“After years of analysis and public engagement, the Countywide Plan has reached an important milestone. The final documents suitable for use and consideration in public hearings have been released. These documents were reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020.
“Visit the Library section of the Countywide Plan for links to download all of these documents (2020 Public Hearing Draft Documents). Read below for more information and individual links.
“Final Environmental Documents
Draft Policy Plan
Draft Business Plan – Governance Element & Implementation Plan
Community Action Guides
“ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The County received dozens of substantive comments on the Draft EIR released in June 2019. These comments were carefully reviewed[;] additional analysis was conducted to ensure the County could respond appropriately. The Final EIR contains copies of the public comments, the County’s responses, and a description of the corrections/changes to the Draft EIR.
“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires that when making findings regarding significant impacts, the County adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
“Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (FOF/SOC). CEQA requires the County to adopt Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it chooses to approve a project that may result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
“[Put the following in your search bar”] http://countywideplan.com/home/library/ to access the FEIR, MMRP, and FOF/SOC.
“POLICY PLAN
Draft Policy Plan. Released earlier in July, the Draft Policy Plan was updated based on public input and recommendations from community and agency stakeholders to strengthen policies on environmental justice and fire design and safety.
Put the following in your search bar: http://countywideplan.com/policy-plan to access the revised Draft Policy Plan.
“BUSINESS PLAN
The Business Plan directs the integration of Countywide Plan goals, policies, and actions into the way the County operates and develops its budget. The Business Plan consists of a policy-based governance element and an action-oriented implementation plan, and two new implementation tools: a tracking and feedback system and fiscal analysis model. While the implementation tools will be finalized during the first year after adoption, the County has developed its Draft Governance Element and Draft Implementation Plan.
“Draft Governance Element. The Governance Element attempts to capture and preserve the existing way in which the County provides consistent, transparent, effective, and accountable governance for future leaders and the public. The Governance Element lays the foundation for County leadership, decision-making, and operational processes.
“Draft Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan identifies the key next steps (immediate, short-term, and mid-term) the County needs to take to implement the various aspects of the Countywide Plan. The actions include initiatives by the County as well as decisions that involve public and private development projects, investments, and programs.
Put the following in your search bar: http://countywideplan.com/business-plan/ to download the Draft Governance Element and Draft Implementation Plan.
COMMUNITY ACTION GUIDES
The County released revised drafts of the Community Action Guides (CAGs) in early 2019. For all but four communities, the 2019 Draft remains unchanged and is the version that will be submitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Minor changes were made to four CAGs based on continued input from community members: Lucerne Valley, Newberry Springs, Pioneertown, and Mountain (the latter is a fundamental plan covering Forest Falls and Mountain Home Village). For these four communities, the 2020 Draft represents the latest version.
Put the following in your search bar: http://countywideplan.com/cp/ to access the latest Community Action Guides.

Scott Ward, representative of the County Board of Supervisors, told the phone-in Chamber of Commerce meeting on Tuesday night that the 107-year-old charter is being remodeled, aka “Measure Q.” Following is the Ordinance:

.

The public are invited to make their comments about the proposed changes prior to the election. Following is the attachment A to the Ordinance, stating what change is being made. Interested readers may access information and see present public comments at https://wp.sbcounty.gov/cao/countywire/?p=7968.

MM

MM just received this from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association:

“Disappointing Decision
“The Third District Court of Appeal has issued its decision in our “fire tax” case. The short, unpublished decision affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of our case.

“As you know, HJTA successfully lobbied the State Legislature and Governor to cease collecting the fire prevention fee. However, we were pursuing refunds through a class action.

“Class actions are typically classified as “complex” litigation and not subject to the deadlines applicable to “fast track” cases. Nevertheless, after our case was fully briefed and ready for trial, the Attorney General moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the hearing (which was delayed due to the court’s own backlog) was scheduled after the trial deadline for fast track cases.

“We objected on the grounds that the deadline did not apply to our case and, in any event, it would be an abuse of discretion to dismiss a case that was fully briefed and ready for decision. The trial court rejected our defense. The Court of Appeal has now upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

“We are sad that this is the end of the road for our efforts to obtain refunds. While justice is supposed to be blind, we can’t help wondering whether the Court of Appeal was influenced by the current record-breaking fires in its own district, and the overwhelming cost of fighting them at a time when the State is suffering a budget deficit due to COVID-19.

