By Carlos Avalos
Antoinette Jensen, a former Etiwanda School District early childhood general education teacher, says the district’s meshing of three-and-four year old preschool students with special needs and general education preschoolers of the same age together with older prekindergartners into the district’s marquee early education classes created a volatile situation that was, at best, not helpful to many of the students and damaging to some.
The Etiwanda School District initiated its Creating Learning Opportunities Utilizing Diverse Strategies program, which is known by the acronym CLOUDS, in 2005. CLOUDS was originally designed to allow special education preschool students 3-to-4 years of age to attend classes alongside general education preschool students of the same age range. Each preschool class in the CLOUDS program was and continues to be supervised by two professionals: a certified special education instructor and a certified general education instructor. Mrs. Jenson was the certified general education instructor for CLOUDS classes.
Jensen started with the Etiwanda School District ten years ago. Her job title was early childhood educator. Early child educators in this context focus on children aged three to five, those of traditional preschool or kindergarten age. Jensen relayed to the Sentinel that she had been involved in the Etiwanda School District’s CLOUDS program for seven years. According to the Etiwanda School District’s website, Etiwanda.org, the CLOUDS system is designed to be an inclusive setting composed of special education preschool students and their general education peers from the community.  The placement of special education students in the CLOUDS program, which mixes mainstream students with selected special needs students, is based on an education strategy tailored for each specific student. Continue reading →

Two staff members at a surgery center in San Bernardino County have been charged via a federal criminal complaint alleging they assaulted and interfered with United States immigration officers attempting to lawfully detain an illegal alien.
Jose de Jesus Ortega, 38, of Highland, was arrested this morning and is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Riverside.
As of early this afternoon, law enforcement officers are seeking to locate and arrest for Danielle Nadine Davila, 33, of Corona.
Ortega and Davila are charged with assaulting a federal officer and conspiracy to prevent by force and intimidation a federal officer from discharging his duties.
The arrests were authorized by Federal Judge Sheri Pym, based upon an affidavit filed by an as-yet unidentified special agent with Homeland Security Investigations. The affidavit, which was obtained by the Sentinel was an unsigned draft of that presented to Judge Pym. Its author is self-described in the affidavit as having served as a special agent since March 2023 and that he is currently assigned as the Homeland Security Investigations assistant special agent in charge at the federal complex in Riverside.
The affidavit relates the narrative provided by two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, described only as Officer One and Officer Two, who were conducted roving immigration-related operations as part of their duties in Ontario on July 8. According to the affidavit, the officers were wearing government-issued equipment, including law enforcement vests, and were in an unmarked government vehicle, following a truck with three adult men when the truck made a quick turn into the parking lot of the Ontario Advanced Surgery Center at 1211 West 6th Street. The affidavit states,” The three adult males exited the truck, and one of them began urinating on the exterior wall of the surgery center. At that time, Officer One and Officer Two decided to conduct a consensual encounter with the three adult males. As soon as Officer One and Officer Two exited their vehicle, the two non-urinating males fled the area on foot in opposite directions. According to Officer One, one of the fleeing males, later identified as an illegal alien (the “Target Alien”), ran towards the entrance of the surgery center. Officer One followed the Target Alien, while Officer Two stayed with the adult male who did not flee.”
The affidavit identifies the target alien as “a Honduran national without permission to be in the United States.” The Sentinel has learned his name is Denis Guillen-Solis and he came into the United States through Mexico without registering.
According to the affidavit, Guillen-Solis was “partially detained” near the surgery center’s front entrance before he resisted and pulled away, causing both him and the ICE officer to fall to the ground. Shortly afterward, a medical staffer helped the alien off the ground and helped pull him away from the officer. Guillen-Solis went inside the surgery center and was pursued by the ICE officer, who eventually stopped him.
According to the affidavit, Ortega and Davila, both dressed in medical scrubs, impeded and interfered with the arrest. Davila did so, according to the affidavit, by wedging herself in between the officer and the alien, pushing the officer, and shouting, “Let him go!” and “Get out!” Ortega grabbed the officer’s arm and then his vest, according to the affidavit.
The officer called for assistance and another ICE officer arrived on scene and saw multiple staff members grabbing the first officer. The officers eventually detained and handcuffed the Guillen-Solis, then exited the surgery center with him
According to the affiant, he was able to make an accurate description of what occurred inside the Ontario Advanced Surgery Center in some measure based upon videos of the incident that were available, including posted on YouTube by the New York Post and another video clip of the incident posted on YouTube by KTLA.
Those video are viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PW6Bysinn0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yhox15fvDw
Those videos were made by other employees at the surgery center. The videos were closely viewed by federal agents who then went to surgery center and surreptitiously observed, videoed and photographed the employees there, identifying both Ortega and Davila. Characteristics used to identify Ortega was his height, tattoos visible on his arm, his affinity for headgear with an LA logo on it and facial recognition. Davila was identified via her reddish-brown hair, her eyeglasses and facial recognition.
U.S.. Attorney for Central California Bill Essayli noted that in much of the media coverage of what occurred in its immediate aftermath on July 8, 9 and 10, the officers were depicted as having violated the principle of medical privacy as a result of the ordeal taking place at a medical office.
“This story is another example of a false narrative echoed in the media in furtherance of an agenda to delegitimize federal agents,” Essayli said. “The illegal alien arrested inside the surgery center was not a patient. He ran inside for cover and these defendants attempted to block his apprehension by assaulting our agents. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you work, if you assault our agents or otherwise interfere with our operations, you will be arrested and charged with a federal crime.”
Under sentencing guidelines, the defendants, if convicted, face a statutory maximum sentence of eight years in federal prison on the assault count and up to six years in federal prison on the conspiracy count.
Homeland Security Investigations is conducting follow-up investigations on the matter.

