County Supervisors approved a motion and a pair of amendments Monday assuring that voters will get a say on FP-5, the controversial Fire Tax that had been set to be entered onto the Tax Roll later this year. If enacted – without the consent of voters – property owners in Mentone and the surrounding areas would have seen a 3% increase on their 2019/2020 property tax statements, that is, a rise from $157.26 to $161.98.
According to Tom Murphy of the Red Brennan Group, which has been active in fighting the proposed Fire Tax, Supervisors Janice Rutherford (2nd District) and Dawn Rowe (3rd District, which includes Mentone) proposed key modifications to FP-5 which were approved by the Board at the meeting Monday.
Supervisor Rutherford’s motion amended FP-5 to state that 1) County staff will have 90 days to bring multiple options on how to fund County Fire, 2) Supervisors will decide which of the recommendations to place before the voters prior to January 1, 2021, and 3) FP-5 will then “sunset,” or no longer be in effect, after the solution approved by voters is implemented.
Supervisor Rowe’s proposed amendments to the motion disallowed the increase, and added the requirement that county staff must provide background material to justify claims associated with their proposed solution options, which they will present within 90 days.
A third motion was proposed by Supervisor Robert Lovingood (1st District) that would have put all fire funding to a vote under Proposition 218, and kept Fire funding on the General Fund. Lovingood’s motion was not seconded, however, and therefore was not approved.
Our Third District County Supervisor Dawn Rowe [rhymes with “wow”] spoke at the Mentone Area Community Association’s regular meeting, May 14, 2019. She first told a little about herself: she was widowed when her husband was killed by an IED in Iraq on his second deployment and her children were less than school age; she raised her children alone and they are now in college. Her husband had been stationed in Twentynine Palms, where she still lives, and she had worked as a field representative for then-assemblyman Paul Cook. She was appointed by the other County Supervisors to fill James Ramos’ seat when he was elected to the State Assembly. She has the second-largest territory to cover [an irregular, somewhat pie-shaped area, the northernmost portion of which is at Barstow in the high desert south to Grand Terrace, and from San Bernardino east to the Arizona border. “It seems I’m always in my car, driving somewhere,” she stated. Before she was married she studied in Japan and obtained her bachelor’s degree in public relations and advertising; she earned a master’s degree in advertising as well. During a break in her political life while her children were teenagers “I stayed home with them because I thought they needed me but, at that age, they thought they didn’t,” she joked; during that time she obtained her teaching credential and taught school.
“I get what Mentone is going through,” Rowe stated, from her experience living next to unincorporated Joshua Tree; also, after her husband died, she decided to build a house on 10 acres, with some help from a professional. She had planned to subdivide to build three other homes but then had to deal with County and State regulations.
She said the County is interested in helping the Sheriff’s Department deal with community problems and also mentioned the “Inroads” program: $17M in funds to the County to interface with the homeless by placement, that is, the ones who are just down on their luck. As to those with drug and mental issues, that will be more difficult, she added. She also promised to get Mentone together with CalTrans for meetings regarding more “traffic calming,” to which one audience member shook her head, which she noticed [Ed., note: MM had previously reported that CalTrans said it would make the right- only arrow at Wabash and the Boulevard a straight-ahead arrow, as well, in order to alleviate the buildup of traffic going straight, leading to 15-20 vehicles at the red light at times but after more than a year, CalTrans still hasn’t done that].
Rowe stated she met with Redlands Councilwoman Toni Momberger and asked, “Why does Redlands want to annex us?” Ms. Momberger apparently indicated that they didn’t [Ed.’s note: MM has previously reported at least two occasions when the Redlands City Council stated its intention to do so]. She promised to try to bring Ms. Momberger to speak at a MACA meeting in the future.
She stated she is also a Commissioner on LAFCO and had some suggestions for Mentone: contact East Valley Water District about receiving its water service rather than from Redlands [see Op- Ed]. She also suggested that someone from Mentone contact LAFCO to do a “special study” about what could be done, that no one had requested such a study and that Mentone should; there would be some expense but she couldn’t state how much.
