By Mark Gutglueck
In recent months, residential neighborhoods in the community of Oak Hills at the top of and just north of Cajon Summit and south of Hesperia have become a magnet for projects converting what were or are single family homes into adult group care/treatment facilities or quarters for recovering drug addicts or halfway homes for convicted criminals/parolees/probationers.
The number and intensity of such conversions or attempted conversions, some of which were properly and formally registered with the overseeing governmental authority and some of which were not, have sparked concern that the trend is part of a concerted effort to create multiple precedents which will have the practical effect of obliterating the land use and zoning standards that have historically and by tradition and law previously applied, and will substantially intensify land use in Oak Hills’ residential neighborhoods to a level far greater than that of single family residential homes.
A solid cross section of those in the Oak Hills community are adamantly opposed to elements that are out of character with the rustic residential neighborhoods in which they live being foisted upon them without their consent and contrary to the land use standards that were in place when they purchased their properties and which they thus had reason to believe would remain in place and inviolate. Dozens of them have indicated that when they sought to weigh in with regard to those permits for conversions, the employees in the county’s land use department not only disregarded the substance of their objections but appeared to be actively colluding with the applicants to allow them to maneuver around or effectively suspend the land use, zoning, and reconstruction/augmentation standards that normally apply.
Somewhat outlandishly, there are those who consider Oak Hills, which is defined as a 24.39-square mile unincorporated county area, to be “the Beverly Hills of the High Desert.” While the comparison to upscale Beverly Hills is overblown, over the last generation-and-a-half to two generations, following or perhaps even before the incorporation of Hesperia in 1988, there was a collective consciousness among many of those who were purchasing land upon which they were building what were for the most part custom homes in Oak Hills, that their community was both independent and different from other jurisdictions in San Bernardino County, both those close and more distant. In Hesperia and Victorville, while nothing truly approaching the dense overbuilding that was taking place in the Los Angeles Basin and down the hill in the Montclair/Upland/Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga/Fontana/Rialto portion of San Bernardino County/Inland Empire region in the 1970s/1980s/1990s and early 2000s era had occurred, residential subdivisions which involved homes on lots of a quarter of an acre and less, including multi-family/apartment projects, were going up. In Apple Valley, an ethos that was resistant to the concept of a densely-packed urban environment in which wall-to-wall houses blanketed square mile after square mile prevailed in the form of a requirement that all single family homes be constructed on lots of no less than a half acre. In Oak Hills, the lots were larger still than those in Apple Valley. Some who located in Oak Hills chose to build on half acre lots, but most of the people moving there were intent on having properties larger than that. Homes on a single acre proliferated, alongside other dwellings that were built on two-acres, two-and-a-half acres and five acres. When some people, including a handful of Oak Hills residents, began pushing all of the Oak Hills community to consider annexing into adjacent Hesperia, there was resistance, indeed substantial resistance. While perspectives varied and no one idea predominated, it was clear that, collectively speaking, the residents of Oak Hills did not consider themselves citified and they were in no hurry to become so.
In the Oak Hills Community Plan, within the chapter relating to “Residential Land Use Zoning” the designated minimum lot sizes are 2.5 acres 7,200 square feet or 10,000 square feet.
There is a minimum width to lots, that being 60 feet for lots of less than 1 acre and 140 feet for lots of an acre or more. The plan sets a maximum width-to-depth ratio for residential lots, that being 1:3 for less than 10 acres and 1:4 for 10 or more acres.

The community plan does allow for multifamily development, but only on the condition of certain strict criteria, which include allowing for accessory structures and uses. In such cases, apartment complexes with up to 20 units per acre are permitted. This is far less intense of a land use than is the case in the City of Redlands, for example, where in recent years an apartment complex consisting of 149 units was constructed on a 1.49-acre lot – a density of 100 units to the acre.
Unable to construct 50, 60, 70, 80 or more units to the acre, developers have not pursued constructing apartments in Oak Hills on a massive scale.
Going back one, two and even three years, around Oak Hills there have been cases, isolated ones, of individuals or families moving out of their residences, indeed selling them to a buyer, whereupon the home remains empty. In a few of those cases, Oak Hills residents say, something sinister, or so it seems, is afoot.