Assistant United States Attorney Cory Burleson of the Riverside Branch Office is prosecuting this case.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2518242,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner YASMEEN BETTON filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
YASMEEN MEDINA BETTON to YASMEEN MEDINA BLACK
[and]
KHALIL WELDON-JAMES VENTERS to KHALIL WELDON JAMES BLACK VENTERS
[and]
KHALI LOREEN CHARLOTTE VENTERS to KHALI LOREEN CHARLOTTE BLACK VENTERS
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 08/14/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S27
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 07/03/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
By Kristina Talley, Deputy Court Clerk
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 4, 11, 18 & 25, 2025.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVRS2500984,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: ,Carlos Cortina, filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Carlos Cortina Avena to Carlos Avena Cortina, THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/04/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S35The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Upland in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 02/05/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Kory Matheson
Published in the SBCS  Upland on 07/03/2025, 07/10/2025, 07/17/2025, 07/24/2025

Continue reading →

This one just in: The Sentinel has learned that First District Supervisor Paul Cook, who this year turned 82, is purposed to resign from the board of supervisors to make way for former Assemblyman and Hesperia Mayor Thurston “Smitty” Smith to succeed him.

Considerable preparation, including backroom maneuvering on the fifth and fourth floors of the county administrative building in San Bernardino and among the members of the committees and subcommittees of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee to make this transition take place.

Cook, who was formerly the mayor of Yucca Valley, a California Assemblyman and member of Congress for almost eight years, left the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020 to run for First District San Bernardino County Supervisor. He did so, despite the far greater prestige of being a member of the federal legislative branch and that he was not, in actuality a resident of San Bernardino County’s First District. Given his name recognition, the advantage of his sizable campaign war chest, his support network and his standing among the Republican Party, which dominates politics across the majority of San Bernardino County, Cook cruised to an easy victory in 2020, capturing the supervisor’s seat with 64.66 percent of the vote in the March primary voting, obviating the need for him to run in the November general election. In 2024, he was handily reelected, despite occasionally being dogged by controversy pertaining to his actual place of residence being outside the First District, he handily won reelection during the primary voting when he polled 63.86 percent, again avoiding a November run-off.

Smith’s succession to supervisor is being orchestrated by a cabal of powerful and well-placed members of the local Republican Party, extending foremost to Phil Cothran Sr. the chairman of the Republican Central Committee since 2021. Second District San Bernardino County Supervisor Jesse Armendarez, Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe have bought into the plan, which calls for Cook stepping down later this year, whereupon the board will choose to make an interim appointment that is to last until December 2026 after that year’s general election in November. The November ballot is to feature a special election to fill the First District position for what will then be the remaining two years on the term that Cook was elected to last year, from December November 2026 to December 2028. The only current supervisor who has not agreed to Smith’s appointment to the board upon Cook’s departure is Supervisor Joe Baca Jr, the only Democrat on the board of supervisors.

It is the calculation of those working toward Cook’s “graceful” withdrawal and Smith’s elevation to take his place that the effort will confer upon Smith an insurmountable advantage as an incumbent in the 2026 specially-schedued and 2028 and perhaps the 2032 First District supervisors races.