“Some of HJTA’s employees live in places that were evacuated during the current fires. We know firsthand that fire prevention benefits everyone, not just those who live in unincorporated areas. That is why HJTA continues to fight governmental attempts to single out certain politically vulnerable groups to bear an undue share of the cost of fire services. The cost of fire services should be equally borne by all taxpayers, because all benefit.

“Thank you for your continued support of HJTA.

Sincerely,
Jon Coupal”

Shortly after the pandemic and lockdown began, the San Bernardino Superior Courthouse was shut down for a few weeks, said COMET’s counsel, who then had an opportunity to do some more research on the history of Redlands’ takeover of Mentone territory.
Based on her research, at a status hearing after the courthouse reopened weeks later, COMET’s counsel brought up the subject of adding to the First Amended Complaint. Since the defendants, Redlands City and LAFCO (Local Area Formation Commission) had not yet filed a Response to the Complaint, all COMET’s counsel was required to do was to obtain opposing counsels’ agreement to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, she added.
Beginning in mid-June, COMET’s counsel sought that agreement; the City of Redlands added a little to the proposed written Stipulation (agreement) but LAFCO’s counsel did not respond to COMET’s or Redlands’ counsel’s e-mails. Utilizing another e-mail address, COMET’s counsel finally obtained opposing counsel’s agreement, then submitted it and the proposed Second Amended Complaint to the court clerk.
The clerk’s office is operating differently now: documents are merely dropped off and the filing party then has to wait to see if it will be filed or rejected, rather than obtaining an opinion as to its file-ability right then and there. said COMET’s counsel.
The documents were then sent back for corrections that could have been made in person. COMET’s counsel resubmitted it; part of it was sent back again and COMET’s counsel dropped it off at the courthouse a third time.
On August 24, according to court records, COMET’s counsel says online court records show that the Court granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, to which the response is due 30 days after it was filed. However, the Amended Summons, which goes with the Complaint to new parties, has not been “issued: or returned to her for serving new parties, COMET’s counsel concluded. The proposed Second Amended Complaint basically concerns Redlands’ demand for annexation of Mentone territory in exchange for providing it with water that it takes from under Mentone and the River; and “Development Impact Fees” for Redlands’ own buildings and departments that don’t impact or benefit Mentone, COMET’s counsel concluded.

Interested readers may track the progress of the case by accessing the Court’s website. For instructions e-mail mentonematters@aol.com. For interestedreaders, the full Statement of Facts of the Second Amended Complaint are included below:

“In 1887, property owners Marlette, McIntosh and Hubbard filed their map of Mentone, which included Mentone territory west to Pearl Avenue and south to Brockton. COMET is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that in or about 1888, Redlands annexed ‘Lugonia,’ which was located west of present-day University Avenue in Redlands; however, as part of said annexation Redlands also took Mentone’s territory east of Pearl and north of Brockton, without justification or authority. COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that, according to the ‘Stretch Map of Mentone,’ Mentone’s territory also properly included the land from the east side of Wabash (formerly Emerald) Avenue on the west; north to the border with what is now the City of Highland; east to the eastern edge of Parcel 3, Map Book 168, page 36; and south along Wabash, to the point of beginning south of Mentone.

“In 1888, Redlands’ incorporation boundaries were: beginning at the west side of Wabash Avenue, where it intersects the Santa Ana Riverbed; south along Wabash to Smiley Park, including those certain blocks which actually belonged in Mentone territory; west to its border with the City of San Bernardino; north to the Santa Ana River; and east along the River to the point of beginning.