Finally, Rowe suggested that Mentonites lobby LAFCO commissioners: “it only takes three” out of five to accomplish something, she concluded. [MM is indebted to an interview with the San Bernardino Sun for some of the above facts.]
OTHER MACA SPEAKERS:
In the same May 14 meeting, Rachel Achilly, Sheriff’s Department spokesperson, stated that there were 18 arrests, four of them “good” felonies [Ed.’s note: meaning that they are not likely to get thrown out on a technicality] in the last month. Activity at a particular house on Jasper was investigated for a while, after which eight people were arrested and the house was red-tagged. The audience was advised that if they saw people there to notify the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff’s Deputy Emon made an impassioned plea for Mentonites to vote for Senate Bill (SB) 230, in order to combat Assembly Bill (AB) 392, also pending; the issue is that someone reviewing officer-involved lethal force (i.e., causes death) after the fact decides whether the shooting was “necessary” rather the present language. Emon said that impacts everyone in law enforcement because they don’t know, in the split-second moment when they appear to be threatened with lethal force themselves, whether protecting themselves or others is “necessary” or a lesser standard. He also stated that SB 230 provides for better training for law enforcement so that they can make better determinations as to whether to use lethal force or other methods. Emon concluded by requesting that Mentonites contact their State legislators and ask them to vote for SB 230 (for more details see the flyer later in the paper).
MACA secretary Angie Grisafe DeLaRosa reported that the last Adopt a Highway Cleanup, held on April 27, brought out eight volunteers and coincided with CalTrans’ “Cleanup Month” so CalTrans picked up the 11 bags of trash collected between Wabash and Amethyst. She said the next one is this Saturday, from 7:15 a.m. to about 9; meeting at the Chamber Office, also A Noteworthy Realty on the Boulevard next to Arthur’s Restaurant. After Saturday the next one will be in July or August; Mentone is committed to doing this four times a year. Also, Tom Atchley will give a talk on the 200th anniversary of the Zanja at the August meeting, which may start a little early [Ed.’s note: last time Diamond Jim’s Saloon was almost full, so come early to get a good seat near the front]. Mentonites are invited to attend and learn more about our area’s history. Angie mentioned doing a video of Mentone’s history and asked if anyone knew of a student who could perform that task for us.
Finally, Warren Wendell said the Hangar 24’s Air show is on this Saturday and Sunday. The parking lot which Hangar 24 had thought they could not use – because of the Kangaroo Rat – will be open, after all. However, volunteers have cleaned up the lot at the corner of Wabash and San Bernardino Avenues for MACA to raise funds by providing extra parking for $5 per car and $10 per RV and will open on Saturday, anyway. Volunteers are needed to help direct traffic and show people how to get to the airport, where vendors will set up by 11:00 a.m. but the flying won’t begin until 3 p.m. The event goes to 8 p.m. on Saturday and 5 p.m. on Sunday. MM
Raul Madrid, a longtime developer, is assisting Perry and Sandy Karpouzis in attempting to satisfy Redlands’ demands so they can get water service. “Once the paperwork is completed and the fees are paid we anticipate being able to open Tom’s Burgers in 60-90 days,” says Madrid. Diners will then be able to grab a burger on the way in and out of town instead of driving over to Alabama and Lugonia. Mentone Matters will keep readers posted on this development, as well.
At Defendants City of Redlands’ and LAFCO’s insistence that the Attorney General prosecute the action or grant leave for COMET to continue to do so, its lawyer sent an Application and proposed First Amended Complaint to the Attorney General’s Los Angeles office.