In 50 regular elections for supervisor in San Bernardino County over the last 40 years, five challengers succeeded in ousting their incumbent opponents – Jon Mikels replacing Cal McElwain in the Second District in 1986; Paul Biane beating Mikels in 2002; Neil Derry defeating Dennis Hansberger in 2008; Janice Rutherford supplanting Biane in 2010; and James Ramos dislodging Derry in 2012. In all other cases where the incumbents sought reelection, they prevailed.

Smith, a concrete pump operator by trade, was elected to the Hesperia City Council in 2006. He was appointed to serve two terms as mayor by his council colleagues before leaving the council in 2014.

In 2016, he successfully ran for a position on the board of directors for the Mojave Water Agency.

In 2019, then-First District Supervisor Robert Lovingood began a chain reaction when that August he indicated he would not seek reelection to a third term, whereupon Cook announced he was opting against seeking reelection to Congress and would move back down the political evolutionary chain and run to fill Lovingood’s spot. In turn, Jay Obernolte, who was then representing the 33^rd District Assembly covering a swath of the San Bernardino Mountains and San Bernardino County’s desert in California’s lower legislative house, declared his candidacy to succeed Cook as the Congressman in California’s 8^th Congressional District. Thereupon, Smith jumped into the 2020 33^rd Assembly District race. That year, California was holding a nonpartisan blanket primary, and Smith finished first among a field of Republicans and Democrats, with Big Bear Mayor Rick Herrick, like Smith a Republican, finishing second. Smith then outdistanced Herrick, capturing 54.85 percent of the vote in doing so.

As a consequence of California’s political redistricting that took place in 2022 based upon the 2020 Census, Smith, who now resides in Apple Valley, was moved into the 34^th Assembly District. This fated him to a contest against Tom Lackey, another Republican, Tom Lackey from Palmdale. The redistricted 34^th District was populated by far more of Lackey’s constituents than Smith’s. Smith was defeated in his effort to remain in the Assembly.

Smith is an elected member of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, one of seven members representing the First District. He is also the First District Chairman on the central committee’s executive committee.

Previously, Smith had suggested that he would seek election in the 34^th District in 2026, when Lackey will not be eligible to run for the state legislature again because of term limits.

It appears, however, that he has been persuaded to forego returning to Sacramento based upon what is being offered to him in San Bernardino. For monetary considerations alone, it makes more sense for Smith to lay claim to the county supervisor’s position than seek to return to the state legislature. Assembly members receive $132,700 in annual salary and are eligible to receive between $48,000 and $57,000 in benefits. Thus, Smith might be able to count on as much as $189,700 in total annual compensation if he were to capture the 34^th Assembly District seat. As county supervisor, he would receive $194,806.47 $37,133.02 in perquisites and pay add-ons, and $63,200.50 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $295,139.99.

As a member of the Assembly, Smith, given that he would be one of 80 members of the Assembly and 120 members of the combined California Legislature together with his disaffinity for the legislative and parliamentary processes at the statehouse, would prove at best a medium-size fish in a large sea. As the First District supervisor, Smith would oversee a jurisdiction of 10,063 square miles, a tad over half – roughly 50.05 percent – of the county’s 20,105 square mile land mass, more real estate than is contained within six individual U.S. states – Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware or Rhode Island. is would be one of five votes on the board of supervisors, representing one-third of a voting majority on that panel. For Smith, however, public policy and decision-making is of less value than the prestige of the post and the power/ability it would lend him in assisting his supporters and those with the means of installing him in the office. Beyond citation of right-on-the-political spectrum slogans celebrating his constitutional conservatism and standing as a small business owner who has assumed political office to fight wasteful government spending, Smith in office has proven a tabula rasa who has carried the water of the politically activated business interests who have bankrolled his campaigns. As an assemblyman, he did not author the legislation he sponsored but rather brought forth bills that had been written for him, the most celebrated of which was Assembly Bill 1725, which he and his supporters said was intended to combat illegal marijuana cultivating operations that were proliferating throughout the rural High Desert communities. AB 1725 altered Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act to increase penalties from a misdemeanor to a felony for illegal marijuana growers possessing six or more live cannabis plants.

The move to replace Cook comes as concern over his age and the more frequent manifestation of what some delicately refer to as his “verbal eccentricities” in recent years.

