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).
This article is being re-published in Mentone Matters with permission of its author, Marie Reynolds, Vice President of the Redlands Area Historical Society, whose grandfather-in-law published the Mentone News in the 1930s and ’40s. The original title was “William Winter Residence – Mentone Boulevard & Crafton (formerly Ruby) Avenue.” Thank you, Marie! –MM
Photos courtesy of Marie Reynolds
William Winter. Photos courtesy of Marie Reynolds
Elsie Leslie Weds William Winter
“Winter Coming West”
“News Notes from the Infant Wonder City”
“Child Escapes Rattler’s Fangs Near Redlands”
“Spot That Charmed Famous Poet Returns to Its Original Owner”
“Daughter of Famous Critic is Given Divorce”
Celebrated New York drama critic, poet and author William Winter (1836-1917) purchased a ranch property from Mentone co-founder William B. McIntosh and built his California retreat on the southwest corner of Mentone and Crafton avenues in 1893. It was christened Ederline Cottage, after the New Brunswick residence of his Scots-born wife, Elizabeth Campbell, an authoress whose pen name was Isabelle Castlebar.
They had five children; son William Jefferson Winter, an actor, married his co-star, renowned child actress Elsie Leslie, in 1901. She had starred with the great actor Joseph Jefferson -who along with such personages as Richard Mansfield and Madame Helena Modjeska stayed at the Hotel Mentone.
The Winter family visited the ranch frequently until they moved to Mentone year-round due to the poor health of their son, Louis. During that time William Winter, a Shakespearean authority, continued his position with the New York papers and traveled frequently to their home on Staten Island for work.
Son Jefferson had successful surgery at the nearby Mentone Sanitarium (previously Hotel Mentone). Several family members died at the property, including son Louis Victor Winter in 1905 and Miss Isabel M. Campbell. Louis’ son was nearly bitten by a rattlesnake on the ranch in 1901.
“From across the continent came in 1893 the most famous dramatic critic of his day, William Winter, and settled upon the outskirts of Redlands, at Mentone. For forty-four years the critic of the Tribune, to which he had been appointed by Horace Greeley himself, and author of many volumes, he published his elegy for his son Louis not in the New York Tribune, but in the Redlands Citrograph,
A kingly name! a name of grace! my heart repeats it, o’er and o’er,
With love and pride – but his dear face I see no more.
Lured by Winter’s eulogies of Redlands, Shakespearean Actor Richard Mansfield bought an orange grove at Wabash and Lugonia, planned to erect thereon a stone castle (perhaps using such Mentone and Crafton stones as the Southern Pacific had not hauled for the paving of Los Angeles streets and the building of San Pedro’s breakwater) but never accomplished his dream.”
“Scarce a quarter of a century has passed since all this region was wilderness. Today there is not in the world a scene of softer grace or more radiant promise.” William Winter, 1893.
W. P. McIntosh re-acquired the property from the Winters in 1920. In interview with Barbara Bristow, descendant Betty McIntosh Shirley shared her memories of the property:
” My father, George McIntosh, was the first postmaster. I was raised on the 40 acres where the antique shop is now.
Across the street was the small house built by Gordon Donald for the Byron Starkweathers; probably about 1920 or so.
The rock store was owned by Mrs. Hill and Miss Morrison, who were sisters of Mrs. Velardo, whose husband was the barber in the rock store on the other corner. Across on the boulevard was the Hallett family. At one time they had a big orange-shaped stand.
Every 4th of July my Dad sent for a big crate of fireworks and we’d have a wonderful celebration. There was a large reservoir on our front yard. Homer Blackmore (a grocer who later sold to Lehman’s) would bring a dozen watermelons up early in a.m., put them in that ice cold Bear Valley water, and by evening they were cold.
My Dad built small rafts and put Mt. Vesuvius things on them. There were sky rockets and all sorts of things. All up and down the Blvd. there were cars and people watching the display.
Our house was on the Blvd., but there was an almost exact replica of it on the s/w corner of the 40 acres – that our grove man lived in. It had no electricity, I recall and I never knew why it was built or for whom in the family.
The Lindsay Olive people bought our olive crop every year. They came with big trucks and barrels – usually at night. The pickers slept under the trees. The green home-style olives were my Dad’s recipe.
We had mandarin – tangerine trees. Every year the Chinese would come and pick them for their New Year’s.”
In more recent times the house was used as a cafe and antique store. It is currently the residence of Arthur and Shirley Dodge.
