For the second time in slightly over two years, the Chino City Council this week by a narrow margin shut the door on Borstein Enterprises in its effort to wring from the city density concessions in its proposal to develop what had formerly been agricultural property just outside the city limits in the remaining swath of unincorporated land between Chino and Montclair within Chino’s sphere of influence.
Borstein had sought previously and once more requested permission to residentially develop the property, which at one time was  a poultry and rabbit farm, at a higher density than is permitted in Chino’s general plan.
More than 25 months ago, Borstein had asked the Chino Planning Commission to consider its proposal to build 43 single-story, ranch-style homes and a neighborhood park on 13.46 acres lying within a pocket of unincorporated San Bernardino County adjacent to the City of Chino at the corner of Francis and Yorba avenues. The property is within Chino’s sphere of influence, and the county had deferred land use authority to the city with regard to it. Under Borstein’s application originally filed in 2016 and considered by the city in 2017, the 13.46-acre parcel was to be annexed into the city, which was necessary so the homes to be developed could connect with the city’s sewer system. Under the city’s general plan, the land is zoned R2, meaning that a maximum of two units per acre were allowed to be built there. Borstein’s request was that the city consent to a zone change that would allow 3.6 units per acre, what under the city’s zoning code is referred to as R4.5, which allows as many as 4.5 units per acre to be constructed on a single acre. Known as Chino Francis Estates, the proposed project is surrounded north, east, south and west by property developed to no more than two units per acre.
On December 4, 2017, the planning commission on a 3-to-2 vote recommended against allowing the project as proposed to proceed. Borstein then appealed that decision to the Chino City Council, which has the authority to second-guess the planning commission.
Under most conditions, the city council does not have the authority to deviate from land use restrictions contained in the general plan. A generation ago, Chino voters passed Measure M, which mandates that if a developer wants to proceed with a project of greater density than provided for in the city’s general plan or zoning codes, the city council does not have, on its own, the authority to accommodate the developer’s request. Rather, under Measure M a majority of voters throughout the city must give their consent for such a project to proceed.
In the case of the property Borstein has sought to develop, however, there is a loophole.
Measure M applies only to property that falls within what was the incorporated borders of the city when the measure was passed in 1988. Borstein’s executives were conscious that the city council as it existed in 2017 had a decidedly pro-development bent. Its five members in December 2017 were Mayor Eunice Ulloa, Tom Haughey, Earl Elrod, Gary George and Dr. Dr. Paul Rodriguez. Of those five, only Ulloa was a stickler for adhering to the guidelines – including those for density – within the city’s general plan. Thus, Borstein’s corporate officers believed they could induce the city council to reverse the planning commission’s decision.
When the matter came before the city council on December 19, 2017, the flow of events appeared to be moving in Borstein’s favor.
Nicholas Liguori, Chino’s director of community development, in a staff report relayed to the city council through city manager Matthew Ballantyne, recommended that the council “overrule the recommendation of the planning commission” and adopt a resolution stating that any environmental impacts from the project were either insubstantial or could and would be mitigated. Liguori further recommended that the council grant the appeal by Borstein Enterprises, doing business as Chino Francis Estates, LLC, such that the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission be requested to initiate the annexation process, that the tentative tract map be approved along with the site plan and the special conditional permit needed for the project to proceed, and that staff be directed “to negotiate with the County of San Bernardino to increase the amount of property tax retained by the city in non-island annexations.”
The size of 42 of the lots in the proposed project ranged from 8,090 square feet to 10,679 square feet, with a single lot at 16,227 square feet. The size of the homes, which were variously designed in hacienda ranch, California ranch and Spanish colonial styles, ranged from 2,820 square feet in a three-bedroom/2.5 bathroom model to 3,590 square feet in a 5 bedroom/4.5 bathroom model.
Elrod, however, was absent from the December 19, 2017 meeting. Because of previous city resident unrest with regard to the city council’s disregard for the provisions of Measure M as applied to land in the city’s sphere of influence outside the city limits that would subsequently be annexed into the city and involve property built to a greater density than exists in neighboring properties already in the city, George proved unwilling to support the increase in density Borstein was requesting, a significant departure from the pro-development attitude he was previously recognized as having evinced.