Last year the 4,246-square foot home on a 81,020-square foot or 1.86 square acre lot at 10131 Jenny Street in Oak Hills was acquired by KCBA Real Estate LLC, a Delaware company, for $1.15 million. With no fanfare, and without actually applying for permits or licensing to do so, KCBA or its tenant – it is not known which – began operating what was variously described as a “halfway house” or “drug recovery house” from the premises.
It was not clear, at least initially, what was going on there. Cars, the passengers or drivers of which were apparently in contact with the occupants of the home, would drive onto the property and be allowed entrance, after which the driveway gate would be closed and locked behind them. Mission Uniform trucks/linen supply vans occasionally came onto the property, as did food supply trucks. Outsiders, however, were unable to get beyond the gate. At some point, word slipped out that the home was being operated as a sober recovery facility. The San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department was contacted, and the county’s code enforcement division went onto the property in August 2025, whereupon the activity there was ascertained to be the operation of a substance abuse recovery facility, whereupon it was learned the operators did not have licensing from the state or county for the operation. In short order, the county moved to shut it down. Reportedly, when county authorities effectuated the closure, some 37 patients were discovered residing on the premises.
Reports, however, are that as early as September 2025, without any granting of licenses, the premises at 10131 Jenny were again being operated as a drug use recovery facility. This is supported by a report that in November, a patient or would-be patient had come into the neighborhood and was knocking at nearby doors, asking for those residents to direct him to the facility.
San Bernardino County officials have not responded to questions as to whether the facility is yet operating.
At issue in the circumstances Oak Hills residents are up in arms about is what appear to be the county land use services department’s cavalier and indiscriminate suspension of zoning, use intensity, use difference, use compatibility and other land use standards in their community.
Modern urban planning standards dictate that under normal circumstances, there is to be a significant separation, including barriers, buffering and distance or a combination thereof, between incompatible uses. A bookstore or video outlet specializing or prominently featuring pornographic materials, for example, is not permitted in a zone where churches or parks are located. Hazardous waste disposal facilities do not operate adjacent to schools. Similarly, dwelling units of radically different densities are not juxtaposed with one another. A neighborhood of manors or mansions on ten- or fifteen- or twenty-acre lots are not intersticed with apartment buildings or twelve-plexes.
An established standard with regard to use intensity in single family residential settings is six occupants. Occasionally in neighborhoods throughout the United States, California and San Bernardino County are residential facilities offering one form of service or another, usually specialized, to those living there. These extend to convalescence, different forms of medical treatment, recovery, training, education, transitional assistance, mental health, behavioral health, elderly care and disability assistance. Generally, up to six people needing or making use of such specialized assistance can reside in a single family home and fit within the context of a regular neighborhood, since regular and familial households can and often do entail six people and thus do not impose on utilities and public facilities/infrastructure more of a burden than might typically be expected. It is beyond that threshold of six that a demarcation in intensity of use is made.
Last year, on September 22, 2025, James Erwin made an application to alter the existing 3,186 square foot single family home on a 106,721-square foot (2.45-acre) lot to accommodate, i.e., house, 18 non-ambulatory residents.
A first indication to nearby residents that something was amiss and that corners had been cut was when prior to the project getting approval, workers went to the residence and gutted the inside, transforming what had been a five-bedroom home into one with ten bedrooms.
A second troubling aspect to the project was that instead of the project going before an official body – either an elected one such as the board of supervisors or the appointed county planning commission – for the ultimate determination with regard to land use at the site, county land use services staff conducted a quasi-procedural formality/hearing for the proposal on December 11, 2025. What was considered to be the final official processing of the application took place before a nameless “zoning administrator” who was authorized to give “administrative approval” of what staff called “a major reasonable accommodation for the establishment and operation of a licensed residential care facility as a congregate care living health facility increasing the occupancy from 6 or fewer persons to up to 18 non-ambulatory residents, as part of the conversion of an existing residence containing 3,186 square feet with an addition of 1,382 square feet, and the reduction of the required parking from 11 to eight parking spaces on 2.45 acres.”
The staff report that supported the county land use services staff’s action made the unsupported declaration that the project was an “exempt project under the California Environmental Quality Act.”
