San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns | Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law Blog

The reasons for the recall are listed by Scott Beard, the proponent, Wendy McCammack’s appointment to the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission, Rialto-based developer, and Seventh Ward resident:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Mr. Penman is the duly elected City Attorney, and as such is accountable for the actions of that office and of his subordinates. Mr. Penman has been derelict in his official duties by failing to properly enforce the law regarding personal use of public property by members of the Common Council. In addition, Mr. Penman’s office’s selective enforcement of City codes and his failure to timely update and codify city codes, ordinances, and other matters lawfully passed by the City Council has created confusion and insecurity in the City’s residents and businesses regarding accuracy of the City’s published law.

Council Member Virginia Marquez, First Ward

The reasons listed for the recall in the Notice of Intention are listed by the proponent, Christian Fernando Flores (who was reported in the Sun as a student at California State University, San Bernardino):

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Council Member Marquez was elected to office
in November of 2009 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of her
elected office by making fiscally irresponsible votes and by supporting fiscally irresponsible
program leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Council Member Marquez’s actions
and failures to act, have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led
to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City. The City
of San Bernardino is currently the object of nation-wide ridicule as a result of the mishandling of
the bankruptcy and its proceedings.

Further, Council Member Marquez has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to
reach consensus with the other members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of
City finances, and ignored advice of the City’s Executive Staff for the previous two years
regarding financial concerns. Her actions have led to massive reductions in City services and
police and fire personnel, causing an increase in crime rates, businesses leaving the City, and
contributed to overall blight within the City.

Council Member Fred Shorret:

The proponent of the recall against Fred Shorett, 4th Ward Council Member, Stephen T. Dawson, who is the chairperson of the United Transportation Union, states:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Council Member Shorett was elected to office in March of 2009 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of his elected office by making fiscally irresponsible votes and by supporting fiscally irresponsible program leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Council Member Shorett’s actions and failures to act have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City.
Further, Council Member Shorett has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to reach consensus with the other members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of City finances which would allow the City of San Bernardino to emerge from the bankruptcy proceedings and begin revival of its economy. The City of San Bernardino is currently the object of nation-wide ridicule as a result of the mishandling of the bankruptcy and its proceedings.

Mayor Patrick J. Morris:

Scott Beard, also the proponent of the recall against City Attorney James F. Penman, gives these reasons:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Mayor Morris was elected to office in February of 2006 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of his elected office by failing to veto fiscally irresponsible votes and fiscally irresponsible programs leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Mayor Morris’s [sic] failures to act have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City.
Further, Mayor Morris has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to facilitate consensus with the members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of City finances, and ignored advice of the City’s Executive Staff for the previous two years regarding financial concerns. His action and inaction have led to massive reductions in City services and police and fire personnel, causing an increase in crime rates, businesses leaving the City, and contributed to overall blight within the City.

The original PDFs, which are not the embedded redacted versions you see here, have some metadata that explains a little about the origin of the PDFs that were obtained. The Notice of Intent involving Mayor Patrick J. Morris was created on April 28, 2013 at 10:04:50 PM, with the application being Microsoft Word 2010, with “Michael” listed as the author. The Notice of Intent to Virginia Marquez was titled C:\My Files000 — SanBernardinoMatter\NOI.2013.1stWard(Marquez).wpd, also authored by “Michael.” It was created on April 28, 2013 at 2:19:17 PM. The original file was on WordPerfect (as you can see by the extension), but the PDF was created by Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0. The Fred Shorret document was created by Microsoft Word 2010, also authored by “Michael.” It was created on April 28, 2013 at 3:40:59. The City Attorney James F. Penman document was also on Word 2010, on April 28, 2013, at 10:00:13.

What does this metadata mean? That whoever created the PDF (but not necessarily the author of the petitions), was named Michael, and that at least one of the documents was created on WordPerfect. WordPerfect is, or was, largely used by attorneys. No conclusions can be drawn from this metadata. The Michael may refer to Michael McKinney, the Orange County-based publicist for the recall proponents. It could be someone else entirely.

