall at 6 p.m., at which town officials can introduce regulations on short term rentals going forward. The goal is to formulate an ordinance, likely to be voted upon no later than April 2022.
The moratorium was passed as an urgency ordinance. Under California law, such an urgency ordinance can be in effect for no more than 45 days. The moratorium can be extended another 320 days to a full year with a second vote and to two years with a third vote of the town council. Two years is the longest such a moratorium can remain in place.
-M.G.

Over the objection of one of its members, the Chino Hills City Council this week disregarded the three lowest bids of seven competitors for the city’s trash franchise, instead electing to consider the highest bidders in choosing the four finalists for the contract that is to go into effect as of July 1, 2022.
Republic Industries, formerly known as Taormina, is the city’s current garbage hauler. Republic’s franchise contract with the city expired in January, but the city extended that contract with Republic until June 30, 2022 while it carries out a competitive bid process for refuse handling in the city of 85,081 over the next seven to nine years.
Republic applied to remain in its current capacity, and Athens Services, Waste Management, Burrtec Waste Industries, Valley Vista Services, Ware Disposal, and a joint venture involving Urbaser and American Reclamation offered competing proposals.
Mayor Brian Johsz, who is employed with Athens Services as a director of government affairs, did not participate in the selection process based on a legal conflict of interest his participation would embroil him in were he to vote on the matter.
City staff is intent on ushering the city council to a decision by July 1 of next year. The city contracted with the consulting firm HF & H, which bills itself as a public agency consultant with waste handling industry analysis expertise, making it capable of cutting through the thicket of laws and regulations as well as the financial issues pertaining to the disposal of both refuse and recyclables.
According to HF& H, all seven competing companies – Athens Services, Waste Management, Burrtec Waste Industries, Republic, Valley Vista Services, Ware Disposal and Urbaser/American Reclamation – meet the requirements specified in the bidding documents and can be considered responsible bidders.
HF & H acknowledged that Urbaser/American Reclamation was what could essentially be categorized as the “low bidder” for the franchise contract, having agreed to deliver comprehensive trash service to the city’s customer base for $8.075 million annually. Further, according to HF & H, Ware was the second lowest bidder at $10.084 million, and Valley Vista had the third lowest bid at $10.257 million. Nevertheless, according to HF & H, the city should spurn the three lowest bidders, and instead consider only the four highest bidders, those being Waste Management at $10.582 million, Athens at $11.242 million, Republic at $12.885 million and Burrtec at $13.483 million.
Both City Manager Benjamin Montgomery and HF & H Senior Vice President Laith Ezzet told the council that Waste Management’s,  Athens’, Republic’s and Burrtec’s extensive collection experience in Southern California along with their company sizes and financial resources made them better suited to serve as Chino Hills’ trash hauler.
Somewhat paradoxically, according to HF & H, the consideration that Urbaser/American Reclamation, Valley Vista and Ware were going to charge less than the other four companies indicated they were less suited and less qualified for the franchise. Another factor that favored Waste Management, Athens, Republic and Burrtec, HF & H calculated, was that the Chino Hills trash hauling franchise represented a much smaller portion of Waste Management’s, Athens’, Republic’s and Burrtec’s overall operations, at least in the United States, than it represented to Urbaser/American Reclamation, Valley Vista and Ware.
According to a staff report presented to the city council prior to the November 9 meeting, the amount of money Republic and Waste Management stood to make off of the Chino Hills contract stood at less than one percent of those companies’ total revenue and less than 3 percent of Athens’ total annual revenue. Burrtec did not provide data to make any comparison, but it appears that Chino Hills would represent under 5 percent of that company’s operations if it were to obtain the contract. In the cases of Valley Vista and Ware, the amount of money those companies stand to make off of the Chino Hills franchise is far greater in terms of their overall annual revenue, at 16 percent and 22 percent, respectively. In the case of Ubaser, which has partnered with American Reclamation in California, the Chino Hills franchise revenue would be less than one percent of its earnings worldwide, but would be far greater than that in terms of its revenue from local operations, as the company is just now seeking to establish a toehold in the United States. FH & F and city staff interpret dependence upon Chino Hills for that much of a company’s revenue to be a show of potential weakness, instability and questionable corporate and financial resiliency.
“While the proposal from Urbaser/American Reclamation has the lowest overall cost as measured by total annual rate revenues at approximately $8.1 million, HF & H believes the proposed rates may not be sustainable over the term, particularly since Urbaser/American Reclamation [chose] to offer street sweeping services at no additional charge,” the staff report for Tuesday’s meeting stated, implying the Urbaser bid was an unrealistic one. Staff suggested the case was the same with Valley Vista’s and Ware’s bids.