As residents examined the rationale that went into the administrative approval, they encountered what they now characterize as multiple anomalies. One is contained in a staff report authored by Oliver Mujica, a planning division manager.
Mujica acknowledged, “Pursuant to Subsection 82.04.040(b) of the San Bernardino County Development Code), a licensed residential care facility of six or fewer persons is a use allowed by right (no planning permit required) in a Rural Living land use zoning district, whereas a licensed residential care facility of 7 or more persons are (sic) not allowed.” Mujica, nonetheless, reasoned that “State law provides requirements for the care of mentally and physically disabled persons in a residential environment” and “if any county regulation prevents a residential care facility from being established, a facility operator may request a ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the application of one or more of the criteria of the development code.”
At an Oak Hills Community Advisory Council meeting on December 1, 2025, Erwin, without representatives of the land use services department present, provided an informational briefing to residents with regard to the proposed conversion project. Some of the residents who were in attendance would later complain that Erwin informed them – falsely they now maintain – during the course of that gathering that the project had already been given approval and the deadline for residents to prevent it from proceeding had elapsed. This, in turn, they say, dissuaded several Oak Hills residents from attending the December 11, 2025 administrative hearing for the proposal.
With Mujica’s staff report being used by the zoning administrator as the basis of the administrative acceptance of the conversion proposal and without informing the public or those nearby of what was in the offing within the forum of a public hearing before an elected or appointed body with land use authority, in which those on all sides of the issue with regard to whether tripling the number of residents in a single-family home was indeed a reasonable suspension of the rules, the county simply acceded to the change.
Residents found puzzling that despite the 2.45-acre size of the lot on which the home to be converted sat, there was to be parking for only eight vehicles, when Erwin acknowledged up front there would be as many as 25 individuals on the premises at any given time, including patients, nurses, rehabilitation therapy, kitchen and janitorial staff working in two shifts on a 24 hour basis at the site, meaning visitor vehicles would be parking on the street. More seriously, it was noted, the facility is located more than 16 miles from Desert Valley Hospital and within a high fire hazard area as well at an elevation of near 4,000 fee, such that from December until March under some weather/atmospheric conditions, that location has been inaccessible because of being blanketed with snow and ice. No plan for evacuation of 18 non-ambulatory residents had been submitted nor examined nor approved. The artificial intelligence-generated evacuation map Erwin presented did not match, correspond to or replicate the neighborhood.
On December 19, 2025, Meredith Rudolph, at a cost of $1,600, filed an appeal of the zoning administrator’s approval of the so-called “major reasonable accommodation.”
In her challenge to the approval, Rudolph contended that enlarging the facility to 18 beds made it “an institution, not a home… [that] traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable… [that] access limitations create real safety concerns… [that] infrastructure limitations make the location unsuitable for high-acuity care… [that] operation disruption will harm the character and quiet of the neighborhood… [and that] the size of the facility sets a precedent for institutional use in a single-family area. “
A third indication that “something shady was in the offing,” according to one Oak Hills resident, Michael Bogdanoff, came in January, while the community was fixated on the Desmond Drive issue and it was hit with a separate intensive land use conversion proposal.
On January 29, the land uses services division conducted a hearing in San Bernardino relating to applicant Sulaiman Masood’s plan to convert the 3,578-square foot single-family residence at 6748 Coriander Drive in Oak Hills into an 18-bed addiction recovery care facility. That hearing involved presentations by Masood’s representative and San Bernardino County Planning Division Manager Dan Campos. Also present at the meeting was San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department Lead Planner Paul Gonzalez. On the order of 105 people attended that meeting, at which public input on the proposed conversion was to be heard. There was consensus skepticism among the Oak Hills residents present at that meeting with regard to the nature, scope and intensity of what Masood was proposing. The responses provided by both Masood’s representative and Campos to the questions posed by several of the residents were, Bogdanoff said, “unsatisfactory.” At least 40 of those present, including public officials, went on the record as against it.
Nevertheless, Bogdanoff said, “Paul Gonzalez advanced the hearing to the planning stage.”