Unfortunately, the petitions to recall Second Ward Council Member Robert Jenkins, Third Ward Council Member John Valdivia, Fifth Ward Council Member Chas Kelley, Sixth Ward Council Member and Mayoral Candidate Rikke Van Johnson and Seventh Ward Council Member Wendy McCammack were unavailable.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104,

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under Bankruptcy, Charter, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City of Los Angeles, City of San Bernardino, City Treasurer, Elections, Mayor, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino City Charter, San Bernardino City Clerk, San Bernardino Municipal Code, State of California Tagged with Charter of the City of San Bernardino, Christian Fernando Flores, City of San Bernardino, Fred Shorett, James F. Penman, John Valdivia, Michael McKinney, Patrick J. Morris, Recall, Rikke Van Johnson, Robert Jenkins, San Bernardino, Scott Beard, Stephen T. Dawson, Virginia Marquez, Wendy McCammack

The Recall Process Under the Charter of the City of San Bernardino

April 29, 2013 1 Comment

The current Charter of the City of San Bernardino, Article VII is entitled “Initiative, Referendum and Recall.” Section 122 of the Charter reads (with annotations):

Section 122. The Recall. Proceedings may be commenced for recall of the

holder of any elective office of this City and the election of a successor of the

holder sought to be removed by the service, filing and publication of a notice of

intention to circulate a recall petition. Such proceedings may not be commenced

against the holder of an office unless, at the time of commencement, the holder

has held office for at least ninety days and no recall petition has been filed against

such holder within the preceding six months. A petition demanding the recall of the

officer sought to be recalled shall be submitted to the City Clerk. The petition shall

be signed by not less than fifteen percent (15%) of the voters of the City, or in the

case of a City Council Member elected by ward twenty-five percent (25%) of the

voters of that ward, according to the County Clerk’s last official report of

registration to the Secretary of State. No signature may be affixed to the petition

until the proponents have served, filed and published a notice of intention to

circulate a recall petition, containing the name of the officer sought to be recalled

and the title of his/her office, a statement in not more than 500 words of the

grounds on which the recall is sought, and the name and address of at least one,

but not more than five proponents. The notice of intention shall be served,

personally or by certified mail, on the officer sought to be recalled, and a copy

thereof with a certificate of the time and manner of service shall be filed with the

clerk of the legislative body. Within seven (7) days after the filing of the notice of

intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the City Clerk an answer in

not more than 500 words to the statement of the proponents and if an answer is

filed, shall serve a copy thereof, personally or by certified mail, on one of the

proponents named in the notice of intention. At the time the proponents publish

the notice and statement referred to above, the officer sought to be recalled may

have the answer published at his/her expense. If the answer is to be published the

officer shall file with the City Clerk at the time the answer is filed a statement

declaring his/her intent that the answer be published. The statement and answer

are intended solely for the information of the voters and no insufficiency in the form

or substance thereof shall affect the validity of the election or proceedings. The

notice and statement as referred to above, and the answer, if it is to be published

shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, as described

in Sections 6000 to 6066 of the Government Code, adjudicated as such.

Seven (7) days after the publication of the notice, statement and answer, if it

is to be published, the recall petition may be circulated and signed. The petition

shall bear a copy of the notice of intention, statement and answer, if any. If the

officer has not answered, the petition shall so state. Signatures shall be secured

and the petition filed within ninety (90) days from the filing of the notice of intention.

