In the 1960s, kids and others who had not yet reached the age of majority might be overheard engaging in adolescent philosophical and theological speculation, musings which were perhaps idle and which were perhaps semi-serious, about the nature of the world and the wide universe, with one on occasion querying, “God is all powerful, right? Didn’t he make heaven and earth and everything in between? Can’t he make anything? So, can God make a rock so heavy that even He can’t lift it?
Those kids are now grown up. As adults, some of them find themselves in actual positions of authority. A few are now engaged in substantive rather than idle discussions, ones beyond the realm of speculation, with regard to serious questions about man and God and law. One of those questions is: Can there be a law that outlaws the law?
Residents of a Redlands neighborhood are questioning whether city officials’ accommodation of a homeowner who is using a relatively recently passed law to construct a secondary home on his property supersedes their rights under the law to apply traditional standards and a longer-existing law to prevent such intensification of land use in a residential zone to occur.
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, is the province of local government.
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 bodies, those being town or city councils or the county board of supervisors.
This authority has been lodged with local jurisdictions – cities, incorporated towns, municipalities in general and counties where no cities or towns exist – by and through the California Government Code and California’s supreme law, the California Constitution.
Those zoning standards and city and town codes have evolved over decades and in some cases well over a century in those places where cities have been in existence for over 100 years. The evolution of those standards and the standards themselves have much to do with the tenor and quality, or lack thereof, of life in those particular necks of the woods.
One element, indeed for many a crucial one, contained within the concept and application of zoning is density. In particular, with regard to residential zoning, how many people are accommodated within so much space has a tremendous impact on the livability of that land. Some municipalities have strict rules limiting density, with others taking a more liberal approach, allowing far more dwelling units to be built on acreage than do others. In the mid-20th Century – during the 1950s and 1960s – an informal standard of four units to the acre predominated in many California cities, which by the 1980s and 1990s had changed to six-to-eight units per acre in many places. Currently, given the escalation in real estate prices over the previous three to four decades, many cities have allowed builders to construct 10, 11 and 12 units to the acre, such that in many neighborhoods across Southern California people live in homes that have no yard to speak of. Social scientist, psychologists, urban sociologists and criminologists have long maintained that forcing populations into increasingly smaller, tighter and crowded confines comes at a measurable social and personal human cost, which includes a rise in discourtesy, anti-social behavior and criminality. In addition, the presence of more people and the intensification of land use tends to overwhelm the public infrastructure that is put in place to accommodate human existence, including streets, transportation systems in general, utilities, schools, public amenities such as parks and recreational facilities, libraries and the like.
 In the City of San Marino in Los Angeles County, which at one point was home, on average, to the most affluent residents in the United States, the vast majority of the homes there are built on lots ranging from 20,000 to over 30,000 square feet, approximately 0.46 to 0.7 acres. In San Bernardino County, the Town of Apple Valley, for example, has had a firm and fast rule that all single-family homes built in the town be constructed on lots of no less than one-half acre. The town also has restrictions on how much land can be zoned for multi-family, or apartment, use. After David Holman and Barbara Loux were elected to the town council in November 1996 and then were joined by on the council dais by Patrick Jacobo following his election in November 1998, the trio, all of whom had ties to the development community, formed a three-member ruling coalition on the council and were able to politically outmuscle their two council colleagues, Mark Shoup and Bob Sagona, in a push to reduce the town’s standards to allow four residential units to the acre as a prelude to even further density concessions. A counterreaction among town residents ensued, resulting in a committee qualifying a recall election against the troika for the November 1999 ballot. All three recall efforts succeeded. Placed on the same ballot was Measure N, which mandated that until December 31, 2020, the “existing rural atmosphere and equestrian lifestyle” of Apple Valley would be respected by requiring a vote of the people on any amendment to the single-family residential element of the town’s general plan, thus safeguarding Apple Valley’s tradition of half-acre lots. Measure N also passed.
In some communities more than others, as in some neighborhoods more than others, the objections to the progression toward greater density is more intense and vigorous. In some areas, those who already live there are fighting, tooth and nail, against the trend toward “stack and pack” development.
Exacerbating this land use crisis, the State of California, which for more than a century was content to defer to local jurisdictions and allow them to decide for themselves what standards were to be applied in terms of how many homes are to be built in their respective communities and where and how large and how small, pushed its way into the equation
Concerned about the growing number of homeless in the state and the sharp incline in home prices, which was perceived as either causative or associative, two pieces of legislation relating to accessory dwelling units were enacted in 2016, Senate Bill 1069 and Assembly Bill 2299. Those bills significantly streamlined the process for building accessory dwelling units, known by the acronym ADUs or the common moniker granny flats, on most residential lots throughout California, overriding local zoning ordinances. Subsequent legislation since Senate Bill 1069 and Assembly Bill 2299 in 2017
This, essentially, doubled the permissible residential density wherever in California and whenever a homeowner chose.
Still, while SB 1069 and AB 2299 allow development to take place on land and within confines where, density had already met the previously established limit, those laws did not, seemingly, dispense with other pre-established building standards or restrictions imposed for purposes of public safety or health.
In one of Redlands’ more exclusive neighborhoods, a homeowner and local contractor are constructing a second house on the lot already occupied by an existing single family home which their neighbors maintain has stretched the accessory dwelling unit envelope to an absurdist length.