“However, in 1904, Redlands residents voted to exclude a portion of its city limits, beginning at the midpoint of Section 13, continuing through Sections 14 and 15, north through a portion of Section 16 to the Riverbed, and following the Riverbed to the point of beginning, thus rendering said north line of city limits further south than it formerly was. The reason for the exclusion is unknown to COMET, as is the width of said exclusion and, therefore, the post-1904 latitude of said north line of city limits is also unknown to COMET.
Illegal Annexations of Mentone Territory
Annexation No. 4:

“Effective September 22, 1951, Government Code §35302 had provided: ‘The boundaries of a city may be altered and contiguous uninhabited territory annexed to, and incorporated within it, pursuant to this article.’ Government Code §35104 provided:’To qualify for annexation, new territory shall be contiguous to: (a) The city. . . .’ And Government Code, §35002.5 provided: ‘Territory shall not be deemed contiguous as the word “contiguous” is used in this chapter if the only contiguity is based on a strip of land over 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide, exclusive of highways.’ [Emphasis is added.] Accord, Public Resources Code §5572.

“In 1955 Redlands’ City Council announced that the Mentone territory that it planned to annex was ‘its East Lugonia’ property. In 1956, Redlands voted Annexation No. 4, which took a considerable portion of Mentone territory, as more fully set forth hereinbelow.

“However, COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that said Annexation No. 4 began north of the north line of Redlands’ city limits; thus, the area annexed was not contiguous to Redlands’ north line.

“Additionally, the 1958 Parcel map at Map Book 168, page 31, shows a gap between the end of Wabash Avenue and the beginning of the annexed property. Therefore, COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Annexation No. 4 was further not contiguous to Redlands’ city limits, violated Government Code §§35302 and 35002.5 and was therefore further void.

“Annexation No. 4 then returned ‘Easterly along the North line of said Section 13, 200 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section 13,’ the only point of connection being the corner of parcel 9 and (Mentone’s) parcel 2, which has been held in case law not to constitute contiguity and therefore said Annexation was further void.

“Annexation No. 4 continued eastward through the middle of Mentone’s Section 7, parcels 5 and 6 on Map Book 168, page 31, and down the other side, enclosing those portions. However, said Annexation No. 4 being void, the involved portion of the Redlands airport, including its 1973 eastward expansion through said Mentone’s Section 7, parcels 5 and 6, Map Book 168, page 31, also was not properly included in Redlands’ city limits, is void and belongs, instead, in Mentone territory.

“The Annexation No. 4 continued eastward, in a narrow strip (hereinafter ‘the Strip’), consisting of parcels 4 and 2, Map Book 168, page 31, which connects with Map Book 168, page 32. Said parcel map reports the Strip to be 200′ in width and shows it to be more than 300′ long. However, COMET is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that the Strip through Mentone’s Section 7 was not actually 200′ wide because Highland’s latitude actually veers southward along said Strip, whereas Redlands’ filed parcel maps show it to be straight. Thus, somewhere beginning at its connection with parcel 9, to where said strip abuts Map Book 168, page 32, the Annexation again violates G.C. §§35302 and 35002.5. Said strip is therefore also void.

“The Annexation continued eastward, sometimes adjacent to Mill Creek Road, still in Mentone territory.

“Moreover, the Annexation utilized parcel 4, Map Book 168, page 36, to connect Parcel 8 on Map Book 168, page 35, with parcel 1 on Map Book 168, page 36. However, parcel 4 is shown not to be 200′ wide on said map, and is more than 428′ long. It thus violates G.C. §§35302 and 35002.5 as not satisfying the contiguity requirements, and is void.

“The Annexation attempted to cure the non-contiguity of the corners of parcels 9 and 2 thereof, when the Annexation continued ‘thence westerly along the North line of the South half of Section 13, Township 1 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, 200 feet to the point of beginning,’ across Mentone’s Section 18. However, the non-contiguity was not cured because the Annexation was already illegal. Moreover, that strip was approximately one mile long and thus more than the 300 feet allowed.

“COMET is further informed, believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands’ proposed annexation map, which it submitted to the Boundary Commission, did not contain all of the properties it actually annexed.

“Therefore, Annexation No. 4, and each stated violating portion thereof, was void and cannot be ratified.

“Moreover, Government Code section 35104 provided at the time, in pertinent part: ‘To qualify for annexation, new territory shall be contiguous to: . . . (b) Contiguous territory where the electors have voted for annexation to the city.’ COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the Redlands City Council stated that only one house existed in the wrongfully-annexed Mentone territory; however, COMET is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that more than one house existed at that time and that some property owners may not have been notified of the proposed annexation and given the opportunity to vote thereon. Therefore, Annexation No. 4 further violated the Government Code and is again void.