Elsie Leslie (August 14, 1881 – October 31, 1966) was an American actress. She was America’s first child star and the highest paid and most popular child actress of her era.
Leslie’s first role in 1884 was Little Meenie in Joseph Jefferson’s production of “Rip Van Winkle”. In 1887, she was recognized as a star with her performance in “Editha’s Burglar” opposite E. H. Sothern at the Lyceum Theatre in New York and opposite William Gillette on the road tour.[1] She achieved further fame with her roles in “Little Lord Fauntleroy” in 1888 and “The Prince and the Pauper” in 1890. The most enduring image of Leslie is the portrait of her, posing as Little Lord Fauntleroy, painted by William Merritt Chase. [2]
Leslie lived in the rarefied kingdom of the theater. She moved amongst and conversed with people everywhere she went and her friends were not only nearly all adults, they were among the most accomplished in the nation. She had pen pals everywhere with whom she maintained a lively correspondence, including leading actors, actresses and statesmen, as well as two young girls nearer her own age, one younger, the other a year older: Eleanor Roosevelt and Helen Keller. “I like to write letters,” she once said, “but I like to get the answers still better.”[3]
Leslie took a break from acting, but returned to the stage in 1898 to play parts in The Rivals, The Cricket on the Hearth, The Christian, The Taming of the Shrew, The Man on the Case in 1907, and Louis N. Parker’s Disraeli with George Arliss in 1911; but after years away from the stage she could not recapture the old magic as an adult. She had married Jefferson Winter, son of drama critic William Winter, but this marriage ended in divorce, after which Leslie married Edwin J. Millikin in 1918. She and her husband traveled the world until they returned to New York City, where she lived until her death in 1966.[4]
Leslie was known as a wonderful child. She carried on correspondence with her friends from her acting days until her death. Photographs of Leslie, parts of her diary, along with letters and cards from such luminaries as Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Edwin Booth, William Gillette, Elliott Roosevelt and Joseph Jefferson, are recorded in “Trustable & Preshus Friends”.[5][6]
She is also remembered by the “Elsie Leslie” doll by Madame Alexander, No. 1560 in the series.[7]
At the Redlands City council meeting, Tuesday evening, March 5, Raul Madrid, who has been trying to develop property in Mentone for several years, gave a 3 1⁄2 minute speech and handed a copy of the lawsuit, titled “C.O.M.E.T. v. City of Redlands,” etc., to the City Clerk. The text of Madrid’s prepared speech reads:
“Hello, Mayor, City Council. During the last City Council meeting, Council considered a pre-annexation agreement so the Dollar General store planned in Mentone could receive City water. The City Attorney made comments regarding measure U and the necessity of the pre- annexation agreements. I want to clarify for the record how Measure U and the pre- annexation agreements effect Mentone property owners.
“In 1987 pursuant to State assembly Bill AB 1600, known as the Mitigation fee act, cities and municipalities were allowed to adopt and assess on new development, impact fees to fund for city facilities and infrastructure. These fees were to be adopted thru a set procedure stated in the act. The act was clear to restrict cities and municipalities to imposing the new development impact fees, only on developments that lie within their own jurisdiction.
“Since then Redlands has adopted impact fees for transportation, police facilities, fire protection, parks, community centers, libraries, general government and has properly assessed them to projects within city limits.
“In the mid 1990’s the city of Redlands contacted an Orange county Law firm to look into ways the city could assess their developer impact fees to projects located outside, city limits in adjacent Mentone and county areas. The law firm created an initiative called ‘establishing principles of managed development’. The document contained provisions requiring nearby Mentone property owners who desire to hook up to city water to sign pre annexation agreements, and agree that in addition to paying a water connection fee, they pay fees for other city infrastructure although they are located outside city limits. That document, is known as measure U and was adopted and made effective in December 1997.
“In summary: when the Mentone property owner applies for a water connection to the city of Redlands, they are told they must sign a pre annexation agreement which strips them of the right to vote in the annexation process. They are also told they must pay fees for other facilities In addition to the water connection fee. The applicant is told if they do not comply and pay the extra fees and sign the pre annexation agreement they will be denied water service.
“California Penal Code states in part, instilling fear upon one to promote some monetary gain is extortion. Civil extortion is exactly what the city of Redlands does to the nearby Mentone property owner applying for water service. The assessment of these unlawful fees amounts to an overreach by Redlands government and are unlawful per the California government code. Redlands’ assessment of these unlawful development fees exist today because nobody has challenged them or pursued any judicial action to overturn them. You have given us no choice: consider yourself served on behalf of Mentone. Thank you.”
