Blog View

From Angie via email: “Gabe was President/Chairman of the Mentone Chamber of Commerce for about 2 years and formerly the Vice President. He was also the President of Mentone Area Community Association for 9 years.

“Gabe was very involved in the Mentone Area and attended many San Bernardino County Supervisor meetings over the yaers, advocating for Mentone. He also attended LAFCO, and Redlands City Council meetings.

“He was very well known in the community because he also had the Thrift Shop at 1875 Mentone Blvd. for years. It was Mentone Beach Thrift store and Mentone Beach Ministries. He helped many of the less fortunate.

“Gabe was very active in the Adopt a Highway Program. He was always helpng to clean up the highway. He would be seen at the holidays putting up the Tumbleweed Snowman and Christmas Trees.

“Gabe and his wife Angie had a singing duo, The Versatile’s, and they entertained for the Mentone Senior Center for their parties, and also, at some of the local events.

“Gabe also supported the community at all eents both monetarily and as volunteer.

“He loved to see the events like the Chili Cookoff, Mentone Days, Casino Nights, and last year’s 134th Birthday Party for Mentone become yearly events. He was hoping for a Mentone Parade someday.

“Gabe was a great, helpful, and joyful person and will be missed in the community.

“Gabe was always looing for some younger community members to step up and take his lead for a safer, cleaner, and prosperous Community that benefits all.”

“The Mentone Chamber of Commerce and C.O.M.E.T. meetings will resume TUESDAY JANUARY 25th 7 p.m. at Mill Creek Cattle Company. The Vice President will fill in until we fill the vacancy.”

MM has just learned that Gabriel “Gabe” DeLaRosa, passed away on Friday, December 31, 2021, at 1:46p.m., surrounded by his family and friends, Angie DeLaRosa told MM in response to an e-mail.

He had been battling COVID and had been in the hospital until Wednesday and then was released to home.

Gabe was the president or chairman of in all three community organizations: MACA, the Chamber of Commerce and COMET, the last of which is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Redlands for taking over Mentone territory under circumstances that may render all or most annexations illegal, said COMET’s counsel.

Further details will be posted when received. So will the present status of the lawsuit.

“The City came out yesterday [Tuesday] and turned on the water,” said Raul Madrid, of MGM Construction, the developer who is assisting Perry and Sandy Karouzis with their project. Don Young, the manager of Redlands’ One Stop Permit Center, had promised the previous Thursday to have the padlock removed and the water turned back on. Another City employee had mistakenly thought that the tenant in the motorhome parked behind the building was stealing water, despite the presence of one of the City’s own temporary meters, and had padlocked it earlier in the week. The Karpouzis’ had paid $1200 to have the temporary meter installed before it was padlocked, Madrid informed MM.

The Karpouzis’ have been telling local residents that the restaurant might be open by early next year; they had received their County permit in 2009 but Redlands’ demanded fees in exchange for water service had prevented them from going forward until Madrid stepped in and negotiated the fees to install a replacement meter. The City initially charged $656,000, including a traffic study off and back onto Highway 38, but, after Madrid contacted them, came down to $64,000 and now $55,000. That amount admittedly includes $25,000 to benefit various other Redlands City departments, as well, Madrid said.

The City is also charging “frontage fees” for the Boulevard as well as the side street, Madrid added, despite the same fees probably having been paid decades ago when the previous meter was installed and piping brought right up to the building.

“The restaurant-to-be will have temporary water again: on the owner/developer’s behalf Madrid sent a sketch and argued with the City, adding that sometimes cars run over the standpipe or the metal is stolen, so the City will allow the temporary meter to be installed in the ground after all.

The next step is completion of construction and installation of a permanent meter, which will still cost $55,000. That consists of frontage fees for both streets (Ed.’s note: which were probably already paid decades ago, when the previous meter was installed), and for the City’s Development Impact Fees, which are calculated for the effect on Redlands’ infrastructure, Madrid added.

Not long after the City of Redlands issued a a temporary meter for installation and then they locked the water supply to the meter, so that Tom’s Burgers could continue construction and possibly open later this year, “Troy, the City’s construction supervisor, came and looked at my nice, neat box in the ground and approved it,” said Raul Madrid, who spoke with Troy. The temporary water meter was installed on the lateral, or pipe from the street, and the piping into the restaurant. “The City locked the temporary meter because they wanted a standpipe and a drawing of how the temporary service would look. I hadn’t provided the drawing; in building hundreds of homes in the Inland Empire, I’ve never had to submit a drawing for a temporary water connection, when the permanent meter will be in the box in the ground where the temporary meter previously was. The standpipe they want gets in the way of construction and can get damaged when the landscaping and paving are taking place.”

Perry Karpouzis, owner of the would-be restaurant on the Boulevard, began building the restaurant, sibling to Tom’s Burgers in Redlands, after obtaining his construction permit from the County in about 2009. During construction, he reported that the water meter, in place for decades for previous businesses and other buildings, was leaking. The City Water Department came and removed it, leaving the pipe from the street, and padlocking the on-off valve.