Ultimately, Rudolph’s appeal on the Desmond Drive convalescent care facility went before the county planning commission on March 19, 2026. Both prior to and during the hearing, 261 Oak Hills residents expressed objections to the proposal, either in whole or with regard to various aspects. A matter brought up during the hearing was whether the safety of the residents who were to be cared for at the facility could be ensured. A very specific consideration in this regard was whether there would be adequate water pressure into the fire hydrant systems serving the 9900 block of Desmond Drive. County staff when confronted on that issue said it had deferred to Erwin with regard to that question and he had given county officials an assurance that was the case. There was no confirmation of that by the fire department, however. When Mujica, who had previously offered assurances that all safety regulations relating to the project had been met, was unable to cite any individual with the fire department or any documentation relating to the availability of water in the hydrant system in the 9928 block of Desmond Drive.
During the March 19 hearing relating to the non-ambulatory patient care home at 9928 Desmond Drive, Oak Hills residents sought to explore dropping their objections to the presence of the facility if Erwin were to scale its scope back to six live-in patients. This prompted a response from Erwin to his spokesperson that was overheard by some of the residents to the effect that such a reduction in size was unacceptable because for the facility to be profitable it could operate with no fewer than 18 occupants. To the Oak Hills residents, this clarified the decision the planning commissioners were being called upon to make into the starkest of terms: The commission could uphold the standards contained in the county code and within the Oak Hills Community Plan intended to protect the quality of life of the residents and homeowners there or it could suspend the county’s own rules and codes in favor of ensuring the financial prospects of an investor whose business model was contrary to the county’s normally applicable regulations and codes.
Going on the record as being opposed to the project were Jeff Aaker, Angel Canpos, Robert Clement, Terri Gutierez, Rafael Garcia, Caludia Quintero, Aaron Ortega, Larry Hayes, Jason Adams. Adan Prieto, Judith Loera, Adrianna Rubio, Lisa Saurer, Alexis Menderon, Alexis Lotanao Alejandroo Pinto, Rochelle Long, Andrea Tober, Sandy Hellebrand, Anthony Ortega, Antoniette Lopez, Aradia Williams, Amber Arntol, Ana Rodriguez, Brian Steinwand, Rick McLeod, Beatriz Gazca Ben Christianson, Gena Bennett, Theodore Benson, Christy Gordon, Beatriz Valdez, Brian Hueffmeir, Jason Mason, Billine Flynn Robert Baker, Brandon Twell, Rob Hellebrand, Brittany Kelly, Frances McLeod, Dodi, Buckley, Melanie Loyd, Carlee Wyllie, Carlos Cervantex, Cecelia Murry, Chad Stewart, Charlene Engeron, Michael Agnew, Chris Kitsch, Chuck Zillner, Conner Romai, Collette Crowell, Corene Rudolph, Dan Phelps, Celena Salazar, Deanna Baker, Dillon Oliverio, Dianna Ramanand Daniel Morela, Victor Del Campo, Daryl Barron, David Chamber, Dawn Howey, Dede Benson, Dierdre Cook, Jay Arnold, Diana Iniguez, Debi Phipps, Don Bush, Darryl Lindley, Donna Lindley, Jeremiah Maniquiz, Adriana Maiquiz, Eddie Salduna, Eduardo Cisneros, Efrain Lopez, Patricia Martinez, Erica Hall, Roger Flynn, Maria Flores, Lee Cook, Michael Bogdanoff, Jaimi Davis, Teresa Freeman, Gabriel Lua, Garrett Asnew, Gary