“COMET is also informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands later used parcel 41, Map Book 302, page 14, which is separated from the rest of the annexation by parcels 25 and 44, to connect the entire property on Map Book 302, page 17 with the City of Redlands. However, parcel 41 is only 100′ wide and some 2500 feet long. It thus violates G.C. §§ 35302 and 35002.5, illegally connecting the entire territory it purported to annex and is void.

“Therefore, Annexation No. 4 and the succeeding annexations were void. Nevertheless, said Annexation No. 4 was approved by the Boundary Commission, succeeded by LAFCO, which approved the later purportedly contiguous annexations; LAFCO possesses the statutory power to, and should, detach the territory illegally taken in said annexations and return it to Mentone.

Later, Demanded Annexations in Exchange for Water and Sewer

“Mentone is totally dependent on Redlands for its water and sewer services: over the years, Redlands purchased all of the water companies located in Mentone’s territory; additionally, it takes the Mill Creek and Santa Ana River water a mile above Mentone’s former diversion point. The Bear Valley Water District only provides non-potable water, suitable for agriculture so Mentone cannot obtain drinkable water from that agency.

“In or about the 1970s, LAFCO placed Mentone in Redlands’ ‘sphere of influence.’

“At all times since acquiring Mentone’s water companies, Redlands had provided the requested water service to existing and new customers outside its borders, with the only requirement that the recipients pay for the reasonable costs of connection thereof and its water and sewer services.

Measure U Violated Extant California Law:

“Moreover, Supreme Court decisions, as early as 1915 and again after the Legislature’s enactment of Government Code §56133, require a city which purchases a private water company to continue to provide said water service to all existing customers and any that might move into the area. Redlands wrongfully demands annexation of properties in exchange for water and sewer services.

“However, in 1996 Redlands enacted an ordinance, and in 1997 Redlands voters enacted its ‘slow-growth’/ Measure U, (hereinafter ‘Measure U’), incorporated in its general plan, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: ‘1A.20 PRINCIPLE TWO – . . . (a) Development Agreements- All development agreements entered into by the City and developers pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq., after the Effective Date of this initiative measure as defined in Section 3 hereof, shall conform to the policies contained in The City General Plan. (b) Extension of Public Utilities Outside the City Limits- No extension of City-provided utility services to areas outside the City limits shall occur until such areas are properly annexed to the City, except that utility services may be extended to areas outside the City limits without prior annexation if all of the following conditions are met:
‘1. The area to be served is not contiguous to the City of Redlands; and,
‘2. The City and the land owner have entered into a properly recorded and binding pre-annexation agreement establishing covenants running with the land that assure full compliance with all development standards of the City of Redlands, payment of all capital improvement and other development fees which would be applicable to the property if it were within the City limits at the time of extension of such services, and immediate processing of annexation to the City at the City’s request; and,
‘3. The land owner agrees as a condition of extension of utility facilities to serve the proposed development to pay the full cost of such extension of such utility facilities.’

“By said (b)1, Redlands intends ‘leapfrog’ annexations, which are not contiguous, violate the Williamson Act when the property is agricultural, and other case law and are therefore illegal.

“Demanded annexation is also extortionate, in violation of Penal Code §§ 518 and 519, et seq., as extended by case law, by inducing fear of unlawful injury to one’s property from lack of water and sewer services, without which the property cannot be utilized or sold for any purpose other than agriculture – but only if non-potable water is available.

“Moreover, unlike other such situations, Redlands is not required to extend water piping outside its borders because such piping has been in place in Mentone since each of the portions thereof was developed, most prior to 1997.

“ ‘Pre-‘annexations are Unauthorized by Law:

“As to No. (b)2 above, ‘pre-annexations’ are not allowed by G.C. §56741:
‘. . . Unless otherwise provided in this division, territory may not be annexed to a city unless it is contiguous to the city at the time the proposal is initiated pursuant to this part.’ No exceptions to said §56741 pertain to Mentone. Thus, section (b)2 is void; all of Redlands’ ‘pre-annexations’ are illegal, void and cannot be completed or must be reversed.

