Posted on

COMET AND CHAMBER MEET FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE MARCH

On Tuesday night the COMET and Chamber of Commerce met by telephone conference call. Here are some highlights: 

From Scott Ward, field representative for Dawn Rowe: the County Board of Supervisors has voted to place the repeal of the fire tax on the November ballot. Some areas in the desert are not paying the fire tax but will have a vote, as well as those who are paying. Readers may access more information by utilizing this link.

Small business owners who have been impacted by the pandemic may apply for assistance at this link.

Pandemic numbers have been escalating, partly due to increased testing as well as other causes. There are over 24 locations for free testing, for which you need an appointment. The closest location to Mentone is Citrus Valley High School, he said. Chamber members stated it takes up to 10 days to hear the results, in one case even when those tested were positive. You may view more testing sites here.

Regarding fireworks: if you see something, say something. Take a picture. You may report the location at the San Bernardino County Fire website; here is the link. For more instructions, see under Sheriff’s Department below. For the latest on SB county fireworks, please see the website here.

The County has extended its contract for legal services to seniors, so those who are receiving them may rest assured they will continue for now. 

From Nohelia Orellana, field representative for Assemblyman James Ramos: the County is running a 54B deficit but is asking for help from the State for small businesses impacted by the pandemic. Bills are being introduced, mostly related to COVID-19. One asks the Legislature to make it illegal to sue a restaurant for a customer who contracts the virus. Another regards suicide prevention among Native American tribes and another tribal lands. Readers who have lost  their jobs and are having difficulty receiving unemployment are encouraged to contact Ramos’ office. 

Regarding COMET’s counsel’s February letter to Ms. Orellana, requesting that Assembly Ramos’ office re-submit the bill making it illegal to demand annexation in exchange for water, she said she was told that because it’s been such a long time (since 1996) there was not much they could do and it would be reviewable at the LAFCO (Local Area Formation Commission) level. By law, LAFCO’s duties are ministerial, only: to supervise whether new developments comply with the law; it does not supervise annexations. When assured that it was not a LAFCO problem or project, she said she would try to re-submit or re-introduce it.  As previously reported, the bill never made it past an aide in Senator Morrell’s office and Senator Leyva’s office has never responded to a similar request by COMET’s counsel.           

From Rachel Achilly, San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office: the Department has had COVID-19 cases, mostly in the jails. Regarding fireworks, the County will fine and even jail violators of the no-fireworks law in this area. Each offense carries a fine of $1,250 and can go up to $6,000. Fireworks are illegal to set off in any area where they are not sold. They can be sold only in Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino and south of the Freeway. However, moving or aerial fireworks are illegal everywhere. Only those fireworks that are safe and sane are legal to buy in those communities, she added. If anyone sees a neighbor setting off fireworks, even in their backyard, the observer is encouraged to report it and a video or snapshot  is welcome because it is presently a misdemeanor, which means that the Sheriff or Fire Department investigator must see it in order to arrest the persons responsible. She added that a photo or video must show the address clearly visible. Some Fire Department investigators have law enforcement authority. A representative from the Red Brennan Groups shared its efforts to get the Fire Tax repealed. 

Other news: the Library may be reopening July 6 (this was before the latest shutdown news), the Senior Center later on. No meals will be served, however. The June 13 celebration of Mentone’s development and Film Festival were, of course, postponed due to the pandemic. Hopefully, in 2021 the celebrations will be able to be held. As far as the Mill Creek Casino Night, “We will see,” said Jim Lotito, co-owner/proprietor and Ways and Means Committee co-chair. He added that the Mill Creek Cattle Company was operating at  25-30% of its regular business and hoped that business would pick up by December.  Someone defined a “bar” as a place that doesn’t provide food, so it technically doesn’t fall under the definition of a “bar” and, as of Tuesday night, could stay open. 

Chairman David Wilder mentioned CalTrans and the members discussed its slowness to paint the straight-ahead arrow at the corner of Wabash and the Boulevard (westbound), which it promised to do at least two years ago; he promised to bring it up again and ask that it be done sooner rather than later. 