Rodriguez made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to overturn the planning commission’s denial of the project.
Haughey, curiously, did not second Rodriguez’s motion, anticipating that George would do so. When George did not, Rodriguez’s motion died for lack of a second.
Thereafter, Ulloa made an alternative motion to uphold the planning commission’s denial of the application. At that point, George seconded the motion, tacitly making a break with the pro-development wing of the city council. The vote on that motion ended in a 2-2 deadlock, with Ulloa and George voting in favor of it and Rodriguez and Haughey opposed.
For Borstein, Elrod’s absence that evening  thus proved crucial. With the council vote having ended in a tie and no majority vote to overturn it, the planning commission decision to deny the project remained operative.
Having waited a decent interim, Borstein revived its proposal. This time around, there were some relatively minor changes, one being that the property to be developed was shown as 13.35 acres rather than the 13.46 specified in 2017, and the number of homes to be built was reduced from 43 single story homes to 39 single story homes, together with an increase in the average lot size, an increase in the side yard setbacks on some of the lots to support recreational vehicle parking if desired by future homebuyers.
As it turned out, in thismost recent go, the planning commission, which on November 18, 2019 considered the revamped proposal, reversed itself from its 2017 decision, voting 4-to-3 in favor of the project.
The matter of the revamped Chino Francis Estates project thus came before the city council this week for approval as a legislative action relating to its prezoning and annexation, the approval of a general plan amendment required to allow the greater degree of density than is foreseen in the city’s general plan and an associated mitigated negative declaration. A mitigated negative declaration is the decision-making body’s official assertion that any negative impact on the local environs by the development will be mitigated by measures required pursuant to the project’s approval.
Since 2017, Elrod and George have left the council. They have been supplanted by Mark Hargrove and Marc Lucio.
Borstein indicated the 39 single-family, single-story homes featuring variously four or five bedrooms would be constructed on lots ranging from 8,130-square-feet to 16,920-square-feet, with an average square footage of 10,000-square-feet.
The project as proposed calls for a density of 3.2 homes per acre, but for the city to approve the project it had to up the existing zoning, which allows two units per acre, to the next level on the city’s density scale, which is 4.5 units per acre.
Borstein said the asking price on the models would range between $805,000 to $960,000. Borstein said the development would also entail a 14,953-square-foot private park recessed into one of the corners of the development.
More than three dozen residents living near the project, living both within the city limits and just outside them, held forth with regard to their perspective on the proposal. Some supported it. Others did not.
Supporters said the upscale homes would improve the area, and modernize it with sidewalks and curbs. They said just over three units to the acre would be preferable to the potential that higher density homes or apartment complexes could be built there to meet state mandates for affordable housing to be built in Chino.
Opponents of the project, including members of Protect Chino, a grassroots group advocating for livable neighborhoods, said the project would destroy the area’s quaint rural nature, increase traffic on surrounding streets, worsen flooding and encourage other developers to seek further density concessions from the city.
Councilman Hargrove expressed concern and discomfort over altering the standards of the general plan for the project. He indicated he did not believe there was yet indication of a consensus within the community to allow the change in density and change to the general plan that Borstein was requesting without hearing more input from the community.  Hargrove also expressed the misgiving that if the city were to grant the general plan amendment to approve the project, that would imply the zone uprating to 4.5 units to the acres. Thereafter, he indicated, Borstein might flip the property to another developer with the entitlement to build yet intact, and that developer might then insist on increasing the density to the maximum, that is, 4.5 units per acre. City staff said a new development proposal from a different developer would likely require a new approval process.
Councilman Haughey said the project stood on its own merit and Councilman Rodriguez, while referencing state mandates that cities approve “affordable” housing, suggested the city might get in Dutch with the state if it didn’t approve this housing project, ignoring the price tags on the homes.