If such petition is not filed within the time permitted by this section, the same shall

be void for all purposes. The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to

one paper; but each signer shall add to his/her signature his/her place of

residence, giving the street and such other identification as may be required by the

registration law. One of the signers of each such paper shall make oath before an

officer qualified to administer oaths, that the statements therein made are true, and

that each signature to the paper appended, is the genuine signature of the person

whose name purports to be thereunto subscribed. Within thirty (30) days after the

date of filing such petition the City Clerk shall examine and ascertain whether or

not said petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors and, if

necessary, the Council shall allow extra help for that purpose, and the City Clerk

shall attach to said petition a certificate showing the result of said examination. If,

by the City Clerk’s certificate, the number of signatures on the petition is shown to

be insufficient, it shall be returned forthwith by the Clerk to the filer(s) thereof who

shall have an additional thirty (30) days from the date the petition is returned to

them by the Clerk to obtain the required number of signatures. The City Clerk shall,

within thirty (30) days after such additional thirty (30) day period to obtain

additional signatures, make like examination of said petition, and, if his/her

certificate shall show the same to be insufficient it shall be void for all purposes. If

the petition shall be found to be sufficient, the City Clerk shall submit the same to

the Council without delay and the Council shall thereupon order and fix a date for

holding said election, not less than fifty (50) days, nor more than seventy (70) days

from the date of the City Clerk’s certificate to the Council that a sufficient petition is

filed.

The ballots used when voting upon said proposed recall shall contain the

words “shall (title of office and the name of the person against whom the recall is

filed) be recalled?” and the words “yes” and “no.”

The Council and the City Clerk shall make, or cause to be made, publication

of notice and all arrangements for conducting, returning and declaring the results

of such election in the same manner as other City elections.

Qualified candidates to succeed the person against whom the recall is filed,

shall be listed on the ballot, except that the incumbent shall not be eligible to

succeed himself/herself in any such recall election.

In any such removal election, if a majority of the votes cast is for “yes” on

the question of whether or not the incumbent should be recalled, the candidate

receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. The incumbent

shall thereupon be deemed removed from the office upon qualification of his/her

successor. In case the party who received the highest number of votes should fail

to qualify within ten (10) days after receiving notification of election, the office shall

be deemed vacant. The successor of any officer so removed shall hold office

during the unexpired term of his/her predecessor. (Effective March 16, 2005)

Any elected official in the City of San Bernardino can be recalled using this procedure. The limitations are stated above in which the office holder must be in office at least 90 days, and no recall petition has been filed against the office holder in the preceding six months. The elected officials of the City of San Bernardino are the Mayor, the seven members of the Common Council, the City Clerk, the City Treasurer, and the City Attorney.

The Municipal Code further gives the procedure for recall elections as follows:

2.56.160 Recall elections.

A recall election to remove an elected officer pursuant to Charter Section

122 shall be ordered, held and conducted and the result thereof made known and

declared in the same manner provided in this chapter for municipal primary and

general elections except as follows:

A. Time for Obtaining Signatures. Nomination papers shall be issued and

verification deputies appointed to obtain signatures to nomination papers of

any candidate at any time not earlier than the thirty-fifth day nor later than

five p.m. on the twenty-ninth day before the recall election.

B. Date filed with City Clerk. All nomination papers shall be filed with the City

Clerk not later than five p.m. on the twenty-ninth day before the recall

election.

C. Not earlier than the thirty-fifth day, nor later than the tenth day before a recall

election, the City Clerk shall publish a notice of the election at least once in

one or more newspapers published and circulated in the City. The notice

shall be headed “Notice of Election,” and shall contain a statement of:

1. The time of the election;

2. The offices to be filled, specifying full term or short term, as the case

may be;

3. The hours the polls will be open.

D. Absentee Ballots. Not earlier than the twenty-sixth day, nor later than the

seventh day before a recall election, any voter entitled to vote by absent

voter ballot as provided in Elections Code Section 14620 [See now §3003],

may file with the City Clerk either in person or by mail, his written application

for an absent voter’s ballot. The application shall be signed by the applicant,

shall show his place of residence, and shall make clear to the City Clerk the

applicant’s right to a ballot.

Applications received by the City Clerk hereunder on or after the

fortieth day but prior to the twenty-sixth day before election shall not be

returned to the sender, but shall be held by the City Clerk and processed by

him following the twenty-sixth day prior to election in the same manner as

if received at that time.