On the last day to do so, Defendants – both represented by the same Best, Best and Krieger office – served and filed their opposition. It contained several arguments, one misstating the actual allegations of the complaint, but provided very little or no legal support of its positions that COMET’s lawsuit is either too late or too early, that the “quo warranto” (“by whose authority?”) cause of action is not the proper remedy. Quo warranto actions do not have a statute of limitations, by which the lawsuit could otherwise be too late. COMET’s response: it is proper because Mentonites did not know that Redlands took to itself the “authority” to demand annexation by enacting its 1997 “Measure U” or that it has taken much territory to itself by presenting its “Annexation Agreement” to developers, demanding annexation to its city limits in exchange for water service to new developments.
COMET also replied that the “Agreement” contains eight other demands that COMET deems to be overreaching. Redlands’ demand avoids Mentone’s vote whether to be annexed or not (which is authorized by Government Code section 57075 and following sections). Because the quo warranto procedure is most often used to challenge someone holding an office without authority (but still available in the manner that COMET is using it), defendants also argue that it would “disrupt governmental operations” and therefore not be in the public interest. COMET’s response states that no disruption would be caused by Redlands’ being ordered to cease using its Annexation “Agreement,” demanding annexation and the eight other offending parts, and that the relief it seeks is of importance to every unincorporated area that is in the sphere of influence of a city which provides utility services. To COMET’s knowledge, there is no other such situation existing or which has existed in California.
Defendants also argue that there is no “substantial question of law or fact.” COMET countered that Redlands’ alleged illegal extortion of Mentone territory in exchange for water, and LAFCO’s ratification of that illegal action, is indeed a substantial question of law or fact. Defendants also argued that the same facts are alleged in other causes of action and therefore the quo warranto is unnecessary and that “extortion” is not a proper basis for a quo warranto action. COMET replied that it is required to plead all available causes of action on the facts.
Defendants next argued that COMET shouldn’t receive water service without being a part of the City and its regulations, to which COMET replied that Redlands had applied to LAFCO to do so many years ago and actually provided water for many years without demanding annexation, beginning in 1997. Defendants also argued that COMET hasn’t proven its case in its Complaint; COMET replied that it need not do so. Defendants also argued that COMET hasn’t provided any facts showing that the annexations were completed, and admit that “in the future, should the City complete any additional annexation of portions of Mentone, COMET would be on much firmer ground to challenge such annexations” by the quo warranto procedure. COMET’s reply quoted portions of the Complaint and its Application stating that it has lost territory by Redlands’ demanded annexations.
Defendants’ opposition did not oppose the other cause of action – “Unfair Business Practices” – that COMET requested leave to continue prosecuting. Nor did it address COMET’s allegations of unlawful and exorbitant fees that Redlands charges developers – for fire, police, library, parks, City buildings, and so on, that do not benefit Mentone in any way and are probably passed along to the next owners.
The Application, Opposition and Reply will be looked over by Los Angeles’ Deputy Attorney General, who will make their recommendation; then it will be forwarded to Sacramento for Attorney General Xavier Becerra to make the final determination. The Los Angeles Deputy Attorney General could not give a time estimate for this decision to take place. COMET has granted defendants 30 days to answer after COMET files its First Amended Complaint.
In the meantime, COMET presented a claim for damages to the City of Redlands, which had 45 days to respond. It responded within three days that COMET’s claim was late and invited COMET to file an application for leave to file a late claim, which COMET’s attorney did. After 45 days, whether Redlands allows the late claim or not, COMET may add Mentone’s money damages to its suit.
Also, Tom’s Burgers is proceeding toward completion; however, there is no estimated timeline.
Mentone Matters will continue to keep you up to date on the progress of the lawsuit.
Developer Raul Madrid tells Mentone Matters that the chair of the Governance and Finance Committee, Mike McGuire, “doesn’t like” our proposed amendment to SB 646, 56133(b)(2), which would protect Mentone from forced-annexations to the City of Redlands, so we have to do what we can to change his mind and influence the other Senators in our favor. We have a deadline of May 1, 2019 because, according to Madrid’s contact at Sen. Morrell’s office, the bill is going back to Committee then.