Councilman Lucio questioned whether it wouldn’t make more sense and be more cost effective for the city to annex the entire area north of the city in one fell swoop to be able to deal with infrastructure issues in a coordinated fashion rather than in making piecemeal annexations.
In a 3-to-2 decision, with Ulloa, Hargrove and Lucio prevailing and Haughey and Rodriguez dissenting, the council voted to overturn the Chino Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval and reject city staff’s recommendation to let the Chino Francis Estates development proceed. Ulloa, Hargrove and Lucio enunciated their collective belief the city should stand by the standards in the Chino General Plan, and keep the two homes per acre designation for the property at Yorba and Francis avenues in place.
-Mark Gutglueck

The California Supreme Court has responded positively to a petition the San Bernardino County Office of County Counsel filed on January 17, asking that Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe be allowed to remain in office while the Fourth District Court of Appeals makes a determination about the soundness of a San Benrnardino Superior Court Judge’s order that her current tenure in office be annulled.
Rowe is now involved in an election campaign to remain in the Third District supervisorial position to which she was appointed in December 2018, and from which she oversees that portion of the county encompassing Barstow, Johnson Valley, Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree, Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Yuciapa, Big Bear and its surrounding eastern San Bernardino Mountains communities, Mentone, Oak Glen, Redlands, Loma Linda, Highland, east San Bernardino and  Grand Terrace. She is the odds-on favorite to win that race in which she is competing  against Kaisar Ahmed, Karen Ickes, Latron Lester and Eddie Tejeda. Available campaign finance documentation shows Rowe enjoys a sizable fundraising advantage over all of her opponents, with more than 33 times as much money to spend on her campaign than all of the others combined. As of earlier this month, she had $190,492.69 in her electioneering fund.  As of last week, Ickes had $1,000 at her disposal for her supervisorial run. Ahmed’s campaign filings two weeks ago gave no indication of how much money his campaign has on hand. Similarly, Lester’s filings show no money in his campaign account. Tejada, who is a city council member in Redlands, as of December 31, had $4,750 in his political war chest.
For most political observers it is a foregone conclusion that Rowe will be elected to serve as Third District supervisor this year in the term running from 2020 until 2024, with the only question being whether she will win outright during the presidential primary balloting on March 3 with a majority of the votes or whether she will need to head into a November run-off against whoever captures second place if she can’t accumulate 50 percent of the vote five-and-a-half weeks from now. Still, there remains a strong question as to whether she can legally hold claim to the Third District supervisor’s post at present. Her claim to that spot has been under challenge, since literally before her appointment.
The last undisputed holder of the Third District supervisor’s mantle was James Ramos, who was elected to the post in 2012 and then reelected to it in 2016. In 2018 Ramos successfully vied for the California Assembly in the 40th District. In seeking someone to serve out the two years remaining on Ramos’s term, the board of supervisors settled on Rowe. In so doing, it used a selection process that invited residents of the Third District who were registered to vote to apply, which attracted 48 qualified applicants. Without explaining or disclosing its criteria in doing so, the board then eliminated in one swoop 35 of the applicants, reducing the field to former Third District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, Republican Central Committee Chairwoman Jan Leja, Loma Linda Councilman Ron Dailey, former San Bernardino Councilman Tobin Brinker, Barstow Mayor Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, former Twentynine Palms Mayor James Bagley, former Yucca Valley Councilwoman Dawn Rowe, former Westlake Village Mayor Chris Mann, former Chino Councilman/current Big Bear Councilman William Jahn, then-San Bernardino Mayor Carey Davis, former Assemblyman/State Senator Bill Emmerson, former Congressional Candidate Sean Flynn and Loma Linda Mayor Rhodes Rigsby. Twelve of those 13 were Republicans, with Dailey being the only Democrat. That heightened the alarm level of several Democratic Party activists, who were already on alert to whatever powerplays the board – at that point dominated by Republicans Curt Hagman, Robert Lovingood and Janice Rutherford – were ready to pull off. After interviewing the 13 candidates they had initially selected, the supervisors then in private reduced the field to to five Republicans: Emmerson, Flynn, Jahn, Rigsby and Rowe. This was done without disclosing how the board had arrived at those five selections. This threw two Democratic party operatives, Ruth Musser-Lopez and Michael Gomez Daly into political DEFCON 1.