(Ord. 3601 (part), 1976; Ord. 2048 §10, 1954.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104,

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under Charter, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City of Los Angeles, City of San Bernardino, City Treasurer, Los Angeles County, Mayor, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino City Charter, San Bernardino City Clerk, San Bernardino Municipal Code, State of California Tagged with Charter of the City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino

Friday Aside: Why Were The States in the Streets Named After States in Redlands Chosen?

March 15, 2013 Leave a comment

I have yet to find an answer. Some clues are found in the archives of the Fortnightly Club of Redlands, Streets in Redlands, by Dr. Lawrence E. Nelson, January 1974 at the Assembly Room of the A.K. Smiley Public Library. The best take-away, completely non-related to the subject of this post, from 1974:

Philip Merlan, the scholarly refugee professor at the University of Redlands and later at Scripps, once remarked that when he came to Redlands he was amazed to find how religious the people were; they even had a patron saint for torn-up streets. Everywhere he went he saw signs set up honoring St. Closed.

What states have streets named after them in Redlands? Of the north-south streets, from west to east: California Street, New Jersey Street, a very tiny Oregon Street off of Orange Tree Lane, Nevada Street, Idaho Street connecting Plum Lane and Orange Tree Lane, the solely-south-of-the-10 Iowa Street, Alabama Street, the rump Arizona Street off the anachronistic Coulston Street, Missouri Court (a cul-de-sac off of Park Avenue), Indiana Court, the cul-de-sac off of West Lugonia Avenue, Kansas Street (home of the Animal Shelter), which runs from Barton to Redlands Boulevard, Tennessee Street, the carved-up New York Street, Texas Street, the somewhat north-south Michigan Avenue, Colorado Street north of Pioneer Avenue, the northside Ohio Street, the probably-not-named after the state Washington Street, and the probably-named-after-the-daughter-of-a-developer Georgia Street. As far as east-west streets, Pennsylvania Avenue, Delaware Avenue, the way-out-east-may-technically-be-in-Yucaipa Florida Street.

I once answered an interrogatory speaking about Illinois Court (meaning Indiana Court), the location of a fatal motorcycle accident (outside the City limits), and the then-Public Works Director, Ron Mutter, informed me that there was no Illinois Court within the City, despite the fact that a variety of really old streets are named after Chicago streets (such as State Street) in Redlands.

The state-named streets are on the Lugonia grid, and that the original ones were California, New Jersey, Nevada, Iowa, Alabama, Tennessee, Kansas Street, New York Street, and Texas Street. California is an easy one, but why Alabama and Tennessee?

Looking at a 1939 topographical map online, we see California Street, New Jersey Street, Nevada Street, Iowa Street, Alabama Street, Kansas Street, Tennessee Street, New York Street, and Texas Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. On the 1899 Redlands Quadrangle map, you can clearly see California and Alabama (the former because of its proximity to Bryn Mawr, the latter because it goes across the Santa Ana wash to Highland, but it doesn’t give street names. The same on the 1901 Redlands Quadrangle topographical map, available on the USGS website for download, and the Redlands Quadrangle Map of 1908 shows the same. So for now, the mystery of why certain states and not others is still a mystery.

Filed under City of Redlands, Friday Aside, Inland Empire, Mentone Tagged with Friday Aside, Inland Empire streets, redlands

How to Travel Between San Bernardino and Redlands . . . And Vice Versa

March 6, 2013 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Redlands and San Bernardino share a border, but it can sometimes be difficult to travel between the two cities. San Bernardino is the older of the two cities, even if you are talking about San Bernardino’s second incorporation. San Bernardino was laid out first, on mostly a straight north, south, east, west grid. Part of Redlands is on a north, south, east, west, grid, the former Lugonia. Most of south Redlands lies in opposition to San Bernardino’s grid.

Interstate 10 connects the two cities. Redlands Boulevard, the former Highway 99, enters Loma Linda before it goes through San Bernardino. The same is true for State Route 210: You have to enter the City of Highland before it connects to San Bernardino. Though San Bernardino International Airport (formerly Norton AFB) is the border between a large swath of the two cities, the Santa Ana Wash currently prohibits direct access without going to Tippecanoe or Alabama/Palm.