Mentone Matters urges its readers to download the attached sample letters, print or copy/paste them into a document, an email or use Senate Committee Members’ “Contact Me” forms, as provided in the last update, and mail or email the letter to the Committee members before the May 1 deadline. Be sure to include your name and address in the letter before sending it. Thank you.
Developer Raul Madrid, who submitted the proposed legislative amendments that State Senator Mike Morrell introduced as SB 646 – one amendment that prohibits forced annexation in exchange for water and another that governs fees the City may charge, the latter of which was passed through Committee – contacted Senator John Moorlach’s office in regard to the previously-believed-dead amendment to Government Code Section 66013(b), added as (b)(2). Sen. Moorlach is a member of the Governance and Finance Committee which is considering SB 646 before it is forwarded to the entire Senate for passage.
Sen. Moorlach’s staff stated that 66013(b)(2) is not dead but is in limbo; it will be sent back to Legislative Counsel and then returned to the Governance and Finance Committee from which, if all goes well, it should go to the entire Senate. [Ed.’s note: Now MM knows why all of Section 56133 was crossed out as posted previously on MentoneMatters.org: so the amendment to section 66013(b) would be the only one enacted at that time.]
Various Redlands and LAFCO personnel have stated their belief that Mentone will be in Redlands someday. Now is a good opportunity for everyone in Mentone to contact the Senators on the Committee and ask them to vote in favor of the rest of SB 646.
As previously reported, the Committee members are:
Senator John M. W. Moorlach, available for contact through his official website, here.
Senator Jim Beall, available for contact through his official website, here.
Senator Jim Nielsen, available for contact through his official website, here.
Senator Scott D. Wiener, available for contact through his official website, here.
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, available for contact through his official website, here.
Because these Senators are from all over California, be sure to explain why it is so important to us in Mentone. You are welcome to write your own letter or use the following, by either e-mail or snail mail:
“State of California Senatorial Governance and Finance Committee
Senator Mike McGuire
Senator John M. W. Moorlach
Senator Jim Beall
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg
Senator Melissa Hurtado
Senator Jim Nielsen
Senator Scott D. Wiener
State Capitol, Room 408
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 646
Dear Sirs and Mme:
I reside (or am a property owner) in Mentone, California, an unincorporated territory which has been forcibly taken over by Redlands, piece by piece, for many years. We in Mentone object to the forced annexation, which is required in exchange for water and – where it is available – sewer services to any new developments, and believe it violates the law prohibiting extortion. That is, although we are in Redlands’ sphere of influence, they have no right to demand that we give over governance of our area to Redlands, instead of the County.
We are aware that people from Redlands have been very influential against this bill, solely for their own interests, but that doesn’t make it right that the bill should die in committee. We have very few other resources with which to fight Redlands’ greedy takeover. Please pass this bill through your committee. Thank you.
Text removed from SB 646 would have protected Mentonites from forced annexation.
State Senator Morrell’s SB 646 went to the Senate’s “Governance and Finance Committee” in March. MM’s readers may remember from the previous article that two provisions were involved: Government Code sections 56133(b)(2) and 66001. The Committee had until April 10 to amend the code sections, which it did as to Section 66001, adding that agencies that charge fees for one use are prohibited from using the money for another use. It amended that law on April 11.
However, 56133(b)(2), which stated, “The city or district providing the extended service… shall not deny the extension of a utility service to a property owner located within the extended service area based upon a property owner’s election not to participate in an annexation or preannexation proceeding,” was not passed through Committee and thus is “dead” for all intents and purposes for this year.
This follows what various local residents have been hearing and passing along to MM: that Redlands was certain that the amendment would not pass Committee.
As MM receives more information as to who was behind the killing of Mentone’s protection by the Legislature, it will pass that information along to its readers.