“Thus, the law does not require annexation or ‘pre-annexation,” and Mentone property owners and residents do not anticipate nor wish annexation into Redlands. Indeed, but for Redlands’ actions Mentone property owners would have other options: detach from Redlands’s Sphere of Influence through LAFCO, then incorporate as a city; form their own special district; or dig a well; however, most property owners do not possess the capability to do the latter, in that it must be dug at least 150 feet from the nearest septic system. Additionally, ‘pre-annexations’ likewise violate the law.

“All of Redlands’ said acts have deprived it of territory and potential revenue, should it incorporate and have otherwise impeded Mentone’s commercial- and other progress.
Violations of Mentonites’ Right to Vote:

“Pursuant to Government Code §§57075, et seq., Mentone property owners legally possess the right to vote whether or not they wish their non-contiguous property to be included within Redlands’ city limits, within a statutory time after LAFCO’s approval. Redlands bypasses Mentone’s options and rights by demanding such annexation ‘agreements’ without Mentonites’ votes: Redlands’ demanded annexations or pre-annexations have created islands of less than 150 acres, which it then would annex to itself, a process known as ‘piecemealing.’ Mentonites, then, have no votes against such process.

“Redlands’ demand to annex Mentone territory is a taking, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution, under economic duress.

“Such demand also discriminates against Mentone, in violating California Civil Code §§51(b) and 51.7(b) through (c)( 1)-(4).

Redlands has No ‘Right to Vote’ on Annexations:

“In contrast to Redlands’ Measure U demand, California Supreme Court case law holds that the receiving city holds no voting right over annexation to its city limits, that, instead, only the area to be annexed possesses the right to vote thereon. And annexation elsewhere is usually requested by the property owner or unincorporated territory, not demanded by the city which provides the utility services.
The Illegal Annexation Written “Agreement”:

“Without the property developer acceding to the demanded annexation or “pre-annexation” of their Mentone properties in a written ‘Agreement,’ Redlands will not provide water to Mentone that comes free from under its streets and the Santa Ana River, nor – where available – sewer services to Mentone.

“Additionally, Redlands’ ‘Agreement’ overreaches in its provisions such that, even if the property is not yet located within the City limits and may never be so located, developers are required to (A) pay City taxes and assessments as though the property were already within the city limits; such costs, although paid by the developer, are passed along to future owners in the for of higher property costs and therefore higher property taxes. B) Develop the property in accordance with Redlands’ General Plan and the development standards of its Municipal Code, which may or may not approve Mentonites’ preferred “Western” style. C) ‘Agree’ not to challenge annexation when Redlands is contiguous thereto. D) Hold the City harmless for any and all damages arising out of the development, even if the City supplied the plans. E) Indemnify Redlands from any and all lawsuits on the ‘Agreement,’ including third party challenges thereto. F) Waive any claims pursuant to Civil Code §1542. H) Bind all successors in interest, assigns, heirs and executors, even though they may not agree to the property being included in Redlands’ city limits. G) Agree that any ambiguities not be resolved against the drafter of the Agreement. And H) Agree that the City Attorney’s fees include in-house counsel fees, which is unsupported by California law. All are required to be ‘agreed’ to before Redlands will provide water and sewer services and the costs thereof are passed along to subsequent property owners.
No Statute of Limitations:

“COMET is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges that, because all said annexations or ‘pre-annexations’ were void ab initio, no statute of limitations applies to challenge to Annexation No. 4 or any of the subsequent annexations or ‘pre-annexations.’ However, these allegations are brought within three years of COMET’s discovery of Redlands’ said fraudulent Annexations.