The major streets with a border between San Bernardino and Redlands are Mountain View Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue; Victoria Avenue and Almond Avenue also work. Lugonia Avenue used to connect to Mountain View, but a development turned it into a cul-de-sac in the 2000s. While I was at the City of Redlands, there was some talk about a Mountain View Avenue extension across the river, but I have no idea about the status of such plans.

Filed under City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino, Inland Empire, Mentone Tagged with Inland Empire streets

Leaving Your Keys In the Ignition In Your Car In San Bernardino: It’s Against the Law (and you’ll be fined $2 before P&As).

January 17, 2013 Leave a comment

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I never once saw this section enforced, with its circa 1964 $2 fine:

10.16.140 Removal of ignition key.
A. It is unlawful for any person having charge or control of a motor vehicle to allow
such vehicle to stand upon any street, alley or parking lot upon which there is
no attendant, when such motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the
ignition of the vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.
B. Any person convicted under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
nor more than two dollars; and such person shall not be granted probation by
the court, nor shall the court suspend the execution of the sentence imposed
upon such person.
(Ord. MC-460, 5-13-85; Ord.3880 §2 (part), 1980; Ord.2613,1964; Ord. 1652 Art. 4 §14, 1941.)

What’s the background on this law?

First, the 1941 ordinance, Ordinance 1652 is available online. The ordinance repeals a variety of ordinances and adopts an overarching scheme for regulating traffic in the City of San Bernardino. Difficulty? Article 4 has no section 14. Another added difficulty, is that I didn’t see any similar language anywhere in the text of the ordinance. However, the language (especially the two dollars) sounds archaic.

The Municipal Code annotation is incorrect, because the section does not come from Ordinance 1652 as originally adopted. Ordinance 2613 from 1964 amended Ordinance 1652 by adding section 14. There is no legislative history or findings in the ordinance itself (and there are no minutes online), which reads in pertinent part:

SECTION FOURTEEN: No person having charge or control of a
motor vehicle shall allow such vehicle to stand upon any street,
alley or parking lot upon which there is no attendant, when such
motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the ignition
of said vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.
Any person convicted under this Section shall be punished
by a fine of not less nor more than Two Dollars ($ 2. 00); and such
person shall not be granted probation by the Court, nor shall the
Court suspend the execution of the sentence imposed upon such
person.

Ordinance 3880 (November 20, 1979) (not 1980 as shown in the annotations), Section 2 amended Section 14 to be titled SECTION FOURTEEN: Removal of Ignition Key.

The ordinance was codified in 1980, I believe, but I have not seen that ordinance. It divided it into section (a) and (b), capitalization was changed, as was the reference to ($2.00) in section (b).

MC-460, Section 120, enacted May 15, 1985, amended the codified version, 10.16.140(a) to read:

A. It is unlawful for any person having charge or control of a motor vehicle to allow
such vehicle to stand upon any street, alley or parking lot upon which there is
no attendant, when such motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the
ignition of the vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.

The backup from the City Attorney’s Office included removing archaic laws, but apparently, section B remained.

Item 7i on the July 2, 2012 agenda included a re-adoption of this section as part of a cleanup regarding reorganized departments, however, upon watching the video of that meeting (there does not appear to be minutes available online), it was tabled on a 7-0 motion by Council Member Wendy J. McCammack because of the need for further reorganization by the City Manager.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under City Attorney, City Clerk, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Municipal Law, Parking, Parking, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino City Clerk, San Bernardino Mayor, San Bernardino Municipal Code, San Bernardino Superior Court Tagged with Ignition Key, San Bernardino Municipal Code section 10.16.140

California Personal Injury Litigation and Proof of Service for Electronic Service

January 7, 2013 Leave a comment

Electronic service is a cost-effective manner of service, whether done in Federal cases with CM/ECF, or in California superior courts by stipulation, or in conjunction with electronic filing. For California superior court cases, the Judicial Council has created an optional proof of service for electronic service, FORM POS-050/EFS-050, which needs to be used in conjunction with Form POS-o50(P). However, if you follow the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) the practitioner does not need to use the optional Judicial Council form.