That undertaking is on the 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 2021, Redlands adopted its own local agency management plan for 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, what is actually constructed must be in compliance with the submitted plans. The city requires that the construction be 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 materials, external improvements such as retaining walls on the properties and in the process of the construction itself. 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 owners of nearby properties maintain.
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 portions of the wall 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.
Neighbors are concerned that the massive amount earth being held in place by the retaining wall exceeds its load capacity, which will ultimately lead to the wall failing and severe consequences to neighboring properties.
Furthermore, the city’s codes require that 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.
In addition, the accessory dwelling unit being being constructed at 12747 Hilltop Drive will occupy not the back of the lot but the front yard.
The 12747 Hilltop Drive lot lies within Hilltop Estates Tract 3311. Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 is subject to a rules of restrictions contract recorded in 1948 in the county assessors plot map Book 2226 on pages 432-436. That rules of restrictions contract supports the Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 tract map and associated public dedications and is both procedurally valid and legally binding.
Amanda Frye, who resides at 12714 Hilltop Drive, addressed the Redlands City Council on July 15. “I am really frustrated and very concerned about building on my street,” she said. “There’s been numerous violations of state law and local law.” She cited issues with the “retaining wall” and “septic tank.”
According to Frye, “Your building department admits it [the law violations] and the neighbors don’t understand. They put an ADU in the front yard even though it’s against code. Our area has a contract and the contract at this point has been breached.”
Frye referenced the contractor on the project, Manny Gonzales of Redlands Iron Works, and said, “Neighbors have heard from the contractor that he has friends in the City of Redlands, so he can do whatever he wants. I think perhaps the city attorney might agree that Government Code 53243.4 would classify allowing a contractor to break the law would be abuse of office or position.”
Frye implied that the residents within Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 would resort to legal action if the city did not act to ensure that both state and local building standards were adhered to on the 12747 Hilltop Drive accessory dwelling unit project. “That’s the only thing that people understand,” she said.
She inquired if it were accurate that members of the city council knew Gonzales or were associated with Redlands Iron Works. “Are you friends with Manny Gonzales?” she asked. “Redlands Iron Works? Does he have friends here?” No one on the council responded, but as they remained silent and Frye was addressing the council, City Attorney Yvett Abich Garcia hurriedly took notes. “This is what we’re facing and the neighbors are fed up,” Frye said. “We’ve tried the nice way. That’s what the neighborhood now, after hearing that comment, thinks.”
The city’s development services director, Brian Desatnik sought to justify the city’s suspension of the building standards to allow the accessory dwelling unit project at 12747 Hilltop Drive to proceed.
“I believe from previous correspondence what Ms. Frye’s referring to is Civil Code 4751, which has to do with accessory dwelling units. She lives in an association [homeowners association] that prohibits accessory dwelling units. The code she just referred to, specifically prohibits from not allowing or prohibiting ADUs from being developed. So, our code is consistent with state law and does allow it.”
At that point, Frye attempted to take issue with Desatnik’s characterization of the nature of the Hilltop Drive neighborhood, but was prevented from doing so by Mayor Mario Saucedo.
The following day, Frye dashed off a letter ostensibly written to Desatnik but electronically carbon copied to ten other Redlands city officials, including the mayor and entire city council and the city attorney. In it she stated, “I believe you intentionally made statements that misrepresented me and my Hilltop Estates neighborhood, but I was not allowed to refute your alleged misrepresentation to council, staff and the public. Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 is not a homeowners association (HOA). I do not live in an HOA and your statements implying that Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 is an HOA that prohibits ADUs is false. Furthermore, Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 does not meet the legal definition of an HOA per the Davis-Stirling Act codified in California Civil Code (CIV) commencing with section 4000.”
Frye’s letter continued, “It is CIV § 4751 part (b) validates the Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 Contract regarding ADUs. Your statement to the council and staff and in previous correspondence that our contract is invalid is fraudulent and false. You repeatedly cite CIV § 4751 (a) which is not applicable to the Hilltop Estates Contract. Your statements regarding the issue are false and misleading.”
Frye wrote, “CIV § 4751 (b) that validates the Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 contract, which does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict an ADU as defined in Government Code 63314 or 66333. There are options for ADUs consistent with the Hilltop Estates Contract. However, the California Code also requires any building to meet code and any ADU is site specific and public health and safety codes must also be met. Not all building sites are suitable for construction nor are all ADU/Jr ADU designs suitable for all sites for many reasons. However, the current Hilltop Estate ADU plans were never brought for Hilltop Estates Architectural Committee review and what is occurring is violating multiple terms of the contract and violating multiple state and local codes. The ADU site is also in a very high wildfire risk zone adding additional issues.”
According to Frye, “At this point, actions by staff have the appearance of colluding with certain homeowners and contractors to violate code while aiding and abetting the breach of the contract and ultimately threats to public health, safety and welfare. Even your staff acknowledge that the Hilltop front yard ADU project has repeated and ongoing code violations while the thing is built on fill dirt supported by an alleged inadequate unengineered retaining wall with invalid septic plans with multiple code issues. Yet, the structure has not been red tagged. The City of Redlands does not provide any utility service for this annexed area making rubber stamping plans and approvals in violation of multiple laws (including the ADU laws) as “phantom employees” appear to be used in the review and approve scheme.”
Efforts to obtain a reaction from city officials to Frye’s letter were not successful as of press time.