Removal from Sphere of Influence:

“Redlands City officials have publicly stated their intention to take over Mentone. Thus, Mentone needs Redlands’ agreement to detach from its sphere of influence and Mentonites are informed and believe that Redlands would not agree thereto, nor cooperate with, said detachment absent an order of this Court. Thus, COMET needs said Order.
LAFCO’s Role:

“Moreover, Government Code §56133, enacted in 1994, reads in pertinent part: ‘(a) A city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first requests and receives written approval from the commission.’ However, its subsection reads: (e) This section does not apply to any of the following: . . .(4) An extended service that a city or district was providing on or before January 1, 2001.’ Redlands is not required to extend service beyond the previous boundaries: the pipes, etc., located in Mentone have been in place for decades, some more than 100 years and Redlands has been providing water – and, in some places sewer – services for at least that long. Thus, LAFCO may not have jurisdiction over Redlands’ continued provision of utility services to Mentone and is exercising its supervision wrongfully.

“Government Code §56375(a)(6) authorizes LAFCO to inquire about annexation but not to interfere in the relationship between a utility agency and the recipient of that agency’s services by requiring annexation.

“San Bernardino County LAFCO’s Application for Utility Services form inquires about whether annexation is contemplated but properly does not require annexation; nor, properly, does it required a copy of the aforementioned Annexation ‘Agreement’ in its list of documents to be provided to it. However, at the March 20, 2019 regularly-scheduled meeting, its members opined that Mentone will be absorbed into Redlands, thus supporting Redlands’ said extortionate and illegal activity and overstepping LAFCO’s boundaries of its legislated ministerial-only duties.

“Further, Government Code §56375(a)(6) provides ‘A commission shall not impose any conditions that would directly regular . . .property development or subdivision requirements.’ Nevertheless, LAFCO has approved and ratified Redlands’ submissions, which were based on said forced ‘Agreements’ and other acts set forth herein, over Mentonites’ objections, and although its application process does not require annexation.

“Plaintiffs need this Court’s order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Redlands from further enforcing said ‘Agreements,’ or any other such demands, including said provisions of its Measure U, and also enjoining any of LAFCO’s further approval of said provisions or annexations.

“By its illegal annexations, Redlands now surrounds Mentone on 3.5 sides. All of Redlands’ annexation of Mentone territory have been illegal and the territory must be returned to Mentone.

“State law encourages water companies to consolidate. If Redlands did so, it would not be able to extort annexation to itself in exchange for water and sewer services. Redlands’ water department is not governed by the California Public Utilities Commission and plaintiffs are informed and believe that Redlands is not willing to join in the consolidation of water companies, with oversight by others. Thus, Plaintiffs have no recourse, other than to this Court, in order to protect their rights to water without Redlands’ extortionate demands. This Court should and is requested to order Redlands’ water department to consolidate with the water companies in the area.

“REDLANDS’ DEMANDED ‘DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES’
No ‘Reasonable Relationship’ for Services It Does not Provide:

“Government Code §§66001 provides that ‘(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall do all of the following: (1) Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. . . (3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.’

“Redlands’ ‘Development Impact Fees’ (hereinafter ‘DIFs’) greatly exceed the actual costs to Redlands. Thus, there is no “reasonable relationship” between the fees imposed and the actual impact on its infrastructure.

“Further, Redlands demands payment of DIFs for its own police, fire, parks, library and other services that it does not provide to Mentone but which are instead provided by the County. Redlands’ Annexation ‘Agreement’ also demands that developers agree to pay for those services, which are actually provided by the County; said fees thus subject Mentone to double fees. Said required fees violate Government Code §§66001, 66013 and other Government Code sections; all such fees should be ordered reimbursed to the developer or present owner of the property on which they were paid.

“ ‘Capacity Charges’ Are Not Necessary for Service to Mentone Properties:

“Government Code Section 66013 also provides: (a) . . . (3) ‘Capacity charge’ means a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged. . . A ‘capacity charge’ does not include a commodity charge. . . and (5) ‘Fee’ means a fee for the physical facilities necessary to make a water connection or sewer connection, including, but not limited to, meters, meter boxes, and pipelines from the structure or project to a water distribution line or sewer main, and the estimated reasonable cost of labor and materials for installation of those facilities bears a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the water connection or sewer connection.”

“Redlands charges a fee to re-install an existing meter and re-initiate water service, in excess of $64,000.00 on one property, alone, in violation of the mitigation Fee Act, said Government Code sections. Said Mentone property has stood unopened since 2009, when the developer obtained his County permit, because of the excessive fees Redlands has imposed.