John Gasparian, an owner and vice president of American Reclamation and an American representative of Urbasser, spoke before the Chino Hills City Council on Tuesday night, and questioned why Urbaser/American Reclamation was being stepped over. He said that Urbasser/American Reclamation was here to stay in Southern California. “Were looking to make a name for ourselves,” he said, intimating the city was missing an opportunity to save its residents a substantial amount of money on their trash bills and simultaneously get quality service equal to or greater than that being offered by the competition. Gasparian said his company “had not underbid the project.” He said the city and its consultant had erroneously suggested that Urbasser/American Reclamation “underestimated our cost. I am very confident we did not do so.” As the company with the “lowest responsive bid,” Gasparian questioned why “we were not considered among the four finalists.”
“We’re not saying anyone’s not qualified,” City Manager Benjamin Montgomery stated, saying rather the city was striving to find the company “highest qualified.”
As the discussion of the matter progressed, a majority of the city council, led by Art Bennett and Peter Rogers, appeared determined to adhere to the staff recommendation, which was a declaration that by virtue of the size of their operations, experience and financial staying power, Burrtec, Athens, Waste Management and Republic had drawn to themselves the most horsepower, momentum and gravity to qualify to move on to the next stage of the franchisee selection process, such that they be brought to the final stage of the competition, while Valley Vista, Urbasser/American Reclamation and Ware be shown the door.
Councilman Ray Marquez indicated that he interpreted the facts and incidentals around the qualification and bidding for the franchise in a way that contradicted what city staff and HF & H were saying, and that it was his conclusion that those companies which were among the lowest responsible bidders should make their way to final consideration for the franchise and not the highest responsible bidders to the exclusion of those willing to charge Chino Hills’ residents the least money. He endeavored to get Councilman Bennett to acknowledge that he supported giving the companies seeking the highest rates from Chino Hills’ residents a chance to secure the franchise while shutting out the companies that would provide the lowest rates for the city’s residents and businesses.
Bennett responded that he did favor going with the highest bidders, if doing so was the advice of the experts – the city’s well paid consultant in the form of HF & H, who was more familiar with issues pertaining to refuse hauling and the proper disposal of recyclable materials than the members of the city council. Once the city paid top dollar for the advice of experts, Bennett said, it should heed that advice.
Marquez urged his colleagues to consider allowing Valley Vista, Urbaser/American Reclamation and Ware to compete for the franchise.
Councilwoman Cynthia Moran took a stab at seeing whether more of the applicants beyond Waste Management, Burrtec, Republic and Athens could be included in the final evaluation. In the end, however, she voted with Bennett and Rogers in supporting Bennett’s motion to approve the staff recommendation to move forward with considering whether Burrtec, Waste Management, Athens or Republic should get the contract and excluding Ware, Valley Vista and Urbaser/American Reclamation.
The decision of the Chino Hills City Council with regard to its city’s trash hauling franchise has an implication beyond Chino Hills City Limits.
A decade ago, Burrtec was preeminent among San Bernardino trash haulers. Burrtec in 2001 was given an 11-year county contract to manage the county’s trash-disposal sites in the aftermath of a far-reaching scandal involving high ranking county officials and the prior landfill operator, Norcal. By 2012, however, the county’s landfill system was running at a loss. In 2013, Burrtec lost out in the competition to retain its contract with San Bernardino for the management of the county’s landfill system, having been underbid and outmaneuvered by Athens.  Athens, which is intent on challenging Burrtec’s primacy in San Bernardino County, swooped in to win that contract. In 2020, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted to extend Athens’ landfill management contract with Athens Services to 2031 and potentially to 2039.
Burrtec yet holds the lion’s share of trash hauling contracts in San Bernardino County, with the municipal franchises in the cities of San Bernardino, Upland, Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Twentynine Palms, Victorville, Yucca Valley and Yucaipa – as well as dozens of contracts to exclusively service unincorporated communities, including Amboy, Angeles Oaks, Baker, Barton Flats, Bloomington, Cima, Crestline, Daggett, Del Rosa, Devore, Dumont Dunes, East Highlands, El Rancho Verde, Forest Falls, Fort Irwin, Halloran, Helendale, Hinkley, Kelso, Lake Arrowhead, Landers, Lenwood, Lucerne Valley, Ludlow, Mentone, Mountain Pass, Mt. Baldy, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Running Springs, San Antonio Heights, Silver Lakes and Yermo.
Athens, which does a lot of trash-hauling in neighboring Los Angeles County, is looking to get work beyond landfill operations management in San Bernardino County.