A not very well-kept secret known by dozens or scores of county insiders is that Cook is not an actual resident of the First District. In 2011, a large portion of the First District, including Barstow, Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley was moved into the county’s Third District. Cook, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marines who was last stationed at the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base, had purchased what is considered to be one of the nicest homes in the Town of Yucca Valley. Very shortly after his retirement from the military, he initiated his political career when he ran for the Yucca Valley Town Council. One of his political proteges was Dawn Rowe, the widow of a Marine Corps captain who was stationed at the Twentynine Palms base who was killed while on duty in Iraq in 2004. When Cook was Yucca Valley mayor, he encouraged Dawn Rowe to run for the Yucca Valley Town Council, which she did, successfully, launching her political career. Later, when Cook was in Congress, Rowe went to work for him as a member of his legislative staff. She resigned from her federal job in December 2018 to accept an appointment as Third District supervisor, replacing James Ramos, who vacated the supervisorial post after he was elected to the California Assembly in November 2018.

In 2019, the 76-year-old Cook, worn out by the demands of representing California’s 8^th Congressional District and the 24-to-28 cross continent flights he was making on a yearly basis, chose to leave the House of Representatives the following year based upon the opportunity he saw to move into a county supervisorial role. Rowe, however, occupied the Third District post at that time and was intent on running for a full term in 2020. It was Lovingood’s decision to exit as First District supervisor that cemented Cook’s decision. One of Cook’s congressional staffers was Tim Itnyre, the son of Bob Itnyre, with whom Cook had served in the Marines. Cook promoted Tim Itnyre to the position of his congressional chief of staff during the last several months of his time in the House of Representatives. Tim Itnyre agreed to allow Cook to “officially” become a roommate at his home in Apple Valley, which lies within San Bernardino County’s First District, so that he could claim residence there and run for First District supervisor.

Upon Cook being elected supervisor, he appointed Tim Itnyre as his chief of staff.

Dakota Higgins is Cook’s assistant chief of staff. Higgins is a member of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, representing Republicans living in the county’s First Supervisorial District on that panel. Higgins has been installed by Cothran as the financial chairman on the central committees executive committee. Like Cook, Higgins does not live in the First District.

Part of the resignation deal closed with Cook to set Smith up for an easy election as an incumbent was that upon advancing into the supervisor’s post, he will retain Itnyre and Higgins in their chief of staff and assistant chief of staff positions. There are numerous other buy-ins and conditions to Cook’s resignation and Smith’s assumption of his post, many of which revolve around Smith’s acceptance of a litany of items on Rowe’s, Hagman’s and Armendarez’s wish lists.

One party to the arrangement is District Attorney Jason Anderson, who like most of San Bernardino County’s officeholders, is a Republican. Anderson previously committed the district attorney’s office, the purse strings for which are controlled by the board of supervisors, to not pursue criminal charges against Cook or Higgins over their misrepresentation of their residency in their candidacy filings for supervisor or the county Republican Central Committee as long as Cook remains in office. Sources tell the Sentinel that while Anderson has put nothing in writing and made no “agreement per se,” an “understanding” exists that he will not file charges against Cook or Higgins on the residency issue after Cook leaves office.

The statute of limitations on such crimes is three years.

After two decades of simmering reciprocal disdain and contempt masked by a thin veneer of uneasy collegiality, the relationship between Ontario Mayor and Councilman Alan Wapner this month descended into open hostility, carrying with it the potential that a host of secrets pertaining to the convoluted and graft-encrusted internal workings of San Bernardino County’s wealthiest municipality will be exposed in what promises to be a spectacular political Donnybrook during the 2026 electoral cycle.
Alan Wapner, was first elected to the Ontario City Council in 1994 and is, behind Chino Mayor Eunice Ulloa and Fontana City Counilman John Roberts, the third-longest serving local elected official in San Bernardino County. In 1998, Paul Leon was appointed to take the place of Gary Ovitt on the city council when Ovitt moved into the mayoral position with two years left on the term he had been elected to in 2016. From that point forward, Wapner and Leon were council colleagues. For the most part, at that time they got along.
Three “accidental” or “situational” factors put each of them on the good side of the other for what was then the time being.
The first such factor was they found themselves as members of the ruling coalition that then predominated in Ontario, one which included then-Mayor Ovitt. In order to accomplish anything beyond the normal day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month municipal operations outlined in and provided for in the city’s yearly budget, three votes on the council were needed. To fulfill their promises to their constituents and, more importantly, their campaign donors, they needed to add the votes of two other council members to their own to achieve passage on a motion they might float or to gain passage of a project proposal put forth by a developer, award a service or supply contract to a vendor or approve a city franchise contract with a company. By going along with the other members of the council when they needed support for some council action one or more of their colleagues wanted, both Wapner and Leon could assure that when either of them wanted the council to take some action, the votes of the others would be there to support either of them. Continue reading →

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.