Redlands was served at its City Council meeting on March 5; it had 30 days in which to respond. COMET’s attorney received a phone call from Redlands’ litigation counsel at Best, Best & Krieger, regarding a required “meet and confer” before it files its demurrer, giving the attorney who filed the Complaint an opportunity to correct it. When sued, Redlands can either file an Answer or Demurrer. A demurrer is a document filed in Court for a hearing, at which the parties’ attorneys appear and argue, if necessary. The demurrer tests whether the Complaint states facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the causes of action (the actual requests for relief, which appear after the “Statement of Facts” in the last MM issue). BB&K followed up the phone call with a letter outlining its reasons for demurring. The letter addressed all of the seven causes of action, suggesting various defects in each.
For various reasons, COMET’s attorney stated she could not “meet and confer” on April 8, the suggested date, and gave Redlands extra time, during which COMET’s attorney will address the points in the letter one by one and take whatever steps might be necessary to ensure the lawsuit goes forward. LAFCO was served with the Complaint at its last meeting, March 20. Another litigation attorney from BB&K, but in another location, is representing LAFCO; he also called COMET’s attorney and stated his intention to go with whatever Redlands’ counsel wrote. COMET’s attorney granted them the same extension of time, although its response is not due for two to three more weeks. He did not appear to recognize any “conflict of interest” between the same firm representing both Redlands and LAFCO, who is included in the lawsuit because of what Redlands has done. Some law firms get around conflicts of interest by having different locations handle each case.
If a demurrer is “sustained” in a court hearing, the Court may allow the Complaint to be amended – rewritten – to conform to the requirements of any of the causes of action. The defendants, Redlands and LAFCO, then have the opportunity to respond again. If, instead, the demurrer is overruled at the hearing, the Complaint stands as it is and the case continues. There is the off chance of the Complaint being thrown out without allowing amendment, but that is rare; the Courts prefer to allow litigants time to make such corrections as are necessary to state their case, usually up to two or three times. If the Complaint is thrown out, the “losing” attorney may appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside if there are sufficient grounds.
Raul Madrid, who does not want to annex his 13 lots on San Bernardino Avenue, across the street from Seven W Enterprises (formerly the Lockheed facility), or pay Redlands’ “development impact fees” in the amounts presented to him, submitted two legislative amendments to Senator Mike Morrell’s office early last year. The proposed amendments languished in Sen. Morrell’s office for many months; late last year Sen. Morrell asked Madrid about it; he then called his office and a different legislative aide was assigned to take care of the proposed amendments. They were forwarded to Legislative Counsel and then rewritten according to that attorney’s suggestions. The proposed amendments were submitted as SB 646 and given to the Senate’s Governance and Finance Committee last month.
A Pamela Miller, whose website states she is the Executive Director of CALAFCo, a 501c3 private organization of LAFCos,called Sen. Morrell’s office and stated that the bills would “die in committee.” Sen. Morrell’s aide was adamant, Madrid says, that the proposed amendments would not pass through the Committee and be submitted to the entire Senate for voting.
The Senate’s Governance and Finance Committee, which is reviewing the proposed amendments, is composed of Senators Senator Mike McGuire, John M. W. Moorlach, Jim Beall, Robert M. Hertzberg, Melissa Hurtado, Jim Nielsen, and Scott D. Wiener; the Committee’s address is “State Capitol, Room 408, Sacramento, CA 95814,” should anyone care to write and ask that the Bill pass their committee and be submitted to the entire Senate, whose names and addresses are accessible on https://www.senate.ca.gov/ senators.
The proposed amendments read as follows (the most important part to us is underlined): (In regard to annexation) Government Code section 56133 adds to its subsection(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 upon a property owner’s election not to participate in an annexation or preannexation proceeding.” [Emphasis is added.]
Regarding the fees Redlands charges for services which it provides (and the ones it does not provide but still charges for), the proposed legislative amendment to Government Code section 56013(5), instead of ending with “facilities” adds: “and is of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged.” [Emphasis is original.] This amendment merely refers to Government Code section 66001(a)(1-3), with which some agencies have not been complying but which requires that “development impact fees” in other words, fees for water meters and traffic off and back on the Boulevard, for example, be reasonably related to the actual cost of providing such services. MM readers may remember seeing the list of fees charged to Tom’s Burgers, which is reportedly one of the reasons it hasn’t opened for 11 or more years.