The Statement of Facts in the seven-count Complaint (initial document in the lawsuit), which was filed last week, gives the history of how Redlands has been forcibly taking Mentone territory into its city limits in exchange for water and – where available – sewer service to new developments since at least since 1997, when Redlands enacted its Measure U, which became part of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Measure U requires annexation or “pre- annexation” into its city limits if a developer wants water and sewer service, which has been eroding Mentone’s borders for many years, with the assistance of a local or two. The Complaint charges Redlands with civil extortion, and seeks a court order prohibiting Redlands from continuing to force annexation to it in exchange for water and sewer and to nullify all previous such “agreements,” returning the areas to Mentone territory.
As further alleged in the Complaint, Redlands also charges developers for fire, police, library and other services it doesn’t provide but which are provided by the County. Additionally, it requires developers to reimburse it for legal fees and costs incurred in a lawsuit, even if that lawsuit is instituted by a third party – over whom the signer has no control.
The Complaint also details that Redlands charges other fees, such as for “traffic” studies for leaving and entering on the State Highway (see the 2009 list of fees charged to Tom’s Burgers in the August 2018 issue), and fees for necessary improvements that are in excess of the actual estimated costs. Other allegations include that it does not require Environmental Impact Reports when agricultural land is converted to residences or hazardous waste exists on developments, as in the recent Wabash annexation which contained leaky underground fuel storage tanks (see MM’s September issue II), among other allegations contained in the Complaint’s paragraph 17 below.
All of Redlands’ demanded fees are passed along to the subsequent buyers of the development, raising housing prices and impeding commercial development, the suit charges. The lawsuit also seeks a court order that Redlands only charge the actual cost of improvements and require Environmental Impact Reports in appropriate situations, such as when agricultural land is converted to residential.
MM recently met with a developer of part of the vacant lot on the corner of Crafton and the Boulevard; he plans to build a Western-style carwash and gas station. His project may or may not be within the 200-foot distance (excluding the Boulevard and Crafton roads) from the Boulder Creek residential section on Crafton; that distance would be considered “contiguous,” or next-door, as legally required for full annexation now. That is, if Boulder Creek and the carwash/gas station were “contiguous,” it would put at least some part – if not all – of Mentone’s “downtown” into Redlands city limits. The other neighborhoods would then follow by the same tactics.
The Dollar General store is planned for just west of the Dodge House on the Boulevard between Crafton and Agate. There are four parcels in that vacant area, each consisting of several lots. Although the annexation “Agreement” was signed by the seller, Mayer Bassirat, the County gave the Dollar General parcel a new Assessor’s Parcel Number so Redlands decided that the purchasers of the parcels needed to sign a new annexation “Agreement.” As of the February 19, 2019 City Council meeting, the Dollar General developer apparently had not signed the “Agreement.”
The lawsuit seeks the Court’s order that it nullify all “Agreements” that have been previously signed.
For those who are interested, the full history in the Complaint’s Statement of Facts reads as follows (after identification of the parties):
“7. Over the years, Redlands purchased all of the water companies located in Mentone; additionally, it diverts Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River water a mile above Mentone’s former diversion point. Thus, Mentone is dependent on Redlands for all of its potable water; its remaining agricultural land receives only non-potable water from the Bear Valley Water District.
“8. Redlands’ water department is not governed by the California Public Utilities Commission; Plaintiff has no recourse other than to this Court in order to protect their rights set forth herein below.
Demanded Annexations in Exchange for Water and Sewer “9. In or about the 1970s, LAFCO placed Mentone in Redlands’ “sphere of influence,” pursuant to state statute.
“10. At all times, Redlands had provided the requested water service outside its city limits, with the only requirement that recipients pay for the water and sewer service. However, in November 1997 Redlands’ voters enacted its Measure U, effective in December 1997 (hereinafter ‘Measure U’) incorporated into 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. . . .’ ” [Emphasis is added.]
“11. Thus, without the developer’s written ‘agreement’ to said annexation or pre-annexation, (hereinafter ‘Agreement,’ a copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. A), Redlands will not provide those services to Mentone; its demand violates California Penal Code §§ 518, et seq., and case law thereon; and is exactly opposite of the Legislature’s intent in enacting Government Code section 65864, invoked in said ‘Agreement.’