Op-Ed:

It is certainly a shame that, in an area that is paying the fire tax (get out and vote it down in November), those who set off illegal fireworks –  2-3 times a night between dark and 10 p.m. in Mentone – can be guilty of only a misdemeanor. That means that, unless you get a photo or video with the home’s address clearly showing, they can set one off, you report it and the Sheriff arrives but there is nothing to see and the miscreants lie so the Deputies have to leave. Then the miscreants do it again and again, each time spacing them out so the Sheriff cannot view them. It should be made a felony, which is reportable by an eyewitness and thus more prosecutable.

Those who do this in quiet neighborhoods like Mentone should be arrested and punished because of the impact on those who have PTSD from honorably serving in the military and everyone’s pets (f you’ve ever cleaned up dog poo, including diarrhea, off a rug at 3 a.m., as I have, you understand why folks want to be able to put their pets out at night).  It is incomprehensible that anyone should think it’s “fun” or “clever” to disturb everyone else’s peace simply because they can get away with it. 

It seems the misinformation never stops: first, CALAFCO, which has nothing to do with Redlands’ extortionate annexation of Mentone territory, successfully lobbied to keep the proposed legislative amendment out of the Senate, most probably because of some personal ties with someone in Redlands’ city council.

Now, Assemblyman Ramos’ office – and he did nothing to help Mentone with this problem before he went “upstairs” – thinks it has a “statute of limitations” problem.  Senator Leyva’s office “next door,” whose website requests proposed legislation, failed to respond to a similar request. Someone, somewhere, sometime, has to recognize that “little, old Mentone” has rights, too, and that time has already come long ago.

Maybe readers would start a letter-writing campaign to Ramos, Leyva and Senator Mike McGuire, chairman of the threshold Finance and Governance Committee, to demand that this legislation – which has already been  reviewed and revised by Legislative Counsel – be submitted to the Senate.

The “Donut Hole” – the businesses around the intersection of Alabama and Lugonia, was excluded from Redlands’ control by Legislature, so why not Mentone?  Of course, Redlands is receiving that area’s sales taxes, but doesn’t have to provide fire, police and other services, so that was a win-win for it. (The Donut Hole developers’ attorneys, based in Redlands, sold them a bill of goods, but that’s another story for another time.) 

Local businesses, especially restaurants, are hurting; everyone likes to eat something someone else prepared so why not patronize the local businesses, even if it means you still have to wash the dishes? So many businesses have failed elsewhere that it would be a shame to see some of our local ones also “go away,” after many years of serving the community. 

Posted on

MISDEEDS IN OUR LEGISLATURE

In August 2017 Raul Madrid, a developer who wishes to develop 13 lots he owns in Mentone, submitted to California Senator Mike Morrell a proposed bill containing two amendments to existing laws. One, concerning Government Code section 56133, prohibited cities from forcing annexation in exchange for water or other utilities; it would codify California Supreme Court case law already existing in 1996 [Ed.’s note: the year that Redlands enacted its ordinance that later became “Measure U,” a part of Redlands’ municipal law; it uses that “law” to “justify” demanding annexation to its city limits in exchange for water and, where available, sewer services].

The other proposed amendment concerned the reasonableness of “development impact fees,” concerning another Government Code section.

Madrid had worked with COMET’s counsel to prepare both amendments and is long-time friends with Senator Morrell.

In 2018 Morrell assigned the proposed amendments to an aide, Tess Scherkenback, who forwarded them to legislative counsel for review; that counsel added some language to the annexation portion and sent it back to Morrell’s office for submission to the Finance and Governance Committee, as SB 646. The Committee would review it before giving it to the entire Senate for approval.

Scherkenback communicated part of the legislative process to Madrid but failed to advise him that he and/or COMET’s counsel could appear before the Committee, to explain Mentone’s plight and why the bill was important to it and other similarly-situated unincorporated areas. [Ed.’s note: Some years ago, the Legislature excluded by law the shopping area around the intersection of Lugonia and Alabama Avenues from Redlands’ city limits.] No history or other information was submitted with the bill or solicited by Scherkenback.

In February 2019 Scherkenback e-mailed the entire bill to Madrid, as modified and approved by legislative counsel and then in purportedly the final form, the day before she was to submit it to the Finance and Governance Committee. However, Madrid only recently learned that the bill was actually missing the prohibition-of-demanded-annexation portion when she sent it to the Committee so the Committee never received it or voted on it.