LAFCO’s agenda at the last meeting attached CALAFCO’s “Legislative Report,” containing an accurate summary of the Bill; however, its first comment stated that the Bill did not provide for a change of organization (read: annexation). However, the code section contains the language “irrespective of whether a change in organization is anticipated”; thus, the amendment still anticipates a change of organization.
Its second comment was regarding LAFCO’s role approving the annexation; San Bernardino LAFCO’s Application for Extension of Service by Contract – although it asks about anticipated annexation and the reasons it is or is not anticipated – does not list annexation agreements as documents required for its review, nor require Redlands to demand annexation. CALAFCO’s third comments on §56133, in its section (3), substituted “water and sewer”, for the bolded words “a service” and “a utility service.” CALAFCO’s next section (3) comment, mentioned “higher fees and charges to those outside the jurisdictional boundaries,” and questioned the word “proportional” as undefined.
In a letter to LAFCO’s counsel about the inaccuracy of these comments, this writer concluded: “It is curious to this office that CALAFCo, in its advisory-only role and of all of the cities located in the 58 counties in the State of California, provides comments on the amendments which seem most related to the conflict between Redlands and Mentone, the subject of C.O.M.E.T. vs. City of Redlands. At best, CALAFCo seems to misunderstand its own summary; at worst, it appears an attempt, although a private 501c3 organization, to lobby against passage of the amendments.
“It seems that Government Code §56375(a)(6), stating “A commission shall not impose any conditions that would directly regulate. . . property development, or subdivision requirements” would preclude LAFCo from insisting that Redlands or any other city require an annexation agreement in exchange for water service. We in Mentone hope that the San Bernardino County LAFCo will not take any steps to frustrate the passage of the proposed amendments, intended for our – and all other unincorporated territories’ – benefit.”
LAFCo stands for Local Agency Formation Commission, which was set up by the California Legislature in the 1960s to oversee property development; each County has a LAFCO, as it is sometimes spelled.
CALAFCO is a private 501c3 organization which was formed to lobby the California Legislature on behalf of LAFCO, only; its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws state that it is limited to such lobbying subjects.
March 13, 2019: Excavation of the Dollar General site is currently underway on Mentone Blvd.
As MM stated in its last OpEd, the Redlands City Council voted to approve the Annexation “Agreement” submitted by the developer of the Dollar General on Mentone Boulevard, which agreement was recorded in the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office on March 3, 2019. Raul Madrid, another developer, but who is based in Southern California and does not want to annex his Mentone property, had called the Dollar General developer, located in northwest Texas, on Wednesday, March 13; that person appeared not to know much about the proceedings on his project but referred Madrid to the person doing the paperwork, Madrid said. He added that he had talked to that person a year or two ago, and they were only interested in doing what they had to do to get the project finished. Apparently it was begun in 2017. Madrid obtained, and provided to Mentone Matters shortly thereafter, the City’s staff report, a portion of which is embedded here, with some areas highlighted:
“OSC17-50
PROJECT DETAILS
“PROJECT SUMMARY AND LOCATION MAP
OSC 17-50 is located east of Agate Avenue and south of Mentone Boulevard (APN 299-221-06). The project is located approximately ½ mile south of the city limits. Staff review indicates the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
“DISCUSSION OF SUBSECTION H. CRITERIA – RMC 13.060.050 H
(H.1.) Relationship of the property and its proposed use to the city’s General Plan and zoning ordinances.
The City of Redlands General Plan Land Use Map shows the subject property as designated for ‘Commercial’ uses. The existing lot of record is approximately 4.53 net acres in size, of which the proposed Dollar General store would occupy approximately one acre. The applicant is proposing to connect to the water system in the Mentone Boulevard right-of-way (at the front of the subject property) for the proposed retail store. If this property were to be annexed in the future, the subject property would likely be zoned General Commercial (C-3) District, and the majority of existing development in the vicinity appears to be consistent with General Plan Land Use Map as well as the C-3 District.