California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) requires the following information:

(1)Proof of electronic service may be by any of the methods provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, except that the proof of service must state:

(A)The electronic service address of the person making the service, in addition to that person’s residence or business address;

(B)The date and time of the electronic service, instead of the date and place of deposit in the mail;

(C)The name and electronic service address of the person served, in place of that person’s name and address as shown on the envelope; and

(D)That the document was served electronically, in place of the statement that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with postage fully prepaid.

(2)Proof of electronic service may be in electronic form and may be filed electronically with the court.

Address: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104

Redlands, CA 92374

Telephone: (909) 708-6055

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under Civil Procedure, Dangerous Dogs, Evidence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Personal Property Law, Proof of Service, Requests for Admission, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns Tagged with Electronic Service, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Personal Injury, Proof of Service

Garage Sales and Yard Sales (and permits) in the Cities of Highland, Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County

October 17, 2012 Leave a comment

People want to know how to get yard sale and garage sale permits in the East Valley, and they find this site because of this article about the City of San Bernardino’s yard sale ordinance. Therefore, here is a chart to give a basic (but not complete) understanding of the rules and regulations regarding yard sales in the East Valley, here defined as the Cities of Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County such as Muscoy, Mentone, Oak Glen, Devore, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Devore Heights, and Del Rosa. Per the City Clerk of Loma Linda, there is no yard sale ordinance in the City of Loma Linda as of 10/17/2012. Note also that homeowners associations (HOAs) probably have additional restrictions (particularly East Highlands Ranch) which you should look into.

City/Unincorporated	Permit Required	Permit Cost	Where?	Duration
Colton	Yes	$2, except charity, nonprofit, religious	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Grand Terrace	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Highland	Yes	$7	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Redlands	Yes	$2.50	Treasurer	3 d or 2d each over consecutive weekends; 8 am-8pm
Rialto	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5.40	Finance Department	3d, daylight
San Bernardino	No (anomoly regarding Estate Sales)	N/A	N/A	3d, daylight
Yucaipa	After 1st sale	$2.50 (sales 2-4)	Front Desk, City Hall	3d, 8am-8 pm
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	No (See SBCC section 84.25.030(e) unless exceed standards of 84.10.	N/A	N/A	3d, 8am-5 pm

City/Unincorporated	Frequency	Display	Signage	Exemptions	Ordinance	Codified At	Violation
Colton	1/quarter	Not in PROW	During, onsite	Court sales	Ord 1483 (1975); 0-3-1989 (1989)	Colton Municipal Code Chapter 5.45	Misdemeanor
Grand Terrace	2/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, unlit, 4ft area, 5 day limit, not on PROW, trees, fences, utility poles, removed at end	Court sales, charitable, nonprofit, religious	Ord 35 (1980)	Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 5.40	Infraction
Highland	3/12 mo	Safety	1 onsite doublesided, 6 ft area, 5′ tall, 24 hours before until end.	Court sales	Ord 239 (1998)	Highland Municipal Code section 5.04.370	Infraction
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	None	N/A	N/A
Redlands	3/12 mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale		Court sales	Prior Code secs 24001-10; Ord 2684 (2007), 2779 (2012),	Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 5.68	Infraction
Rialto	4/calendar yr only first weekend in March, June, September and December	Not in PROW, front or side yards	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4directional signs, prohibited in PROW, >864 sq in., with permission of property owner.	Nonprofits,	Ord 1416 (2008)	Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 5.69	Infraction; misdemeanor for <3/yr
San Bernardino	12/yr only on 3rd weekend of mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale	3 onsite unlit 24 hr prior until end; 4 Directional 2 sq ft on private property w/consent	Estate sales as to frequency nonprofits as to frequency	Ord MC-1344 (2011)	San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.14	Infraction/misdemanor (woblette)
Yucaipa	4/12 mo	Not in PROW	1 onsite, not in PROW	Court sales	Ord 102 (1992)	Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 5.22	Infraction
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	4/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4 directional signs, prohibited in PROW, 864 sq in., w/permission of property owner.	None	Ord. 411 (2007)	San Bernardino County Code Chapter 84.10	Infraction; misdemeanor for >3/yr