Redlands then imposed fees of $656,000 on Karpouzis, including a “traffic study” from and back to State Highway 38, also known as Mentone Boulevard, in order for him to obtain water service. On Karpouzis’ behalf, Madrid later got the city to come down to $55,000, as a fee to re-hook up the meter. He then showed the City that the pipe from the street was in place already, so that the $55,000 in fees should not apply. “Karpouzis had paid over $2500 to have the temporary meter hooked up,” Madrid advised.

Redlands has hooked up a new water meter on the property, through the efforts of Raul Madrid, who owns property, and has developed other property, in Mentone, “It’s a construction meter for now,” Madrid explained, “but it will be replaced with a regular meter when the building is finished and ready to use.” Madrid had spent the past two days completing the plumging to the building. He had shown City officials his photos of a stubbed-off “lateral” pipe from the street right up to the building’s main, as he had been telling Redlands for the past 2-3 years was present there . “The issue is re-hooking up the meter, as opposed to ‘new service’,” he continued.

In order for Perry Karpouzis, the owner/developer, to obtain water, Redlands was demanding “frontage fees” for both Mentone Boulevard and Turqouise and its 2009 estimate of fees was over $650,000,, some of it for a “traffic study” on Mentone Boulevard, State Highway 38. Madrid eventually got the City to come down to $64,000, then $55,000. However, Redlands had removed the previous, similar meter – present but unused for decades after the previous building was there – when Karpzouzis had told the City that the meter was leaking, while he was constructing the building. Now, with the proof of an existing “lateral” it is unclear how much Redlands will charge just to re-install a regular meter, as Karpouzis had requested.

Karpouzis had told locals that it might be next year before he opens the store; however, it now only lacks finishing the interior construction, hiring workers, etc., according to Madrid, who also encouraged Karpouzis to sign the “Pre-“Annexation “Agreement” in February; the “Agreement” was accepted by Redlands City Council in the past couple of weeks. “There is no provision in the law for ‘pre’ annexations,” COMET’s counsel objected. “That’s delineated in the Third Amended Complaint, filed on April 28, and we’re asking the Court to make that finding. Redlands’ and LAFCO’s attorneys have already stated their intention to challenge again the amended causes of action,” she added. MM

On February 26, the Honorable Donald Alvarez issued his ruling on Redlands’ and LAFCO’s demurrers (attempts to have COMET’s second amended Complaint thrown out). “The demurrers were identical,” COMET’s counsel stated, but his rulings were slightly different. ” Judge Alvarez’s “disposition,” or final summary as to the City held:

Sustain with leave to amend City’s demurer to the 1st (civil extortion) and 3rd (rescission/restitution) causes of action. “That means that we can add information to the Complaint in the form of a Third Amended Complaint,” said Joyce Rapp, COMET’s counsel for the lawsuit against Redlands. “These are some of the most important parts of the lawsuit,” she added.

Sustain without leave to amend City’s demurrer to the 4th (equitable estoppel), 6th (UC.L), 7th (injunctive relief), and 8th (reverse validation) causes of action. “We can’t amend these; they are thrown out,”she continued. “Some of these are duplicative of the ones he left in,” and were not as important as the ones he left in,” she added.

Overrule City’s demurrer to the 2nd (declaratory relief) and 5th (fraud) causes of action. “That means they stay in the lawsuit but don’t have to be rewritten, as the first and third causes of action do,” she added.

Grant City’s request for judicial notice in its entirety. That simply means that the judge looked at the documents the City filed.

Sustain City’s objection to COMET’s sur-reply. “That simply means that he wouldn’t consider the last document we filed. Judges usually do, and in this case Redlands added something after our opposition that we should have had an opportunity to refute, but didn’t,” Rapp continued.

Judge Alvarez’s decision was slightly different as to LAFCO:

Sustain with leave to amend LAFCO’s demurrer to the 1st (civil extortion) and 5th (fraud) causes of action.

Sustain without leave to amend LAFCO’s demurrer to the 3rd (rescission/restitution), 4th (equitable estoppel), 6th (UCL), 7th (injunctive relief) and 8th (reverse validation) causes of action.

Overrule LAFCO’s demurrer to the 2nd (declaratory relief) cause of action.

Sustain LAFCO’s objection to COMET’s sur-reply.

The only difference is that LAFCO does not need possibly to rescind annexation “agreements,” and restore the property Redlands took, Our next step is to rewrite the Second Amended Complaint and file it as the Third Amended Complaint, based on his findings in the decision, We’re still in the running!” she exclaimed.

COMET’s counsel received the ruling on March 11; it was sent out by the Court on March 8. “Ordinarily counsel has 30 days in which to prepare and file the next pleading,” she concluded.

This week’s Thursday/Friday rainstorm is expected to cause widespread flooding and mudslides, with evacuations possible in Mentone and adjacent areas which were involved in last summer’s wildfires, a Sheriff’s Department representative told the COMET/Chamber of Commerce members on the Tuesday night teleconference call. “Evacuations won’t be mandatory and residents can shelter in place,” she added.