Republic wants to hang onto the Chino Hills franchise and maintain its franchise in Colton to expand beyond that. Waste Management, which once had a far larger presence in San Bernardino County than it does at present, yet has the franchise in Chino and one unincorporated community in San Bernardino County.
It is not unfair to say that a certain cutthroat competition has developed between Burrtec, Athens, Waste Management and Republic for available and emerging trash hauling contracts in San Bernardino County. Cole Burr, the owner of Burrtec, along with his wife Tracy and several Burrtec executives, including vice president Mike Arreguin as well as the corporate entity Burrtec itself qualify together as one of the larger donors to elected politicians in San Bernardino County at both the county and municipal levels. Burrtec’s collective donations in San Bernardino County go almost exclusively to elected officials at the county level, meaning members of the board of supervisors who sign off on Burrtec’s franchise contracts in the county’s unincorporated areas, as well as to politicians/elected officials in the cities and incorporated towns where Burrtec has trash hauling franchises. Burrtec virtually never supports politicians outside of the jurisdictions where it has franchises, and it virtually never supports anyone other than incumbent officeholders. This has led to accusations that Burrtec is seeking to influence those politicians in a way that is tantamount to bribery. This is a problematic assertion in a county wherein multiple elected officials have historically been indicted or criminally charged for engaging in bribery that included payoffs, kickbacks and other graft originating with trash hauling firms and outfits involved in the refuse handling industry.
Similar accusations to those pertaining to Burrtec have been raised against Waste Management’s actions in Southern California by former San Diego County District Attorney Ed Miller in the so-called Miller Report and against the actions in Colton by Taormina Industries, a company which ultimately merged with Republic, by former Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Mark McDonald in the so-called McDonald Report.
Being permitted to operate in Chino Hills, San Bernardino County’s southwesternmost city, would change the power dynamic for any of the three companies now seeking that franchise. Managing to retain the franchise in Chino Hills it now possesses would preserve for Republic its place as a player in San Bernardino County’s trash hauling industry.
-Mark Gutglueck

The A. K. Smiley Library’s resident historian for the last twenty years has been appointed to fill the vacant position on the San Bernardino Community College District Board of Trustees.
In the wake of Donald L. Singer’s resignation as a trustee with the San Bernardino Community College District on September 15, the board had been searching for a replacement. Invitations to apply for the post were made, which resulted in eight applications. Singer had been on the board since 2001.
After considering all candidates, the board on October 28 settled on Dr. Nathan D. Gonzales, a historian, who has been employed within the A.K. Smiley Library Special Collections Room for two decades.
Gonzales earned his Ph.D. in history in 2006 from the University of California, Riverside. In 2013, he acceded to the position of curator and archivist of the special collections room as well as the library’s Lincoln Memorial Shrine museum, which includes overseeing the museum’s budget, personnel and its corps of volunteers. He is an adjunct professor in the University of Redlands History Department.
“Dr. Gonzales’ diverse expertise and commitment to education will be a tremendous asset to the board as we work together to uplift students and families,” said San Bernardino Community College District Board Chairwoman Anne L. Viricel.
In his remarks to the board of trustees on Thursday, October 28, Gonzales said his great-grandparents, who were immigrants, had limited educational opportunities, which has supplied him with especial motivation in pushing the college district’s educational goals for its students.
Gonzales joints Dr. Viricel, Dr. Stephanie Houston, Gloria Macias Harrison, John Longville, Frank Reyes, Joseph R. Williams and student trustees Lauren Ashlock and Elena Sanchez on the board.
“With nearly 100 years of service to our region, the San Bernardino Community College District has made an immeasurable difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,” said Gonzales. “I am excited about the opportunity to contribute my experiences to benefit students, families, and my community.”
-M.G.

The Redlands Passenger Rail Project, an extension of the Metrolink passenger train line that already reaches from Los Angeles to San Bernardino, will begin operations in 2022.
That extension is nine miles long, running from Downtown San Bernardino to Downtown Redlands. The stops on the line will include the San Bernardino Transit Centre, Waterman Avenue, New York Street, and Downtown Redlands.
Testing on the track at various points along the line is being carried out now. Those tests relate to safety elements as well as determining how obtrusive the train will be in terms of sound, rumbling, vibration and line of sight limitations at various junctures and intersections and crossings involving the local road system.
The engines to be tested will be those currently used to pull the Metrolink trains from Union Station in Los Angeles to San Bernardino.
Ultimately, it is the intention of the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency, the prime mover in the project, to utilize diesel multiple units vehicles to provide primary service along the line between Redlands and San Bernardino.  Diesel multiple units are to be powered by tier-4 emissions technology with clean diesel engines, which are quieter, more efficient, and less expensive to operate than Metrolink standard locomotives.