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under Administrative Citations, Amboy, Angelus Oaks, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Baker, Baldwin Lake, Big Bear City, Big River, Bloomington, Bluewater, Cadiz, Cedar Glen, China Lake, City Clerk, City of Colton, City of Highland, City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of Rialto, City of San Bernardino, City of Yucaipa, Code Enforcement, County of San Bernardino, Crafton, Crestline, Criminal Code Enforcement, Criminal Law, Daggett, Del Rosa, Del Rosa, Devore, Devore Heights, Earp, Forest Falls, Fort Irwin, Garage Sale / Yard Sale, Goffs, Helendale, Hinkley, Hodge, Johnson Valley, Joshua Tree, Kingston, Kramer Junction, Lake Arrowhead, Land Use, Land Use Law, Landers, Lenwood, Lucerne Valley, Lytle Creek, Mentone, Morongo Valley, Mount Baldy Village, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, Muscoy, Nebo Center, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Oak Hills, Ordinance, Oro Grande, Phelan, Pinon Hills, Red Mountain, Rice, Rimforest, Running Springs, San Antonio Heights, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, Searles Valley, Skyforest, Sugarloaf, Trona, Twentynine Palms Base, Twin Peaks, Valley of Enchantment, Wonder Valley, Wrightwood, Yermo Tagged with Code Enforcement, estate sale, garage sale, infraction, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, misdemeanor, property sale, wobblette, yard sale

Friday Aside: A History of In-N-Out Burger in San Bernardino and environs

October 12, 2012 Leave a comment

I’ve written about In-N-Out Burger a few times, particularly in relation to trade dress. Someone reached my blog by asking “when did in n out open first in san bernardino ca.” If the searcher was seeking when the Fifth Street location (795 W. Fifth Street, San Bernardino) was built, that location was built in 2011, and opened at the end of 2011 (December 8, 2011). It replaced the Second Street location (the address was technically 190 Bungalow Court), which closed on December 7, 2011. The Second Street location was demolished after the State of California took possession on January 1, 2012. The State of California acquired the parcel through eminent domain for the Interstate 215 widening project. See Resolution CDC/2011-50 of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino.

The Bungalow Court location was there as long as I can remember, and consisted of a double drive through and no inside eating area. The location in south San Bernardino,was moved slightly to the north to 1065 E. Harriman Place during the creation of the HUB Project. There was an Owner Participation Agreement between In-N-Out and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, acknowledged by Resolution 2001-317, approved by Mayor Valles on October 3, 2001. The old In-N-Out in North Loma Linda was also a double drive through. According to a letter dated January 23, 1997 from then-attorney (and now Judge) Cynthia Ludvigsen, the old In-N-Out was on the northwest corner of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. The Highland store (28009 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346) opened in 2012.
So, when did In-N-Out Burger open in San Bernardino? The area near Central City Mall was redeveloped in the 1970s. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino put out a photo survey of the downtown area before redevelopment, and if I recall correctly, the area on 2nd Street had houses in the early 1970s.

The In-N-Out website’s history section gives clues, but no answers. Obviously, the first one opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, the same year that McDonald’s converted to a quick serve restaurant from a barbecue restaurant in San Bernardino. By 1958, there were five locations in the San Gabriel Valley. By 1973, In-N-Out had 13 locations, all in Los Angeles County, and all with two drive through lanes and no inside eating. In 1979, the first In-N-Out with a dining room opened in Ontario as restaurant number 21. The website adds that only 13 more no dining room locations were built after that. By 1988, In-N-Out had 50 stores in total, and in each of the core Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.I have In-N-Out Santa glasses from 1982 that I know we bought from the 190 Bungalow Court location, so that probably means that the original downtown San Bernardino In-N-Out Burger was built between 1973 and 1982. [Update: October 17, 2012. I couldn't stand it any longer. According to In-N-Out's customer service line, the store was opened in on February 11, 1982].

