The City of Redlands’ permissive land use policy has once again drawn controversy to itself, most recently involving instances in which city officials have signed off on approving applications to build accessory dwelling units, the plans for those projects and the occupancy permits for those quarters despite violations of city and state construction and development standards and/or failures to abide by the regulations imposed by overlapping governmental or utility jurisdictions or contracts associated with the tract.
In some of those cases, documents needed in the approval review process were apparently forged by city employees, using the names of their former colleagues who no longer work for the city.
Traditionally in California as in virtually all other states, local jurisdictions hold sway over and have the first and last say with regard to land use within their confines.
Zoning, which controls what kind of development – residential, commercial, industrial or recreational -is to take place, along with the tenor of that development. In this way the types of residential development allowed to occur, meaning single family homes, duplexes, condominiums, apartments as well as the density or the number of units per acre are specified in municipal zoning codes. Zoning categories also include industrial and commercial uses, and the gradations applicable to the purposes to which that land is to be put, controlling the intensity of activity to take place on such properties, including the type of stores or enterprises in commercial zones and the nature of logistics or manufacturing operations in industrial areas. The State of California has standards that impose minimal requirements with regard to construction, engineering and fire safety that builders must incorporate in their work. Nevertheless, discretion with regard to allowing projects to proceed, what they are to entail, their intensity and features, enforcement of requirements for providing both onsite and off-site improvements to minimize the impact of the final product on existing, current and future nearby residents in California was vested with local civil authorities, that is municipal or county government and their planning, land use and development staff members, their planning commissions and most pointedly, their elected political leadership bodes, those being town or city councils or the county board of supervisors.
Only relatively recently in response to the widespread perception of a housing crisis in the Golden State and an accompanying rise in the incidence of homelessness has the state government in Sacramento – the governor’s office, the legislature and the California Department of Housing and Community Development commandeered a from local governments land use authority. It has done so in myriad ways, the most prominent of which is what is referred to at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment program, Referred to by the acronym RHNA. Under RHNA, state officials with the California Department of Housing and Community Development examine the circumstances in communities, towns, cities and unincorporated area from around the state and make a determination as to ho many housing units are needed in each jurisdiction to bring the housing crisis to a close. It then assigns to each jurisdiction an allotment, broken into affordability categories – very low income, low income, moderate income and above average income – how many housing units that jurisdiction needs to provide over an eight year planning cycle.
In the case of Redlands, it is being called upon to facilitate the construction of 3,516 new residential units between October 2021 and October 2029. Of those 967 are supposed to be affordable to very low income individuals or families,615 to those of low income, 652 to those of average or moderate income and 1,282 to those with income described as being above moderate. The RHNA plan does not require that the specified number of units actually be constructed but it does require that the city accommodate any developer who seeks to provide housing in the city until the outlined goals are met.
To propel communities, cities and counties toward meeting these underlying housing construction goals, the state had essentially mandated that towns, cities and counties allow the construction of so-called accessory dwelling units on residential properties. Also referred to as granny flats – conjuring an image of a cottage constructed in the backyard of an existing single family residence to accommodate the mother of the home’s owner – these are either detached or in some cases attached structures which include the full range of living quarters extending to a kitchen, dining room or area, living room and/or den, along with a bedroom or bedrooms and a bathroom. In this way, the State of California usurped from towns, cities and counties the limitations they had imposed on density in residential zones, such that each residential lot in the state could now be divided into two lots. While this mandate was not popular in communities which had a tradition of limiting the number of dwelling units per acre to a fixed standard – such as in the Town of Apple Valley which had from its inception adhered to a requirement that homes be built on no lot smaller than a half acre – the state’s authority overrode local authority and California’s cities and towns accepted the mandate and made accommodations for it. Although California Civil Code limits accessory dwelling unit prohibitions via covenants, contracts and deeds associated with a property, this restriction does not apply to reasonable restrictions on accessory dwelling units or what are referred to as junior accessory dwelling units. Thus, contracts are applicable in the planning process, and an owner under contract is bound to the terms of the contract.
Other jurisdictions impose limitations on construction in very high fire danger zones. Rules intended to preserve public safety, health and welfare must be adhered to in accommodating accessory dwelling units, imposing limits on what a property owner can construct.
In Redlands, historically and currently more than in any other city in San Bernardino County, there is a contingent of civically involved and vocal opponents of aggressive development, which through the voter initiative process has obtained passage of local measures which put defined limits on the intensity of development that can take place in Redlands. For nearly a generation and up until currently, the building industry has through intensive political activity, including hefty donations to elected city leadership, installed a predominantly pro-development city council at Redlands City Hall, which in turn, has appointed an equally pro-development planning commission overseeing the city’s community development department and planning division.