Lewis, Gaby Bogdanoff Greg Camp, George Torres, Ghada Farfan, Gilma no last name, Gladys Ruelas, Gloria Friar, Glen Kraig, Elavia Kraig. David Pike, Guy Anderson, Susan Hasten, Kristen Hall Sherrin Heldreth, Nina Mosley, Heike Foster, Holly Silva, Holly Rieck, John Curly, Ian Dodds, LaDrina Lopez, Israel Ruelas, Isaac Clement, Israel Ortega, Jannet Castro, Julie Arciga, Jon Bamesberger, Joy Barta, Jennifer Clemison, Jose Casillas, James Cobos, Jeanene Kengston, Susan Richmond, Jennifer Sierra, Jennier Sauer, Jennifer La Point, Jenny Phipps, Jeromy Wyllie, Jennifer Valencia, Jim Welliver, Joey Rios, Joseph Diaz, Ana Jerez, Joshua Cogswell, John Spencer, Aaron Kaplan, Kenny Crowell, Kim Thompson, Kim Garcia, Kim Jarrard, Karen Phelps, Adriana Kraig, Krystle Garcia, Kyle King, Amy Lee, Lara Schene, Layne McKee, Laura Boggs, Lynn Buehler, Hector no last name, LeAnn Borek, Loreen Gutiene, John Cardillo, Lina Ramirez, Liz McClain, Lorie Gardillo, Lorraine Arlington, Laura Sheffield, John Rodriguez, Lucy Avina, Luis Rodriguez, Lynette Marquez, Lynne Williams, Erin Green, Marbel Para, Maricela Marin, Marissa Mata, Mark Serrano, Amada Martinez, Mary Rieck, Matthew Sais, Carrie Fratt, Roma Buehler, Melissa Meyer, Melanie Taylor, Lorena Meraz, Meredith Rudolph, Karla Marquez, Michael Cazarez, Michele McKee, Mike Rodgers, Mike Mike Stephenson, Melissa Cervantes, Michael Loyd, Scott Tober, Mike Mumford, Angelica Pachieo, Moises Saucedo, Natalie Martinez, Nathalie Rico, Nancy Dacumos, Nell Hackbarth, Noemi Barajas, Norma Contreras, Nubia Ureta, Juju Sanchez, Oscar Blanco, Pamela Camp, Robert Johnson, Tom Gilford, Karen Gonzalez, Pamela Evins, Karon Pierce Warner, Noah Cisnero, Wayne Tidwell, Jackie King, Rymond Gonzalez, Reed DeWitk, Walter Kincade, Reynald Rangel, Reylena, Kaplan, Rick no last name, Xochitl Rico, Roxanna no last name, Alberto Espinosa, Randy Stanley, Robert Carter, Rigoberto Loera, Rachelle McGlover, Rick Crosswhite, Robert Gutierrez, Brady Rodgers, Joe Rodriguez, Emely Rodriguez, Paul Evins, Robert Richmond, Ruby Perez, Judy Garcia, Vic Gork, Sharon Hoffman, Samantha Kitsch, Sandra Hall, Sayde Blanco, Patricia Kreamer, Schenequa Carter, Samantha Heish, Ron Shamblin, Adrian Marin, Irma Para, Julian Sierra, Todd Simpson, Tyler Slifkoff, Steven Mainaky, Susan Lozano, Scott Smith, Stephanie Crosswhite, Stephanie Hewitt, brent Murray, Nicole Mapula, Tammy Meininger, Tembra Gilford, Timothy Cochran, Liz no last name, Tom Konz, Thomas McGraw, Robert LaPoint, Roberto Gonzalez, Candise Ureta, Nancy Ureta, Pablo Ureta, Nancy Sansonetti, Derek Wallace, Suzanne Good, Wyatt Stanley, Yeimy Gonzalez, Joe Rodriguez, Ralph Adams, Tacey Adams, Kathy Adams, Walter Bennett, David Benson, Ray Brown, Ibrahim Elkhatib, Hector Gardener, Mark Goldman, Mack Green, Jose Jerez, Abraham Khatib, Brandon Lee, Sarah Lindley, Steven Lozano, Jocelyn Maniquiz, Cleona Manuel, Luis Marquez, Steven McGlover, Norman Meak, Jeff Meel, Michael Mumford, Jerry Murry, Anthony Orteca, Louie Poreider, John Precgano, Sarah Rice, Isaac Rubio, James Sauer, Candy Taylor, Candido Ureta, Brent Walker, Grant Warner, Nick Watanaba, Linda Welliver, Steve Williams and Renee Zillner
Ultimately, with Commissioner Jonathan Weldy abstaining, the planning commission voted 3-to-1, with commissioners Matthew Slowik, Sucket Dayl and Michael Stoffel prevailing and commissioner Kareem Gongora dissenting, to allow the conversion project to move forward.
Bogdanoff offered his observations of the March 19 planning commission hearing.