“COMET is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands has imposed such exorbitant DIFs in order to discourage the competition of that store with similar stores in Redlands, from which Redlands receives sales- and property taxes.
Said Fees are Illegal:

“Despite the above, Redlands has misrepresented that said annexation and fees were authorized or actually required by law, besides its own ordinance that violates existing case and code authorities.

“COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands routinely waives thousands of dollars in fees for its organizations who wish to hold events inside its borders, thus losing that income and that Redlands intends to make up the shortfall in its government from DIFs on Mentone properties, approved by LAFCO.
Disparate Amounts of Fees Charged:

“COMET is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands has imposed higher fees to Mentone property developers than to other Mentone property owners or for new Redlands developments, for its own purposes and based on no demonstrable rationale.

“COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that all of Redlands’ said DIFs impede Mentone’s commercial and other development, further depriving it of revenue should it wish to incorporate.

Voting for Said Excessive Fees:

“Further, Government Code §66013 requires ‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.’

“COMET is informed and believes and alleges that Redlands electors have not voted on said excess charges or fees but that they are assessed in any amount the City chooses, depending on the developer or property.

“Further, Mentonites do not have the opportunity to vote on such fees imposed on their properties, which are paid by developers in order to obtain water and sewer, and passed along to the future owners thereof.
Water Charges:

“COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands has charged and charges Mentone customers more for water than it charges Redlands customers, by misrepresenting the number of gallons per hundred cubic feet (HCF) for each set of customers.

Refunds Are Due:

“Government Code §66006 provides that any fees that are paid for developments which are not completed shall be returned to the paying developer. COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands has not returned his paid fees to the developer whose store is still unopened because of its demands.

“Without payment of its demanded fees Redlands will not provide water or sewer services, another instance of extortion.

“Redlands Has Abused its Sphere of Influence, Approved by LAFCO.

“Mentone wishes to, and should, be deleted from said sphere and this Court is requested to order that LAFCO so perform.
Interference with Proposed Legislative Amendment to Protect Mentone

“In or about early 2018, Raul Madrid, an interested owner of 13 lots in Mentone, who wishes to develop them but not annex them to Redlands and who has been prevented thereby from doing so for several years, forwarded to Senator Mike Morrell a proposed amendment to Government Code §56133. It was reviewed by legislative counsel and returned to Sen. Morrell’s office in the following form: ‘(b(2) The Commission shall authorize a city or district to extend a service outside its jurisdictional boundary, but within its sphere of influence, if no city, district or public utility, as defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code, provides that service, irrespective of whether a change of organization is anticipated. The city or district providing the extended service within the meaning of this paragraph shall not deny the extension of a utility service to a property owner located within the extended service area based on a property owner’s election not to participate in an annexation or pre-annexation proceeding.’

“Said provision would have benefitted Mentone and other unincorporated areas in California from rapacious takeovers such as described hereinabove.

“However, although Sen. Morrell’s office sent the complete SB 646, to Madrid, labeled as ‘final language’ and including A bar code, Sen. Morrell’s legislative aide deleted the above language regarding annexation therefrom before it was submitted to the Committee. Thus, it was not considered by the Committee, much less the Legislature, as known by Sen. Morrell’s aide, who continued to e-mail with Madrid as though the full bill were being considered by the Committee: in or about March 2019.

“Said aide notified Madrid that CALAFCO had stated to her that the bill “will not pass committee” or ‘will die in committee,’ based on CALAFCO’s interference and illegal lobbying. Additionally, on San Bernardino County LAFCO’s March 19, 2019 agenda CALAFCO provided a Legislative Report to LAFCO, in which its ‘Comments’ reflected a) a total misunderstanding of the bill; b) a close relationship with Redlands, which is a conflict of interest; c) an unwarranted interest in preserving Measure U’s extortionate demands; and/or d) a deliberate attempt to influence the Legislature against the bill, in violation of 501c3 rules against lobbying, its own Articles and Bylaws.

“COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that CALAFCO overstepped its boundaries as advisor, only, to LAFCO; its stated purpose: ‘4.12(3) It shall review laws and proposed laws affecting LAFCOs and make such recommendations thereon as it deems appropriate.’ I.e., CALAFCO’s stated role is only advisory to or formed to lobby for LAFCO’s ministerial role, only It is prohibited by law from lobbying otherwise; its Articles of Incorporation: ‘. . . corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. . . .’; and its Bylaws, which also purport to carry on only those activities which support LAFCO’s ministerial function.

“CALAFCO is restricted in its activities: ‘A private foundation will jeopardize its tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly referred to as lobbying). . . A foundation will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges members . . . or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of . . . opposing legislation, or if the foundation advocates the . . . rejection of legislation. . . Legislation includes action by . . .any state legislature . . . with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items. . . .’ (From Pub. 4221-PF of the Internal Revenue Service.)

“As the other half of SB 646, Madrid had also submitted an amendment to Government Code §66013 relating to DIFs, which required that the fee for connection to a water distribution line or sewer main “not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of labor and materials for installation of those facilities and is of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged.” CALAFCO and San Bernardino County LAFCO also opposed that amendment, with the intention that it also ‘die in committee.’ However, it passed the Committee and the Governor signed that amendment into law.

“COMET needs and requests preliminary and permanent injunctions against LAFCO’s and CALAFCO’s a) lobbying activities against any legislative amendments that would benefit Mentone and b) LAFCO’s support of Redlands’ efforts to take over Mentone.

“The Secretary of State’s website provides: ‘The Political Reform Division administers provisions of California’s Political Reform Act, including the law’s most fundamental purpose of insuring that ‘. . . The voters may be fully informed and the activities of lobbyists should be regulated and their finances disclosed. . . ‘ The Political Reform Act was adopted as a statewide initiative (Proposition 9) by an overwhelming vote of the electorate in 1974. The law requires detailed disclosure of the role of money in California politics. . . [including] expenditures made in connection with lobbying the State Legislature and attempting to influence administrative decisions of state government.’

“Thus, COMET is entitled to know the amount of funds CALAFCO has expended in lobbying against said proposed legislation, which was not properly involved in CALAFCO’s 501c3 activities, nor in LAFCO’s ministerial functions.
CEQA Violations

“Redlands repeatedly fails and refuses to prepare or require Environmental Impact Reports (hereinafter ‘EIRs’) when converting Mentone agricultural land to residential or commercial use. Instead, Redlands submits only Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MNDs”). In particular, it does not require nor provide any details of the cleaning up of hazardous waste sites that are annexed to Redlands. Instead, one of such sites is located adjacent to a school, residences and the Zanja creek. After Redlands and LAFCO approved the project of building residences on contaminated soil, the property owner was fined required to clean up the hazardous waste, after which it apparently built the planned homes.

“Nor do such MNDs address this County’s loss of agricultural land, a major change to residential properties. Over residents’ objections, LAFCO has endorsed, and will continue to endorse, such MNDs, unless and until enjoined by this Court.

“LAFCO was formed ‘to encourage ‘planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space [and agricultural] lands within those patterns’ [citation], and to discourage urban sprawl and encourage ‘the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.”/ Much of Mentone has been agricultural but now is being developed in residential urban sprawl, in violation of the Legislature’s intent and Redlands’ own slow-growth Measure U, all approved by LAFCO. Additionally, the required amount of similar land is purchased in other Counties, in further violation of the spirit and intent of the law.

“Another contaminated site in Redlands’ city limits contains a trucking company which hauls hazardous waste in and out 24 hours a day, seven days a week, adjacent to Mentone residences and a school. That property also violates the law and Redlands’ own general plan.

“Further, COMET is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that, when Redlands owned said site, which is the former Lockheed plant, it received funds with which to ameliorate the toxic burn pits, which are adjacent to the Santa Ana River and the source of Mentone’s potable water. However, COMET is unaware whether Redlands actually ever ameliorated said toxic burn pits and is entitled to that information. Since COMET seeks to preserve an important right to Mentone and other communities similarly situated, it is entitled to its attorney fees paid by defendants, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and as provided in said Annexation ‘Agreements.’ ”

Sen. Morrell will be “terming out” this year and the offending legislative aide has been working in another legislative office.