Last week COMET’s counsel set up a GoFundMe page, called “SAVE MENTONE NOW!” and it seeks a modest $15,000 to retain or give a down payment for legal fees, in order to associate in bigger-name lawyers. “I’m an old lady, a solo practitioner, not well known in the courthouse, and up against a big name law firm. I don’t know how the Court will rule on Redlands’ and LAFCO’s demurrer,” [Ed.’s note: see previous article on the January 15 demurrer hearing] she said, “but I think a big name law firm might be more impressive and get us farther,” she told COMET/Chamber members attending Tuesday night’s teleconference.
COMET’s attorney for the lawsuit against Redlands is donating her professional time to research Redlands’ activities and prosecute the lawsuit and has donated most of her office supplies, all of her postage and gasoline to take documents to the courthouse in order to save COMET dipping into its meager funds. “If the court does not completely throw out COMET’s lawsuit, COMET will have to pay for publishing the Amended Summons in an adjudicated newspaper near Redlands, which will cost $200 for four weeks; that will have to come out of COMET’s funds,” she concluded. Fundraisers usually provide funds for COMET’s activities but they are currently on hold because of the pandemic.
Readers who can donate to the GoFundMe page in these difficult times encouraged, to do so. Additionally, everyone is invited to join the Chamber, at $25 per year, and COMET membership is included.

	C.O.M.E.T. (Community of Mentone Empowered Together") appeared  in Department S -23 of the San Bernardino on January 15, 2021 at the hearing on Demurrers filed by Defendants City of Redlands and San Bernardino Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCO”). "The demurrers challenge the sufficiency of C.O.M.E.T.’s Second Amended Complaint in writing filed with the court.  In other words, they are trying to get the case thrown out of court,” stated C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel for the case. “LAFCO’s demurrer is identical to the City’s, and both defendants are represented by the same law firm: Best, Best & Krieger,” even though I believe they have very different positions and roles,” she continued. “I pointed out what I consider the wrongful enmeshment of the two agencies.”  
	“The demurrer document argues that C.O.M.E.T. fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, on each of the eight causes of action,” C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel continued, “That means that not all of the ‘elements,’ or requirements, of each cause of action doesn’t have enough facts stated in them. However, I was careful to allege facts for each. The bottom line of what the Defendants have argued is that C.O.M.E.T. is ‘out of time’ because it didn’t sue within 60 days of each of the annexations. 
	“The judge’s several pages of notes that he referred to in the hearing indicated that he had read at least some of the documents but he asked counsel for each party to state the most important issues but not to re-argue the entire case. Redlands’ counsel stated that C.O.M.E.T. did not possess standing - "the 'right to sue'," she continued.  C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel countered with the fact that the annexation “agreement” is binding on all “successors in interest,” such as homeowners or business owners that purchase from the developers, who would be required to comply with the annexation "Agreements."  C.O.M.E.T., representing all residents and property owners, thus steps into the developers’ shoes, its counsel argued.  
	Redlands next argued that C.O.M.E.T. was “not injured” by the forced annexations into Redlands’ city limits. C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel countered that Mentone has lost a lot of territory so it has definitely been injured.  Redlands also argued that the “reverse validation” action was too late, going back to 1956. “This was Mentone territory going up Wabash, across the top of Mentone and way out Mill Creek; the newspaper at the time called it Redlands' ‘East Lugonia’ annexation,” says C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel. She countered that Mentonites would have to know of the annexations before challenging them.  Redlands also mentioned “excusable neglect” as a means of relief from the statute prohibiting C.O.M.E.T.’s  case but C.O.M.E.T. argued that it would not be locked into that one of four possible methods of relief from late claims, with “surprise” being more applicable. Redlands’ last argument was that C.O.M.E.T. had not complied with the claims process before filing suit. C.O.M.E.T. countered that it had complied with the claims process. 
	LAFCO was then invited to argue under the same terms: it argued that C.O.M.E.T. had not complied with the claims process; C.O.M.E.T. replied that it was not aware that LAFCO had a claims process. “This is the first time LAFCO has raised that question; it actually just adopted Redlands’ position and it’s likely LAFCOs counsel was confused,” said C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel. LAFCO also argued that it was not a party to the annexation “Agreements,” that the Reverse Validation cause of action was untimely and the “when and how” of the complained-of events were not given. C.O.M.E.T. countered that LAFCO approved the wrongful “Agreements,” that the “timeliness” was already explained and that the Second Amended Complaint, which the Demurrers challenge, contained the “why and how.”   
	The Honorable Donald Alvarez stated he would issue a written decision. “Judges do that in complicated cases such as ours and also when they don’t want counsel arguing against their decision when it is announced in the hearing,” C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel concluded. 
	Readers wishing to view the actual documents are invited to ask mentonematters@aol.com and the actual documents will be forwarded to them by e-mail. 
MM