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under City of Highland, City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino, Eminent Domain, Food, Friday Aside, Inland Empire, Land Use, Land Use, Land Use Law, Municipal Law, Real Property Law, Redevelopment, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, Small Business Law Tagged with highland, In-N-Out, Loma Linda, San Bernardino

How the Measures Are Assigned Letters in the San Bernardino County Election November 6, 2012

October 9, 2012 Leave a comment

If you ever wondered the legal basis for measures being assigned letters, here is a release from the Registrar of Voters showing both the measures, and their assigned letters for November 6, 2012:

In accordance with California Election [sic] Code §13116(b), the San Bernardino County
Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters has designated the measures below with the
letters N through V. To determine what letter was assigned to each measure, a random
drawing was held at 10:00 a.m. on August 13, 2012.
School Districts
County
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
Q San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by the Board of Supervisors to
enact a permanent cap on compensation and mandatory
transparency for members of the Board of Supervisors
R San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by SEBA to enact
compensation limits and budget reductions for members of
the Board of Supervisors
City
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
S Needles Proposed Marijuana Business Tax
T Needles Proposed Utility User Tax
U Yucca Valley Proposed 1 cent sales tax for 30 years
V Rialto Proposed business tax on items related to petroleum
products
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
N San Bernardino City Unified Proposed Bond Measure to promote student safety and
school repairs
O Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified Proposed Bond Measure to repair and upgrade local schools
P Chaffey Joint Union High School Proposed Bond Measure to improve neighborhood schools

What does California Elections Code section 13116 say?:

(a) In an election at which state, county, city, or other local measures are submitted to a vote of the voters, all state measures shall be numbered in numerical order, as provided in this chapter or division. All county, city, or other local measures shall be designated by a letter, instead of a figure, printed on the left margin of the square containing the description of the measure, commencing with the letter “A” and continuing in alphabetical order, one letter for each of these measures appearing on the ballot.

(b) An elections official may commence designating local measures with any letter of the alphabet following the letter “A,” and continuing in alphabetical order, in order to avoid voter confusion that might result from different local measures carrying the same letter designation in successive elections.

(c) Where two or more counties or cities submitting measures to the voters are in close proximity, the elections officials of those counties or cities may mutually agree to use letter designation for ballot measures that will not conflict or confuse the voter.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under City of Needles, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, Elections, General Law, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Unified School District, San Bernardino County, Town of Yucca Valley Tagged with California California Elections Code section 13116(b)

City of San Bernardino returning California Mobilehome Parks Act responsibility back to the State of California

October 2, 2012 Leave a comment

Yesterday, at the October 1, 2012 meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, the council voted 6-0 (with Council member Wendy McCammack absent) to lay over for final adoption an ordinance repealing San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.55 and returning responsibility for enforcing the California Mobilehome Parks Act to the State of California through the Department of Housing and Community Development. A substitute motion proposed by staff to transfer responsibility to the code enforcement division was withdrawn.

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had to review every mobilehome notice of violation before they were issued. Long-time readers of this blog will remember that I was hired about a month after the City’s closure of the Cypress Inn Mobilehome Park and the Valente Duran letter.

Because of cut backs related to the City’s bankruptcy, the staff responsible for the inspections was cut. The move to return responsibility to the state will save about $100,000 according to the staff report, a rather small amount of the City’s budget.

During the roughly sixteen minute discussion, City Attorney James F. Penman said that the need for local inspections was great, that the condition of the City’s mobilehome parks had deteriorated in the last ten to fifteen years, that he didn’t know the solution, because he was confident that code enforcement did not have sufficient training to do the job.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055