(H.2.) Relationship of the property and its proposed use to the City’s Water Master Plans, and the City’s Water Capital Improvement Programs:
The 1998 Water Master Plan included the area of the property in their service area study, and the incremental demand was included in sizing the existing water mains that serve the area. There are no water CIP (Capital Improvement Program) projects programmed for this area.
(H.3.) Proximity of the property to the city’s boundaries and existing utility infrastructure:
The project is within the city’s Sphere of Influence as defined by LAFCO. The project is located approximately ½ mile south of the Redlands city limits.
The project is subject to meeting utilities development requirements. The development requirements for water infrastructure are contained within this staff report.
(H.4.) The Proposed Potential for New Revenue Sources for the city to Pay for City Services Provided to the Project as a Result of Annexation and Development of the Property:
Staff has examined two factors of potential revenue to the city given the provision that the project is annexed into the city and the site is developed.
“POTENTIAL REVENUE FROM DEVELOPMENT
If the property were annexed into the city with the existing development of the site, the following is an estimate of revenues per unit that are in excess of utility impact fee revenue:
• Sewer Lateral Inspection
• Solid Waste Capital Improvement Charge (per unit)
• Transportation (per unit)
• Fire Facilities (per unit)
• General Government Facilities (per unit)
• Library Facilities (per unit)
• Open Space/Park Facilities (per unit)
• Police Facilities (per unit)
• Development Impact Storm Drain (per unit)
“COSTS OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED:
Services relative to Factor A:
The majority of revenue collected under factor A are impact fees established to offset development impacts and do not have a direct impact upon city services. Fees collected for building and safety plan check and permits would require services from the city of Redlands. The additional services required for building and safety services can be accommodated by existing building and safety personnel and facilities.
Services relative to Factor B general observations. Generally revenues collected for low density single family residential areas are about equal to costs. This is an area however that is distant from the current police, fire, and other city facilities and it can be anticipated that the costs would be somewhat higher for this project given its location. While this project by itself would not require the addition of more A detailed evaluation of services would be provided upon annexation. For the purposes of this evaluation, staff has made some
staff or facilities, if other annexations of similar projects in the Mentone area were annexed to the city the cumulative impacts could require additional staffing and or facility expansion.
(H.5.) The Proposed Standards for Development of the Property:
The subjectproperty is currently vacant and unimproved, an existing lot of record, and the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and the suggested zoning district. Should this property be annexed in the future, the proposed land use would be consistent with the General Plan and General Commercial (C-3) zoning. The standards for the C-3 District are outlined in the table below and the proposed improvements appear to be consistent with these City development standards.
“DRAFT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are required prior to approval of APPLICATION FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION and prior to WATER METER INSTALLATION.
1. Pay the Water Capital Improvement Charge.
2. Pay the Water Source Acquisition Charge
3. Pay the Water Meter Charge
4. Install an approved backflow device on the proposed domestic water service because of the use of a separate irrigation system on the property.
5. Pay the Sewer Capital Improvement Charge
6. Pay all Amounts Equivalent to Development Fees for Pre-Annexation Agreement”
As also stated in MM’s last OpEd, at the February 19 Redlands City Council meeting, just before voting to approve the Annexation “Agreement,” Mayor Foster expressed a disinterest in annexing Mentone “in the foreseeable future.” Readers are invited to look at the language showing Redlands’ intention that this project be in the City Limits, particularly its No. 6 on the last page.
The new store is, of course, adjacent to the historic Dodge/William Winter home whose history (with some re-formatting for this program) is included elsewhere in this edition of Mentone Matters (courtesy of Marie Reynolds, Vice President of the Redlands Area Historical Society, and whose late grandfather-in-law published the Mentone News in the 1930s and ’40s).