“Our presenter, Meredith Rudolph, ripped their proposal apart,” Bogdanoff said. “How are they going to get that many non-ambulatory people out of there during a fire?”
He continued, “Under the code they could have six people there but they wanted 18. What this does is change the zoning from residential to commercial. Once that is granted, the sky is the limit.
Rudolph, who as the appellant went eyeball-to-eyeball with county planning staff over all of the relevant issues, said she detected a groupthink mindset that was committed to an outcome rather than a fair examination of the issues and evaluation of what is in the best interest of the community.
“The county was dismissive of our position,” Rudolph said, “and not just dismissive on the merits of the facts and logic we were presenting but being very uneducated about their own process. Fire safety, specifically being able to put out a fire rapidly in a building filled with elderly people who cannot move on their own is a major consideration. When we were exploring that, they confidently said it was taken care of and suggested we were being insulting in asking the question. But when we pressed them and asked how they knew there would be enough water, they said Mr. Erwin had had talked to [the] county fire [department] and they just took his word for it. When we asked where county fire said the closest fire hydrant was, the county planner said all that information was put in the staff report. But what we demonstrated was he did not know. The planner – Oliver Mujica – said he knew the project better than anyone. He talked with authority. Oliver Mujica put on a front with me, telling me he was supposed to know the project better than everyone and that he did know it better than anyone. He assured me and everyone that if he said the applicant met the requirements, that was because the applicant met the requirements. But when the time came for him to really answer the important questions, he just said he didn’t know and that he trusted what the applicant said. There were a whole lot of questionable things that went into this, and the county did not properly verify or validate what the planners were being told.”
The drug recovery house on 10131 Jenny Street and the convalescent care facility at 9928 Desmond Drive were the mere opening gambits in oncoming onslaught of overtures, many of which appear to be outright illegal or fraudulent, aimed at transforming the character of Oak Hills, Bogdanoff said.
He said Masood is now using the special accommodation strategy to push the land use services department into rezoning the 6748 Coriander Drive single family residence into an 18-bed addiction recovery care facility.
On March 10, at the county’s High Desert public facility in Hesperia, Sulaiman Masood was on hand while the Coriander Drive proposal was presented to the public. Gonzalez was present at that meeting.
Bogdanoff noted that from the outset, both the conversion proponent, Masood, and county officials were attempting to steer their way around local resident opposition by cutting corners and limiting the dissemination of information as to scheduled official meetings.
“They were supposed to notify everyone about the January 29 discussion concerning the proposal at 6748 Coriander Drive before it was considered, meaning everyone who lives within 300 feet of the property,” Bogdanoff said. “No one received a notice. They lied about that. They didn’t want anyone to show up. Then, when we did show up, in large numbers, they ignored us. I really believe they are getting a kickback somehow, based just on the way we were treated.”
Masood is a licensed pharmacist who has multiple bankruptcy filings and a fraud case pending against him.
Some Oak Hills residents at the March 10, 2026 community meeting sought from Gonzalez how the county has obtained assurance Masood has the financial resources to execute on the conversion and establishment of the facility consistent with his application, Gonzalez responded, “Mr. Masood’s legal matter and finances are not at issue here.”
At present, prior to doing any major work on the property Masood is already facing difficulty over having not maintained it adequately, as the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health has cited him for allowing an unattended swimming pool on the property to become a mosquito breeding hazard.
Residents reported that when three or four of the most vocal among them peppered Masood with questions he found disconcerting, under the protocol of the forum, he refused to recognize them to allow them to continue to pose their questions, which obliged them to shout them out, in which case they went unanswered.
Local residents emphasized to county planning officials that there is a children’s school bus stop located within approximately 300 feet of the proposed facility, where minors gather daily. “This raises serious concerns regarding child safety and land use compatibility,” Bogdanoff said, but these things continue to fall on deaf hears at the county level during the March 10 community meeting. The way Mr. Masood and Paul Gonzalez treated us was just so dismissive. They didn’t seem to hear all of these heartfelt statements and just did what they were going to do. This was fixed from the beginning.”