The controlled-growth forces in Redlands are now decrying a perceived trend by Redlands officials by which the city’s community development, planning and public works departments and division are allowing virtually unregulated use of the accessory dwelling unit application and approval process to allow landowners, developers, builders and contractors to dispense entirely with construction standards.
While state law and mandates require towns, cities and counties to allow those who want to construct an accessory dwelling unit on their residential property to do so, those state and local regulations with regard to construction standards as well as associated property deed contract restrictions yet apply, and the regulations pertaining to infrastructure and utility accommodations for those projects cannot, legally, be suspended nor waived by the responsible jurisdictional agency or property owner.
Documentation obtained by the Sentinel through Redlands residents shows a pattern of city officials processing accessory dwelling unit applications with no regard for, in multiple cases, the city’s own codes and regulations, state statutes, regional regulations, and public health, safety and welfare restrictions.
Those seeking to construct an accessory dwelling unit are still subject to applying with the city for and obtaining a building permit and complying with a host of requirements or standards applicable to any and all construction projects.
Unknown is the number of accessory dwelling units that have been constructed in the city in the last three years, primarily because some homeowners have undertaken the construction of such structures without going through the city application process. City officials, apparently, have been accommodating of such flagrant violations of the law, and have been willing to look the other way as they have learned of such activity.
In the cases where the application process has been followed, it is easier to ascertain when and when not those undertaking to construct an accessory dwelling unit complied with the regulations they were subject to or were supposed to be subject to. In multiple such cases, it can be demonstrated by available records, corners were cut, either by contractors, subcontractors, owners or the city and its employees. In others still, it appears that there have serious suspensions of the regulations that are intended to ensure public safety and public health. In some of those cases, the plans submitted were out of compliance with city standards, but the project was allowed to proceed. In others still, it appears, there was no physical inspection of the project at any of several crucial milestones toward completion, such that what was actually constructed was inconsistent with the plans submitted for the project. In at least a handful of cases, “phantom” city officials – ones who formerly worked for the city but are no longer employed by Redlands – were listed as reviewing, commenting on, approving and/or “signing” documents certifying “compliance,” when the work performed did not meet the criteria proscribed in the project plans or governmental regulations. In other cases, there appears to be no listing in the permit log for approvals and in some cases the permit date matches noting in permit log and signatures are illegible. Despite city officials knowing and recognizing that the documents they were processing were signed by nonexistent employees, the documents were fully processed and filed as complete. The city’s response to questions about these discrepancies was that they were a “glitch.”
In certain cases, the city charged fees for traffic lights and freeway entrances in another city. The city in some cases charged sewer fees when the property utilized a septic system or railroad crossing fees when there was no railroad crossing near the location.
A city cannot process or make a ministerial approval of a development nor can it sign off on a septic system that lies in a water-provision jurisdiction other than itself which also provides water for the jurisdiction’s fire hydrants. Physical “will serve” letters are required in such instances. Properties in California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection very high fire danger zones require other procedures and analysis prior to the issuance of a building permit. The California Plumbing Code prohibits the issuance of a building permit if a septic system or expansion cannot be installed. Septic systems have setback requirements and cannot be in or near drainage courses. Septic systems cannot be placed in easements per San Bernardino County Code.
One case in point of the City of Redlands’ failure to enforce the full range of development and land use standards with regard to an accessory dwelling unit project taking place within the city is one such application and undertaking on a property at 12747 Hilltop Drive.
Redlands, like 21 of San Bernardino County’s 23 cities and incorporated towns, has a generally comprehensive sewer system. Like a few of those municipalities, however, there are spots within the city limits where the sewer system does not extend due to topography or previous annexation, and those properties entail septic systems. In order for an accessory dwelling unit located in an area where the city’s sewer system extends to be fully approved and certified for occupancy upon the completion of construction, the granny flat must either be tied into the city’s sewer/wastewater treatment system, which requires a separate connection and hook-up fee and operation fee arrangement than that of the preexisting residence. In order for an accessory dwelling unit located in an area where the city’s sewer system does not extend to be fully approved and certified for occupancy upon the completion of construction, the granny flat must be connected to the onsite wastewater treatment system – generally known as a septic system or cesspool – already in place for the dwelling unit on the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit is to be located. This generally means that the septic system or cesspool be enlarged to accommodate the increase in effluent it will have to accommodate. Each site must have 100 percent expansion room.
In 202, Redlands adopted its own local agency management plan fro onsite wastewater treatment systems. Septic systems, sometimes referred to as onsite wastewater treatment systems, have other restrictions, including setbacks and requirements for expansion areas.
Regulations require that septic systems be located in an area which can be accessed from above, serviced from the front and have proper setbacks from structures and drainage courses. This practically means that the septic system in whole or part cannot underlie the foundation of a structure, a driveway, a sidewalk, a street or any other impermeable cover placed over the ground beneath which the system is located nor interfere with the drainage course for the property.