In March 2019 Scherkenback told Madrid that Senator Mike McGuire, the chairman of the Senate Finance and Governance Committee, “didn’t like” the annexation portion of the bill. However, an aide in Senator Mike McGuire’s office recently confirmed that the annexation portion of SB 646 was removed before it was submitted to the Finance and Governance Committee, which would have reviewed, and possibly submitted, the bill to the full Legislature and the Governor.

Scherkenback also stated that CALAFCO was not in favor of the annexation portion, and that CALAFCO’s director had said the bill “would die in committee.” [Ed.’s note: CALAFCO is the 501c3 advisory, only, organization to which all county LAFCOs belong. LAFCO stands for “Local Area Formation COmmission”; it was set up by the Legislature in the 1960s to oversee property developments in all California counties, since cities oversee those projects within their city limits. The San Bernardino County LAFCO replaced the former Boundary Commission. According to the IRS’ website CALAFCO, as a tax-exempt 501c3 organization, is restricted in lobbying against proposed legislation and COMET’s counsel recalled that one of LAFCO’s agendas in the past had voiced its opinion in favor of annexation.] It is not yet clear what connection CALAFCO or its director, Pamela Miller, has with Redlands, said COMET’s counsel, or why Mentone’s protection would adversely impact LAFCO’s duties: LAFCO inquires about annexation but does not require it, for any purpose. COMET’s counsel added that CALAFCO, based in Sacramento, has ignored COMET’s service of the lawsuit.

In July of that year, a deputy legislative counsel wrote an opinion letter, which Scherkenback provided to Madrid; the opinion stated why, in the author’s opinion, forced annexation was proper. That letter, of course, contradicted the earlier, other legislative counsel’s opinion. Moreover, the later opinion did not address existing case law , nor an exception contained in Government Code Section 56133(e)(4), which states that, if the water customers were receiving water before January 1, 2001, section 56133 (a)’s mention of the “anticipation of a later change of annexation,” does not apply. [Ed.’s note: That exception was probably added because, beginning in 1915 the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that a city purchasing a water company must continue to provide water service to existing and new customers; there is no mention of a requirement of annexation.] However, adds COMET’s counsel, Redlands ignores that exception and the supporting case law – in Mentone’s favor, of course – and instead cites a lower case holding which appears to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court, which courts are not entitled to do. It is possible that – since earlier legislative counsel had approved the proposed amendment – Scherkenback may have requested the opinion so as to support her omission of the prohibition of forced annexation from the submitted SB 646.

It is not yet known how much territory Mentone has lost in the past 1 1/2 years due to CALAFCO’s interference and Scherkenback’s action. Since bills must be submitted to the Committee by late February each year, Madrid learned of this information too late to resubmit the proposed annexation prohibition for this year’s consideration by the Committee and the entire Legislature.

It is not clear whether Morrell knew of Scherkenback’s omission of the annexation portion of SB 646 until it came up for the Committee vote. Morrell told Madrid he is “terming out” this year, and presently does not know whether he will seek another legislative office in November.

Scherkenback, whose Linked-In page states she graduated summa cum laude from a private evangelical university and received various honors and awards, was awarded a fellowship in Morrell’s office, which position she held for a year and two months. Madrid said Morrell told him she is no longer working there; that is confirmed by Linked-In, which says she is a legislative aide in Sacramento, but not for whom.

The remainder of Senate Bill 646, concerning only the reasonableness of “development impact fees,” passed the Committee easily in May 2019 and was signed into law by the Governor. It clarifies another, similar law.

Posted on

STILL WAITING. . .

Over the weekend, COMET’s counsel received written notification from the Supreme Court that its decision on COMET’s petition to the Court, to order the Fourth District Appellate Court to decide COMET’s writ petition to it on its merits rather than the summary (Ed’s note: without giving any reasons) denial, would be extended to June 4, or perhaps earlier. The writ petition concerns damages suffered by Mentone as a result of Redlands’ demanded annexations.
Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the County courthouse has been closed to all but emergency situations since mid-March and is scheduled to reopen May 28, unless it is extended again (it was to have reopened on May 1). The Appellate Court is likewise operating through its clerks working at home.