He and substantial numbers of Oak Hills residents have misgivings about what Masood wants to do and how county officials are assisting him in achieving his goal without subjecting him to a set of reasonable conditions to mitigate the impact of the conversion on the surrounding neighborhood or hold in check the hazards it embodies.
“I am concerned about the clientele at the perspective 6748 Coriander drug/alcohol 24/7 treatment center, and that a 6 foot wall will not keep drugseeking withdrawing residents/patients from leaving, and creating havoc in the neighborhood,” he said.
Like the 9928 Desmond Drive facility, there is to be a pharmaceutical locker at the Coriander property. In both cases, such an unguarded store of controlled substances, the security around which is highly questionable, has driven some of those in the Oak Hills community to assert that it should relocated elsewhere, outside of a residential district.
A planning commission hearing at which the conversion is on tap for discussion is set for April 9. 2026. Whereas there were those in the Oak Hills community who thought there was a decent chance the planning commission would heed the community’s sentiments and turn thumbs down on the 9928 Desmond Drive facility, there is no one remaining naive enough to expect that the 6748 Coriander Drive conversion won’t be given go-ahead, Bogdanoff said “There is strong concern approval will proceed despite overwhelming opposition,” he said.
According to Rudolph, county officials repeatedly justified proceeding with the Desmond Drive conversion based upon Senate Bill 9, which calls for automatic approval of certain types of housing projects if they meet affordability criteria, such that they will contribute to a lessening of the state’s housing crisis. An examination of Senate Bill 9, however, demonstrates it does not require that convalescent care projects or makeovers or drug rehab projects or makeovers be approved. Rather, Senate Bill 9mandates a ministerial approval process for certain housing developments, which does not include convalescent care or drug rehab projects.
“The county continues to advance approvals while asserting that state housing and disability laws eliminate local discretion, even in clearly hazardous conditions,” Bogdanoff said. “This raises serious concerns regarding the misapplication of state law and lack of oversight, and ramming projects through without regard to their impact on surrounding residents.”
According to Rudolph, there is a fourth single family home conversion project afoot and unconfirmed indications of a fifth.
Rudolph referenced reports that the property at 10013 Desmond Drive, which is about 250 feet distant from 9928 Desmond Drive, is now under proposal to be converted into a teen violent offender home to house six or fewer dischargees from the California Youth Authority. As of this week, no license permits or other types of applications for such a facility at that address have been pulled. Nevertheless, the Sentinel is reliably informed that someone who is close to the owner of the property stated that the owner, who recently acquired it and operates other such facilities that serve adolescents and young men under the age of 25 who have criminal convictions, is intent on putting the property to that use. This would put young and, presumably, energetic criminal offenders in very close proximity to the 9928 Desmond Drive facility, where a pharmaceutical locker stocked with various types of narcotics, including painkillers, is to be soon established. There is, in fact, a possibility that the 10013 Desmond Drive facility will have its own pharmaceutical locker.
Rudolph told the Sentinel that she has heard that there has been preliminary discussion of a fifth semi-commercial/medical residential facility being placed into a converted residential property near the corner of Bellflower Road and Joshua Street in Oak Hills.
The Sentinel attempted to contact Miguel Figueroa, the director of the San Bernardino Department of Land Use Services to obtain his input with regard to this matter. The call was intercepted by a land use services division employee to whom the Sentinel conveyed that members of the Oak Hills community were contending that the Department of Land Use Services was disregarding sentiments and input of Oak Hills residents with regard to conversion proposals that were intended to transform single family homes into medical facilities that were intensifying the land use standards in the affected neighborhoods beyond that laid out in the Oak Hills Community Plan. The Sentinel sought to convey through the Department of Land Use Services employee a question with regard to whether Department of Land Use Services employees, in particular Mujica, had applied Senate Bill 9 in an intellectually dishonest fashion and in a manner that was inconsistent with its content in order to justify approving the conversion at 9928 Desmond Drive by falsely asserting county planners and officials are under a mandate by the State of California as a consequence of Senate Bill 9 to administerially approve convalescent care projects housing more than six patients. The Sentinel sought to convey through the Department of Land Use Services employee a question with regard to whether Department of Land Use Services employees had been or were being improperly induced to approve such projects by the provision of kickbacks or bribes.
Figueroa did not respond by press time.