Another requirement is that plans for a construction project must be submitted prior to construction being initiated, that the plans show a structure that is in compliance with all state and local standards, that the plans are signed off on by responsible and licensed inspectors before the construction begins and. Importantly, that what is actually constructed is in compliance with the submitted plans, as well as that the construction is inspected at progressive junctures to ensure it has been completed in compliance with applicable standards.
A host of construction standards that apply to residential dwelling units and accessory dwelling units alike pertain to the foundations, the plumbing systems, electrical systems, fire code compliance in the construction/construction materials and external improvements such as retaining walls on the properties. Structures must be constructed on soil that has been compacted to a degree that will support the weight to be imposed on it.
The septic system expansion at 12747 Hilltop Drive does not correspond with what was represented in the plot plan for the expansion of the septic system, as the expanded septic system extends into the drainage course and intrudes into the setback area.
The septic system as it now exists constitutes a code violation, due to it extending into the middle of the drainage course as well as beneath the driveway and the original structure. Given that the contour and slope of the property and grading for the project rendered such a code violation unavoidable, the permit should not have been issued.
The accessory dwelling unit is constructed on fill dirt, held in place by a retaining wall, the stability of which is untested and unverified, given that city records indicate no inspection was done on the wall or its foundation, meaning from the footer to top before the final grading was performed. In addition, there are outstanding questions as to the actual height of the wall in locations as some places appear to be over the 6-foot city standard.
There was no engineered design for the retaining wall. Both the ownership contract for the property and the site’s rural residential agricultural zoning limit grading and the addition of fill dirt. In this case, a massive amount of fill dirt was used to redress the slope on the property, which put the project out of compliance.
Furthermore, setbacks – i.e., a specified minimal distance of any structure and septic system from structures, trees, drainage courses and the property line – that are otherwise the standard in that particular zone or neighborhood must be maintained.
The accessory dwelling unit, at 1,200 square feet, occupies a substantial portion of the yard and is sited on a property with what was originally very steep terrain in a very high fire risk zone. This puts the accessory dwelling unit very close to the preexisting home on the property, as well into space that is reserved for the property’s setback zone, thus obstructing the defensive space around the original home and increasing the neighborhood fire risk, which is exacerbated by the consideration that Hilltop Drive is a cul-de-sac. As a consequence, other homeowners in the neighborhood have lost their homeowners insurance.
In the case of 12747 Hilltop Drive, a city employee has acknowledged that what has actually been constructed as part of the accessory dwelling unit is inconsistent with the plan submitted to the city to obtain approval of the application for the involved improvements.
The city-generated permit chronologies for the accessory dwelling unit, the construction of the retaining wall and the installation of a new septic system, including the addition of a 1,000 gallon tank at 12747 Hilltop Drive, list a series of milestones achieved in the application and planning process, from the granting of the grading permit on November 15, 2024, the issuance of a permit to construct a retaining wall on December 2, 2024, the issuance of a permit to construct a 1,200 square foot structure on December 19, 2024 and the issuance of a permit to install a new septic system on March 25, 2025.
Those milestones include the original application, paying of fees, deposits, plan checks, route plan filings, inspections and the issuance of grading, construction and occupancy permits.
Of note is that city documentation shows that on March 14, 2024 and March 28, 2024, Chris Jensen signed off on a fire safety review and a plan check for fire safety, respectively. Jensen was the Redlands Fire Department’s fire marshal from 2020 until 2022, but left Redlands to become the fire marshal and a division chief in Rialto in 2022. He thus was not available to undertake the review and plan check in 2024 as he is credited with on the city’s official document.
Similarly, on March 14, 2024, July 8, 2024 and August 7 Andrew Carothers is credited with having done pre-construction reviews of the plans for the accessory dwelling unit, which included, a correction to a building review, another correction to a building review and comments with regard to a building review, respectively. Carothers began with the City of Redlands as a plans examiner in Redlands in April of 2016 and remained in that assignment until April of 2020, at which point he promoted to the city’s chief building official. In February 2022, however, he left Redlands to become the senior plans examiner with the City of Riverside.
There is thus a discrepancy with regard to whether those reviews of the planning documents for the accessory dwelling unit project at 12747 Hilltop Drive actually took place as city documents attest.
A second case in point is that several months previous to the go-ahead given for accessory dwelling unit at 12747 Hilltop Drive, Redlands city staff approved an accessory dwelling unit and septic tank at 31518 Alta Vista Drive in the middle of a dedicated easement with the septic tank feet away from a drain that is marked no dumping and which drains to creek. The lot size alone would not allow a detached accessory dwelling unit based on zoning and Redlands’ own septic plan. The owners have blocked the easement, which was dedicated in 1948 to allow foot traffic, while for months they have maintained on the property a large pit. The city thus far has refused to have owner fill the nuisance pit, remove the obstructions and regrade the easement. Ironically the owner, a pediatrician, has young children.