“12. California’s Government Code § 56133(b) provides for annexation in anticipation of a later change of organization. However, annexation is not automatic; nor is it required by other any law. Indeed, Plaintiff should have other options: detach from Redlands’ Sphere of Influence through LAFCO, then incorporate as a city; form their own special water district; or dig a well. Plaintiff does not presently possess any of these capabilities.
“13. In contrast to Redlands’ Measure U demand, annexation elsewhere is usually requested by the property owner, not demanded by the providing city.
“14. Plaintiff is informed and thereupon allege that they legally possess the right to vote whether or not they wish their property to be included within Redlands’ city limits. Redlands bypasses Mentone’s options and rights by demanding such ‘Agreements’ without Plaintiff’s vote and over plaintiff’s objections and its ‘Agreement’ provides that said annexation is binding on ‘any and all successors in interest, assigns, heirs and executors.’
“15. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon alleges that Redlands’ demanded annexations or pre-annexations has created islands of less than 150 acres, a process known as ‘piecemealing,’ which it intends to use forcibly to annex Mentone to itself; Plaintiff would have no votes against such process.
“16. Thus, Redlands’ extortionate demand to annex Mentone is also a taking, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution, under economic duress.
“17. Additionally, the ‘Agreement,’ provides that – even if the property is not yet located within the City limits and may never be so located: a) the property must be developed in accordance with Redlands’ General Plan and the development standards of its Municipal Code, which may or may not approve the ‘Western’ style favored by Mentonites; b) if the developer challenges this ‘agreement’ the City will cease to provide water and sewer services; c) the developer must hold the City harmless for any and damages arising out of the development, even if the City supplied the plans; d) if any third party, challenges the ‘Agreement’s’ Redlands’ [extortionate] demands, based on Measure U, a signatory thereof will indemnify Redlands from any and all lawsuits, etc.; e) a waiver of any claims pursuant to Civil Code §1542; f) said ‘agreement’ is binding on all successors in interest, assigns, heirs and executors, even though they may not wish the property to be in Redlands’ city limits; g) any ambiguities not be resolved against the drafter of the agreement; and h) the City’s attorney fees include in-house counsel fees, which is otherwise unsupported by California case law.
“18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that all of Redlands’ said acts have impeded Mentone’s commercial and other progress, raised its housing costs as well as depriving it of territory and potential revenue, should it incorporate.
“19. All of Redlands’ said Agreements and other acts have been ratified by LAFCO.
“20. Plaintiff needs this Court’s order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Redlands from further requiring and/or enforcing said ‘Agreements,’ or any other such demands, and also enjoining any of LAFCO’s further approval of said provisions.
“21. Redlands now surrounds Mentone on 3.5 sides. Redlands City officials have publicly stated their intention to take over Mentone, which wishes to remain outside Redlands’ city limits and possibly incorporate as a city; however, in order to do so it is required to be detached from Redlands’ sphere of influence. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Redlands would not agree to, nor cooperate with, detachment of Mentone from its sphere of influence. Thus, plaintiff needs this Court’s order so detaching it.
“22. In 1959, Redlands annexed the northernmost part of Mentone’s territory, beginning at its westerly point at Wabash, eastward through the Santa Ana Riverbed and Mill Creek to a point just west of Bryant in Yucaipa (hereinafter ‘the Strip’), under questionable circumstances such that Redlands now surrounds Mentone on 3 1⁄2 sides. The Court is requested to order Redlands to provide any and all authority for, and records of, said annexation.
“23. Plaintiff also requests an order of this Court returning to Mentone territory any and all properties taken from it by Redlands, beginning in 1959, by any means and at any time.
REDLANDS’ “DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES”
“24. Redlands demands payment of ‘development impact fees,’ e.g. for its police, fire and library service before it will provide water or sewer service; however, according to its own General Plan and Municipal Codes, Redlands does not provide said services, which are actually are provided by San Bernardino County, thus subjecting Mentone to double fees. Further, said fees are passed along to future homeowners, thus raising the cost of housing in Mentone.
“25. 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) 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’ fees violate this section.
“26. Thus, this Court is requested to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against any further requirement of payment of fees for services that Redlands does not provide, as further set forth in § 66001.
“27. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands’ other development fees greatly exceed the actual costs and impacts to Redlands, in violation of the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code § 66000, et seq., particularly §66013.