Posted on

If you’re curious about current numbers you can look at sbcovid19.com. Somewhere I saw the other day that there were 7 confirmed cases in Redlands.  I made an emergency trip to the dentist the other day, through Redlands – of course: adults were jogging, running, biking, walking, no masks.  Kids were out playing without masks and looked at me in my mask in my car as though I were from another planet.  Maybe that’s why they have cases there? 

So far, MM hasn’t heard about any cases in Mentone; I guess Mentonites’ toughness and  independence pay off!  To say nothing of common sense!  Of course, some of those “Redlands” cases could be Mentonites hospitalized there (hopefully not).  Everyone please keep safe out there and one day soon we’ll have MACA and COMET/Chamber meetings again and like will be back to normal, whatever that turns out to be.  In the meantime, won’t you note what lessons you’ve learned from this pandemic?  MM

Posted on

REDLANDS NOT GETTING IT RIGHT AGAIN

Civil engineer Steve Rogers, who – although he does not live in Mentone -has been actively helping to protect Mentone’s interests for the past give-or-take 10 years, recently forwarded to Mentone Matters the following points he made in writing to the city of Redlands, regarding its General Plan, back in 2017. Readers may be most interested in numbers 2, 3 and 5:
“The following additional comments are hereby provided concerning the City of Redlands General Plan Update (GPU) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR):
1) Comment letters as provided by the State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), dated September 8, 2016, and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, dated June 23, 2017 and concerning the scope and analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as being inadequate, have been ignored by City staff and the GPU EIR consultants with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) documents.
2) Figure 3.15-1 Existing Roadway Classifications shows the future extension of San Bernardino Avenue as a Proposed Arterial street to be constructed east of Crafton Avenue in the Mentone area and bisecting the former Lockheed contamination site, then curving southerly through property owned by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District and eventually connecting to State Route 38 east of Garnet Street. This new intersection of San Bernardino Avenue as proposed with the State Highway (as well as with Garnet Street) has not been properly analyzed with the GPU TIA as was prepared for the EIR-FEIR and has not even been conceptually considered or approved by CalTrans, the agency responsible for the State Highway System (SHS).
3) Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use inappropriately shows the Pre-zoning of property located within the unincorporated territory at Mill Creek Rd (SR38) and Garnet Street to Commercial, a change that impacts the existing historic Mill Creek store rock structure.
4) A notation on Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use pertaining to the newly created Transit Village Overlay Zones associated with the Redlands Passenger Rail Project (RPRP) reads “Mixed Use Core areas and other Transit Village details are shown in maps in Section 4.5.” However, no such section is contained in the documents held in the City Clerk’s office or the Smiley Library.
5) The 200-ft wide strip of property owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, east of the Wabash Avenue alignment in the Santa Ana River Wash area (APN 0168-311-02) appears to have inappropriately been annexed into the City of Redlands in 1958/9 as “inhabited” (vs “uninhabited”) territory.
6) The Redlands Sk8Park project was originally proposed to be built on property located off Park Avenue, west of University Street (APN 0170-191-38) on the southside of the railroad tracks adjacent to Sylvan Park. This property was sold by the City of Redlands to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) by City Council action on January 15, 2008 ” for the purpose of developing future affordable housing.” Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use shows the subject property instead as “Parks/ Golf Courses” and therefore would be the appropriate site for the proposed Redlands Skatepark project as opposed to destroying a portion of historic Sylvan Park which will be further impacted by the future Redlands Passenger Rail Project (RPRP), where SanBAG (now sbcta) has already incumbered an 18-foot wide strip of property along the southern edge of the park, adjacent to Park Street, under a 2015 License Agreement for use with the RPRP.”
MM believes that Redlands basically ignored these comments, especially as they relate to Mentone’s interests. MM

Posted on

UPDATE ON MENTONE VS. REDLANDS:

Counsel for C.O.M.E.T. (Community of Mentone Empowered Together) filed a Motion for six injunctions against future conduct before Superior Court Judge, the Honorable Donald Alvarez, in July; Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel opposed the Motion, on the basis that C.O.M.E.T. should have filed a “reverse validation” action challenging completed projects. Several weeks after the hearing on the Motion, Judge Alvarez, who ruled in Greenspot’s favor on the “Harmony” Project, denied it. C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the Fourth District, seeking an order of that Court that Judge Alvarez change his decision to comply with the law C.O.M.E.T. had provided. 
The Injunctions sought Court orders that “1) Redlands cease demanding annexation of a new development to Redlands City Limits in exchange for water or sewer service, so as to take Mentone territory to itself, whether via its annexation “Agreements” or any other methods; 2) Redlands cease enforcement of all provisions of executed said annexation or “pre-annexation” “Agreements”; 3) Redlands cease requiring payment of “Development Impact Fees” (“DIFs”) for services it does not provide, such as fire, police, library, parks and others; 4) Redlands cease requiring payment of “Development Impact Fees” that exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services it does provide, which violates its own adopted professional development fee impact studies, in order to receive water and sewer service; 5) LAFCO cease its violation of Government Code §56133(e)(4); and 6) prohibited any lobbying or other interference by Redlands, LAFCO or any other party against passage of proposed legislation that would prohibit Redlands from demanding said forced annexation from Mentone.”  Early in 2019, Senator Mike Morrell had introduced a bill prohibiting governmental entities from demand No. 1 above, but it “died in committee.” LAFCO is alleged wrongfully to have approved Redlands’ alleged extortionate annexations. 
Meanwhile, C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel had also filed a Motion for Relief from Government Code section 945.6.  The Motion for Relief requested that the Court allow late claims against Redlands for its annexations of Mentone territory, of which Mentone did not know until much later, and alleged compliance with a three-year statute of limitations, imposed for fraudulent transactions.  Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel opposed, and C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel filed a reply. Several weeks after the hearing Judge Alvarez denied that, as well. 
C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Monday, January 27. The Writ Petition alleges that LAFCO’s rules, set down by the Legislature, prohibit a City from voting on annexation because the rules only provide for voting by the “affected territory,” i.e., an unincorporated area such as Mentone. This was held in the Supreme Court’s case of “Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. LOCAL AG. FORM., 32 Cal. 3d 816, 187 Cal. Rptr, 654 P. 2d 193 (Cal Supreme Court, 1982),” in which the situation was the reverse of Mentone’s: Eastview wanted to be annexed to Rancho Palos Verdes, which didn’t want the annexed territory but the Court held that it had no vote against annexation. Thus, the Petition states, Measure U, under which Redlands has demanded annexation for more than 19 years, was void from the beginning. 
Moreover, the Petition states, the Supreme Court case of “Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1172, 1188-1189, 233 Cal. Rptr. 22, 729 P.2d 186 [held] that a city acquiring the water system of another community was under the same obligation as the grantor to continue the service and supply water to all who may become entitled to it in the future.” Redlands’ and LAFCO’s Opposition argued that a First District case gave Redlands the right to demand annexation in exchange for water [Ed.’s note: Supreme Court law “trumps” a State’s District Court so it can’t be overturned, as Redlands seemed to be arguing and Judge Alvarez’s decision adopted]. 
The Fourth District’s reputation is that Writ Petitions are often denied summarily (without explanation); if they are not, the other parties have an opportunity to respond and then the Petitioner has another opportunity to argue their case. The decision may or may not be published, depending on the effect on established case law on the subject. If the Petitioner or Respondent is unsatisfied with the decision, they may appeal to the Supreme Court, which doesn’t take every case referred to it for review but often does if it involves conflicts in law between two or more District Court decisions. In the C.O.M.E.T. vs. Redlands case, there may be a conflict between the Supreme Court cases that C.O.M.E.T. relied on and the case Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel argued.   
A Motion is a written document, filed and scheduled for hearing; oral argument is made at the hearing by the attorneys involved. A Petition for Writ of Mandate can be made to the Superior Court or the Fourth District Court of Appeals, who receives the case after it has been heard in the Superior Court, or it can be made to the Superior Court in the first place. There are strict deadlines for filing lawsuits, motions and writ petitions but the only deadline for the Superior Court Judges is 90 days for a motion. MM