HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments_Redacted - CopyI am a homeowner with an ADU located near Ontario Airport. After being forced to retire due to a
work-related injury, this ADU has become a critical source of income that helps support my household
and maintain financial stability.
The State of California has clearly recognized the importance of ADUs in addressing the housing crisis.
Through legislation such as AB 68 (2019) and AB 881 (2019), the State expanded homeowners’ rights
to build and use ADUs. Additionally, Government Code §65852.2 limits local agencies from imposing
overly restrictive requirements that would effectively prohibit ADUs.
Furthermore, SB 9 (2021) reflects California’s broader commitment to increasing housing availability
and empowering property owners to contribute to housing solutions. These laws collectively
demonstrate the State’s intent to encourage—not discourage—the development and reasonable use
of ADUs.
Homeowners like myself relied on this clear direction from the State when making significant financial
and personal investments to build and operate ADUs. Restricting their use after the fact creates
uncertainty and undermines that investment.
In my case, this ADU is not simply supplemental income—it is essential. After my injury and early
retirement, it has become a key source of financial stability for my household.
Beyond personal impact, ADUs contribute meaningfully to the community by:
Increasing available housing without large scale development
Supporting local businesses through visitor and resident spending
Strengthening the local economy through small, independent operators
Policies that restrict ADU use risk conflicting with both the spirit and intent of California state law,
which prioritizes housing accessibility and homeowner participation in solving the housing shortage.
I respectfully urge the City Council to align local policies with State law and support responsible ADU
use. Encouraging small property owners to provide housing solutions strengthens both our local
economy and our broader community.
The question we face is simple: Do we want California—and our local communities—to be stronger or
weaker? Supporting small homeowners and entrepreneurs contributes directly to a stronger, more
resilient future.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to stay
informed and participate in any discussions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard Armendariz
Richard Armendariz
I respectfully ask you to consider policies that allow responsible hosted short-term rentals with reasonable pathways to compliance rather
than bans that unintentionally harm seniors and long-time residents.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of residents like myself who are simply trying to remain self-sufficient.
Respectfully,
Carmen
Long-time homeowner and responsible host
Sent from Carmen’s iPad
Importantly, this motion does not interfere with federal authority over immigration enforcement. Rather, it
concerns the City’s responsibility to ensure lawful conduct, transparency, and public trust within its own
jurisdiction. Initiating this process sends a clear and measured message: San Bernardino is committed
to transparency, constitutional governance, and community safety. Passing this motion allows for
thoughtful development of a legally sound resolution that reflects both state law and local values.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the March 4th motion and to begin the
formal deliberative process.
Sincerely,
Alondra Nunez
Aside from the special meeting where you unanimously voted to fire Montoya, the Council has
never publicly reported back on any actions taken regarding his misconduct. Instead, you chose to
terminate him without cause, even though he concealed the Stifel agreement and acted without
Council approval. Public records requests related to these issues have been repeatedly delayed or
extended without explanation, and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho is likely aware of these practices.
Emails show that both Ms. Carvalho and Ms. Soren were included in correspondence related to the
financial issues and the Stifel matter. Why were they involved in these discussions without your
knowledge? And why has this entire issue been quietly pushed aside?
Meanwhile, Barbara Whitehorn — who raised legitimate concerns supported by financial records —
was left without protection. Sonia Carvalho publicly stated that “just because someone calls
themselves a whistleblower doesn’t mean they are,” yet the documented evidence strongly
supported Ms. Whitehorn’s warnings about the city’s financial instability.
As you review Ms. Soren’s claim in closed session, I urge you to consider the full context: the pattern
of misconduct, the mishandling of sensitive information, and the appearance of loyalty to Charles
Montoya and others, over the interests of the public and people who have the city's best interest.
The community has not forgotten these events, even if some on this Council may prefer to move
past them. Instead of accountability, we continue to see protection of insiders and retaliation against
those who attempt to expose the truth.
Importantly, this motion does not interfere with federal authority over immigration enforcement. Rather, it
concerns the City’s responsibility to ensure lawful conduct, transparency, and public trust within its own
jurisdiction. Initiating this process sends a clear and measured message: San Bernardino is committed
to transparency, constitutional governance, and community safety. Passing this motion allows for
thoughtful development of a legally sound resolution that reflects both state law and local values.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the March 4th motion and to begin the
formal deliberative process.
Esmeralda Urieta-Diaz (She/Her/Hers/Ella)
University of California, Davis | 2023
B.A. Sociology | Public Health Minor
Importantly, this motion does not interfere with federal authority over immigration enforcement. Rather, it
concerns the City’s responsibility to ensure lawful conduct, transparency, and public trust within its own
jurisdiction. Initiating this process sends a clear and measured message: San Bernardino is committed
to transparency, constitutional governance, and community safety. Passing this motion allows for
thoughtful development of a legally sound resolution that reflects both state law and local values.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the March 4th motion and to begin the
formal deliberative process.
Sincerely,
Andres Urieta