Musser-Lopez on the evening of December 11 fired off a letter to the board and County Counsel Michelle Blakemore through the clerk of the board, reiterating her objections in writing, and labeling it a “complaint.” In the letter, she asserted, “On December 10-11, 2018, you the members of the county board of supervisors in concert and individually violated the Ralph M. Brown Act specifically CA Gov. Code, § 54953.5 when you did cast preliminary votes secretly, without a process agreed upon by the public and without publicly disclosing the votes of the individual supervisors to the public.” She said that “the public was left out of the selection process, some applicants were not invited to address the board and were not allowed equal time, and due to the illegal polling, board members knew which applicants were ‘winning’ prior to their vote.” Musser-Lopez said this led to the board members “knowing in advance which applicants were preferred by the other members” and “wrongfully influencing their vote without public knowledge or intervention,” such that “a majority of the board” had been able to illegally “develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken” and had furthermore engaged in private communications with one another through the use of secret ballots that were tantamount to a “serial meeting,” which is also outlawed by the Brown Act, which is California’s open public meeting law.
Musser-Lopez demanded that the board of supervisors cure the violation by voiding the December 11 vote and voiding “any other serial votes by members of the board of supervisors on December 10 and 11, 2018 and that to be voted on December 13, 2018 pertaining to the selection of a replacement supervisor for the 3rd District.”
The letter panicked the board of supervisors into canceling the interviews of Emmerson, Flynn, Jahn, Rigsby and Rowe scheduled for the morning of December 13, 2018. The board did, however, reconvene on December 18, 2018, at which time it picked up where it had previously left off, and conducted second interviews with Emmerson, Flynn, Jahn, Rigsby and Rowe. That same day, Michael Gomez Daly, acting as the executive director of the Democratic Party-affiliated political advocacy group I.E. United, sent the board of supervisors a letter requesting that the board rescind its previous action and reinitiate the process by interviewing all of the candidates. The board carried on with the process over Daly’s objection.
At the prompting of the only Democrat on the board, Josie Gonzales, the board also consented to hearing from Chris Carrillo, Ramos’s one-time deputy chief of staff who had applied for the post and whom the board had overlooked previously and who had not been among the 13 originally interviewed. The process, which was heavily stacked in favor of Rowe from the outset, concluded after the interviews with the six were completed. Lovingood immediately nominated Rowe.
Bowing to the inevitable, and realizing that Rowe’s selection was unstoppable and that she would need to work with her future colleague going forward, Gonzales joined with the remainder of the panel to make Rowe’s appointment unanimous.
After Rowe’s elevation, both Musser-Lopez and Daly, in his capacity as the executive director of I.E. United, an entity affiliated with the Democratic Party, filed separate lawsuits, claiming the board had not corrected the violations of the Brown Act before proceeding with its selection of Rowe, had engaged in a secretive voting process including serial meetings in the bypassing of 35 of the candidates, and had conducted what was supposed to be an inherently public process behind closed doors.
Ultimately, the lawsuits were routed to the courtroom of Judge Janet Frangie, herself a Democrat. Both suits were eventually set for trial before Frangie, who subsequently ruled in favor of the county to dismiss Musser-Lopez’s suit for not being timely filed.
Daly’s suit, however, remained alive and after months of legal wrangling between the county’s office of county counsel and Daly’s lawyers, Frangie ruled in favor of Daly, concluding, “1) The process by which Dawn Rowe was selected to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors violated the Ralph M Brown Act. 2) Respondents failed to cure and correct their violations of the Brown Act. 3) The appointment of Dawn Rowe as Third District Supervisor is null and void. Respondents and each of them shall rescind the appointment of Dawn Rowe as Third District supervisor. Pursuant to [the] board’s charter, the appointment of the Third District supervisor shall be made by the governor.”
Governor Gavin Newsom is a Democrat.