“28. Government Code § 66001(d) further provides: ‘ (1) For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: (A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.’
“29. The Court is further requested to order that any development impact fees Redlands further imposes must constitute the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed and further that Redlands demonstrate the reasonable relationship for each development in Mentone territory since its 1997 enaction of Measure U and account for all fees demanded and collected in said violation of the Mitigation Fee Act, and based thereon to order a refund of all such fees collected.
“30. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands has treated developers disparately, in the amounts it has required of different developers for the same fees, for its own purposes and for no demonstrable need, further impeding Mentone’s commercial and other development, raising the cost of housing in Mentone and depriving it of revenue should it incorporate. CEQA Violations
“31. 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” ’: Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Comm., 200 Cal. App. 4th 1317, 1133-1134. (6th App. Dist. 2011). Much of Mentone was agricultural but now is developed into residential neighborhoods and other developments and forcibly included in Redlands’ residential urban sprawl, in violation of the Legislature’s intent. Said developments were approved by LAFCO.
“32. Additionally, plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the required amount of similar land is purchased in other Counties, in further violation of the spirit and intent of the law to preserve San Bernardino County land from urban sprawl.
“33. Finally, Redlands fails and refuses to prepare or require Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for Mentone’s agricultural land converted to residential or commercial use; instead Redlands submits ‘Mitigated Negative Declarations,’ (‘MNDs’), which do not satisfy its legal responsibilities. In particular, it does not require, nor provide any details of, the cleaning up of hazardous waste sites; instead, more than one of the sites which have been annexed to Redlands were located adjacent to a schools, residences and a water supply, in violation of law and its own general plan, at least one of which was required to clean up the hazardous waste and pay a fine. Nor do such MNDs address this County’s considerable loss of agricultural land.
“34. Over residents’ objections, LAFCO has endorsed, and will continue to endorse, such MNDs.
“35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Redlands and LAFCO will continue to approve such projects without a proper EIR, unless and until enjoined by this Court.”
The Complaint concludes with the details of the seven causes of action and a “prayer,” listing C.O.M.ET’s requests for Court relief.
Please scroll down for the scanned-in copy of the annexation “agreement” forced on property developers. MM is sorry about the line; it’s not in the original and we don’t know where it came from. If this software allowed it, MM would detail all of the problematic paragraphs developers are requiredto “agree” to.
At the MACA meeting Tuesday night, copies of the Highland Community News for December 28, 2018 were being shared; the lead article stated that, despite several requirements, Orange County and Lewis Homes are planning to resume their efforts to develop the area east of Highland – the “Harmony”project against which Mentonites fought in 2018. Those requirements include: 1) a new bridge over Mill Creek; 2) consideration of an alternative, to reduce the number of homes to 1400; 3) mitigation of Riverside an Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat for endangered species; 4) Hydrological studies should be complete before construction begins; 5) addressing the problem of 34,000 daily vehicle trips in and out of the project area and 6) finalization of wastewater treatment plans.
In its second December issue, Mentone Matters reported that Dawn Rowe of Yucca Valley was elected to fill the last two years of James Ramos’ term as Third District Supervisor. However, Ms. Rowe was actually appointed to the position.
Some complained that the Brown Act was violated, in that all 48 applicants were not heard and supervisors held secret meetings to narrow down the field to 13 and then 5. According to http://wp.sbcounty.gov/cao/county wire/?p=4051, “The voter-approved County Charter requires the board to appoint a qualified elector (individual residing in the Third District and registered to vote 30 days prior to the application period) to fill the remainder of the unexpired term, otherwise the responsibility for the appointment transfers to the governor. The charter does not specify a process for the board to follow in making an appointment. . . The voter-approved County Charter requires the board to appoint a qualified elector (individual residing in the Third District and registered to vote 30 days prior to the application period) to fill the remainder of the unexpired term, otherwise the responsibility for the appointment transfers to the governor. The charter does not specify a process for the board to follow in making an appointment. “On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss and determine the process it will follow in making an appointment assuming the vacancy occurs in the Third District, which includes all or portions of the cities of San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Colton, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa, Barstow, Big Bear Lake and Twentynine Palms, the Town of Yucca Valley, and surrounding unincorporated communities and areas. A detailed map can be viewed at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Main/Pages/BOSDistricts.aspx. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the process the Board of Supervisors will follow for making an appointment.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on the process the Board of Supervisors will follow for making an appointment.