The initial diesel multiple units that will be dedicated to what is called the “Arrow Service,” running between the University of Redlands and Downtown San Bernardino, are expected to be delivered from their German manufacturer shortly after the new year.
Initially, and for some time thereafter, Metrolink diesel engines will power the trains running on the Redlands line.
There is disappointment among some that the newly-created Redlands Rail Project is not being coordinated with the so-called Gold Line, also known as the L-Line.
The Gold Line runs on separate tracks dedicated to passenger transport alone from Downtown Los Angeles to Azusa, and uses lighter cars and more fuel-efficient engines, with staggered departures and arrivals of as little as every eight minutes. The Gold Line is thus heavily used, with its cars nearing capacity on virtually every run. In contrast, Metrolink, which runs far less frequently, consistently travels between Los Angeles and San Bernardino with nearly three-quarters of its seats empty.
The Los Angeles County-based Gold Line Construction Authority is now engaged in extending the Gold Line from Azusa to northern Pomona, and thereafter to Claremont near the San Bernardino County line. The previous intention was to continue with the Gold Line construction across the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Line by 2024 and then on to Montclair and Ontario Airport by 2028, in time for the Los Angeles Olympics. Ultimately, the Gold Line was to extend to Yucaipa by the late 2040s.
San Bernardino County transportation officials, deterred by the cost of the Gold Line, in 2019 abandoned the extension of the system beyond Claremont, giving up a $41 million State of California Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant to help fund the extension of the line from Claremont to Montclair.
-Mark Gutglueck

Brightline West, which is seeking to construct a high speed rail line from Victorville to Las Vegas, should design its project to ensure that it provides at least three wildlife corridors to allow threatened and endangered species that call the Mojave Desert home to transit from one side of the tracks to the other, California’s U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, have told California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Florida-based Brightline West has proposed and has completed some preliminary work toward establishing a 187-mile span of rail tracks that would convey a train carrying passengers moving at a speed of up to 180 miles per hour. The right-of-way for the $8 billion rail system would lie between or run parallel to Interstate 15.
The Federal Railroad Administration on July 8, 2011 issued a record of decision with regard to the project, known as the DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train. The record of decision entails a tentative approval of the project, summarizing the environmental review process the Federal Railroad Administration conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Railroad Administration’s environmental procedures. The record of decision identified the alternatives considered by the Federal Railroad Administration, addressed comments received during the National Environmental Policy Act process for the proposal, and identified the parameters of the project. Last month, the State of California issued a preliminary approval for Brightline to proceed with the construction of a 48-mile high speed rail line from Rancho Cucamonga to Victorville.
Taken together with a rail line from Orange County to Rancho Cucamonga, the high speed rail system is projected to whisk those travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas in slightly more than one-third of the time it currently takes to drive to the Nevada gambling mecca.
Feinstein and Padilla, however, were critical of the lax precautions the project proponents and government regulators are taking with regard to the undertaking’s environmental consequences. Among the problems the project represents, the senators told Governor Gavin Newsom in a letter dated November 1, are threats to the survivability of bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, mountain lions, Mojave ground squirrels, bobcats, mule deer and other wildlife in the desert.
In their letter to Newsom, Feinstein and Padilla called upon the governor to require  Brightline to incorporate into the rail project at least three wildlife corridor overpasses or underpasses. There is concern several species on state and federal endangered or threatened species lists would be vulnerable to the speeding trains as they cross the tracks.
“Brightline has not committed to build wildlife crossings even though it will be seeking tax-exempt private activity bonds for this $8 billion project, with expected revenue of nearly $1 billion,” Feinstein and Padilla wrote in the letter to Newsom. “It has come to our attention that Brightline High Speed Rail’s proposed Brightline West project route from Las Vegas, Nevada to Victorville, California does not account for essential wildlife corridors for some of the desert’s state and federally-protected species. To resolve these unnecessary impacts to our desert, we ask you to direct Caltrans [The California Department of Transportation] to use its existing authorities and oversight of the project’s right-of-way, to require Brightline to include no less than three wildlife corridor overpasses in its design and to construct these structures as part of its upcoming rail construction.”
The train is to use zero emission trains. Feinstein and Padilla’s letter acknowledged that, stating, “We agree that Brightline will be ‘offering millions of travelers a green way to travel,” as stated in their marketing material. To accomplish this, the project must heed the recommendations of scientists, regulators, wildlife advocates, and California’s own Department of Transportation.”

Randy Wolf