The county appealed Judge Frangie’s ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.  In November, in response to requests that Rowe be barred from acting as supervisor while the appeal process is ongoing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal granted what in legal terms is called a “writ of supersedeas,” which imposed a stay on Judge Frangie’s finding that Rowe’s appointment was null and void as well as the resultant order that she be removed from office.
On Wednesday, January 8, the appellate court reversed its November decision that was permitting Rowe to continue in the role of supervisor.
The county then filed a petition with the Supreme Court on January 17, seeking clearance for Rowe to continue in the capacity of appointed supervisor while the appeal moves forward. Yesterday, Thursday, January 23, the California Supreme Court issued a directive that Judge Frangie’s order be placed on hold.
Thus, it appears that Rowe will yet hold, tenuously, the position of Third District supervisor when the March 3 election is held. This is of some consequence because the ballot describes her as the incumbent. If Judge Frangie’s ruling yet applied, Rowe’s political opponents would be able to assert, if she indeed prevails in March, that she was elected under false pretenses.
Rowe remaining in office holds further political significance. Upon assuming office, Rowe over the last week of 2018 and into January 2019 hired as her staff members three individuals – Suzette Swallow, Dillon Lesovsky and Matt Knox – who had been heavily involved in electioneering efforts for Republican candidates in the past. Word spread that Knox, as Rowe’s chief of staff, Lesovsky, as Rowe’s policy advisor, and Swallow, as Rowe’s communications director, were actually in place to ensure her election in 2020, as well as to work on behalf of other Republican candidates in the same election cycle, including Congressman Paul Cook, who is running for supervisor in the county’s First District, and 33rd District Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, who is running to replace Cook as Congressman in the 8th Congressional District. The status that Swallow, Lesovsky and Knox have as employees of Rowe’s office provides them with agency-to-agency privilege. Agency-to-agency privilege includes the free exchange of information between various levels of government, federal, state and local, often including information gleaned from law enforcement data bases. Such information can be useful for political operatives such as Swallow, Lesovsky and Knox in their political campaign work. While the sharing and use of such information for partisan political purposes is illegal, as is the use of government facilities and equipment, enforcement of those restrictions are difficult and highly unlikely given the power, autonomy and authority holders of elected office possess.
While the activity Swallow, Lesovsky and Knox are engaged in is known to the members of the board of supervisors as well as County Chief Executive Officer Gary McBride, Deputy Chief Executive Officer Leonard X. Hernandez, County Counel Mchelle Blakemore and other top county staff members, the will to counteract what is going on in that regard has yet to hit a critical level by which a move to stop it has taken place. Rowe’s prospect of prevailing in the supervisor’s race is a major factor discouraging county employees from taking action with regard to the matter.
There is nevertheless precedent in the county for law enforcement agencies stepping in to curtail such bold use of county facilities and governmental authority by powerful personages for electioneering purposes. In 2009, then-County Assessor Bill Postmus was arrested and eventually prosecuted for utilizing the assessor’s office for partisan political campaign efforts. Previous to being assessor, Postmus had been First District supervisor, including a two-year stint as the chairman of the board of supervisors. He was also the chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee.
-Mark Gutglueck

Castilleja exserta

The Teddy Boy style of the 50s had an Edwardian look to it. In British attire,  a teddy boy look was a teen way of dressing. Then  came rockers, mods and   punks. A little rebellious then, but today looking back, there was a lot of chic to it. Which brings me to teddy trend of today lately that being a  coat. Flamboyant? Yes, very, and neat too. So, if you’re ready to teddy up, try the coat of the moment. After all the weather has been cool enough. You can dress it up or down with slacks, denim, and sporty attire. The teddy coat comes in varied lengths for your personal preference. Interesting how the past has a lot of influence on the present. The thought of dressing has this thing about history repeating itself, and its what makes dressing up fun.  Fashion is fabulous when men strike a pose on the streets daring to be unique. There’s a lot more to happen with fashion in 2020 but for now teddy up.

“Yeah, I like causing trouble. It’s the teddy boy in me. I used to be a teddy boy.”  Michael Gambon