In a unanimous vote that overrode multiple restrictions placed on residential development projects by the city’s voters in 1997, the Redlands City Council at its December 17 meeting approved a 3.15-acre project at the northeast corner of Stuart Avenue and Eureka Street.
Despite a degree of controversy relating to the intensity and nature of the proposed project, there was no protest mounted with regard to the apartment project due to, some observers said, the oxygen having been sucked out of the council chamber as a consequence of the contretemps relating to the selection of the mayor earlier in the evening.
The project was approved Tuesday, Dec. 17, without comments from the council or the public.
The site is vacant other than a transformer on the southeast area of the land, a city report states.
The project, put forth by developer Property One, LLC, called for a four-story apartment complex with 85 units together with 7,686-square-feet of commercial space.
The project is to include two parking garages and 53 off-street parking spaces and a community room. Given that slightly less than two-thirds of the project’s footprint is devoted to residential use, the maximum permissible density under Measure U would be roughly 54 to 57 apartment units. The maximum permissible height under Measure U would be two stories.
Not only did the project’s density meet the absolute limitation with regard to units per acre when the number of units were divided into the size of the property without taking into consideration that the land would also accommodate a mercantile component and parking facilities, the height of the buildings likewise topped out at the maximum threshold without considering any roof add-ons. Continue reading →

Jeff Burum’s National Core was a whisker away from being brought in to take over from Related California the assignment of establishing “low cost” senior citizen apartments in Chino Hills.
Despite the Chino Hills City Council placing faith in Related California ten months ago as the developer of a senior citizen – in which the residents were to be age 55 or older – apartment project, a majority of the council has concluded that the staff with the company either does not share the vision of the company’s owner or is wrongheadedly seeking too many compromises from the city. It accordingly rethought the commitment and has now given the highly favorable contract for the project to one of three other companies that competed to be used for project construction.
What was touted as a 50-unit senior citizen apartments project fully devoted to being “affordable” to those living there was proposed for construction on the 2.43 acres at the southwest corner of Peyton Drive and Eucalyptus Avenue by the City of Chino Hills. City officials invited home/apartment builders to submit competing bids/proposals, based upon the understanding that they would need to deliver a final product that would have with 50 percent of the units – 25 – occupied by those whose monetary availability qualified them as “low income” citizens, and the other and 50 percent of the units – 25 – for “very-low income” residents.
Chino Hills city fathers resolved during the general plan hearing process two years ago, to have the site converted to high density housing, along with several other properties, in order to comply with demands from the State of California and its Department of Housing and Community Development that it meet California’s affordable housing mandates, as laid out in the regional housing needs assessment. In the currently applicable housing needs assessment for Chino Hills, the city is under the gun to allow, during an eight year period running from 2021 to 2029, the development of 3,729 total units, which are to include 694 units for extremely low income individuals making 30 percent of the annual median income for the region; 694 units for very low income individuals making 50 percent of the annual median income for the region; 821 units for low income individuals making 50-to-80 percent of the annual median income for the region; 789 units for moderate income individuals making 80-to-120 percent of the annual median income for the region; and 731 units for above moderate income individuals making more than 10 percent of the annual median income for the region. Continue reading →

Having impoverished residents has paid off for the City of Fontana. Toning down the Republican rhetoric that four of the city’s top elected leadership are prone to did not hurt either.
The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded the City of Fontana a $19,808,986 grant Safe Streets and Roads for All Program grant.
In 2021, the Joseph Biden administration passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, in so doing launching the Safe Streets and Roads for All discretionary funding program with $5 billion in appropriated funds to be distributed over the five years running from 2022–2026. A commitment involved in the program is that 60 percent of the money is to be used for improving standards for underserved populations by funding community-led projects intended to reduce the number of preventable deaths on roads, streets, and highways in the United States through safer designs and standards.
As delineated in the application for the grant, the funding is to be used for substantial improvements to the portion of historic Route 66 running through the city. In Fontana, Route 66 is known as Foothill Boulevard.
Officials are hopeful that after six months of preparation, construction will begin in July 2025 and be completed by June 2026.
Enhancing safety for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians who routinely utilize Foothill Boulevard was deemed worthwhile, given that city statistics show eight vehicle-related fatalities along that stretch of highway in Fontana since the beginning of 2019. Continue reading →

FBN20240010185
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
MS. SEXY BOSSLADY INDIGO 154 W. FOOTHILL BLVD SUIT A # 345 UPLAND, CA 91786: DEBRA A HUNT
Business Mailing Address: 154 W. FOOTHILL BLVD SUIT A # 345 UPLAND, CA 91786
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUGUST 15, 2024
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ DEBRA A HUNT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/05/2024
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy J7527
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on November 29 and December 6, 13 & 20, 2024.

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) 24PSCV02195
NOTICE TO ASHLEY BUSTAMONTE, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1-100, inclusive
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
THOMAS ANDREWS, an individual.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
POMONA COURTHOUS SOUTH 400 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA POMONA, CA 91766
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante es):
JASMINE MOTAZEDI, JM LAW FIRM, APC; 23586 CALABASAS RD., SUITE 204, CALABASAS, CA 91302, (818) 574-8186
DATE (Fecha): 17/08/2024
Clerk (Secretario), by A. GREER
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on: 11/29/2024, 12/06/2024, 12/13/2024 & 12/20/2024.

Continue reading →

A hopeful early effort by San Bernardino Mayor Helen Tran to install Rochelle Clayton as city manager just a day after the three new members of the city council were seated fell through when a crucial fifth vote to do so did not materialize on Thursday.
In the initial weeks of her employment with San Bernardino, Clayton experienced a mercurial rise, as she was promoted to the acting city manager’s post less than six weeks after she began with the city.
Clayton, who had worked 17 years in the finance department with San Bernardino County and later held the positions of finance director with the City of La Habra Heights, chief financial officer for both the High Desert Water District in Yucca Valley and the West Valley Water District in Rialto, administrative services director and deputy city manager with Banning before she became assistant city manager in Menifee, had been hired by then-City Manager Charles Montoya to serve as one of his primary assistants in the role of deputy city manager, beginning on April 15, 2024. Montoya, however, was by that point on unsteady footing in San Bernardino, six months after his October 2023 hiring. When the mayor and city council pulled the plug on Montoya, agreeing to confer on him a severance pay out equal to his $325,000 per year salary on May 22, they elevated Clayton into the role of the city’s acting, or interim, top administrator on a 5-to-3 vote that same evening.
The initial plan was to carry out an executive search/recruitment to find a replacement for Montoya and that Clayton would hold down the fort until someone acceptable to the mayor and a majority of the city council was found. Continue reading →

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors this week appropriated $8 million to be at the ready to cover the cost of non-competitive purchase orders, as needed, to be paid to 21 identified vendors providing maintenance of, parts to, and repair of the sheriff’s department’s aviation fleet from January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028.
The earmarked money included half of a million dollars that will be added to the $2 million already laid out for aircraft services being provided by the 21 vendors in the current 2024-25 fiscal year and $2.5 million to go to or potentially go to the vendors in each of the following three years, i.e., 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28. Continue reading →